Aurangzeb and The N Ath Yog Is: in Modern South Asia (Delhi, 2017)

Aurangzeb and the Nāth Yogı̄s
V ÉRONIQUE BOUILLIER
Abstract
This article focuses on some representations of Aurangzeb in the Nath Yogi lore; their ambivalence
appears as a signifier of the complex relationships the Nath Yogis had with Islam. Aurangzeb figures
both as a powerful enemy and as a clumsy devotee, he is depicted more as a symbol than as an historical
individual character.
The Nāth Yogı̄s are well known for the rich tradition of narratives that shape their identity.1
Many legends tell of the lives of the wondrous ascetics who made the sect famous, or
celebrate the places where they performed their miraculous deeds. Usually we have very
little information about the actual historicity of such personages or about the circumstances
and time period of their lives. This accounts for our surprise and interest when we do
sometimes meet some well-known characters of Indian history in this legendary core. This
is all the more the case when the hero of the story is Aurangzeb.
This article concerns the few Nāth Yogı̄s’ legends that mention Aurangzeb, collected by
myself, Georges Weston Briggs and Daniel Gold, or published by the Nāths’ press. Depicting
Aurangzeb as the bādshāh, the emperor, they are rather diverse and even contradictory. The
strangeness of some episodes is to be connected with the complex relationships the Nāths
had with Islam,2 of which the ambivalence of their representations of Aurangzeb acts as
a signifier. This ambivalence can be understood more fully with examination of the few
existing historical documents that attest to this relationship of Aurangzeb with the Nāth
Yogı̄s. These reveal the collaboration that the Nāth Yogı̄s had with the powerful people of
1 A version of this article was presented as a paper at the 2014 ECSAS Zürich conference. I would like to
thank all the participants for their questions and comments, and especially Heidi Pauwels and Anne Murphy for
their invaluable help, and the anonymous reviewer/s for his/her apt remarks.
2 Many recent studies have documented encounters between Muslims (mainly Sufı̄s) and Nāth Yogı̄s from the
Muslim side. In a recent paper I considered the other side of the encounters, from the Nāth point of view. My
conclusion, which I cannot describe here fully, was that fluid boundaries with Islam were part of the religious
identity of the Nāth Yogı̄s. For the argument and the bibliography, see V. Bouillier, “Nāth Yogı̄s’ Encounters with
Islam”, South Asia Multidisciplinary Academic Journal (May 2015), available at http://samaj.revues.org/3878 (accessed
1 January 2018). Regarding the Nāth Yogı̄s more generally, see V. Bouillier, Monastic Wanderers. Nāth Yogı̄ Ascetics
in Modern South Asia (Delhi, 2017).
JRAS, Series 3, 28, 3 (2018), pp. 525–535

C The Royal Asiatic Society 2018
doi:10.1017/S1356186318000081
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. The University of British Columbia Library, on 03 Jun 2018 at 15:46:10, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1356186318000081
526 Véronique Bouillier
their time, whatever their religious affiliation. The image of the Mughal emperor that they
present is very different from the common image of Aurangzeb as an iconoclast enemy of
the Hindus. Trust and mutual exchange presided over their relationship. Popular Nāth lore
is produced at the intersection of these two characterisations of the Nāth relationship with
Mughal power, and with Aurangzeb, reflecting the complexity of and disjuncture between
history and the popular memory of the past.
Relations of exchange: the Jakhbar monastery
Among historical records of the Nāth tradition, well known are the documents from the
Nāth monastery of Jakhbar, in Punjab, which have been published by Goswamy and Grewal.3
The seventeen documents concern the endowments made over two centuries and belong
“to the reign of every major Mughal ruler to the monastery”.4 The first document is a
grant of 200 bighas by Akbar to the founder of the place, Udantnāth (in 1571), followed
by more, such that “[t]he Nātha Jogis of Jakhbar group were granted lands in madad-i-
ma’āsh at several places and their possessions had become quite considerable in the early part
of the eighteenth century”.5 The authors note that “tradition associates each fresh grant
of land to the Jogis with some miraculous deed performed by a mahant”.6 Three of the
documents date from Aurangzeb’s time [VIII, IX and X] and reveal an interesting aspect
of the emperor’s personality. Document VIII, the most fascinating document published in
the book, is a personal letter sent by Aurangzeb to the then mahant Anand Nāth in the
early part of his reign (seal dated 1072, i.e. 1661–62 ce).7 Written “in strict confidence”,
the letter is both very respectful and warm, and testifies to the close relationship between
the emperor and the mahant, whose medicinal or rather alchemical expertise Aurangzeb
apparently appreciated. The letter starts with a reverential address which proves Aurangzeb’s
knowledge of the religious orientation of the sect:
The possessor of the Sublime Station, Shiv Mūrat [i.e. mūrti, ‘image of Shiva’], Guru Anand
Nāth Jı̄o.
May your Reverence8 remain in peace and happiness ever under the protection of Sri
Shiv Jio!
In strict confidence:
The letter sent by your Reverence has been received along with two tolahs of quicksilver.
However, it is not so good as your Reverence has given us to understand. It is desired (by us)
that your Reverence should carefully treat some more quicksilver and have that sent, without
3 B. N. Goswamy and J. S. Grewal, The Mughals and the Jogis of Jakhbar: Some Madad-i-Ma’ash and Other
Documents (Simla, 1967).
4 Ibid., p. vii.
5 Ibid., p. 23.
6 Ibid., p. 13.
7 Ibid., pp. 33, 121-124.
8 What is translated as “your Reverence” is the title rifʻat-e dast-gah, rif’at meaning “Being elevated, raised,
exalted, noble, or high-priced; high position or dignity” and dast-gah, s.f. “Power, strength, ability, means;
understanding; intellect; knowledge”. J. T. Platts, A Dictionary of Urdū, Classical Hindı̄, and English (New Delhi,
1993 [1884]).
Aurangzeb and the Nāth Yogı̄s 527
unnecessary delay. A piece of cloth for the cloak [gudr.ı̄] and a sum of twenty-five rupees which
have been sent as an offering will reach (your Reverence). [ . . . ]
Your reverence may write to us whenever there is any service which can be rendered by us.
What more need be said?9
This exchange around quicksilver, a mineral that was used for medicinal purposes but also by
the alchemist Yogı̄s for the preparation of elixirs for longevity, attests to a long-standing and
trusting relationship between Aurangzeb and Jakhbar’s mahant. This is confirmed by another
document mentioned but not published by Goswami and Grewal, in which Aurangzeb
increased the land grant given to Anand Nāth from fifteen to twenty ghumāos.10
The two other documents of interest date to later in Aurangzeb’s reign.11 One “issued
in the thirty-ninth year of Aurangzeb’s reign [ . . . ] refers to the resumption of the madad-
i-ma’āsh land which had remained earlier in conferment upon ‘Than Nāth, Bhau Nāth
and other Jogis’ [i.e. the successors of Anand Nāth]”. This was in accordance with the
general order passed by Aurangzeb in 1672–73 that the madad-e ma’āsh grants given earlier
to non-Muslims should be resumed by the state. As explained by Goswamy and Grewal,
“this apparently would go against our suggestion [ . . . ] that Aurangzeb showed a good deal
of consideration for Anand Nāth”.12 However it seems that, later on, the Jogis were able
to keep their land on payment of a fixed revenue: “The present document simply confirms
the arrangement then made, and by which due regard had been paid to the welfare of the
Jogis”.13 The third document is about a settlement of land boundaries.
The Jakhbar monastery, notwithstanding its local importance and its huge landed property,
is not well known in the Nāth sect today.14 Perhaps as a result, these local traditions did
not find a wider audience, and, probably because of its secluded position, its relationships
with the Mughal emperors did not find their way into broader narrative traditions about the
sect. This would explain why the relationship with Aurangzeb historically attested in these
records has not impacted later representations.
Destroyer of Nāth sanctuaries: Gorakhpur and Devi Patan
When Aurangzeb is mentioned nowadays by the Nāths, in what can be considered as an

historical context, he is cast as per modern common understanding as enemy of the Hindus
and destroyer of their temples. Such is his reputation in two important places of Nāth worship
in North India (Uttar Pradesh): Gorakhpur and Tulsipur Devi Patan (Balrampur district, a
northern division of the erstwhile Gonda district, established in 1997). The historicity of
such a conflict is unlikely; as Nevill remarks in his Gazetteer of Gonda, any aggressive attempt
9 Goswamy and Grewal, The Mughals and the Jogis, pp. 121-122.
10 Ibid., p. 33.
11 Ibid., pp. 33-34, 127-144.
12 Ibid., pp. 33-34.
13 Ibid., p. 34.
14 Goswami and Grewal, in their informative introduction to the documents published by them, have already
pointed out: “The strong impression that one receives at Jakhbar, however, is that this gaddi of the Jogis has come
to be a little isolated from the general organisation of the Kanphatas over the years. This may have been due to
the general indifference of the mahants to outside matters [ . . . ] The Jakhbar gaddi has consequently gone almost
completely unnoticed so far”. The Mughals and the Jogis, p. 5.
from Aurangzeb on Devi Patan is improbable, since “from the days of Akbar to the epoch
of the Nawab Wazirs of Oudh . . . the [Gonda] tract is practically beyond the sphere of
imperial power . . . Gonda never figures in the Musulman Annals”.15 Gonda and northern
Uttar Pradesh were under the dominion of the powerful Bisen Rajput rulers (the maximum
extension of their domain being around 1660–90). Even in Gorakhpur, which was under
the authority of Rajput chieftains from 1625 until the victory in 1680 of Khalil-ur Rahman
over Rudar Singh Satari, power was mostly vested in local rajas, acknowledging only the
nominal authority of the Muslim rulers.16
These specific contexts thus allow for the two opposite images of Aurangzeb: as friendly
to some Yogı̄s, as in Jakhbar, or as destroying their sanctuaries, as in Gorakhpur. The
relationships of Aurangzeb with Jakhbar mahants is historically attested within documents of
the period in question; it has the epistemological status of an historical fact. The modern
stories of the destruction of the temples of Gorakhpur and Devi Patan reflect rather a
conventional historical topos; at the same time, they are meaningful example of what Pollock
calls a “true representation,” adding:
It is a simple category error to reject such representations on the ground that they are not ‘true’.
[ . . . ] Among the ‘true representations’ of the thought world of premodern South Asia are those
believed to be true by the actors of that world. To contrast such representations with ‘history’ is
to ignore something crucial about the actual historicity of representation itself.17
The ‘true representation’ developed by the people in Gorakhpur Nāth monastery about
Aurangzeb’s actions are in this sense not about the past, but instead reflect a ‘truth’ connected
with the socio-political agenda of its mahants and their pro-Hindutva activism.
Gorakhpur
Gorakhpur is now one of the biggest and most famous Nāth temples and monasteries. The
local history of the place tells about three successive buildings: an original Nāth shrine
converted into a mosque by Alaud-Din Khilji (1296-1316 ce), another shrine rebuilt by the
Nāths nearby and converted also into a mosque by Aurangzeb. A third shrine was built on the
present site, reconstructed around 1800 ce, and constantly modified and enlarged thereafter.18
As explained now by an historian of Gorakhpur, “Aurangzeb ordered its destruction, the
way Allaudin did, because of his fanatical dharma”.19
However, A. K. Banerjea, the official scholar and spokesman of Gorakhpur monastery,
was conscious of the lack of historical evidence for these events: “The history of its origin
and early development is not definitely known, since all records are lost”.20 Yet he still
related the story: “This flourishing centre of Yogic culture was like many other flourishing
Hindu institutions a victim to vandalism several times during the regime of fanatical Muslim
15 H.R. Nevill, Gonda, A Gazetteer (Allahabad, 1921), p. 144.

16 Ibid.,
p. 181.
17 S. Pollock, The Language of the Gods in the World of Men Sanskrit, Culture, and Power in Premodern India (Berkeley,
2006), p. 7.
18 G. W. Briggs, Gorakhnāth and the Kanphata Yogı̄s (Delhi, 1973 [1938]), p. 86.
19 R. L. Srivastava, Mahāyogı̄ Guru Gorakhnāth evam unkı̄ Tapasyā (Gorakhpur, 1986 [2043 VS]), p. 21.
20 A. K. Banerjea, The Nāth-Yogı̄ Sampradāya and the Gorakhnāth Temple (Gorakhpur, 1979), p. 15.
rulers, and though its treasures and valuable literature and records were destroyed, the
institution somehow survived the attacks and reconstructed the temples and hermitages
and continued its spiritual mission”.21 Interestingly and cautiously, Banerjea suppressed
any direct reference to Aurangzeb, preferring the encompassing formula “fanatical Muslim
rulers”.
Devi Patan
The destruction or desecration of Devi Patan temple is also related to Aurangzeb in local
reports; he was responsible for it even though he was not personally present. The destroyer —
be he a soldier, a captain, an army — is considered as a mere substitute for the true culprit
because of his “fanatical dharma”.22
The temple of Devi Patan in the town of Tulsipur, 150 km from Gorakhpur, is also
an important spot for the Yogı̄s and the site of a yearly pilgrimage of the Nepalese Yogı̄s
of the Dang valley. According to Briggs, the place is a very old site of Shaiva worship
where a temple was erected by the Siddha Ratannāth, but “[i]n the time of Aurangzeb,
or in the 15th century as some say, the temple was despoiled by a Musalmān officer. The
avenging of the death of this soldier is the basis of the legend explaining the practice
of spilling the blood of suckling pigs on the grave of a Musulmān, near the site of the
temple”.23
According to a local narrative that completes the story, the temple was laid siege by a
military officer from Aurangzeb’s army who had ordered the demolition of the place. The
officer hit the ground with a stick and from the hole emerged thousands of hornets, which
then attacked the army. The captain was killed and buried there. The episode is alluded to
in an article published in the journal of the Gorakhpur mat.h, Yogvān.ı̄, whose author adds
that “the reputation of the temple was such that Aurangzeb sent his army to destroy it, but
the expedition was not profitable”.24 Nevill echoes this tradition, adding some details: “The
old temple [ . . . ] flourished for many years [ . . . ] till the days of Aurangzeb, one of whose
officers slew the priests, broke the images and defiled the holy place. This deed was avenged
by two Rajputs, who murdered the offending Muslim [ . . . ] buried him [ . . . .] Pigs [are]
sacrificed there in derision of his memory”.25
Effectively, it was the custom during the main festival of the temple to sacrifice piglets
on the tomb of a ‘Muslim’, whose identity is now undefined but whose grave is inside the
temple compound. The practice was stopped a few decades ago.
Ambivalence: Devotee and/or enemy
Oral traditions referring to Aurangzeb in the Nāth lore present a fascinating ambivalence,
which echoes the contrasting portrait presented by historical references. He is pictured as
21 Ibid.
22 Srivastava, Mahāyogı̄ Guru Gorakhnāth, p. 21.
23 Briggs, Gorakhnāth and the Kanphata Yogı̄s, p. 92.
24 Jagdoś Nārāyaṅ Siṁha, “Śrı̄nāthtı̄rth Śaktipı̄th Devı̄pātan”, Yogvānı̄, 15 (1990), pp. 103-109.
. . .
25 Nevill, Gonda, p. 193.
combining the two opposite sides of the devotee and the enemy in complex stories embedded
in Nāth values and worldviews. Perhaps here we see the integration of earlier traditions with
those that have surfaced within political Hinduism more recently.
It is again about the Devi Patan temple that a strange story was mentioned to me. This
temple, as its name shows, is dedicated to the Devı̄ called Bhagavatı̄ by the Nāth Yogı̄s, who
officiate as her priests. The place is a pı̄t.h where it is commonly held that the left elbow
of Satı̄ fell, but the Yogı̄s prefer to link it with the identity of Durgā Bhagavatı̄, who is
considered as the protector of the Siddha Ratannāth. Ratannāth is a very peculiar character:
he appears both as Sufi and as Nāth Yogı̄.26 As Sufi he is well known under the name of
Hajji Ratan from Bhatinda, a companion of the Prophet. As Nāth Yogı̄, the local legend27
makes him the king of a small Nepalese kingdom, who was converted by Gorakhnāth, and
the founder of the Dang monastery in Nepalese Terai; he was said to travel frequently in the
Muslim provinces of Khorasan, as a sort of Hindu missionary.
The part of the legend concerning Aurangzeb (of which I have only oral accounts related
in the Nāth monastery) starts in these Muslim provinces: “When Ratan was in Kabul,
the emperor was Aurangzeb and there was war between Hindus and Muslims”. This is an
assertion that we will find again: Aurangzeb as any Muslim badśāh, as emperor, is not supposed
to reign from what is now Indian territory.28 His power as Muslim and his hostility towards
Hindus could only be exerted from outside what is considered Indian/Hindu territory: in
this case, he was reigning from Kabul. Aurangzeb is also presented in the story as endowed
with magical powers: we are here in the familiar context of the rivalry between Hindus
and Muslims, and specifically Yogı̄s and Sufis, and their magical battles, as documented for
instance by Simon Digby.29 But the Aurangzeb of our story was, at first, not in a relation
of competition. He met the Siddha Ratannāth and told him: “I want to do your pūjā,” but
Ratannāth gave a very blunt answer, which is out of tune with the general atmosphere of the
hagiography. Ratan answered: “You must not do my pūjā, you are a rāks.as (demon), you are
a Muslim. My pūjā is only for the Yogı̄s, who have their ears split”. Aurangzeb wanted then
to show his siddhis, his powers. His attitude changed from referential to confrontational and
he behaved as Nāths would: displaying his siddhis. However, Ratan avoided the challenge
and escaped by taking the shape of the most sacred object of the Nāths, a vessel of ambrosia
(amritpātra), and by flying to Devi Patan, with Aurangzeb in hot pursuit. The magical flight
is one of the most common motives of Nāth/Sufi confrontations, but the story takes a
dramatic turn at this point with the killing of Aurangzeb. Ratannāth did not do it himself,
either because he lacked sufficient power to overcome Aurangzeb, or because the story seeks
to show his close relationship with the Devı̄. Thus Ratannāth went into the temple, bowed
in front of the Devi and prayed to her: “Kill this insolent!” and the Devı̄ Bhagavatı̄ killed
26 See V. Bouillier, Ascètes et Rois: Un monastère de Kanphata Yogis au Nepal (Paris, 1998), and V. Bouillier and D.
S. Khan, “Hajji Ratan or Baba Ratan’s Multiple Identities”, Journal of Indian Philosophy, 37 (2009), pp. 559–595.
27 As told in the booklets published in Dang monastery and illustrated on wall paintings, see Bouillier, Ascètes
et Rois, pp. 57-88.
28 At least this is the way these stories are constructed now. But it is true also that the Yogı̄s were travelling and
settling often in the north-western regions, called in an encompassing way “Khorasan”, which was traditionally
under Muslim domination.
29 S. Digby, “Encounters with Jogis in Indian Sufi Hagiography”, unpublished manuscript, (London, 1970).
Aurangzeb.30 Some Yogı̄s suggested that the tomb of ‘a Muslim’ we have seen desecrated in
the compound of the Devi Patan sanctuary could have been the tomb of Aurangzeb.
Aurangzeb as Han.d.ı̄ Pharaṅg
Poor Aurangzeb, rejected as a devotee and unable to escape his status of enemy, found
a better lot under the identity of Han.d.ı̄ Bharaṅg (or Han.d.ı̄ Pharaṅg).31 In this story, his
attempt at becoming a devotee of Gorakhnāth is hampered by his own misbehaviour, which
is explained by his otherness. The story of Han.d.ı̄ Bharaṅg is mentioned in the Punjab
Gazetteer,32 copied and extended by Briggs.33 It is also still alive in Nāth folklore, for
instance as narrated (anonymously) in one issue of the Yogvān.ı̄, the quarterly publication of
the Gorakhpur Monastery,34 and in a Rajasthani variant reported by Daniel Gold.35
The different versions present slight variations on a common core, giving the reader or
the listener the impression, as it is often the case with the Nāth stories, of an aggregation, or
a palimpsest of multiple narratives. The main point at variance for our topic, in the different
versions, lies in the explicit identification of Han.d.ı̄ Bharaṅg with Aurangzeb, which is not
always made.
I will take as reference the version published in Yogvān.ı̄, where the former identity of
Han.d.ı̄ Bharaṅg is not precisely stated: “Concerning Han.d.ı̄ Bharaṅg, it is said that he was a
bādshāh of Balkh-Bukhara in the Afghan country”. This implies again the idea that a Muslim
emperor could only dominate a territory exterior to modern India’s borders. In fact, the
story goes on, “while travelling [paryat.an, no question of conquest here], he arrived in India
and, as he wandered around [ghumte-ghāmte], he reached the land of Tryambakeshvar”. Our
touring bādshāh thus arrived in one of the emblematic places of the Nāth Sampradāya, the
source of the Godavari river and the place where all the Nāths ascetics have to get together
for the Nasik Kumbh Melā:
In Tryambakeshvar the bādshāh had the good fortune to have the vision of the nine Nāths. He
settled there. By good fortune the bādshāh found protection with Mahāyogı̄ Gorakhnāth and
requested to be liberated from the illusions of the world: “I want to practice yoga-sādhanā. Let
me accomplish my purpose in giving me yoga-dı̄ks.ā”. Full of compassion, Gorakhnāth told him:
“you must first stay here twelve years and make your life meaningful through tapasyā. Then you
will be qualified to get dı̄ks.ā”. The Bādshāh, obedient to the order, became dead [mr.takvat] to all
worldly behaviour. He gave up all desires. At the end of the twelve years, Gorakhnāth gave him
dı̄ks.ā according to the rules, made him his disciple and gave him the name of Mr.taknāth [Lord
of Death].
30 Bouillier, Ascètes et Rois, p. 71.

31 A compound from hān.d.ı̄, “earthen cooking pot”, and possibly bharan., “carrying, nourishing” (from bharnā,
“to fill, to be full”).
32 H. A. Rose, D. Ibbetson and E. D. Maclagan, A Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North-West
Frontier Province (Lahore, 1919), II, pp. 395–396.
33 In his short article “Aurangzeb as a Yogı̄ ”, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 54, 2, pp. 203-204.
34 Anon., “Nāthsiddh Handı̄bharang”, Yogvānı̄, 23, 4-6 (April-June1998), pp. 210-211. This issue like many
. . .
other Yogvān.ı̄ issues is made of short articles, generally anonymous; this one contains many brief notes on some
well-known characters of the Yogı̄ lore. Two pages concern Nāthsiddha Han.d.ı̄ Bharaṅg.
35 D. Gold, “The Yogı̄ who pissed from the Mountain”, in Studies in Early Modern Indo-Aryan Languages,
Literatures and Culture, (eds.) Alan W. Entwistle et al. (Delhi, 1999), pp. 145–156.
Gorakhnāth gave him the duty to take care of the meals. One day Han.d.ı̄ Bharaṅg forgot to
put salt in the dāl [lentil soup] and before bringing Kālabhairava’s36 meal, he tasted it. The god
turned his head away [ . . . ] Admitting his fault Han.d.ı̄ Bharaṅg asked for forgiveness. The Lord
of the Nine Nāths hung the cooking pot for dāl [dāl kı̄ hān.d.ı̄] around his neck. Thus attired
he went to Karnataka and settled in a cave which is called since Han.d.ı̄ Bharaṅg guphā. A mat.h
[Belgaum district, Kurand.i village] has been erected which is surrounded by jungle on the four
sides.37
The identification of Han.d.ı̄ Bharaṅg with Aurangzeb is made by Briggs who gives fascinating
accounts of the same legendary core, as it was told to him in Tryambakeshvar, a link with
the Yogvān.ı̄ version in which the bādshāh went touring Tryambakeshvar:
The legend is that Aurangzeb became a disciple of Gorakhnāth, but that the other Yogı̄s refused to
eat with him; so he buried himself alive. After twelve years he came out of his tomb as Mr.taknāth
(Lord of Death). He was only a skeleton when he came forth, but after his reappearance flesh
came upon his bones. Afterwards, Gorakhnāth ordered him to cook food for the Yogı̄s present.
He did so, but, when the food was ready, he tasted it to see if it was properly seasoned. The food
was declared unclean and the pot was hung over his head. Therefore he is called Siddha Han.d.ı̄
Pharaṅg Nāth.38
Briggs adds to his report of the legend of Aurangzeb in Tryambakeshvar that there are many
samādhis of Yogı̄s around the monastery, as it is usual in this sort of place, and that among
them “one is said to have contained the body of Aurangzeb”.39 Again we come across the
claim that Aurangzeb was buried in a Yogı̄ centre (as an enemy in Devi Patan, as a Nāth in
Tryambakeshvar).
Let us consider the name of Mr.taknāth given to the hero in both versions of the story.
Quite interestingly, it is also the name given to the Prophet Muhammad in a strange and
hybrid text entitled Mohammad Bodh, published by the secretary of the Yogı̄ association.40
The prophet is said to have received instruction from Gorakhnāth who gave him the initiatory
name of Mr.taknāth. Why then are the Muslim converted heroes called “Lord of Death”? In
the case of Han.d.ı̄ Pharaṅg in Briggs’s version, there is a logical explanation: buried alive, he
was desiccated to the point of appearing as a skeleton. He was then restored to his full bodily
condition, effectively vanquishing death. The story exemplifies two interrelated motives
which are essential for the Nāths: immortality, which is put forward as the main purpose
of their yogic and alchemical practices, and underground burial, which is both an ascetic
practice often referred to in numerous hagiographies, and a powerful metaphor for initiation
36 Bhairava and especially Kālabhairava has a preeminent place among the deities worshipped by the Nāths.
Usually each mat.h has three main altars or shrines devoted to Śiva as Gorakhnāth, Bhairava and the Devı̄. But
Bhairava can also be the only god effectively represented. He had food prepared for him every morning, which
may include a substitute for blood sacrifice. No food or drink is consumed by the Nāths before Bhairava has taken
his meal. The duty imparted to Hand.ı̄ Phar.ang is thus an important one, especially as Bhairava is not easy to deal
with!
37 Anon., “Nāthsiddh Handı̄bharang”, pp. 210-211, my translation.
. .
38 Briggs, “Aurangzeb as a Yogı̄ ”, pp. 203-204; Gorakhnāth and the Kanphata Yogı̄s, pp. 70-71.
39 Briggs, “Aurangzeb as a Yogı̄ ”, p. 203.
40 The text is part of a volume, Śrı̄ Nāth Rahasya (Haridvar, Rohtak, 2005), pp. 526-527, published by the
secretary of the Yogı̄ Mahāsabhā, Vilāsnāth Yogı̄. For a study of this Mohammad Bodh see Bouillier, “Nāth Yogı̄s’
Encounters with Islam”.
and re-birth.41 Han.d.ı̄ Pharaṅg after his underground sojourn arose to be a true and pure
disciple, who could not only eat with the Yogı̄s but also cook for them. However the poor
Han.d.ı̄ Pharaṅg/Aurangzeb had not forgotten his non-Hindu habits, he failed to adhere to
purity rules, and tasted the food. He kept his new Nāth identity even so, but is remembered
for his bad behaviour.
The name Mr.taknāth can thus be read as alluding to the tradition of interment shared by
Muslims and ascetic Yogı̄s. Burial as a shared practice appears also in the background of the
ambiguous religious affiliations of another Rajasthani hero, Gogā. Gogā’s many extraordinary
adventures are well known in North India. Apart from being a great warrior, he was also a
Nāth hero, born through the favour of Gorakhnāth and initiated by him as his disciple. The
legend tells that after a bloody battle where Gogā was obliged to kill his own cousins (who
allied with his enemy), his mother cursed him and banished him from the palace and from
his wife’s bed. Forced to renounce, he asked “the Earth to take him”. In the version related
by Temple, Earth answered that Gogā has to be initiated into “the creed of Islam” in order
to become Muslim and have the possibility of being buried.42 In another version, Earth
answered that, to be swallowed by her, Gogā has “to learn yoga” or “to accept the kalimā”.43
The latter statement implies an equivalence between being Muslim and being Yogı̄.
The Rajasthani version of the Hān.d.ı̄ Varaṅg legend given by Daniel Gold is slightly
different; the Nāth guru is not Gorakhnāth but Gehlā Rāwalnāth and instead of Aurangzeb
there is a generic bādshāh. However, the adventures of the bādshāh in this version add a
deeper meaning to the motif of the initiatory interment.
The bādshāh, impressed by Gehlā’s many miracles, asked to become his disciple. Gehlā agreed
— with conditions. Since the bādshāh was a Muslim he really had to become pukka, ‘fully
developed’, here taken in its more etymologically precise sense as ‘thoroughly baked’. Gehlā put
a little unbaked jug (hān.d.ı̄) around the bādshāh’s neck. “When this is baked”, he said, “you’ll be
my disciple; otherwise, you’ll remain a Muslim”. The bādshāh was then buried in the earth, and
twelve years later dug up; the jug had hardened and he was renamed Hān.d.ı̄ Varaṅg Nāth.44
Here the burial and its twelve years duration is regarded very explicitly as an initiation, as the
rebirth of the bādshāh as pakkā, baked thus pure. The jug was hardened as was the skeleton
in the precedent version, and the impure Muslim was transformed into a Yogı̄.
A variation on the same theme is given in another story told by Gold:
A royal Hindu father is [cursed] to have his son reborn as a Muslim bādshāh. The bādshāh
remembers his past and realises that he can only find liberation by encountering a true Yogı̄.
Then Gorakhnāth comes along, who, when importuned, tells him: ‘How can you become a
Nāth, you are circumcised!’ But if he stayed underground for twelve years his circumcision would
be restored.45
41 The earth being a womb, bhūgarbha, as says Yogı̄ Vilāsnāth (Prācı̄n Bhartrhari Guphā Mahātmya, (Haridvar,
2001), p. 12), see V. Bouillier, “Grottes et tombes: les affinités des Nāth Yogı̄s avec le monde souterrain”, Rivista di
Studi Sudasiatici, III, (2008), p. 41.
42 R. C. Temple, The Legends of the Panjab (London, 1885), I, p. 208.
43 The Gurgaon version in Rose et al., Glossary, I, p. 181.
44 Gold, “The Yogı̄”, p. 153.
45 Ibid.
The mention of a bādshāh appears frequently in the local legends that constitute an important
part of the Nāth lore. Often the name of the bādshāh remains unspecified. In the legends
quoted here, he is represented both as powerful — as a bādshāh is by his very nature — but
also as weak in some way, looking for guidance, behaving sometimes stupidly and needing
a guru. This guru is evidently a Nāth and often the best of them, Gorakhnāth.
We encounter also stories in which the bādshāh is clearly identified and, following his
meeting with a Yogı̄, receives powerful curses or blessings. For instance, Asthal Bohar
monastery’s legends tell how the Siddha Mastnāth was instrumental in the fall of Shah Alam
II;46 on the contrary Ratannāth is told to have ensured the victory of Mahmud Ghori at
Bhatinda and Buddhanāth the one of Ahmad Shah Abdali at Panipat, after both conquerors
duly recognised the powers of the Yogı̄s.47 The naming of the bādshāh adds a realistic and
convincing side to the story.
What is better than to name this bādshāh Aurangzeb? He was presented as the most
fearsome in the category of the bādshāhs, as a sort of scarecrow, as in the story of the famous
Saint of Gwalior known as Raja Bākshar (bāgh savārkar — hence Bākshar — “the one who
rides a tiger”), who was recognised both as a Sufi of Gulbarga and as a Nāth Yogı̄ called
Caitanyanāth; but in the Nāth version, it was in fear of Aurangzeb that Caitanyanāth was
obliged to disguise his true identity and to take a Sufi name.48
To cause Aurangzeb to be vanquished by the deeds of the Yogı̄s is a strong claim
to their superior power, like in the Devi Patan legend or in Gogā’s story where this
accomplished warrior-cum-Yogı̄ fights numerous enemies who took on diverse identities,
often of unspecified bādshāhs. But in the rare cases where names are given, we find Mahmud
of Ghazni and Aurangzeb.49 Aurangzeb is then constructed as an archetype, as a useful
counter-hero in order to exalt, to bring to the fore, the greatness of his opponent. The most
successful accomplishment of all, of course, is to have Aurangzeb transformed and spiritually
dominated by the Nāth Yogı̄s, and finally to enlist him in the sect.50
Conclusion
To summarise, I would say that in many cases in the Nāth lore Aurangzeb stands for an
archetypal bādshāh. His reputation was such that he became easily an emblem of the powerful
and fearsome ruler. Aurangzeb thus appears in these stories less as an historical individual
figure and more as a symbol. Yet, because of this reputation, the prowess of taming and
46 D. G. White, “The Exemplary Life of Mastnāth: the Encapsulation of Seven Hundred Years of Nāth Siddha
Hagiography”, in Constructions hagiographiques en Inde: entre mythe et histoire, (ed.) F. Mallison (Paris, 2001), pp.
152–157.
47 Bouillier and Khan, “Hajji Ratan”.
48 D. Gold, ‘Different Drums in Gwalior: Maharashtrian Nāth Heritages in a North Indian City’, in Yogı̄ Heroes
and Poets: History and Legends of the Nāths, (eds.) David N. Lorenzen and Adrian Munoz (Albany, 2011), pp. 51–62.
49 In the Rajasthani (Sirsa) version reported by Rose et al., Glossary, Vol. I, p. 178; see also Indian Antiquary
1881, pp. 32-43, quoted in Briggs, Gorakhnāth and the Kanphata Yogı̄s, p. 235. We also find mentions of Prithvi Raj
Chauhan, an echo perhaps of the numerous fights between the Delhi king and the neighbouring kingdoms, Rose
et al., Glossary, I, pp. 177 (Bijnor version) and 181 (Gurgaon version),
50 A similar situation is described by Dušan Deák for a Marathi sampradāya made of followers of Dattatreya (alias
Śahā Datta): “these four [disciples] are instrumental in winning even the Mughal emperor Awrangzeb to become
Śahā Datta’s follower!” See Dušan Deák, “Śahādat or Śahā Datta? Locating the mysterious fakir in the Marathi
texts”, in Muslim Cultures in the Indo-Iranian World, (eds.) D. Hermann and F. Speziale (Berlin, 2010), p. 520.
enlisting the most formidable of bādshāhs remains for the Yogı̄s a spectacular symbol of their
strength. Even though I think that few Yogı̄s would actually believe that Aurangzeb had
been one of them, they still support such local narratives which contribute also to their own
reputation.
Such narratives featuring Muslim bādshāhs such as Aurangzeb in close proximity or rivalry
with the Yogı̄s could also be related to what we know of the links between Yogı̄s and
Muslims, and particularly of the close relationship that some Yogı̄s had with the Sufis, their
Muslim counterparts, both groups standing in parallel position towards rulers and competing
in spiritual leadership. The documents from Jakhbar give evident proof that Yogı̄s could be
recognised for their value and supported by the Muslim rulers.
In contrast to the common widespread representation of Aurangzeb as a destroyer of
Hindu temples, the Nāth data present a much more ambiguous image of the emperor. The
legends make him a devotee, aspiring to Nāth wisdom, but clumsy in his attempts to achieve
it. Jakhbar historical documents are not that far from this familiar image, showing Aurangzeb
eager to obtain the powerful quicksilver that his Nāth interlocutor is known to prepare, and
arguing about its quality. Even as a symbol, therefore, there is considerable complexity to
the figure of Aurangzeb. <Veronique.bouillier@gmail.com>
Véronique Bouillier
CNRS/CEIAS

Aurangzeb and The N Ath Yog Is: in Modern South Asia (Delhi, 2017)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aurangzeb and The N Ath Yog Is: in Modern South Asia (Delhi, 2017)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aurangzeb and the Nāth Yogı̄s

JRAS, Series 3, 28, 3 (2018), pp. 525–535

Relations of exchange: the Jakhbar monastery

Destroyer of Nāth sanctuaries: Gorakhpur and Devi Patan

When Aurangzeb is mentioned nowadays by the Nāths, in what can be considered as an

15 H.R. Nevill, Gonda, A Gazetteer (Allahabad, 1921), p. 144.

Ambivalence: Devotee and/or enemy

Aurangzeb as Han.d.ı̄ Pharaṅg

30 Bouillier, Ascètes et Rois, p. 71.

You might also like