The Candid Eye

August 9, 2009

Distortions of Indian history – Part 11

 Previous Related Article:-

Taj Mahal – A Hindu Temple??

Source of the following text:- Article by Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari

The Distorted History of Taj Mahal:

There is no doubt that Taj Mahal in Agra is the most beautiful architectural marvel in the entire world and hence it is called one of the great wonders of the world. But who is the author of this excellent exhibit of architecture? Opinions in this regard are highly contentious. The general notion is that, it is the creation of Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan. In previous articles, we have seen how the authorship of excellent pieces of architecture in Delhi, Agra and Fatehpur Sikri are being falsely attributed to the foreign Muslim invaders, who occupied and ruled India for nearly eight centuries. So, the question naturally arises – Is the claim of Shah Jahan’s authorship of Taj Mahal true? Or the said view is merely a part of the process of distortion of Indian history, to appease the Muslims? In this article, we shall try to find a plausible reply to these questions.

In this regard, the Encyclopedia Britannica states, “Taj Mahal is a mausoleum complex in Agra, in westernUttar Pradesh state, in northern India, on the southern bank of the Yamuna (Jumna) River. …the Taj Mahal is distinguished as the finest example of Mughal architecture, a blend of Indian, Persian, and Islamic styles. One of the most beautiful structural compositions in the world, the Taj Mahal was designated a UNESCO World Heritage site in 1983. It was built by the Mughal emperor Shah Jahān (reigned 1628–58) to immortalize his wifeMumtāz Mahal (“Chosen One of the Palace”). The name Taj Mahal is a derivation of her name. She died in childbirth in 1631, after having been the emperor’s inseparable companion since their marriage in 1612. The plans for the complex have been attributed to various architects of the period, though the chief architect was probably Ustad Ahmad Lahawrī, an Indian of Persian descent.” [1] 


The Wikipedia Encyclopedia maintains a similar view and says, The Taj Mahal (pronounced /tɑdʒ məˈhɑl) is amausoleum located in Agra, India, built by Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan in memory of his favorite wife, Mumtaz Mahal. The Taj Mahal (also “the Taj”) is considered the finest example of Mughal architecture, a style that combines elements from PersianIndian, and Islamic architectural styles. In 1983, the Taj Mahal became aUNESCO World Heritage Site and was cited as “the jewel of Muslim art in India and one of the universally admired masterpieces of the world’s heritage.” [2]


In this context, we should mention what the India ’s historians have to say in this matter. Historian R C Majumdar, in this regard, writes, “The Taj Mahal, a splendid mausoleum built by Shah Jahan, at a cost of fifty lacs of rupees, over the grave of his beloved wife, Mumtaz Mahal, is rightly regarded as one of the wonders of the world for its beauty and magnificence.” [3] Another historian S K Saraswati writes, “But all the above architectural creations of Shah Jahan are thrown into shade by that superb conception of the mausoleum that the emperor raised up at Agra to enshrine the mortal remains of his beloved consort, Arjumand Banu Begam, better known as Mumtaz Mahal. The Taj Mahal, as it is called after the title of the empress, stands on an elevated ground on a bend of the river Jamuna so that it has a fine view from whatever angle it is seen.” [4]

As a result of this worldwide propaganda, Shahjahan’s authorship of Taj Mahal, mixed with story of romantic love between Shah Jahan and his wife, has become so pervasive that it has become a universal symbol of love between a husband and his wife. Even a common man, at first instance, refuses to admit any other version, even if it is more convincing and rational. Even the Nobel Laureate Poet Rabindranath Tagore, being swayed by the above story, described the Taj Mahal, in one of his poems, as a drop of tears of the grief-stricken Emperor Shahjahan.

The True History of Taj Mahal:

But according to Stephen Knapp, a well known researcher on Taj Mahal, it was not built by Shah Jahan and he writes, “There is ample evidence that the Taj Mahal was never built by Shah Jahan. Some say the Taj Mahal pre-dates Shah Jahan by several centuries and was originally built as a Hindu or Vedic temple/palace complex and Shah Jahan merely acquired it (by brute force) from its previous owner, the Hindu King Jai Singh.” [5] Not only Stephen Knapp but many other researchers like Yogesh Saxena, V S Godbole and Prushottam Nagesh Oak (or P N Oak) hold a similar view and P N Oak is the most prominent and pioneer among scholars who worked to discover the real author of Taj Mahal.

It is well known that Emperor Akbar got Akbarnama, a history of his reign, written by his court-chronicler Abul Fazl and in a similar manner,  Shahjahan had the history of his reign titled Badshahnama written by his court-chronicler Abdul Hamid Lahori. The original Badshahnama was written in Persian using Arabic alphabets and in 1963, P N Oak made a startling discovery the the pages 402 and 403 of the edition of Badshahnama, published by the Asiatic Society of Bengal (see the fascimile of the page 402 and 403 of the edition in Figure-1), contain the true history of the building now known as Taj Mahal. An English translation of the contents from line 21 of page 402 to line 41 on page 403 of Badshahnama is given below.

Meanwhile, we should notice another important point. It is well known that the two British historians, H M Elliot and J Dowson, have done the great job of writing history of India, under Muslim rule, starting from the attack on Sindh by Mohammed bin Kasim in the 8th century to the fall of Marathas in the 19th century, a period, covering nearly 1200 years. It has been written, based on chronicles of the court chroniclers of the Muslim rulers only. The work of Elliot and Dowson’s was published in 8 volumes during 1867 to 1877 and the Volume 7 of their work deals with the reigns of Shahjahan and Aurangzeb. But it is really astonishing that there is not even a mentioning of Taj Mahal in the said work.

Many Muslim chroniclers have described the times of Shah Jahan and Aurangzeb, e.g.

(1) Badshahnama by Abdul Hamid Lahori,

(2) Wakiyat Jahangiri by emperor Jahangir,

(3) Shahjahan-nama by Enayet Khan,

(4) Tarikh-i- Mufajjali by Mufajjal Khan,

(5) Mirat-i-Alam by Bakhtyar Khan,

(6) Alamgirnama by Muhammad Qazim and

(7) Mustakhab-ul-Lubab by Kafi Khan.

But in none of above works, there is even mentioning of Taj Mahal, except Badshahnama by Lahori and that too as a palace of Jai Singh

While commenting on this point, Dr Yogesh Saxena, writes, “The authors should have said, “Though we have presented history of Shahjahan based on his official chronicle Badshahnama, we did not find any reference to Taj Mahal in it.” They did no such thing. And Historians have kept even this information from us for the last 130 years.” [6] It was Professor P N Oak, who, for the first time, made the startling discovery that there is mentioning of the building now called Taj Mahal, but as a palace of the Hindu king Jai Singh, in Badshahnama.

There is another important point to note. There is a well established rumour that Shah Jahan engaged 20,000 labours who toiled for 20 (or 22) years to complete the construction of Taj Mahal, originates by the French traveler Jean Baptiste Tavernier. It is really unthinkable that, Shah Jahan completed such a gigantic job, spending so much money, employing so many people throughout so many years, but it escaped the attention of his sycophant chroniclers, and they did not even say a single word about the said job in their works. So, the logical conclusion is that, the said gigantic construction never took place during the reign of Shah Jahan and Badshahnama confirms this fact.

The original Badshahnama was written in Persian using Arabic alphabets and the pages 402 and 403 of the edition published by the Asiatic Society of Bengal (see the fascimile of the page 402 and 403 of Vol-I of the edition given above) contain the true history of the building now known as Taj Mahal. Professor Oak got the two pages translated into English by a scholar of Persian language and said trnslation of the contents from line 21 of page 402 to line 41 on page 403 of Vol-I of Badshahnama is given below.

“Friday, 15th Jamadiulawal, the sacred dead body of the traveller to the kingdom of holiness Hazrat Mumtazul Zamani, who was temporarily buried, was brought, accompanied by Prince Mohammad Shah, Suja bahadur, Wazir Khan and Satiunnesa Khanam, who knew the pemperament of the deceased intimately and was well versed in view of that Queen of the Queens used to hold, was brought to the capital Akbarabad (Agra) and an order was issued that very day coins be distributed among the beggers and fakirs. The site covered with a majestic garden, to the south of the great city (of Agra) and amidst which the building known as the palace of Raja Man Singh, at present owned by Raja Jai asingh, grandson of Man Singh, was selected for the burial of the Queen, whose abode is in heaven. Although Raja Jai Singh valued it greatly as his ancestral heritage and property, yet he agreed to part with it gratis for Emperor Shahjahan, still out of sheer scrupulousness and religious sanctity, he (Jai Singh) was granted Sharifabad in exchange of that grand palace (Ali Manzil). After the arrival of the deadbody in that great city (of Agra), next year that illustrious body of the Queen was laid to rest and the officials of the capital, according to royal order, hid the body of that pious lady from the eyes of the world and the palace so majestic (imarat-e-alishan) and capped with a dome (wa gumbaje) was turned into a sky-high lofty mausoleum”. [7] 

Many historians try to convince that Shah Jahan purchased a piece of land from Raja Jai Singh and erected Taj Mahal on that land. But the lines 29 and 30 of page 403 of Vol-I of Badshahnama reads, “Pesh az ein Manzil-e-Rajah Mansingh bud wadari waqt ba Rajah Jaisingh (29) Nabirae taalluq dasht barae madfan e an bahisht muwattan bar guzeedand .. (30).” According to experts, the correct translation of the phrase “Manzil-e-Rajah Mansingh bud wadari waqt ba Rajah Jaisingh”is “.. the building known as the palace of Raja Man Singh, at present owned by Raja Jai asingh”. So, it is evident that it cannot be a transaction of land but of a magnificent palace. In line 37, further clarification has been made and said that it was a transaction of an imarat-e-alishan(i.e. a gigantic building) and not of land

In 1964, when Prof P N Oak started to disclose his doubts about Shah Jahan’s authorship of Taj Mahal and presented the document in Badshahnama as the proof, many of his opponents said that his translation ofBadshahnama was not correct. One of his bitter critiques was a Kashmiri Pandit. He was also a scholar of Persian language. To narrate the incident Dr Yogesh Saxena writes, “One of his opponents was a Kashmiri Pandit. Eventually they went to Government of India Archives. At the suggestion of the Librarian there the Pandit started to read Badshahnama, soon he came to Volume I, page 403. One line read – va pesh azin manzil-e-Raja Mansingh bood, vadari vakt ba Raja Jaisingh. He confessed that Shah Jahan took over Raja Mansingh’s palace for burial of Mumtaz. We owe so much to this honest opponent of Mr Oak. He gave word by word translation of pages 402 and 403 to Mr Oak who promptly published it in his book Taj Mahal is a Hindu Palace (1968). However, Mr Oak never stated that the translation was his. It was done for him by a Persian expert.” [6]

The name of the Queen, in whose memory the Taj Mahal is being said to have been erected, was Arjumand Banu. She was married to Shahjahan in 1612 A.D. and within 18 years of her married life she gave birth to 14 childrenand in fact she died in 1630 (or in 1631) while she was delivering her 14th child. According to Badshahnama she was buried temporarily at Burhanpur and in the same year her body was brought from Burhanpur to Agra and the next year her body was permanently buried at the majestic palace of Raja Man Singh.. From the Badshahnama it becomes evident the edifice, now known as Taj Mahal, was not authored by Emperor Shahjahan.

Who was The Author of Building called Taj Mahal:

So, according to the narrations of Badshanama and from other evidence, it becomes clear that the edifice, now known as Taj Mahal, was not authored by emperor Shah Jahan. The question, therefore, naturally arises – Who built that magnificent building?

A locality, nearly 4 km away from Taj Mahal, is called Bateswar and in 1900 A.D., General Alexander Cuningham, the then Director of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), conducted an excavation at Bateswar and discovered an edict, now known as the Munj Bateswar Edict and kept at the Lucknow Museum. The epigraph contains 34 verses written in Sanskrit, out of which 25th, 26th and 34th verses are important in the present context. The original Sankrit text and English translation of the above verses are given below –

Prasādo vaiṣṇavastena nirnimitotavahan hari /

Murdhn āspriśati yo nityaṃ  padamasaiva madhyamam // (25)

“He built a marble temple which is the abode of Lord Vishnu and the King bows down to touch His feet” (25).

Akāryacca sphatikāvadātamasāvidam mandiramindumauleḥ /

Na jātuyasminnibsnsadevah kailāsvasayacakara cetaḥ  //  (26)

“The King has built another marble temple which has been dedicated to the Lord Who has the moon as His ornament on His forehead and Who, getting such a beautiful abode, has forgotten to return to Kailash ” (26).

Pakṣa tryakṣamukhāditya saṃkhye vikramavatsare /

Aśvina śukla pañcmyāṃ  bāsare vāsave śitu //  (34)

“Today, the 5th day of the bright half in the month of Ashwin, the Sunday, in the year 1212 of the Vikram Samvat, the edict is being laid” (34).

Mr. D. J. Kale, a well known archaeologist, has mentioned the said Munj Bateswar Edict in his celebrated work Epigraphica India. On page 124 of the said work, Mr. Kale writes, “The sais Munj Bateswar Edict was laid by King Paramardidev of the Chandratreya dynasty on Sukla Panchami in the month of Ashwin, in the year 1212 Vikram Samvat (or A.D. 1156).  …  King Paramardidev built two magnificent temples with white marble , one for Lords Vishnu and the other for Lord Shiva and they were desecrated later on by the Muslim invaders. Perhaps a farsighted man took the edict to a safer place at Bateswar and buries it beneath the ground”.[8]Perhaps, after the said desecration, the temples were no longer used as religious places and due to this reason Abdul Hamid Lahori mentioned them as palaces, not as temples. According to the renowned historian Mr. R. C. Majumdar, the other name of the Chandratreya or Chandel King Paramardidev was Paramal and their kingdom was known as Bundelkhand, a.k.a.Jejakabhukti [9]

Today, there are two marble palaces in Agra, one is the Mausoleum of Idmat-ud-Daula, the father of Noorjahan and the other is Taj Mahal, and it is evident from the Munj Bateswar edict that, once upon a time, one of them was the temple of Lord Vishnu and the other was a temple of Lord Shiva. Experts believe that it is the temple of Lord Vishnu that has been made the mausoleum of Idmat-ud-Daula, and the temple of Lord Shiva has been converted into the mausoleum of the queen Arjumand Banu. There are so many evidence that support of this conclusion and we shall try to discuss them in future installments of this article.


(To be continued)







[2] (

[3] R. C. Majumdar, H. C. Raychaudhury and K. Datta,  An Advanced History of India, MacMillan & Co (1980),586..

[4] R. C. Majumdar (Gen Ed), History & Culture of the Indian People (in 12 Volumes), Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai (1996), VII, 793.


 [5] Stephen Knapp,Taj Mahal: Was it a Vedic Temple ? The Photographic Evidence ( )

[6] Yogesh Saxena Taj Mahal – It is time to tell the truth, ( facts-in-indian-history.html )


[7] P N Oak, Tajmahal – The True Story, Published by A Ghosh, p 9-12.


[8] D J Kale, Epigraphica India , published by S D Kale & M D Kale, I, 270-274.


[9] R C Majumdar, ibid, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Vol-5, p-122



August 4, 2009

Distortions of Indian history – Part 10

Source:- Article by Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari

Appearance of the Light of Truth:

It has been mentioned earlier that, according to the pseudo secular and Marxist historians of India, Sikri  was a small village surrounded by deep forest infested with wild animals and Akbar raised a fort-palace complex, an excellent exhibit of architecture, and thus converted the desolate hamlet called Sikri into a city within 14 or 15 years [1] [2] [3] As it was impossible to build a city like Fatehpur Sikri, as it is today, within a short period of 14 to 15 years, Jahangir in his autobiography has written that, all buildings, fort, gardens etc were built as if by magic[4] To make this cock and bull story believable, our historians say, “The work was pushed on with such phenomenal speed that, as if by magic palaces, public buildings, mosques and tombs, gardens and baths, pavilions and water courses were called into being beneath the barren sandstone ridge of Sikri.” [4]

But it is not difficult for a visitor to detect that all the designs of buildings and palaces inside the fort complex and the style of stone carvings overwhelmingly reveal Hindu style of architecture. Particularly, the buildings like Dewan-i-khas, Dewan-i-am, Jodhabai Palace , palaces of Tansen and Birbal, Navratna Sabha etc depict either Rajput or Gujarati style architecture and stone carvings. Experts agree that the stone carvings of lotus, chains, bells etc.on the walls of Akbar’s harem are indeed pure Hindu style of stone carving. The palace called Panch Mahal with its 84 pillars is a pure example of Hindu architecture. Partcularly, the 56 pillars in the second storey of the same are pure exhibits of Rajput style of stone carving. [5]

Experts also agree that the sitting arrangement on pillars in the Dewan-i-khas in Fatehpur Sikri, called Ibadat-Khanah, which Akbar used to preach his new religion Din-i-Ilahi, is a pure example of Jain architecture. [5] All such evidence lead one to conclude that the fort-palace complex at Fatehpur Sikri was definitely authored by the Hindu Kings. But despite all these infallible evidence, the so called secular and the Marxist historians are projecting Akbar as the author of the city of Fatehpur Sikri .

It has already been mentioned that to explain the overwhelmingly Hindu style of architecture of these buildings and palaces, the so called secular historian present some extremely ridiculous and absurd arguments and say that theMuslim rulers used to engage Hindu architects and artisans and hence Hindu style prevailed in these buildings and palaces. For example, to explain the pure Hindu style of architecture in the Jodhabai palace, historian S K Saraswati writes, “It is apparent that persons traditionally familiar with the indigenous (i.e. Hindu) architectural practices were responsible for the (Hindu) conception and construction of the beautiful (Jodhabai) palace.” [6]

But it not difficult to understand that all such arguments, fabricated by these historians, are entirely baseless. It is well known that Islam is a cult that propagates intense hatred towards the non-Muslim kafirs and the foreign Muslim invaders, indoctrinated by the said hate-cult called Islam, possessed immense hatred towards the Hindus and their culture. Hence, it is not difficult, even for a commoner to understand that, had the Muslim rulers created those buildings and palaces, they certainly would not have allowed any hateful Hindu style of architecture in those buildings. There is no doubt that, in that case, they would have brought architects, artisans and artists from Turkey, Iraq or Iran, or from any other Muslim country. As they were not the authors of these buildings and palaces, they had to compromise despite their intense hatred for Hindu culture, including its architecture.

But it is a good news that, light of truth has started to come out to destroy the darkness of lies. In August, 1999,Dr Dharamveer Sharma, an archaeologist of Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), arrived Fatehpur Sikri, with his three assistants Ramesh Mulimani of Karnatak, Kamei Athailu Kabui of Manipur and R K Tewari, and began archaeological excavations at Birchhabili-Tila (Mound), which is hardly 2 Km away from the fort . [7] After working hardly for two months, they could discovered many artifacts of immense importance, including the idols of Jain Tirthankars (Saints) and Jain Srutidevi Saraswati.. But the heads of all those idols of Jain Saints were broken. According to inscriptions on the idols of the Jain Saints, Dr Sharma is convinced that the idols of Jain Saints and the Jaina Srutidevi Saraswati were of 1010 AD, and hence they are older than the times Akbar by over 500 years.

Later on, Dr Sharma wrote a book, Archaeology of Fatehpur Sikri, published by Aryan Books International, containing all his discoveries. In the Preface of the book, Dr Sharma writes, “The Archaeology of Fatehpur Sikri-New Discoveries is a fundamental research work on medieval archaeology. It contains results of excavations at Birchhabili-Tila and exploration of the region within a radius of 25 km. Besides this, chronological study of the monuments have been made phase-wise along with inscriptions and mason marks.” Some other authors have also written books on archaeological studies of Agra and Fatehpur Sikri. [8] Dr Sharma has also made archaeological studies on other monuments like the Ibadat-Khanah which Akbar used for religious discussions, the Agni-Kunda of the so-called Jodha Bai’s Palace, Hiran-Minar etc, with new interpretations.

Dr Sharma believes that, to hide original Hindu symbols and Hindu and Jain idols of the fort and palaces of Fatehpur Sikri, Akbar had dumped them in the place which is now known as the Birchhabili Tila. Many idols had been hidden inside the walls of the fort and Dr Sharma and his men recovered many such idols.According to Dr Sharma, some of these idols were of second century AD, or of the times of Kushan King Kanishka, while some of them are of the Gupta period of fourth or fifth century AD. But all the idols are found to be headless.According to the speculation of Dr Sharma, Muslim invaders used hammer or some other heavy and blunt tool to break the heads of the idols. From a nearby mound, Dr Sharma and his team could discover some ceramic articles and according to Dr Sharma, those specimens were of 1200 BC.

All these discoveries undoubtedly prove that, even 1000 years before the times of Akbar, Sikri was a flourishing and thriving city, which is contrary to the opinion of the secular historians, who try to convince that Sikri was a small village up to the times of Akbar. Most importantly, Dr Sharma and his team have unearthed a stone edict written in Sanskrit. From the said epigraph it has been known that in older days, the place was called Saikarikya. Dr Sharma and other scholars are convinced that the present name Sikri is nothing but a corrupt of Sanskrit Saikarikya.

Dr Sharma and his team have also discovered rubbles of broken Hindu temples and Jain Maths at the said Birchhabili Tila. These discoveries undoubtedly prove the existence of Hindu temples and Jain Maths (monasteries) in Sikri which the Muslim invader Akbar had demolished. Most importantly, the discovery has served a death blow to secular theory that says that the present city of Fatehpur Sikri has been authored by Akbar and before his times Sikri was an unknown village surrounded by forest.

However, the ASI team has not yet done an intensive investigation inside the fort-palace complex of Fatehpur Sikri and, experts believe that such an excavation of the complex would lead to more startling discoveries sufficiently adequate to disprove the myth of Akbar’s authorship of the city. On the contrary, such an effort would firmly establish the Hindu authorship of the fort and palaces of Fatehpur Sikri. We may hope that in near future, archaeological investigations would be carried out in other monuments of Delhi and Agra, like the Qutb Minar, the Red Fort, the Agra Fort, the Taj Mahal and thus many unknown information would come to light, which would help reveal the true history of the Muslim period of India.

It is well known that the rising sun makes the good people happy, while it makes the nocturnal animals, as well as dishonest people, like thieves and dacoits, scary. So, the archaeological discovery at Fatehpur Sikri is good news for patriotic and nationalist historians, while it is extremely bad news for the so called pseudo secular, Marxist and Nehruvian historians. Hence, it is not difficult to comprehend that the above mentioned discoveries at Fatehpur Sikri have produced a panic in the camp of the above mentioned dishonest historians.

In India, there is a Parliamentary Committee to direct the activities of the ASI, and at that time, when Dr Sharma and his team were working at the Birchhabili Tila in Fatehpur Sikri, Eduardo Faleiro, a leader of the National Congress Party, was the in-charge of that Committee. It should be mentioned here that the said Congress Party is the chief patron of the so called pseudo-secular and Marxist historians’ lobby. Moreover, Eduardo Feleiro was a Christian and hence a Hindu basher.

So, for obvious reasons, the news of archaeological discoveries at Fatehpur Sikri enraged Mr Feleiro and immediately he convened an emergency meeting of the said Parliamentary Committee on July 6, 2000, to assess the situation. In that meeting, Mr. Feleiro and other pseudo-secular members severely deplored the activities of ASI at Fatehpur Sikri. He declared the effort of ASI motivated and ill-intentioned. He also alleged that, in the name of scientific excavation, ASI has taken up the job only to search for Hindu temples and Hindu idols. He severely attacked Dr Sharma and said that his prime objective was to generate communal hatred between the Hindus and the Muslims. He also said that a similar reckless effort of ASI in Ayodhya unleashed communal tension, which ultimately led to the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992.

It should be mentioned here that in 1528, Mir Baqi, one of Babar’s generals, according to his master’s instigation, partially pulled down the Ram Janmabhumi Temple at Ayodhya and converted it into a mosque, known as Babri Masjid. Mr Faleiro also blamed ASI for letting out the results of its investigations, in haste, to the media. So, from the above discussions, it becomes evident that Mr. Feleiro and his lot do not want the true history of India comes to light. [9]

The above allegations of Mr. Feleiro deserve critical attention. In so many words, he tried to say that, firstly, the ASI should not initiate any excavation if it is apprehended that such an excavation may lead to any discovery which is contrary to the ongoing politics of Muslim appeasement. Secondly, in case of such discovery, that should not be communicated to the press without consent from the Parliamentary Committee. Or in other words, the true history of India must be kept buried under the earth for all time to come. So, it becomes evident that unless a true nationalist government comes to power, the false history in conformity with the politics of Muslim appeasement would continue.

However, after the said emergency meeting, Mr. Feleiro and his lot succeeded to obtain a written statement from Mr. Komal Anad, the then director of ASI, obviously under intense political pressure, that says that, after studying the archaeological exhibits discovered at Fatehpur Sikri, the Archaeological Survey of India had come to the conclusion that Emperor Akbar had never demolished any Hindu temple at that place. But the said exhibits conclusively prove that, there was a big Jain temple and a monastery at Sikri which were demolished by the Muslims. Question naturally arises – Who had demolished those buildings? If it was not Akbar, then who was the culprit? The reader should notice that, Babar might also be the possible culprit. It is quite likely that after the victory in the Battle of Khanua, Babar demolished those structures to please Allah. So, a detail and careful scientific experiment can only reveal the truth.

To conclude, it should be said that, so long as the present politics of Muslim appeasement persists, the political leaders would never allow the ASI to undertake archaeological excavation at a site, if they apprehend that such an excavation might lead to discoveries contrary to the false history fabricated by the so called secular historians under strict political guidance. The people of India would be able to know the true history of their country only when a strong nationalist political force succeeds to put an end of the present ongoing politics of Muslim appeasement.

(To be continued)


[1] R. C, Majumdar, The History and Cultures of the Indian People, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan (in 12 Vols) VII , 763.

[2] H.M.. Elliot and J. Dowson, The History of India -As Told by Its Own Historians (in 8 volumes), Low Price Publication, Delhi (1996) IV, 40.

[3] H.M. Elliot and J. Dowson, ibid, IV, 62.

[4] R. C, Majumdar, ibid, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, VII , 760.

[5] R. C, Majumdar, ibid, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, VII , 770.

[6] R. C, Majumdar, ibid, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, VII , 768.

[7] Sikri’s New Past, S Kalidas , India Today (Weekly), Feb 28, 2000

[8] Tajmahal Agra & Fatehpur Sikri, by Subhadra Sen Gupta; Agra & Fatehpur Sikri by Amrita Kumar; Excavations At Fatehpur Sikri by R C Gaur, published  by : Aryan Books International

[9] Bartaman (A Bengali Daily) July 8, 2000, edition.

August 3, 2009

Distortion of Indian history – Part 9

Source:- Article by Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari

The Distorted History of Fatehpur Sikri:

It has been said earlier how the authorship of the massive fortress in Agra is being falsely attributed to Akbar. In a similar manner, Akbar is being projected as the author of another fort-palace complex, a excellent example of Hindu architecture, at Fatehpur Sikri, nearly 37 Km away from the city of Agra.



 The so called pseudo secular and the Marxist historians are propagating the idea that the place was originally called Sikri and it was a small village surrounded by deep forest infested with wild animals. In that village, a Sufi saint called Shaikh Salim Chisti began to live in a small hut in 1537. At that time, Akbar was mentally upset as he did not have a male child.

To narrate the situation, Nizam-ud-din Ahmad in his Tabakat-i-Akbariwrites, “The Emperor had several sons born to him, but none of them had lived. Shaikh Salim Chisti, who resided at the town of Sikri, twelve kos from Agra, had gladdened him with the promise of a son. The Emperor went to visit the Shaikh several times, and remained there ten or twenty days on each occasion.  …  When one of the Emperor’s wives became pregnant, he conveyed her to the dwelling of the Shaikh, and left her there. Sometimes he stayed there himself, sometimes at Agra . He gave the name of Fathpur to Sikri, and built a bazaar and baths there.” [1] “Salim, the old saint, had settled among the rocks and wild beasts as a hermit in A D 1537-8 (A H 944), and in the year following had constructed a monastery and school-house.” [2]

In this regard, historian V A Smithin his Akbar The Great Mogulalso writes, “Akbar resolved at this time to press his scheme for converting the obscure village of Sikri into a great city. His reasons, or some of them, for doing so may be stated in the words of Abu-l Fazl: – Inasmuch as his exalted sons [Salim and Murad] had taken their birth in Sikri and the God-knowing spirit of Shaikh Salim had taken possession thereof, his holy heart desired to give outward splendour to this spot which possessed spiritual grandeur. Now that his standards had arrived at this place, his former design was passed forward, and an order was issued that the superintendents of affairs should erect lofty buildings for the use of the Shahinshah.” [3] 

He further continues, “A wall of masonry was built round the town, but never completed, and dwellings of all classes were constructed, as well as schools, baths, and other public institutions, the indispensable gardens not being neglected. The Emperor, after the conquest of Gujarat , gave it the name of Fathabad (town of victory), which was soon exchanged in both popular and official use for the synonymous Fathpur..” [2] V A Smith continues, “The language of Abu-l Fazl in the above passage quoted might be understood to mean that Akbar did not begin his extensive programme of building at Fathpur-Sikri until 1571, but that is not the fact. The design had been formed in his mind and his had actually been begun in 1569.” [2] 

But most of the historians believe that Akbar began the so called construction of Fatehpur Sikri in 1571, and hence the historian R C Majumdar writes, “From there (Punjab) he returned to Ajmer (corrupt of Sanskrit Ajeya Meru) by way of Hissar and on 9th August, 1571, arrived at Sikri which he now decided to make his capital as the auspicious place where his two sons Salim and Murad had been born. The resources of his expanding empire and the artistic genius of India and Persia were employed to convert the petty, quiet hamlet into a crowded  proud metropolis which even in its lost glory was regarded by Fitch in 1585 as much greater than Elizabethan London.” [4] From the above statement it implies that Akbar began the so called construction of Fatehpur Sikri in 1571 and it is not clear, from the above statements, when the job was completed. Smith also says that, Akbar built the Buland Darwaza to commemorate his conquest of Gujarat in 1575-76. [5]

But many hold the view that Akbar finished the construction in 1585.  So, a general notification, in this regard, reads, “Fatehpur Sikri was built during 1571 and 1585. …  This town was built by the Mughal Emperor, Akbar. He had planned this city as his capital but shortage of water compelled him to abandon the city.. … Fatehpur Sikri is one of the finest examples of Mughal architectural splendour at its height.” [6] The Wikipedia Encyclopedia, in this context, says, Fatehpur Sikri is a city and a municipal board in Agra district in the state of Uttar PradeshIndia. The historical city was constructed by Mughal emperor Akbar beginning in 1570 and served as the empire’s capital from 1571 until 1585, when it was abandoned for reasons that remain unclear.” [7]

One should notice that the statements quoted above are terribly inconsistent. According to Smith, Akbar began the construction of the city in 1571 (or 1569) and before that the place was a small village. According to R C Majumdar, in 1571, Akbar decided to use the auspicious place as the capital of his empire. But according to the Wikipedia Encyclopedia, “Akbar started to use the place as the capital of his empire from 1571 and continued to use the place as the capital up to 1585.” The question naturally arises – How many years Akbar took to convert the small village Sikri into a city? Was it possible for Akbar to shift his capital to Sikri before the completion of the said construction? The most ridiculous part of the episode is that, according to Wikipedia Encyclopedia, Akbar started to use Sikri as his capital in the same year the construction of the city had begun. So, it implies that, Akbar, in 1571, had shifted his capital from the city of Agra to a desolate village called Sikri, surrounded by jungles.

The reader might have noticed another anomaly in the above narrations. According to some authors, the construction of the city was completed in 1585, and in the same year it was abandoned due to scarcity of water. As if the so called scarcity of water fell, all on a sudden, from the sky without giving any prior hint and no body could foresee that. Most importantly, these contradictory statements lead one to conclude that Akbar the fool spoiled so much money for setting up the new city in vain.

There are other anomalies as well. It has been mentioned above that, according to V A Smith, Akbar built the Buland Darwaza as a commemoration of his conquest of Gujarat in 1575-76. While an epigraph inscribed on the Buland Darwaza says that it was built in 1601, when Akbar returned from Daccan. But it has been said above that the city of Fatehpur Sikri was abandoned in 1585. So, it becomes unacceptable because in that case it should be concluded that Akbar built the Buland Darwaza in the abandoned city of Fatehpur Sikri. So, according to another version, it is said that, Fatehpur Sikri was finally abandoned in 1604 and the Buland Darwaza was erected in 1601. [8]

However, to sum up the above narrations, Akbar began the construction of the city of Fatehpur Sikri in 1571 and the construction was completed in 1785. Or, Akbar took 14 years to complete the job. But whosoever has visited the site would refuse to believe that such a massive construction, containing the invincible fort and innumerable palaces therein with fine stone carvings, could be constructed within 14 or 15 years. To make this unbelievable story believable, the so called pseudo secular and Marxist historians of India resort to treachery and lie, and say, “The work was pushed on with such phenomenal speed that, as if by magic palaces, public buildings, mosques and tombs, gardens and baths, pavilions and water courses were called into being beneath the barren sandstone ridge of Sikri.” [8]

In this context, it should be mentioned what absurd Jahangir, son of Akbar, has written in his autobiography, regarding the construction of Fatehpur Sikri. He writes, “In course of fourteen to fifteen years, that hill full of wild beasts became a city containing all kinds of gardens and buildings, lofty edifices and pleasant places attractive to the heart.” [8]


It has been pointed out above that historians believe that Akbar built the Buland Darwaza (the Great Portal) in 1601 as a monument after the conquest of Gujarat . In this regard, our historians write, “The southern entrance to the Jam-i-Masjid at Fatehpur Sikri was considered to be suitable position, and the original entrance was replaced by the construction of a massive portal. This was known as the Buland Darwaja.” [9] It is important to note here that originally there was a gate where the Buland Darwaza stands today. Common sense tells us that the said gate was very old and hence Akbar found it suitable to demolish that worn out gate and make a new one. Had this older gate been built by Akbar, hardly 15 years ago, he would have certainly not shown any interest to demolish the same to be replaced by the new gate called Buland Darwaza.

The True History of Fatehpur Sikri:


We now may pay heed to what another group of historians, known as nationalist historians, have to say in this regard. These historians are convinced that the authorship of the fort-palace complex at Fatehpur Sikri is being falsely attributed to Akbar. According to them the city, now known as Fatehpur Sikri, was a thriving and prosperous city from very older times. Once upon a time, during the times of Babar, Akbar’s grand father, the fort-palace complex at Fatehpur, was under the occupation of Rana Sangram Singh of Mewar. In 1527, a battle was fought between Babar and Maharana Sangram Singh, known as the Battle of Khanua, in a field close to the fort of Fatehpur. In that battle Babar defeated Rana Sangram Singh and thus the occupation of the fort went to the Mughals.

There are many references to show that fort at Fatehpur (or Fathpur) was there even centuries before the times of Akbar. The Muslim chronicler Yahya bin Ahmad, in his Tarikh-i-Mubarakshahi, writes, “On the 19th Jumada-l awwal, 808 H ( 12th November, 1405 AD), a battle was fought between them (Khizr Khan and Ikbal Khan). At the first charge, Ikbal wasa defeated and fled.  …(Later on) He was killed and his head was cut off and sent to Fathpur.” [10] The statement is sufficient to prove that, at least 150 years before the times of Akbar, Fatehpur Sikri was a place of political importance, not an isolated village surrounded by jungle.

Yahya bin Ahmad also writes, “Sikri, which is now known as Fathpur, was entrusted to Malik Khairu-d din Tuhfa. His Majesty (Mubarak Shah) then proceeded towards Gwalior .” [11] This statement conclusively proves that the city which is now known as Fatehpur was originally known as Sikri. It has been said earlier that the Battle of Khanua was fought between Babar and Rana Sangram Singh in a field close to Fatehpur Sikri. Babar, in his autobiography Tuzak-i-Babrihas given the description of the battle. The Tuzak-i-Babri says that Babar left Agra on 11th February, 1527 AD and advanced towards Fatehpur to meet Rana Sangram Singh. Babar writes, “After marching a kos, we found that the enemy had retreated. There being a large tank on our left, I encamped there, to have the benefit of water.” [12]

At that hour, Babar sent an advanced team of 1000 men, under the care of Abdul Aziz and Mollah Apak, to assess the situation and collect prior intelligence. To describe the situation, Babar writes, “… without taking any precautions, he (Abdul Aziz) advanced as far as Kanwahah, which is five kos from Sikri.” [13] But a troop of 4000 or 5000 Rajputs routed them and compelled them to return to their base.

It is to be noted here that, Rana Sangram Singh was the most famous Hindu warrior at that time and he carried 82 scars on his body. So, naturally, Babar’s army was visibly nervous. Just on the day, previous to the battle, Babar held meeting with his nervous generals. To comment on the result of the discussions, Babar writes, “At this time, as I have already observed, in consequence of the preceding events, a general consternation and alarm prevailed among great and small. There was not a single person who uttered a manly word, nor an individual who delivered a manly opinion.” [14]

As mentioned above, Babar camped outside the wall of Sikri, near a big tank and the Rajput camp was inside the wall. The chief Rajput generals were Rawal Udai Singh, Medini Ray, Bhamal, Varmadev and Siladitya, the caretaker of the Raisin Fort. Beside that, there were a few Afghan generals in the Rajput army and the most prominent among them were Hasan Khan and Sikandar Lodi. After being thrashed at Kanwahah, the Mughal army became extremely frightened and advised Babar to retreat.

So, from the above facts, it becomes evident that, if the Rajputs continued their attack from the incident of Kanwahah, the Mughal army would have defeated and dispersed. But Sangram Singh took time and gave the Mughal army an opportunity to re-assemble. In this context, we should note another development. Babar had initiated a dialogue with Sangram Singh through Siladitya, but later on he succeeded to bribe Siladitya to bring him to his side. This enabled Babar to gather some vital military secrets of the Rajput army.

However, on 17th (or 16th) March, 1527 AD, the battle took place at the field of Khanua, close to Sikri and 37 Km from Agra . As soon as the battle began, Siladitya changed side with his men and in addition to that, the Afghan generals Hasan Khan and Sikandar Lodi and their army preferred not to fight against the Mussalmans of Babar’s army and remained, more or less, silent spectators. The actual strength of the Rajput army was not properly recorded, but according to Col Tod, there were 80,000 horses and 500 elephants in the Rajput army. [15]

The fierce battle began in the morning and continued for ten hours. When the victory was under the control of the Rajputs, Sangram Singh suffered a severe wound and had to leave the battle field. The incident made the Rajput army disappointed and they began to disperse, and thus victory went to the hands of the Mughals. To describe the incident, Babar writes, “Having defeated the enemy, we pursued them with great slaughter. Their camp might be two kos distant from ours. On reaching it, I sent on Muhammadi and some other officers, with the order to follow them in close pursuit, slaying and cutting them off, so that they should not have the time to re-assemble.” [16]

Babar continues, “The battle was fought within the view of a small hill, near our camp. On this hillock I directed a tower of the skulls of the infidels to be constructed. … Immense numbers of the dead bodies of the pagans and apostates had fallen in their flight, all the way to Bayana, and even as far as Alwar and Mewat.” [16] After entering the fort, Babar ordered general massacre and Muhammadi and other Mughal generals cut down the civilians of the city of Sikri en masse. There are no proper records of how many Hindus were slaughtered on that day. The so called secular and Marxist historians always try to keep the figure low. It has been mentioned that there were 80,000 strong cavalry and 500 elephants in the Rajput army. Hence, many believe that, including the foot-soldiers, the Rajput army was 200,000 strong, and nearly 100,000 of them were taken prisoners and slaughtered on that day. In addition to that, about another 100,000 civilians were massacred in the city.

It has been mentioned earlier that after the mass-massacre of the Hindus in the Chittor Fort by Akbar, Rajput Kings abandoned the fort and thereafter, they used the fort at Udaipur as their residence and the seat of the government. In a similar manner, the Rajput kings had abandoned the Fort of Sikri after the mass-massacre by Babar, as mentioned above. And, as a result, the city of Fatehpur Sikri gradually turned into a desolate jungle. Later on, Akbar perhaps took an initiative to revive the city by clearing the jungle and our dishonest historians are portraying that as Akbar’s creation of the new city of Fatehpur Sikri. A study of the history of Fatehpur Sikri, it appears that, Akbar might have built a minutely small part, the Buland Darwaza, of the entire edifice and nothing else. And later on, he might have built the tomb of Shaikh Salim Chisti.  

Another point of vital importance should be highlighted in this context. Anyone, whosoever has visited the Fort-Palace complex at Fatehpur Sikri, it must not have escaped his notice that all the palaces and buildings reveal overwhelmingly Hindu style of architecture and stone carving. According to experts, they are either of Rajasthani or Gujarati style. This is due to the simple reason that the Rajput Hindu kings were the real authors of those buildings and palaces. But to hide the true history, the despicable creatures, callef secular and Marxist historians, say that, Akbar engaged both Hindu and Muslim artists of Persia for building the palaces and stone carving. They also say that, Akbar was so generous that he had no hesitation to accept Hindu style of architecture.But all these lies are going to be exposed very soon as the real history of Fatehpur Sikri has started to reveal due to fresh archaeological discoveries. We expect to deal that aspect in the next installment.


(To be continued)


[1] H.M. Elliot and J. Dowson, The History of India -As Told by Its Own Historians (in 8 volumes), Low Price Publication, Delhi (1996) V, 332-333.

[2] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, Oxford Clarendon Press, 105.

[3] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, ibid, 104-105.

[4] R. C, Majumdar, The History and Cultures of the Indian People, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan (in 12 Vols) ,VII ,125.

[5] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, ibid, 107.

[6] (

[7] (

[8] R. C, Majumdar, ibid, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, VII, 760.

[9] R. C, Majumdar, ibid, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, VII, 763.

[10] H.M. Elliot and J. Dowson, ibid, IV, 40.

[11] H.M. Elliot and J. Dowson, ibid, IV, 62.

[12] H.M. Elliot and J. Dowson, ibid, IV, 268.

[13] H.M. Elliot and J. Dowson, ibid, IV, 267.

[14] H.M. Elliot and J. Dowson, ibid, IV, 269.

[15] R. C, Majumdar, ibid, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, VII, 36.

[16] H.M. Elliot and J. Dowson, ibid, IV, 272.

July 31, 2009

Distortions of Indian history – Part 7

Original source: Article by Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari.

Akbar was a cruel killer:

There are umpteen incidents to show that, like all other Muslim rulers, Akbar was a merciless cruel killer. It has been mentioned earlier, how Akbar beheaded helpless Samrat Vikramaditya Hemraj to earn the title of Ghazi (the slayer of infidel). It has also been mentioned how the so called pseudo secular historians are trying to distort the history and conceal Akbar’s inhuman cruelty. It should be mentioned here the opinion of the renowned historian R C Majumdar in this context. He writes, In this helpless condition, Himu was put to death, according to some, by Bairam, on the refusal of Akbar to kill him with his own hands and, according to others, by Akbar himself at the instigation of his protector.” [1] But still there are some historians, though very rare, who does not hesitate to expose the truth.

Such a historian, Mr S Roy, writes, Akbar accordingly struck Himu with his sword and Bairam Khan followed him. The story of Akbar’s magnanimity and refusal to kill a fallen foe seems to be a later courtly invention. The humane and liberal emperor of Hindustan who preached ‘sulh-i-kull’ (universal toleration) was not born but made.” [2]

In this context, an incident may be described to expose Akbar’s mindless cruelty. The incident has been narrated by Asad Beg in his Wikaya. It reads, At that time the Emperor used to retire for a long interval, after evening prayers, during which time the servants and courtiers used to disperse, assembling again when they expected His Majesty to re-appear. That evening he (Akbar) happened to come out sooner than usual, to hear the news from the Dakhin, and at first found none of the servants in the palace. When he came near the throne and couch, he saw a luckless lamplighter, coiled up like a snake, in a careless death-like sleep, close to the royal couch. Enraged at the sight, he ordered him to be thrown from the tower, and he was dashed into a thousand pieces.” [3] One would be extremely frustrated if he tries to discover such an act of cruelty by a Hindu king, because Hindu kings were human beings.

Humayun, Akbar’s father, blinded his elder brother Kamran so that he could never pose a threat to the throne and Akbar assassinated Kamran’s son for the same reason. To describe this cruelty of Akbar, Vincent Smith  writes,  “Executing Kamran’s son [namely, Akbar’s own cousin] at Gwalior in 1565, Akbar set an evil example, initiated on a large scale by his descendents Shahjahan and Aurangzeb.” [4] ;

There is no doubt that Akbar inherited such inhuman and brute cruelty from his forefathers. As a matter of fact,

Akbar’s ancestors like Babar and Humayun were barbarous and vicious killers, and so were his descendants like Aurangzeb and others’ down the line.Akbar was born and brought up in a illiterate and foul atmosphere characterized by excessive drinking, womanizing and drug addiction.” [5] The so called secular historians of India are trying to project Akbar as the greatest of all Moghals, righteous in his deeds and noble in character. He is being portrayed as the only and truly secular Emperor of the times, very caring and protective of his subjects. And, above all, he is being projected as a divine incarnate. But Vincent Smith in his Akbar – The Great Mogul writes,Intemperance was the besetting sin of the Timuroid royal family, as it was of many other muslim ruling houses. Babur (was) an elegant toper … Humayun made himself stupid with opium … Akbar permitted himself the practices of both vices .. Akbar’s two sons died in early manhood from chronic alcoholism, and their elder brother was saved from the same fate by a strong constitution, and not by virtue. [6] With such an atmosphere to nourish Akbar’s thoughts, it is rather usual for Akbar to become “devil incarnate“, rather than a divine incarnate.[5]

Babar, Akbar’s grandfather, was diabolic killer and a terrible iconoclast and Guru Nanak was an eye-witness to the treatments meted out to the people by Babar when he invaded India in 1521. Nanak was at Sayyidpur, now called Eminabad, 80 kilometres from Lahore, in the Gurjanwala district. Babur ordered a general massacre of the people and thousands of persons were taken as prisoners. The barbarous treatment of prisoners, in the camp, particularly pitilessly lashing of women and children, broke tender heart of Nanak. In his agony he even took God to task.” [7] Guru Nanak said, Thou, O Creator of all things, Takest to Thyself no blame: Thou hast sent Yama disguised as the great Moghal, Babar. Terrible was his slaughter, loud were the cries of the lamenters. Did not this awaken pity in Thee, O Lord? [8]

It has been said above that like all other diabolic and infernal Muslim rulers, Babar was also a terrible iconoclast. Babar’s barbarism desecrated and demolished thousands of Hindu temples and converted several thousands into mosques. “Babar converted famous Jain temple at Chanderi and the Lord Shiva temple at Sambhal into mosques. By the order of Babar, his general Mir Baqi  partially pulled down the Ram Janmabhumi Temple at Ayodhya and converted the same into a mosque.. Babar also demolished the famous Jain temple near Ubhar.” [9]

But our historians to narrate Babar, write, Babur was the best of the rulers of his times. He had eight great qualities, such as prudence and foresight, great personal ambition, skilled warrior, skilled and generous administrator, a man free from religious discrimination and the quality to gain the hearts of the army. Beside that, he was a great admirer of art, music and learning. He was also a poet and could write good poetry in Persian language” [10]

A few words should be said in this context about composing poetry by Babar. While at Ghazni, the lecherous and sodomite Babar became extremely addicted to young boy called Babri and it was the subject matter of Babar’s poetry, with which he enriched his autobiography. Gradually he became so enamored of Babri that he lost interest in his wife Ayesha. At that time I used to meet her at an interval of 10, 15 or 20 days. …Before this I never had conceived a passion for anyone, and indeed never been so circumstanced as either to hear or witness any words spoken, expressive of love or amorous passion. In this situation, I composed a few verses in person of which the following is a couplet –

Never was a lover so wretched, so enamored, so dishonoured as I,

And my fair never be found so pitiless, so disdainful as thou,” Writes Babar in his autobiography.[11]

In another similar verse, Babar wrote –

I am abashed whenever I see my love,

My companion looks at me while I look to the other way.

…     …    …    …    …    …    …    …    …    …     …

I had neither strength to go nor power to stay,

To such distraction you have reduced me

Oh, my (male) sweetheart.” [11]

It has been mentioned earlier that Muhammad Ghori, Qutb-ud-din Aibak and Altamash, all of them were sexual perverts and lascivious sodomites and Babar naturally followed that legacy..

After defeating Rana Sangram Singh at the Battle Khanua, Fatehpur Sikri, Babar massacred nearly 100,000 prisoners of war and another 100,000 civilians and raised two towers with the slain heads of the victims. Akbar seems to have preserved this great legacy of erecting minarets with slain heads of the Hindus in several occasions, as is obvious from the accounts of battles he fought, particularly at Chittore Fort.

Picture of Chattore Fort

Humayun, Akbar’s father, had a similar legacy of cruelty, slaughtering Hindus in thousands and taking Hindu women and children as captives. Many believe that he was even more degenerate and cruel than his father. After repeated battles, Humayum could ultimately capture his elder brother Kamran and subjected the latter to brutal torture. A detailed account is left by Humayun’s servant Jauhar and is quoted by Smith, which says, “He. (Humayun) had little concerns for his brother’s sufferings. One of the men was sitting on Kamran’s knees. He was pulled out of the tent and a lancet was thrust into his eyes. Some lemon juice and salt was put into his eyes.” [12]

One can imagine the cruelty and torture that Humayun was capable of inflicting on others when he subjected to his own brother to such atrocities. Humayun was also a slave to opium habit, engaged in excessive alcohol consumption and a lecherous degenarate when it came to women. He is also known to have married a 14 year old Hamida Begum by force. The cruelties perpetrated by of Akbar’s descendants (Jehangir, Shahjahan, Aurangzeb, etc..) are not entirely different from those of his ancestors. Having brought up in the company and under the guidance of a lineage of drug addicts, drunkards and sadists, it is rather anamalous that Akbar held such a gentle and noble character. Even assuming that he fancied nobility, it is amazing that Akbar let his comtemporaries and Generals, like Peer Mohammad, loot and rape the helpless citizenry that he was ruling! It would however be interesting to observe the incidents in Akbar’s reign and evaluate his character. [13]

After defeating Muzaffar Shah, the ruler of Ahmedabad, in November 1572, Akbar ordered his opponents to be trampled to death by elephants. Hamzaban, commander of Akbar’s forces laying siege to Surat in 1573 A.D. was barbarously punished by Akbar by excision of his tongue. Masud Hussain Mirza, a near relation of Akbar, who had risen in revolt, had his eyes sewn up after capture. … Some of them (300 supporters) were executed with various ingenious tortures. “It is disgusting to find a man like Akbar sanctioning such barbarism which he inherited from his Tartar ancestors”, says Smith.” [14] Such were the acts of Akbar’s barbaric cruelty.

Akbar’s Savagery and Barbarism at Chittor:

In 1567 AD, Akbar advanced with a large army against Rana Uday Singh, the son of Rana Sangram Singh, of Mewar and put the Chottore Fort under siege. But even after 4 months, no indication of surrender was visible from the other side. On the contrary, the Mughal army continued to suffer large scale casualties due to occasional Rajput attack under the leadership of brave Rajput generals Jaimal and Patta.

At last, Akbar ordered to dig two Sabats (a trench covered with leather is called a Sabat) from a far away  places to the wall of the fort. Then explosives in large quantities were dumped at the walls of the fort and a severe blasts collapsed the wall. Expecting imminent fall of the fort, nearly 300 Rajput women sacrificed their lives in Jauhar (self immolation in fire). When the Mughal army entered the fort, nearly 800 Rajput soldiers were alive and all of them were put to the sword.

Next morning, victorious Akbar entered the fort riding an elephant. The Emperor was not so pleased as he had to face a lot of hardship in occupying the fort. At that time there were nearly 40 thousand civilians in the fort and this civilian population had assisted the Rajput army to inflict damage to the Mughal army. And hence they became the target of Akbar’s wrath. To narrate the event, Vincent Smith writes, The eight thousand Rajput soldiers who formed the regular garrison having been jealously helped during the siege by 40,000 peasants, the emperor ordered a general massacre, which resulted in the death of 30,000.” [15] Col Tod, to describe the incident as, writes, The emperor’s proceedings were marked by the most illiterate atrocities.” [16]

But our secular historians are trying hard to hide Akbar’s cruelty and guilt. So, R C Majumdar, to describe the incident, writes, Akbar then gave order for mass execution of 30,000 non-combatants, for which all modern historians have condemned him.. According to Kaviraj Shyamadas, however, out of 40,000 peasants who were in the fort, 39,000 had died fighting and Akbar ordered the remaining 1000 to be executed.”[17] But historian A K Roy writes, Thirty thousand were slain; among them was gallant Patta, who fell after he had displayed prodigies of valour.” [18] While another historian writes, According to Abul Fazl, 30,000 persons were slain, but the figure seems to be highly exaggerated.” [19]

However, it was not possible to ascertain the exact figure of the victims who fell to Akbar’s sword, or rather, it was not manually possible to count the large number of the corpses. According to Abul Fazl, the figure was 30,000, but it is needless to say that he did not count the dead bodies but only made a rough estimate. The actual figure could be 50,000 or 80,000; or 100,000 or more than that. It is really astonishing that, most of our historians have reluctantly avoided the concluding part of the episode.

Akbar had a curiosity to know the actual number of Hindus slain. As it was impossible to manually count the heaps of dead bodies, Akbar ordered his men to collect the sacred threads from the corpses. The order was carried out the sacred threads collected were weighed. What was the result of weighing? Vincent Smith, in this regard, writes,The recorded amount 74½ mans of eight ounce each.” [20] Many believe that Smith was wrong to estimate the weight of a sacred thread and it should exceed 3 ounce each. Man or Maund is an old unit of weight, which is nearly equal to 37 Kg. So, by easy calculations, one can get an idea how many Hindus were slain on that day.

It is being said that, Aurangzeb, the grand grand son of Akbar, promulgated an order that, he should be presented 1¼ maunds of sacred threads daily, collected from slain Hindus. Simple calculations show that 24,000 sacred threads, 3 ounce each, make 1¼ maunds. So, it can be said that, nearly 24,000 Hindus were slain daily during the times of Aurangzab.[xx] (pn oak 576) These fanatic Muslim rulers used to maintain that, more the number of Hindus slain, better would be the place they occupy in jannat or Islamic Paradise.

However the Rajputs, to make the above incident immemorial, treat the number 74½ as cursed and an evil omen. Still today, if someone writes 74½ on the cover of a letter, none but the addressee opens that letter. They believe that if someone opens that letter, his life would also be cursed. .

It has been mentioned above that when Akbar occupied the Chittor Fort, more than 300 Rajput women jumped into fire (Jauhar) so that they may not be abducted to Delhi and dumped into the hell called Akbar’s harem to spend the rest of their lives as prostitutes and sex-slaves. Akbar, the devil incarnate, possessed a inordinate lust for women, just like his ancestors and predecessors. One of Akbar’s motives during his wars of aggression against various rulers was to appropriate their women, daughters and sisters of the defeated Hindu kings. That was the reason, the Rajput women of Chittor prefered “Jauhar”( self immolation) than to be captured and disrespectfully treated as servants and prostitutes in Akbar’s harem. [5]

However, according to the Islamic faith, killing so many kafirs and drenching the Chittor Fort with kafirs’ blood, Akbar had undoubtedly done a great service to Allah and Islam and to seek blessings for this great service, Akbar went to Fatehpur Sikri, bare footed, to his religious guru Salim Chisti. It is needless to say that his guru was extremely delighted after hearing this good news from Akbar. It should be mentioned here that Salim Chisti was a Sufi darbesh and the incident was sufficient to expose the true colour  of the Sufi saints.

History of Jauhar and Sati:

This was not a new phenomenon and the ritual began in 711 AD, as soon as barbaric Muslim invaders set their foot on the Indian soil. In 711 AD, Muhammad bin Qasem invaded Sind,.by the sea through the city port of Karachi . At that time, it was called Devalay (or the abode of the God). There was big and tall temple at the sea shore which could be seen from a long distance. The Hindu King Dahir was the ruler of Sind .

King Dahir had 500 Muslim Arab soldiers in his army. In the mid-night, these Arab Muslims treacherously opened the gate of Dahir’s fort and the army of bin Qasem entered and occupied the fort by massacring the security guards of the fort. When the news of fall of the fort reached the women of the fort, including the women of the royal family, they decided to end their lives by consuming poison. At that moment a minister of Dahir’s court came running to them and said that the Muslims were so lecherous that they rape even the dead body of a kafir woman. So, the Hindu women of the fort immediately decided to destroy their bodies by jumping into fire.Then a great fire was made and all the women burnt themselves to escape humiliation and sexual assault of the lecherous Muslims. The practice was, later on, called Jauhar.

It is well known that, during the Muslim period of Indian history, thousands and thousands of Rajput women sacrificed their lives in Jauhar to save their honour and respect. There was another practice prevalent among the Muslim rulers. On the event of death of a Hindu fighter of their army in a battle, they used to bring the wife of the dead warrior into their harem. But the reluctant Hindu widows chose to burn themselves in the fire of their husbands’ pyre to avoid to be captured and live the rest of the life as sex slaves in the harems of the lecherous Muslim rulers. The practice was known as Sati (or Suttee). The term is derived from the original name of the goddess Sati, who self-immolated because she was unable to bear humiliation of her husband Shiva. The term sati also stands for a chaste woman. However, the Muslim rulers were against this practice as it meant snatching away the prey from the predator.

The so called secular historians of India , to glorify Akbar, say that Akbar was so great and generous that he wanted to ban the practice of Sati. But the incident they project as a proof of their claim, tells, a completely different story. Jaimull was a cousin of Bhagawandas (probably a minister of Akbar’s court) and his wife’s beauty attracted the attention of Akbar’s lust. One day Akbar sent Jaimull to a distant place on a false pretext and before he commenced his journey, Akbar’s men poisoned him. So Jaimaull died on his way. Jaimaull’s wife could apprehend Akbar’s trick and decided to burn herself on her husband’s pyre to avoid living as a prostitute in Akbar’s harem.. Akbar, on the other hand, lost no time to send his men to capture the widow and those who accompanied her. Thus Akbar succeeded to drag the unwilling widow of Jaimull into his harem. [21]

However, the practice of Sati, or voluntary co-cremation with the dead husband, continued even in the British period. Later on the custom got corrupted and in most cases, unwilling widows were burnt by the relatives of the deceased husband to grab his properties and riches. And thus, Sati, once a noble practice, became infamous.The first formal British ban on Sati was imposed in 1798, in the city of Calcutta only, by the effort of Raja Rammohan Roy and Lord William Bentinck, the then Governor General of the British East India Company.

However, after that tragic incident, the Chittorgarh Fort was abandoned for ever and none of the descendants Rana Uday Singh set his foot on the Chittor Fort. All the Kings of Mewar, including Rana Pratap Singh, used Udaypur as their capital the Udaypur Fort as the seat of the government. So, the Chittor Fort gradually turned into a desolate thicket.


[1] R.C. Majumdar, H.C. Raychaudhury and K. Datta, An Advanced History of India, Macmillan & Co (1980), 439.

[2] R. C, Majumdar, The History and Cultures of the Indian People, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan (in 12 Vols) , VII ,106.

[3] H.M. Elliot and J. Dowson, The History of India -As Told by Its Own Historians (in 8 volumes), Low Price Publication, Delhi (1996) VI, 164.

[4] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, Oxford Clarendon Press, 50.

[5] Akbar The Great A Tyrannical Monarch

[6] V. A. Smith, ibid, 294.

[7] R C Majumdar, ibid, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, VII, 308..

[8] R C Majumdar, ibid, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, VII, 306

[9] R C Majumdar, ibid, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, VII, 307.

[10] C Roy, Bharater Itihas (in Bengali), Maulik Library, Calcutta (1985), I, 16.

[11] Babur’s Memoirs, Tr by John Leyden and William Erskine, Revised by Sir Lucal King, p 125-126 (as quoted by P N Oak, Islamic Havoc in Indian History, ibid, 268).

[12] V.A. Smith, ibid, 20.

[13] Shelat J.M, Akbar, Bharatiya Vidya Bhawan, 1964, Bombay , 27.

[14] P N Oak, Islamic Havoc in Indian History, ibid, 305.

[15] V.A. Smith, ibid, 90.

[16] P N Oak, Islamic Havoc in Indian History, ibid, 302

[17].R C Majumdar, ibid, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, VII, 334.

[18] R C Majumdar, ibid, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, VII, 122.

[19] .R C. Majumdar, H.C. Raychaudhury and K. Datta, ibid, (1980), 443.

[20] V.A. Smith, ibid, 91.

[21] V.A. Smith, ibid, 103.

Also read the Part 1 Part 2Part 3Part 4Part 5 and Part 6 of this series. Next article is here:- Part 8.

Blog at