Was the medieval desecration of temples due to providence or due to incompetence of Indian rulers
When many Hindu temples were destroyed due to Islamic aggression, should we say that this happened because of destiny? Or should we attribute it to human failure—specifically the failure of the kings? The answer is that complex events rarely have a single cause. To understand such phenomena, we must consider the context and recognize which cause is most relevant in that context.
For example, during the bull and cow conversation with Kali, the cow and bull say that it is difficult to know the cause of our suffering. Parashurama Maharaj appreciates their insight. But that does not mean Parashurama immediately forgives Kali, the visible aggressor. He is ready to punish him. Only when Kali begs for forgiveness and claims to be a surrendered citizen does Maharaj perform his dharma and grant him some place.
This pastime illustrates how the Bhagavatam looks for causes beyond the immediate. Just as when Parashurama himself was cursed later, he did not blame Shingi alone but saw it as part of the Lord’s plan to disentangle him from worldly attachments. Thus, actions can have causes on multiple levels, and we need to identify which causal level we can work with to fulfill our dharma.
Broadly speaking, there are three levels of causes:
- Immediate cause (circumstances directly leading to the event)
- Remote cause (underlying factors such as past karma)
- Ultimate cause (spiritual truth, such as forgetfulness of Krishna and being subject to the laws of karma)
For instance, if someone gets COVID-19, the immediate cause is contact with an infected person and perhaps not taking sufficient precautions. The remote cause could be past karma that makes that person prone to suffering from the disease. This remote cause often influences how severely someone is affected. Two people may contract COVID, but one has mild symptoms while the other suffers severely—sometimes due to health, sometimes due to karma. Some young and healthy people also become severely ill, showing that no single cause explains everything.
Similarly, someone might have a heart attack without any prior history. The immediate cause may be unclear, but past karma (remote cause) plays a role. The ultimate cause is our being in the material world, subject to karma and suffering, due to forgetfulness of Krishna.
Each cause requires a different response. For immediate causes, we must act practically and fulfill our duty. For example, when the citizens of Pruthama suffer due to famine, the king does not say, “This is destiny.” Instead, he recognizes it as his duty to protect them and acts accordingly.
However, at other times, such as when a king sees his son is uncontrollable, he may attribute it to destiny and renounce the world. People perceive different levels of cause and respond accordingly, which is acceptable.
The underlying principle is this: depending on the level of cause one perceives, one acts and responds. One should also focus on their purpose and dharma.
For example, when Srila Prabhupada was driven out of the temple in Jhansi (which he hoped to make his world headquarters), he accepted it and moved on. But when attempts were made to drive him out of the temple in Juhu, he declared, “Over my dead body will I let anyone take Krishna’s temple.” Why? Because Prabhupada felt his duty was to protect that temple. Jhansi was a small city and not worth fighting for, especially when people there were not serious. So he chose his battles wisely according to his dharma.
Looking at Indian history, many perspectives are possible. It is true many people suffered, and many Indian kings were busy infighting over small matters while the Islamic aggressors advanced. From a historical perspective, had the Indians been united and better organized, they could possibly have resisted successfully.
Yes, we may now say it was the will of destiny, but destiny should never be used to rationalize human irresponsibility. Often, in the early years, the aggressors’ armies were smaller than the defenders’, but strategic mistakes or manipulations led to defeat. If the defenders had been more diligent in their duties, survival was possible.
So, we must discern which level of causality or responsibility best explains a situation and act accordingly. After something has happened, if we seek closure, it is acceptable to say, “This was the will of destiny.” But before the event—like before a war—one must focus on doing one’s duty without speculating on destiny.
For example, before the Kurukshetra war, when Duryodhana said, “It is all destiny; this is Kurukshetra; what will happen will happen,” Krishna replies that nobody knows destiny’s will. Instead, focus on doing your duty properly. After the war, Krishna explains it was destiny, so Arjuna should not lament. Destiny here is a way to get closure and move forward.
Rather than seeing destiny as a fixed cause for everything, we must identify the level of causation that inspires us to act dharmically.
Before the war, Arjuna could have acted dharmically to prevent the fight, as he was still a prince and could have intervened. But once the war ended, lamenting was useless; his dharma was to move forward and salvage what was possible.
Similarly, if we as a nation want to mobilize more Kshatriya forces to defend temples from future aggression, focusing on the human cause is appropriate. Those who do not learn from history may be forced to repeat it, becoming lessons for future generations.
For those not directly involved, practicing bhakti and chanting, it is best to find closure by accepting that some things happen by destiny and not to be overly disturbed by them.
Thank you.