The Candid Eye

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)

References:

[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.

Advertisements

August 2, 2009

Distortions of Indian history – Part 8

Picture of Akbar

Original source:- Article by Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari

What Akbar really was:

When the Part 5A of the current series of articles DISTORTION OF INDIAN HISTORY FOR MUSLIM APPEASEMENT, was posted on the FFI, a reader commented, “Historians site two historic rulers of India as ‘the great’. One is Buddhist Asoka. The next is Muslim Akbar. The subcontinent has been the abode of Hindus throughout history, but why has there not been a single Hindu ruler who could earn the honorific ‘The great’? Why couldn’t Hinduism produce one? What is wrong with Hinduism?” In this context, I would request the reader to note that Hindus do not write Holy Vedas, Holy Upanishads or Holy Bhagavadgita and so on, because the Hindu religious scriptures are really holy.

In a similar manner, almost all the Hindu kings were great and hence it is unnecessary to tag them as great.We should quote the comment of another reader, in this regard. He writes, “Unfortunately the Indian History was written by the British colonialists and they wanted to show that British Empire was the best thing for India and after independence Leftist took over. In fact, there were innumerable great Hindu kings. …  Alexander although was able to defeat Porus, a Hindu king, but the fight was so frightening that his soldiers revolted for any further attack on India and thus he started moving backward from there to Greek.” In this context, it should be said that Alexander was badly defeated by King Porus at the Battle of the Hydaspes River. Particularly, the Greek army failed completely to defend the attack by trained elephants of Porus. Moreover, Alexander suffered a mortal wound in that battle which caused his death at Babylon . The Hollywood film Alexander, directed by Oliver Stone, confirms this fact.

However, it should also be mentioned that the history of India , which we read in the history books, has been written according to the guidelines set by the British occupiers and those British rulers were Hindu bashers. But somehow or rather, they could not ignore the greatness of Emperor Ashok. It is to be noted here that the so called secular historians of India try to project Akbar even greater than Emperor Ashok. While commenting on this aspect, V A Smith writes, “Akbar would have laughed at the remorse felt by Ashok for the miseries caused by the conquest of Kalinga, and would have utterly condemned his great predecessor’s decision to abstain from all further wars of aggression.” [1]

We should quote here the comment of another author regarding the greatness of Akbar. He writes, “The personality and nature of Akbar has been nicely summed up by the Editor of Father Monserrate’s Commentarius. The editor’s introduction states, “In the long line of Indian sovereigns, the towering personalities of Ashoka and Akbar (because of his dread) stand high above the rest… Akbar’s greed for conquest and glory and his lack of sincerity form a marked contrast to Ashoka’s paternal rule, genuine self-control and spiritual ambition. Akbar’s wars were those of a true descendent of Timur, and had all the gruesome associations which this fact implies. … His character with its mixture of ambition and cunning has now been laid bare. He has been rightly compared to a pike in a pond preying upon his weaker neighbours.”[2] He also writes, “With his treacherous nature and the unlimited power than he wielded over a vast region qualifies him to be one of the foremost tyrants and sadists in India ’s history, or perhaps, even world history. He was no less cruel a tyrant than any of his ancestors.” [2]

The so called secular historians of India also assert that, since Akbar was born and died in India , he must be accepted as an Indian monarch. In this context, V A Smith writes, “Akbar was a foreigner in India . He had not a drop of Indian blood in his veins.” [3] To elaborate this point, P N Oak writes, “Akbar was a direct descendant in the 7th generation on his father’s side from Tamerlain (or Taimur)  and on the mother’s side from Chengiz Khan.” [4] He also writes, “Intemperance was the besetting sin of the Timuroid royal family, as it was of many other ruling Muslim houses. …Babur was an elegant toper. … Humayun made himself stupid with opium. …Akbar permitted himself the practice of both vices.” [5]

Whosoever has studied even a bit of Islam, has seen that the concepts like nationality, nationalism, patriotism or love for the motherland etc are absent in Islam. On the contrary, Islam imposes the concept of Millat and Kufr and divides the entire humanity into two groups, namely Momems (or Muslims) and Kafirs. The aggregate of all the Muslims is called Islamic Umma. As a result, Muslims have no loyalty to the country where they live. They have loyalty to the Islamic Umma and to the Islamic holy places, Mecca and Medina . From this view point,even the converted Muslims, who live in India , are not Indians. They have no loyalty to India and to its history and culture, and that is the reason, they refuse to sing India ’s National Song “Vande Mataram” (I worship my motherland). They are loyal to Allah, loyal to Islam and Islamic Umma, and loyal to Mecca and Medina . They can be called resident non-Indians but not IndiansSo it is not difficult to understand that Akbar’s Indian-ness is a myth.

Another reader has expressed a completely different view. He writes, “Why would historians paint Akbar good to please Muslims doesn’t make sense. Because, Akbar was not a Muslim himself. He was the follower of Din e Elahi, a religion founded by himself which had elements of Hinduism and Islam in it. Just because he had a Muslim name doesn’t make him Muslim.” In this context, it should be said that Akbar preached his religion at the fag end of his life and hence through most of his life, he was a Muslim. If a robber commits robbery throughout his life and abandons it just before his death, should he be called a robber or an innocent gentleman! Despite his preaching of his new religion Din-i-Ilahi, many believe that “Akbar was born a muslim, lived like a muslim and died as a muslim; that too a very fanatic one.” [2]

At this point, it should be made clear that, Akbar preached his new religion Din-i-Ilahi not out of his respect for other religion, but for his personal glorification. He wanted to be a prophet, like Muhammad, by inventing and floating this new religion. “He understood the trick of Muhammad and wanted to be another Muhammad with a new religion din-i-Ilahi”, says a commentator. In this context, we should mention another aspect of Akbar’s life that reflects his intense desire to project himself as a religious personality.  Xavier, a Jesuit in Akbar’s court, gives a typical instance of Akbar’s perfidy in making people drink water in which his feet had been washed. [2] While commenting on this aspect, V A Smith writes, “Xavier writes, Akbar posed “as a Prophet, wishing it to be understood that he works miracles through healing the sick by means of the water in which he washed the feet.” [6]

 To lure the Hindus to his new religion, he proposed to repeal Jejya (Poll Tax) and pilgrimage tax and ban of cow slaughter. But they were never implemented. So the author of Akbar: The Great Tyrannical Monarch writes, “The infamous Jiziya tax, which is special tax exaction from the Hindus, was never abolished by Akbar. Time and time again different people had approached seeking exemption from Jiziya. Everytime the exemption was ostensibly issued, but never was actually implemented.” [2]

Many believe that Akbar, who might be a lecher and a diabolic killer, not an iconoclast and he did not demolish Hindu temples. As a matter of fact, Akbar was mainly concerned with his personal glorification, money and women and hence might not have found much time to concentrate on the matter of desecrating Hindu temples and breaking Hindu Idols.

However, Akbar’s hands were not clean from this sin. While commenting on this aspect of Akbar , Col Tod writes,“Not only that he forcibly annihilated innumerable humans, he also had no respect for temples and deities and willingly indulged in destruction of such places of worship. ).” [7] “Throughout Akbar’s reign, temples used to razed to the ground or misappropriated as mosques and cows were slaughtered in them, as happened in the battle at Nagarkot. No symbol of Hindu origin and design was spared from the iconoclastic wrath of Akbar.” [2]

While commenting on this aspect of Akbar, V A Smith writes, “The holy Hindu cities of Prayag and Banaras , were plundered by Akbar because their residents were rash enough to close their gates! No wonder Prayag of today has no ancient monuments — whatever remain are a rubble! It is rather obvious that Akbar had no respect and reverence for cities considered holy by Hindus, let alone esteem for human life and property. Also, it is evident from this instance that Akbar’s subjects were horrified and scared upon the arrival of their king into their city. If at all Akbar was so magnanimous, why then did not the people come forward and greet him?” [8]

Monserrate, a contemporary of Akbar, writes, “The religious zeal of the Musalmans has destroyed all the idol temples which used to be numerous. In place of Hindu temples, countless tombs and little shrines of wicked and worthless Musalmans have been erected in which these men are worshipped with vain superstition as though they were saints. Not only did the muslims destroy the idols, but usurped the existing temples and converted them into tombs of insignificant people.”[9]

He further continues, “Akbar has neither any love or compassion for Hindus as is apparent from the above examples. Hindus were openly despised and contemptously treated under Akbar’s fanatical rule as under any other rule. Akbar was only one of the many links of the despotic and cruel Moghal rule in India , and enforced the tradition of his forefathers with sincerity and equal ruthlessness.”[9]

Akbar’s shameless court flatterers, to please their master, have painted him as the most handsome man on the earth and our secular and Marxist historians are also following those flatterers. But Akbar’s physique was anything but handsome. Historian V A Smith, in this regard, writes, “Akbar (in mid-life) was a man of moderate stature, perhaps 5’7” in height, broad-chested, narrow waisted and long armed. His legs were somewhat bowed inward and when walking he slightly dragged the left leg, as if he were lame. His head drooped a little toward the right shoulder. … The nose was rather short, with a bony prominence in the middle and nostrils dilated as if with anger.  …and his complexion was dark.” [10] So a commentator writes, “Not only was this guy a barbarian, he was also very ugly.”

 

Akbar’s Lechery:

It has been said earlier that Akbar was mainly concerned with personal glory, money and women and his wars and conquests were aimed to achieve these three goals. So the author of Akbar; the great tyrannical monarch, writes, “Akbar 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.” [2]

Some historians try to project that Akbar practiced monogamy throughout his life. While commenting on this aspect, V A Smith writes, “That Akbar remained monogamous throughout his life is indeed history falsified myth.” [11]He also writes “Akbar, throughout his life, allowed himself ample latitude in the matter of wives and concubines! … Akbar had introduced a whole host of Hindu women, the daughters of eminent Hindu Rajahs, into his harem.” [12] Historian Dr A L Srivastava has given a detail account in his Akbar the Great,  how Akbar coerced the rulers of Jaipur for sending his daughters to Akbar’s harem [2]

Historian J M Shelat writes,”After the “Jauhar” that followed the killing of Rani Durgawati, the two women left alive, Kamalavati (sister of Rani Durgawati) and the daughter of the Raja of Purangad (daughter-in-law of the deceased queen) were sent to Agra to enter Akbar’s harem.” [13] “It should also be observed that admittance into Akbar’s harem was available mainly to virgins and others’ were “disqualified”. In spite of such disgusting and lewd personal affairs, inducting women of abducted or killed Hindu warriors into his harem as slaves and prostitutes; it is bewildering that Akbar is hailed as a righteous and noble emperor.” [2]

To describe Akbar’s uxorious character, V A Smith writes, “Abul Fazl never tires of repeating that Akbar during his early years remained ‘behind the veil’. What he means thereby is that Akbar used to spend most of his time in his harem.” [14] Akbar habitually drank hard and used to have, for the most of the day, licentous relations with women of his harem. There is no doubt that, both drinking and engaging in debauched sexual activities was inherited by Akbar from his Tartar ancestors. [2]

To describe Akbar’s infinite lewdness, Abul Fazl in his Ain-i-Akbari, writes, “His majesty has established a wine shop near the palace … The prostitutes of the realm collected at the shop could scarcely be counted, so large was their number .. The dancing girls used to be taken home by the courtiers. If any well known courtier wanted to have a virgin they should first have His Majesty’s [Akbar’s] permission.” [15] He also writes that, His Majesty [Akbar] himself used to call these prostitutes and ask them who had deprived them of their virginity?“This was the state of affairs during Akbar’s rule, where alcoholism, sodomy, prostitution and murderous assaults were permitted by the king himself. The conditions of the civic life during Akbar’s life is shocking!”[16]

“Whole of India was reduced to a brothel during the Moghal rule and Akbar, one of the Emperors, is being glorified as one of the patrons of the vast brothel. The above instances may suffice to convince the impartial reader that Akbar’s whole career was a saga of uninhibited licentiousness backed by the royal brute.” [2]Who were these so called prostitutes? Wherefrom did a whole army of prostitutes suddenly descend on Akbar’s realm, like swarm of locusts? “The answer is that these ever-increasing prostitutes were none other than decent Hindu women whose homes were daily raided and plundered and their men-folk were either massacred or converted, were haplessly left to fend for themselves and exposed to the mercy of the sex hungry Mussalman courtiers.” [16]

Akbar had made it a pernicious custom to demand choicest women from the household of vanquished foes.  Thus all the women in territories conquered by Akbar, whether a commoner, or of noble or royal descend, were at Akbar’s mercy. According to this custom, all the Rajput kings who had submitted to Akbar, were forced to sent their daughters or sisters to Akbar’s harem, where they had to live as sex-slaves. Raja Man Singh of Jaipur had to offer his sister to Akbar. Akbar’s cruelty towards the Hindu women, kidnapped and shut up in his harem, were staggering and his much vaunted marriages, said to have been contracted for communal integration and harmony, were nothing but outrageous kidnappings brought about with the force of arms. It has been mentioned earlier, how the Rajput women of the Chittor Fort sacrificed their lives in Jauhar to avoid this disgrace and humiliation.

Only in one occasion, the said custom was slackened and when the Treaty of Ranathambhor between Akbar and the chiefs of Bundi (who owned the fort) was made, the first condition of the said treaty read that the chiefs of Bundi be exempt from the custom, degrading to a Rajputs, of sending a ‘bride’ to the royal harem. To narrate the incident, V A Smith writes, “A treaty was drawn up on the spot, and mediated by the prince of Amber {Jaipur], which presents a good picture of Hindu feeling. [The terms were] (1) that the chiefs of Bundi should be exempted from that custom, degrading to a Rajput, of sending a dola [bride] to the royal harem; (2) exemption from jizya or poll-tax; (3) that the chiefs of Bundi should not be compelled to cross the Attock; (4) that the vassals of Bundi should be exempted from the obligation of sending their wives or female relatives ‘to hold a stall in the Mina bazaar’ at the palace, on the festival of Nauroza [New Year’s Day] and so on. [17]

In the middle of Jan 1562, Akbar made a pilgrimage to the tomb of Khwaja Mainuddin Chisti of Ajmir. On the way, Raja Bihari Mal of Amber entered a peace treaty with Akbar and, according to the said custom, Raja Bihari Mal offered him the hand of his daughter in marriage to Akbar. However, the princess later on became the mother of emperor Jahangir.

Even the Muslim women were not safe from Akbar’s lust. In 1564, Akbar compelled one Shaikh of Delhi to divorce his wife in his favour[18] Akbar had an eye on Bairam Khan’s wife and married her soon after Bairam Khan was murdered. Akbar did not hesitate to have caused this violent and tragic end of his erstwhile guardian for the satiation of his lust. In this context, it should also be mentioned that, in 1558, when Bairam was more than 50, he married his 19 year old cousin Salima begam. Meanwhile, Bairam was sacked and Akbar asked him to go to Mecca and on his way to Mecca, Bairam Khan was assassinated on 31st January, 1561, at Patan by some Afghans. Akbar was then 19 year old and hence Akbar and Salima Begam were of the same age. [19]  This is a fine example of fight between two lechers, just like fighting of dogs in their mating season.

 

In this way Akbar, with the army of forcefully abducted women, created a harem of 5000 inmates, in the capital city of Agra . While commenting on it, V A Smith writes, “The imperial harem constituted a town in itself. No less than 5000 women dwelt within the walls, and each of them had a separate apartment. The maintenance and control of such a multitude of women necessitated a carefully devised system of internal administration and the organization of adequate arrangements for discipline. The inmates were divided into sections, each under a female commandant (daroga), and due provision was made for the supply from the ranks of clerks to keep the accounts. A strict method of check was applied to the expenditure, which was on a large scale.” [20] Smith further continues, “The inside of the enclosure was protected by armed female guards. Eunuchs watched on the outside of it, and beyond them again were companies of faithful Rajputs, while troops of other classes posted at a greater distance gave further security.” [20] 

 

Though, following Abul Fazl, Smith wrote above that ‘each of the inmates of the harem were provided with a separate apartment, but in Agra there is not even a single building with 5000 separate rooms. So, the above conclusion is a lie. One can, therefore, easily understand in what wretched condition these unfortunate women were condemned to live. Itmad-ud-daula, the father-in-law of Jehangir, has thrown some light on some other features of the inmates of this harem. If someone had given birth to a female child, she was saved because in future she could be used as a sex-slave. But, if anyone happened to give birth to a male child, he used to be murdered or blinded as in future he could never pose a threat to the throne. It may be mentioned here that, another lecher Ferozshah Tughloq, used to get the private part of the women of his harem sewed, to be sure that they were not having sex with other man.

However, Akbar’s lechery was not confined to his harem of 5000 women and P N Oak, while commenting on this matter, writes, “Despite an exclusive harem of 5,000 women, and all the virgin prostitutes of the realm whose virginity, as Abul Fazl tells us, was at Akbar’s exclusive royal command and could not be violated without special permission by any courtier, the honour of the wives of noblemen and courtiers was itself always subject to Akbar’s sexy pleasure.” [21] Akbar did not spare even the wives of the ministers and nobles of his court, if they happened to draw attention of Akbar’s lust.

To highlight this point, Abul Fazl writes, “Whenever Begams or wives of nobles, or other women of chaste character, desire to be presented, they first notify their wish to the servants of the seraglio and wait for reply. From thence they send their requests to the officers of the palace after which those who are eligible (sic) are permitted to enter the harem. Some women of rank obtained permission to remain there for a whole month.”[2] The above passage is a clear admission that Akbar used to compel wives of courtiers and noblemen, toward whom he felt sufficiently attracted to remain within his harem at least for a month at a time.

To expose another feature of Akbar’s lechery, V A Smith writes, “Grimon’s statement that Akbar had confined himself to one wife and distributed his other consorts among the courtiers is not directly confirmed from other sources.” [22] “This adds a new dimension to Akbar’s lechery because it reveals how women were considered as mere chattel to be freely exchanged among Akbar and his courtiers in a continuous round of sex-traffic.” [19] “Then there was the notorious institution of Meena Bazar, according to which on New Year’s Day, the women of all households had to be paraded before Akbar for his choosing.” [19]

It has been mentioned earlier that Muhammad Ghori, Qutb-ud-din and Iltutmish were sodomites. It has also been mentioned that Babur, Akbar’s grandfather, has given a lengthy description of this sodomic infatuation for a male sweetheart in hia auto-biography. Humayun was no different. Therefore, sodomy was also a precious service of Akbar’s own family… Though, perhaps, Akbar did not engage in sodomy, but many believe that he allowed” it to be practiced by his servants, courtiers and sycophats. Abul Fazal in Ain-e-Akbari provides accounts of some such acts which are too disgusting to even mention. Such perverse gratification was prevalent during the entire Mughal rule, including  Akbar’s times.

 

 

References:

[1] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, Oxford Clarendon Press, 32..

[2] Akbar The Great A Tyrannical Monarch – http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/akbar_ppg.html

[3] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, ibid, 7..

[4] P N Oak, Islamic Havoc in Indian History, Published by A Ghosh, 298.

[5] P N Oak, Islamic Havoc in Indian History, ibid, 294.

[6] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, ibid, 189.

[7] J Todd, Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan, 2 volumes, Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd., London ,  1957, II, 259.

[8] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, ibid, 58.

[9] S J Monserrate, “The Commentary,” translated from original Latin by J.S. Hoyland, annotated by S.Banerjee, Humphrey Milford, Oxford Univ. Press, London , (1922),.27.

[10] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, ibid, 242.

[11] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, ibid, 47.

[12] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, ibid, 212..

[13] J M Shelat, “Akbar,” Bharatiya Vidya Bhawan, 1964, Bombay. , 90.

[14] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, ibid, 31.

[15] Blochmann, H., “Ain-e-Akbari,” translation of Abul Fazal’s Persian text, 2nd Edition, Bibliotheca Indica Series, published by the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal., 276.

[16] P N Oak, Islamic Havoc in Indian History, ibid, 300.

[17] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, ibid, 99.

[18] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, ibid, 47.

[19] P N Oak, Islamic Havoc in Indian History, ibid, 301.

[20] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, ibid, 359.

[21] P N Oak, Islamic Havoc in Indian History, ibid, 300.

[22] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, ibid, 185.

Also read the Part 1  , Part 2 , Part 3 , Part 4 , Part 5 , Part 6 and Part 7 of this series. Next article is here:- Part 9.

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.

References:

[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 http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/akbar_ppg.html

[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.

July 25, 2009

Distortions of Indian history – Part 6

Original Source: Article by  Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari, the great historian who has done extensive research on Indian History.  Excerpts and additions to original source follow:

Akbar, The Great (?) Monarch:

It is really amazing and ridiculous that, not only the so called pseudo secular and the Marxist historians of India , but also the Western historians portray the Mughal emperor Akbar as a great monarch. But are there sufficient grounds to project him as a great man? The Indian historians, according to the guideline set by the ongoing politics of Muslim appeasement, have to glorify each and every Muslim ruler including Akbar as a compulsion. But it is really incomprehensible why the historians of the West are also in the race in glorifying Akbar, who, in reality, was a foreign invader and came to India to plunder this country.  Akbar  possessed three qualities – treachery, lechery and butchery. In several occasions, Akbar played vile treachery with the Hindu kings. Akbar was a cruel killer, who butchered innocent Hindus in millions. As a lecher, Akbar maintained a harem of 5000 women, most of whom were abducted Hindu housewives. So it is necessary to make a fresh estimate of Akbar to asses his greatness.Akbar, widely considered the greatest of the Mughal emperors, was only 14 when he ascended the throne in Delhi, by defeating the Hindu king Samrat Hem Raj Vikramaditya, also called Himu at the Second Battle of Panipat. He was descended from Turks, Mongols, and Iranians — the three peoples who predominated in the political elites of northern India in medieval times. He consolidated his power, during first two decades of his reign and bring parts of northern and central India into his realm. He also reduced external military threats from the Pashtun (Afghan), the descendants of Sher Shah, by waging wars against Afghan. He also solidified his rule in India by pursuing diplomacy with the powerful Rajput rulers of northern part of the country, and by admitting Rajput princesses in his harem. [1] Akbar was raised by his uncle Askari and his wife in the eastern country of Persia and Afghanistan.He spent his youth learning to hunt, run, and fight, but he never learned to read and write. The so called pseudo-secular and Marxist historians paint Akbar as a generous, kind hearted tolerant king free from religious bigotry, and a genius with refined tastes in the arts, architecture, music and literature. But it is to be seen, how far their portrayal is true.

In this article, we will look into Akbar’s encounter with Samrat Hem Raj Vikramaditya.

 

Picture of Samrat Hem Raj Vikramaditya

Picture of Samrat Hem Raj Vikramaditya

It has been mentioned earlier that Sher Shah Suri ascended the throne of Delhi on May 17, 1540, by defeating Humayun in a battle near Kannauj and he died in an accident in 1545 AD, in Kalinjar. After his death, anarchy appeared again. The nobles made Jalal Khan, the second son of Sher Shah, the Sultan of Delhi , depriving the eldest Adil Khan as the latter was incompetent, lazy, and ease-loving. After ascending the throne, Jalal Khan assumed the title of Islam Shah. Soon after, a group of nobles made a conspiracy to murder Islam Shah and put Adil Khan on the throne. But the plan divulged and Islam Shah put all the conspirators to the sword.

Chaos after the Death of Sher Shah:

 

On November 22, 1554, Islam Shah, after ruling for 9 years and 6 months, died and his nobles put his minor son Firuz on to the throne. But after a few months, Mubariz Khan, a cousin of Firuz, murdered him and ascended the throne assuming the new name of Muhammad Adil Shah. But he was unsuitable as a ruler. On the other hand, the news of Islam Shah’s death inspired Humayun to invade India and recover his lost territory. At this juncture, Bairam Khan came to Humayun’s help that enhanced his strength considerably and enabled him to re-conquer Kabul, News of these developments made Adil Shah very shaky and he gave up all the responsibilities to his most trusted employee Himu, a Hindu officer, and this incident facilitated Himu to raise himself as the most important man in North Indian politics.

This was the time when the star of Himu’s fortune shone brightest- Adil Shah appointed him the Wzir (Prime Minister) and the incident initiated his rapid rise. But most of the Muslim historians did not like an infidel to hold the highest post in the court of a Muslim king and hence they tried to blacken his character it at every opportunity.

Who this Himu was ? Historian R. C, Majumdar, in this regard, writes, “Himu was born in a poor family of Dhansar section of the Baniya caste, living in a town in the southern part of Alwar”.[2]  Muslim historian Badayuni has described him as a resident of a small town called Rewari in the taluk of Mewat, and according to him, Himu began his life as a green vendor.[2] Others believe that Himu was a hawker in the town of Mewat.[2]However, at a certain stage, he succeeded to draw the attention of Adil Shah, who appointed him the Superintendent of the Delhi market. But by dint of his sincerity and sense of responsibility, he became a favourite of Adil, who started to elevate him to more and more responsible posts. When Adil Shah died, Himu was the Chief of the Intelligence Department and, at the same time, the Head of the Postal Department (Daroga-i-Dak Chowki).

To introduce Himu, the Muslim historian Ahmmad Yadgar, in his Tarikh-I-Salatin-i-Afghana, writes,“There was a man named Himu, who was a weighman in the bazar, who found means to approach the King on different affairs, and in whom he daily reposed more and more confidence. By degrees he became very powerful and influential, so that he managed the business of the State”. [3]

At that time, Junaid Khan, the governor of Bayana, and his son, the phaujdar of Ajmir  rebelled. Adil Shah sent Jamal Khan against him with a large force. But in a severe battle at Kanulapur, Junaid became victorious. The incident made Adil Shah very depressed. Then Himu said, “O Lord of the World, if you will trust me with a small force, I will either overcome Junaid Khan, or perish in the attempt”. [4] The King yielded to his solicitations and sent Himu with 3000 or 4000 horsemen and four war-elephants. Junaid deputed his assistant Daulat Khan to defend Himu. A battle was fought and Daulat Khan was defeated and slain.

Then Junaid himself advanced with 8000 strong cavalry to confront Himu, while Himu had only 3000 horses. So he decided to attack the enemy in the darkness of night and Ahremad Yadgar, in his Tarikh-i-Salatin-i-Afghana, writes, “The enemy remained on the alert during the three watches of the night; but in the last watch they grew negligent and fell asleep, The soldiers of Adil Shah fell furiously on them on all sides. Himu did not give the time to put enemy their armour and the Afghans, sword in hand, passed through their enemy slaughtering all they met.”[5] Himu then went to the court of Adil Shah and Yadgar writes, “He (Himu) then stood with folded hands in front of the throne. Adil Shah honoured him with a purple khilat (garment), the coller and the skirt of which were covered with jewels”.[6]

At that time, Ibrahim Khan, a cousin of Adil Shah and the governor of Agra , rebelled. Adil Shah sent a detachment against him, but Ibrahim routed them. Then Ibrahim marched towards Delhi and ultimately occupied the city. Inspired by the success of Ibrahim, Ahmmad Khan Sur, the governor of Lahore and brother-in-law of Adil, assumed the name Sikandar Shah and rebelled. In the east, Muhammad Khan Sur, the governor of Bengal revolted and assumed the title of Shamsuddin Muhammad Ghazi. So the empire of Sher Shah Suri got divided into four parts, Delhi and Agra went to Ibrahim Khan, Punjab went to Sikandar Shah, Bengal to Shamsuddin Muhammad and the remaining part under the control of Adil Shah.

Meanwhile, in 1555, Sikandar Shah invaded Delhi , in a severe battle he defeated Ibrahim and thus Delhi went under the control of Sikandar. On the other hand, the rivalry among the Afghans provided a great opportunity for the Mughals to recover their lost empire. In November 1554, Humayun left Kabul , advanced towards Lahore , and in February 1555, gained control over the city almcst without any resistance. Then Sikandar Shah marched against Humayun with a 30,000 strong cavalry. A severe battle took place at Machhiara near Ludhiana and Sikandar Shah suffered a complete defeat. Sikandar then marched again against Humayun with 80,000 horsemen, but he was again defeated in a battle near Sirhind and fled to Sivallk Hills.

 

Ascendency of Himu:

In that hour of crises, Adil Shah Appointed Himu the Wazir, or the Prime Minister of his court and handed over civil, military, finance and, in fact, every other responsibility to him. It is really surprising that Adil Shah, a Muslim king, selected a Hindu kafir for the highest position of his government, and there is no doubt that had Adil could find Muslim candidate suitable for the post, he would certainly not have selected an infidel like Himu for the post. The incident shows that the competency of Himu, for the post, was beyond any dispute.

After assuming the new responsibility, Himu at once marched against Ibrahim and defeated him twice, first at Kalpi and then at Khanwa. To narrate Himu’s victory, Nizamuddin Ahmroad in his Tabakat-i-Akbari, writes,“Adil now sent, the bakkal, who was the Wazir, with a large force, and with 500 war-elephants and artillery, against Agra and Delhi . When Himu reached Kalpi, he resolved to dispose of Ibrahim first and hastened to meet him. A great battle followed, in which Himu was victorious, and Ibrahim fled to his father at Bayana, Himun followed and Invested Bayana, which he besieged for three months”.[7] Himu then marched against Muhammad Shah and a battle was fought at Chhapparghatta , a place 20 miles away from Kalpi. Muhammad Shah was defeated and Himu gained control over Bengal.[8]

 

Following the chaos over the succession of Islam Shah (Sher Khan Suri’s son), as mentioned above,Humayun reconquered Delhi in 1555, with the help of an army partly provided by his Persian ally Shah Tahmasp.But a few months later, on January 26, 1556, Humayun died and Bairam Khan, the guardian of Akbar, cleverly concealed the report of Humayun’s death in order to prepare for Akbar’s accession to the throne. On February 24, 1556, Akabar, a 13 year-old boy, was proclaimed Shahanshah (Persian for “King of Kings”) of Hindustan . by Bairam Khan at Kalanaur (GurdaspurPunjab).

 

At that time, Himu sought permission of Adil to attack Delhi . Ahmmad Yadgar narrates, “Himun went in front of the throne and said, “O King, the case is this; he (Akbar) is now a child of ten years old, who has lost his father, and the Mughal army is not yet firmly established. It is easy to root up a small plant”. Adil Shah derived confidence from his speech and prepared a powerful force. He sent 7000 horsemen and 20 war-elephants with Himun, who went march by march to Gwalior”.[9] From Gwallor, Himu advanced towards Agra and Adil Shah, on the other hand, went to the safe place at the fort of Chunar.

 

As Himu got closer to Agra , frightened Iskandar Khan, the Mughal governor of the city, fled to Delhi . So Himu occupied Agra practically without resistance and then the victorious Wazir marched towards Delhi . Alikuli Khan, the Mughal governor of Delhi , also prepared a strong force to confront Himu and a fierce battle followed. Ahmmad Yadgar, to narrate the incident, writes, “When Himu saw that the Mughals were in good spirit and the Afghans disheartened, he advanced with his own division and routed them. They (Mughals) were unable to rally, and as they were utterly defeated, they took to flight. Himu pursued them and slaughtered many, … So much plunder of Mughal army fell into Himun’s hands that it was impossible to take an account of it -160 elephants, l000 horses of Arab breed and an immense quantity of property and valuables”. [10]

 

Then victorious Himu entered Delhi and Nizamuddin Ahmmad, in his Tarikh -i-Akbari , writes,”Himun had greatly vaunted his achievements at Delhi and had taken to himself the title of Raja Bikrsmjit”.[11] To narrate the same victory, Ahmmad Yadgar, in his Tarikh-i-Salatin-i-Afghana, writes, “Himun rejoiced this victory, sent an account of his success, together with the Spoils captured from the Mughals, to Adll Shah, who was exceedingly pleased when he received it,…He (Adil Shah) gave a great festival and sent Himun a dress of honour, adorned with jewels and worked with gold threads”[12] Ahmmad Yadgar continues to write,” … he (Himu) entered Delhi, raised the Imperial Canopy over him and ordered coins to be struck in his name. He appointed a governor (of Delhi) of his own and brought the Delhi territory and the neighbouring parganas under his control and in order to console the King, he sent an account of the victory in these words,”Your slave, by the royal fortune, has routed the Mughal army, … but I hear that Humayun’s son commands a numerous force and advancing against Delhi”.[13]

 

Himu’s Misfortune:

 

The news of defeat of the Mughal governor of Delhi and the skill and braveiy of Himu reached the Mughal prince Akber in time. Nearly 10 months later, Akbar, with a great force of 26,000 horsemen under the command of Bairam Khan marched towards Delhi . So Ahmmad Yadgar, in his Tarikh-i-Salatin-i-Afghana,writes, “He (Akbar) marched without halting, with Bairam Khan. …When they reached Thanesar, a census was taken of the army, which was found to consist of 26,000 horsemen”. [14] And to describe Himu’s army, Nizamuddin Ahmmad in his Tarikh-i-Akbari, writes, “He (Himu) had gathered under his command a mighty force and had 1600 war-elephants. With those, he hastened to meet the Imperial (Mughal) army”. [15]

 

The battle began in the morning on 5th November, 1556, at Panipat and to describe the same, Nizamuddim Ahmmad writes, “Himun then advanced with his elephants, and made such a determined charge on the Imperial army that the left wing was shaken…. Himu then drew off his forces, and made an assault upon the centre, which was under the command of Khan-Zaman. He led all his elephants against the Khan’s men, who received him with shower of Arrows. An arrow pierced the eye of Hemun, and came out at the back of his head. When those who were fighting under him saw his condition, their hands were paralyzed, and they broke. The Imperial forces pursued them, and cut many of then, to pieces.” [16] According to Abul Fazl, Himu had divided his army into three divisions and he himself was leading the central division with 500 elephants and 20,000 Afghan and Rajput horsemen. [17] So, many believe, when Himu was on the verge of winning the this battle, the accident occured, leading to his defeat.

 

Ahmad Yadgar had tried to invent a reason for Himu’s defeat, which is extremely incredible. He writes,“The evening preceding the day on which he (Himu) expected the battle, he went to the sanctified mausoleum Kutub-ul-Aktab of His Highness Kutb-ul-Hakk, (the pole-star of religion of Islam), ……and placing the head of entreaty on the august threshold, vowed that, if he were destined to conquer Delhi, if the throne of Delhi were granted to him, he would become a Musulman on his return to Delhi, and diffuse the religion of Muhammad”[18] Yadgar continues, “The Almighty (Allah) gave them (Mughals) victory. But he (Himu) perjured himself, and did not become a Musulman, or forsake his heathen prejudices; nay, he even persecuted the Musulmans. But at last he saw, what he did see”. [18]

Yadgar also writes that, on the previous night, Himu became extremely disheartened after a dream of bad omen. He writes, ”.. he (Himu) beheld in a dream, a torrent come down and carry away the elephant on which he was mounted. When he was nearly drowned, a Mughal came and cast a chain round his neck, and drew him out”. On the next day, an interpreter said, “The torrent which you saw is the Mughal army,..and the chain signifies; the blood which will flow from your body when you are wounded.” [18] This made Himu much frightened, but he said, “The very reverse of the dream will happen”. [18]

But, in fact, it was Akbar who got frightened by observing the valour of Himu and his mighty force, and Bairam Khan, to inspire him, said, “This is the commencement of His Majesty’s reign. This infidel has routed the whole Mughal army, and is now making preparations against us. If you do your best in this business, with one heart and soul, Hindustan is yours. I place my trust in Allah. If we fail in this, you, whose homes are at a distance of 500 kos (1000 miles), will not be able to find an sylum”. [19]

 

However, the military skill and bravery that Himu displayed in the battle field on November 5, could not have been ignored by even the Muslim historians. So Ahmmad Yadgar writes, “Himu, having made himself ready for action came out into the plain, and seated himself in a howda on an elephant in order the that he might be able to overlook and superintend his troops, …. Bairan Khan also drew up the people of Chaghatai to the right and left in battle array,.. Bairam Khan placed Akbar Mirza’s own private tent in an elevated position, and left 3000 horse to guard him, … Himu was excessively arrogant on account of his troops and elephants. He advanced, fought, and routed the Mughals, whose heads lay in heaps, and whose blood flowed in streams. He thus at first vanquished the Mughals……” [20]

 

But fortune was not with Himu and his victory turned into a defeat due to an accident and Ahmmad Yadgar writes, “… by the decree of the Almighty, an arrow struck Himu in the forehead. He told his elephant driver to take the elephant out of the field of battle, then the Afghans saw that the animal was retreating, they believed that Himun was flying. … as no benefit is ever derived from disloyalty, he Sustained a complete defeat”. [20]

 

To narrate the same incident, Vincent Smith writes, “On November 5, Himu succeeded in throwing both the right and the left wings of his opponents into confusion, and sought to make his victory decisive by bringing all his mountain-like elephants to bear on the centre of the enemy, commanded by Khan Zaman. Probably he would have won but for the accident that he was struck in the eye by an arrow which pierced his brain and rendered him unconscious” [21]

 

Akbar’s Display of Greatness:

After the battle was ended, in accordance with the ghastly custom of the times, a tower was built with the heads of the slain. This “tower of heads” tradition and ceremony was religiously observed by the “magnanimous” Akbar, like his ancestors.

According to Yadgar, Alikuli Khan could trace the elephant of Himu in the forest, brought it back and placed Himu before Bairam Khan, and writes, “Bairam Khan … caused Himu to descend from the elephant, after which he bound his hands, and took him before the young and fortunate Prince, and said, “As this is our first success, let your Highness’s own august hand smite this infidel with the sword”. The Prince, accordingly, struck him, and divided his head from his unclean body”. [22]

 

Nizamuddin Ahmmad, to describe the incident, writes, “Shah Kuli Khan,… drove the elephant , along with several others which had been captured in the field, to the presence of the Emperor. Bairam Khan Khan Kanan then put Himu to death with his own hand.” [23] So, according to Nizamuddln Ahmmad, Bairam Khan executed himu with his own hand. And similar was the view maintained by Badayuni, Abul Fazl and Faizi. So, Badayuni writes, “Bairam Khan said, “This is your first war (ghazd), prove your sword on this infidel, for it will be a meritorious deed”, Akbar replied, “He is now no better than a dead man, how can I strike him? If he had sense and strength, I would try my sword”. Then, in the presence of them all, the Khan, the warrior of the faith, cut him down with his sword. Himun’s head was sent to Kabul, and his body to Delhi, to be exposed over the gates”.[23]

 

But according to Vincent Smith, Akbar himself struck Himu with his sword to earn the title of Ghazi , and writes, “Bairam Khan desired Akbar to earm the title of Ghazi, or slayer of the infidel, by fleshing his sword on the captive. The boy naturally obeyed his guardian and smote Hemu on the neck with his scimitar. The bystanders also plunged their swords into the bleeding corpse. Hemu’s head was sent to Kabul to be exposed, and his trunk gibbeted at one of the gates of Delhi “. [24]

He also writes, “Akbar, a boy of fourteen cannot be justly blamed for complying with the instructions of Bairam Khan. … The official story, that a magnanimous sentiment of unwillingness to strike a helpless priso ner already half dead compelled him (Akbar) to refuse to obey his guardian’s instructions, seems to be the late invention of courtly flatterers, and is opposed to the clear statement of Ahmed Yadgar and the Dutch writer, van der Broecke, as well as to the probabilities of the case”. [24] That was the pathetic end of the saga of a great son of Mother India, who tried his best to restore independence of this ancient country, our beloved motherland, by defeating the Muslim invaders and occupiers, but did not succeed only due to a mere accident. Furthermore, it is a matter of great regret that the people of this country have forgotten that great Hindu hero and the fascinating story of his life, achievements and sacrifice.

Akbar’s Subsequent Display of Greatness:

But the tale of Himu did not end with his death. Intelligence came to Akbar that Himu’s father, his widow and other members of his family were living in Alwar, with their properties and wealth, and, on the pretext of a possible revolt by Haji Khan, the governor of Alwar, he sent a detachment to Alwar, under the command of Nasir-ul-mulk, a.k.a, Pir Muhammad. The Mughal has brought the Mewat region under the rule of Delhi and Pir Muhammad executed Himu’s father. To narrate the incident, Abul Fazl, in his Akbamama, writes, “Himu’s father was taken alive, and brought before Nasir-ul-mulk, who tried to convert him to the faith (of Islam); but the old man said, “For eighty years, I have worshipped God in way of my own religion; how can I forsake my faith? Shall I, through fear of death, embrace your religion without understanding it?” Maulana Pir Muhammad treated his question as unheard, but gave an answer with the tongue of the sword”. [25] Immense treasures were taken with the family of Hemu whose aged father was executed.” This “tower of heads” tradition and ceremony was religuously preserved by the “magnanimous” Akbar.

Historian R. C, Majumdar, while offering his respect to Himu, writes, “Such was the noble end of the family of a great Hindu who was born in a humble life, but made his way to the throne of Delhi by dint of sheer ability and military skill – a unique episode in the history of India during the Muslim rule” [26]

Almost all the Muslim chroniclers have tried to paint Himu a traitor and disloyal, because he ascended the throne of Delhi , instead of offering the same to his master Adil Shah. But, in this context, R. C. Majumdar writes“No one today can reasonably claim to know the thoughts in Himu’s mind. But a little reflection will show that there was nothing unreasonable or immoral in the aspiration of Himu. No doubt, personal ambition played a great part, but it may not be altogether wrong to think that he was also inspired by the idea of founding a Hindu Raj. This is supported by his assumption to the title of Vikramaditya”. [27] And, perhaps, most shameful as well as most deplorable is the role of the so called secular and the Marxist historians, the most despicable group of people of independent India who, like the Muslim historians, are continuing their efforts to blacken Himu’s character by portraying him a betrayer to his Muslim Master.

So, the historian R. C. Majumdar, in this context, writes, “Unfortunately, Himu’s history has been written almost wholly by his enemies who dreaded him most, and, far from doing justice to his greatness, they have tarnished his name with unmerited odium. It is time to resuscitate the memory and give a true account of the life of Hemchandra, a really great hero, whose dreams and achievements have been forgotten by his countrymen”.[26]

So, it is really unfortunate that our so called secular historians, following their sinister political guideline of Muslim appeasement, are glorifying the foreign Muslim invaders, including Akbar, by concealing their demonic activities, while projecting a real patriotic fighter, like Himu, as a villain. These people, guided by the said policy of Muslim appeasement and motivated by allurement, are going on writing distorted history of this country and thus depriving the people and their posterity from getting acquainted with their real history.

 

The Muslim rulers who massacred hundreds of thousands of innocent Hindus within a single day in umpteen occasions, these historians are projecting those killers as honest and benevolent rulers. Those blood-thirsty Muslim rulers who, by coercion and torture, converted hundreds of millions of Hindus to Islam at the point of sword, these despicable sub-humans called secular historians are portraying those Muslim despots as noble hearted magnanimous kings. The foreign Muslim invaders who demolished hundreds of thousands of Hindu temples or converted them into mosques, these historians are describing them as generous people liberal in the matter of religion. The abominable and lecherous Muslim invaders, who carried hundreds of thousands of Hindu women and children as captives to the Middle East to be sold as slaves, these wicked historians are painting them as kind and soft-hearted rulers. Those foreign Muslim invaders, who forcibly occupied the forts and palaces of Hindu kings and did not lay a single brick, these historians are highlighting them as great admirers of architecture or great architects, and we fools are cramming those narrations years after years,without assessing the realities of those narrations.

But we, the citizens of free India , have every right to know their true history. They have every right to know, who this Himu was and what were his achievements. We have the right to know the spectacular life of this great son of India , a great patriot who sacrificed his life to defend the foreign occupier Akbar. And, had not by an accident, an arrow pierced Himu’s eye and rendered him unconscious on November 5, 1556, the day on which the Second Battle of Panipat was fought, the people of India would have a different history to read- the chapter of Mughal Dynasty would have been replaced by the Hindu Dynasty of Vikramaditya Heraraj. And at same the time, the hour has arrived to decide who was really Great, Akbar or the Emperor Vikramaditya Hemraj, who now being slighted as Himu.

References:

[1] http://www.culturalindia.net/indian-history/akbar.html,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomb_of_Akbar_the_Great , http://www.boloji.com/history/011.htm

[2] R. C, Majumdar, The History and Cultures of the Indian People, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan (in 12 Vols) , VII ,97
[3] H. M.Elliot and J, Dowson, History of India ; As Told by Its Own Historians, Low Price Publications , Delhi , (in 8 Vols) , V, 48,
[4] H. M. Ellict and J. Dowson, ibid, V, 48.
[5] H. M, Elliot and J. Dowson, ibid, V, 50.
[6] H. M. Hllict and J. Dowson , ibid, V, 51.
[7] H. M. Elliot and J, Dowson, ibid, V, 244
[8] H. M., Elliot and J- Dcwson, ibid, V, 490.
[9] H. M. Elliot and J, Dowson, ibid, V, 59.
[10] H. M. Elliot and J, Dowson, ibid, V, 61
[11] H. M, Elliot and J. Dowson , ibid, V, 252.
[12] H. M- Elliot and J. Dowson, ibid, V, 60,
[13] H. M. Elliot and J. Dowson, ibid, V,61-62,
[14] H. M. Elliot and J. Dowson, ibid, V,62,
[15] H. M. Elliot and J. Dowson, ibid, V, 252.
[16] H. M. Elliot and J. Dowson , ibid, V, 252.
[17] H. M. Elliot and J. Dowson, ibid, V, 252-53.
[18] H. M, Elliot and J. Dcwson, ibid, V, 63.
[19] H. M, Elliot and J, Dowscn, ibid, V, 64.
[20] H. M. Elliot and J. Dowson, ibid, V, 65.
[21] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, Oxford Clarendon Press, 38.
[22] H. M. Elliot and J. Dowson, ibid, V, 66.
[23] H. m. Elliot and J. Dowson, ibid, V, 253.
[24] V. A. Smith, ibid, 39.
[25] H. M. Elliot and J. Dowson, ibid, VI, 21.
[26] R.C. Majumdar, ibid, Bharatiya Vidya Bnavan , VII ,100.
[27] R. C. Majumdar, ibid, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, VII, 101.

Note:- 1st PU History book mentions two lines of Hemu, while devotes 10 pages to Akbar.

Also read the Part 1  , Part 2 , Part 3 , Part 4 and Part 5 of this series. Next article is here:- Part 7.

July 24, 2009

Distortion of Indian history – Part 5

Who built the Grand Trunk Road in India, running from West Bengal in India to Peshawar in Pakistan?

GrandTrunkRoad

If this was a question in general knowledge quiz in India, Sher Shah Khan Suri , the Mughal ruler would come to be answer from anyone who has mugged up the history textbooks.

What is the fact behind this? Who was Sher Shah Khan Suri? How did he rise in power during Mughal encroachments? 

A very interesting description of this all is found in this article by Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari, a renowned Indian Historian.

Sherkhan is often credited for the Grand Trunk Road, along with the water, shelter and trees plantation along the road. However, to quote Dr. Radhasyam Brahmachari, who has done an extensive research on history records and current texts, Sherkhan could hardly have built this HUGE road ranging 6240km, Read on (Original, complete article is here):-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“It has been mentioned above that the history books also tell that Sher Shah ascended the throne of Delhi on May 17, 1540, by defeating Humayun in a battle near Kannauj and in the same year organised a military campaign to suppress the revolt of the Gakkars in Punjab . He moved east, the next year, to suppress a similar revolt in Bengal in March, 1541 AD. The next year, he moved against the Rajput kings in central India and conquered Malwa. The very next year (i.e. in 1543 AD), he organised a campaign against the Hindu king Puran Mal and took control of the fort at Raisin and then moved against the Rajput king of Marwar. In 1544 he subdued the Rathore king, Maldev and in the subsequent year, he died in an accident in 1545 AD, in Kalinjar.

So, the rule of Sher Shah lasted only for five years and out of these five years, he spent nearly one year to gain control over the fort of Kalinjore.[6] During the rest of his reign, he was on hectic movement from east to west and north to south for suppressing revolts or conquering new forts. It should be mentioned here that the period under consideration was a period of political chaos and lawlessness and to restore order, Sher Shah had to fight many battles and that too with partial success. Thus the question naturally arises-Was it possible for Sher Shah (or any other ruler of that time) to build such long roads within such a short span of time? Furthermore, is it possible to make roads, nearly 6,240 Km long, today using modern technology, within a period of 4 or 5 years? The real story is that, Abbas Khana court-chronicler of Sher Shah had written some lies to please and glorify his master and our historians took those narrations at their face value, without applying their common sense to estimate the credibility of those blatant lies.

A close scrutiny of events, during the time of Sher Shah, also reveals that, despite his vast efforts, he did not succeed in bringing the vast stretch of land, from Dhaka in Bengal and River Indus in Punjab , under his control. So, how could Sher Shah carry out such a gigantic project like making a road from Bengal to Punjab , when the territory in question was not under his supreme control? 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From this discussion, it is clear that Sher Shah is mis-credited for road construction north India, by historians who un-necessarily want to glorify the period of Mughal rulership in India. 

As for the original question of who built the GT Road, well, Dr. Radhasyam Brahmachari rightly suggested that the trade and many war affairs between Indian Kings that have centuries of history much before the Mughal invasions, could not have been possible without the good network of roads, wide enough to carry chariots, elephants and armies used for the combats. Mughal only used the existing network and some of them renamed it or took credit for building them, as per their chroniclers. The current generation of historians need to become aware of the true history facts and revise their knowledge.

In fact the road seems to have a very old usage, and was called Uttarapatha meaning Northern Way, as mentioned here.

Today, the Grand Trunk Road remains a continuum that covers a distance of over 2,500 km. From its origin at Sonargaon in theNarayanganj District of central Bangladesh, it reaches India, passing  through Kolkata, Bardhaman, Durgapur, Asansol, Dhanbad, Aurangabad, Varanasi, Allahabad, Kanpur, Aligarh, Delhi, Karnal, Ambala, Ludhiana,Jalandhar, Amritsar. Within India, the major portion of the road – the stretch between Kanpur and Kolkata – is known as NH 2 (National Highway – 2), the stretch between Kanpur and Delhi is called NH-91 (National Highway – 91), and that between Delhi and Wagah, at the border with Pakistan, is known as NH-1. From the Pakistan border the Grand Trunk Road (part of the N-5) continues north through Lahore via Gujranwala, Gujrat, Jhelum, Rawalpindi, Attock District and Nowshera before it finally reaches Peshawar. (Route source from Wikipedia.)

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

July 15, 2009

Distortion of Indian History – Part 1

This is a series of posts on Indian History.

                                                             ****Excerpts from Faith Freedom ****

 

Red Fort

Red Fort

 

By  Dr. Radhasyam Brahmachari

The Red Fort in Delhi:

Whenever we visit the historical monuments of Delhi and Agra, the guides tell us – this is the fort built by Emperor Akbar, or that is the palace built by Emperor Shah Jahan, or here is the minar made by Sultan Qutb-ud-din and so on and so forth. They try to convince us that all the forts, palaces and other monuments of excellent architecture in Delhi and Agra were authored by the Muslim invaders. We also give them a patient hearing and believe  in what they say, as our history books also give similar accounts. Above all, by going through such history books from our childhood, the claim of Muslim authorship of all these edifices has penetrated our mind so deeply that we never apply simple common sense to estimate the credibility of the said claim.

Our history books also tell us that Delhi fell to the Muslim invaders, for the first time in history, in 1192 AD, when Muhammad Ghori defeated Emperor Prithviraj Chauhan in the Second Battle of Tarain. So, it becomes evident that before this incident, Delhi was ruled by the Rajput kings and common sense tells us that Emperor Prithviraj  Chauhan and his ancestors also had forts and palaces as dwelling places as well as the seat of their governments. Definitely they did not live in mud houses or thatched cottages. So the question is – What happened to those forts and palaces and where they have gone?

Our historians also tell us that after capturing Delhi, Muhammad Ghori conquered the fort at Ajmer (Sanskrit: Ajeya Meru) in the same year and thereafter, he entrusted to his slave Qutb-ud-din the conquered territory and left India for Ghazni. Later on, Qutb-ud-din captured the forts at Gwalior, Meeut, Ranathombhor, Benares and so on and all these forts belonged to Hindu kings. Again the question arises- In pre-Islamic India, the Hindu kings had so many forts and palaces at so many places, how come then they had none in Delhi? Hence a group of historians believe that the Muslim invaders did not build a single fort or a palace, or any other mansion eiher in Delhi or in Agra and that all the existing forts and palaces, as we see them today, were originally built by he Hindu kings well before the arrival of the barbaric Muslim invaders. These Muslim aggressors only occupied those forts and palaces by force and utilised them as their dwelling places and as royal courts.

Qutb-ud-din’s court chronicler Hasan Nizami in his Taj-ul-Masir writes, “When he (Muhammad Ghori) arrived at Delhi, he saw a fortress which in height and strength had no equal nor second throught the length and breadth of seven climes”. The question is – Which was the fort Muhammad Ghori saw? Had he seen the Red Fort? There was no other fort that could match the description of Hasan Nizami. But our historians say that Shah Jahan, after ascending the throne of Delhi, decided to set up a new capital to be called Shahjahanabad in Delhi and as a part of that plan he built the Red Fort. Hence they write, “In 1638, Shah Jahan began in Delhi the construction of a new capital, that of Shahjahanbad, to contain within its perimeter a sumptuous palace-fortress fot the accommodation of the imperial household and the court.   The palce-fortress, the Red Fort as it is known because of the red sandstone fabric of its rampart walls, has been designed on an unprecedented scale with all the amenities of the busy and luxurious life of an imperial house and court provided for within its walls in a regular and systematic order”.

Our historians tell us that it took ten years to build the fort and write, “The fortress with its halls, palaces, pavalions and gardens was completed in 1648 when on an auspicious day the Emperor entered it ceremonially and formally inaugurated the capital city”. Surprisingly, the same historian writes in another place, “The Diwan-i-am in the Delhi fort, it has to be noted, is also in red sandstone, and it is definitely known to have been the work of Shah Jahan. Behind Diwan-i-am and separated from it by Machchhi Bhavan, stands the Diwan-i-Khas that was erected by, according to the inscription it bears, in 1636-37″. The question therefore arises- How could Shah Jahan complete the construction of Diwan-i-Am and Diwan-i-Khas, which were the integral parts of the Red Fort, nearly two years before the commencement of the construction of the Red Fort itself in 1638 AD?

At he same time, our historians say that while the construction of the Red Fort was in progress, Shah Jahan undertook a massive renovation and repair work of the older palaces and write, “Shah Jahan’s alteration and replacements in the earlier palace-fortress were carried out on a grandiose scale and apparently inspired by the desire to impart to the palaces nnd other appurtenances an appearence to suit the prevailing character of the court”. They also say that, as a part of that reconstruction work, Shah Jahan  built a Naubat Khana near the Diwan-i-Am and had a Persian couplet inscribed- “If there is paradise on the face of the earth, it is this, it is this, it is this”, on Diwan-i-Khas.These descriptions make one wonder about Shah Jahan’s authorship of the Red Fort. Had the Red Fort, with all its appurtenances, been a new creation of Shah Jahan, how could the need for reconstruction and remodelling of those newly built mansions and palaces arise? Furthermore, where were the older palaces mentioned above and what was their origin?

So, if we piece together all the information mentioned above, it becomes evident that there was an existing fortress in Delhi, built probably many years before the time of Shah Jahan, and Shah Jahan undertook a massive reconstruction and renovation work, mainly to remove all stone carvings bearing Hindu symbols and possible Sanskrit inscriptions and to convert all Hindu temples inside the fortress into mosques, with a view to giving the entire  edifice a Muslim face which our historians describe as an attempt to give the fortress “an appearence  to suit the prevailing (i.e. Muslim) character of the court”.

Shah Jahan’s authorship of the Red Fort becomes all the more suspect when one finds that there is an indirect mention of the Diwan-i-Khas in the Tabaquat-i-Nasisri by the Muslim chronicler Minhas-us-Siraj. He writes that nearly 400 years before the time of Shah Jahan, Bukhtiar Khilji, the then chief warlord of Bihar, came from Bihar to Delhi to meet Sultan Qutb-ud-din. During this visit Bukhtiar Khilji fought a duel with an elephant which took place in a white marble palace in Delhi. The question is – What other marble place, big enough for holding a duel with an elephant, could be than the Diwan-i-Khas in the Red Fort? The incident conclusively proves that the Red Fort in Delhi, with Diwan-i-Khas as its integral part, existed more that 400 yers before the time of Shah Jahan.

Moreover, another Muslim chronicler Zia-ud-din Barni in his Tarikh-i-Firozshahi writes, “Towards the end of the year 695H (1296 AD), Alauddin (Khilji) entered Delhi in great pomp and with a large force. He took his seat upon the throne in the Daulat khana-i-Julus and proceeded to the Kushk-e-Lal (red palace), where he took his abode”.To describe the sme incident, our historians write, “Ala-ud-din then made his triumphal entry into the capital on October 22, 1296, and took up his residence in the Red Palace of Balban, where he was enthroned”. Who was this Balban?He was no other than Ghias-ud-din Balban, whose original name was Ulugh Khan and became a commander under Sultana Razia. Ulugh Khan belonged to the Khakan tribe of Albari in Turkestan, who was captured by the Mongols as a slave and later on sold to Khwaja Jamaluddin in Ghazni, who brought him to Delhi. Ulugh Khan definitely did not bring a red palace from Turkestan and our history books nowhere mention that he built a red palace in Delhi. So, what could that Red Palace (Kushk-i-Lal) be if not the Red Fort?

It has been stated earlier that the fortress, now known as the Red Fort, fell to the foreign invader Muhammad Ghori, for the first time in history, in 1192 AD. Later, several Muslim dynasties used that fortress, built by the Rajput kings, as their royl court and residence. Quite naturally, for some time it went to Ghias-ud-din Balban, alias Ulugh Khan. But it is a pity that despite all such infallible evidences, our historians persist in writing that the sais Red Fort was built by Shah Jahan.

Today, there are two forts in Delhi, the Red Fort and the Purana Quila and our historins believe that the Purana Quila was built by Sher Shah. So, according to their version of history, Delhi did not have a fort before the time of Sher Shah. Again the question is – Which fort Muhammad Ghori had seen, nearly 350 years before the time of Sher Shah, after setting his feet in Delhi? And which fort did the Muslim rulers of Delhi, before the time of Sher Shah, use as their royal court and residence? Above all, how could Delhi play the role of the capital of Delhi Sultanate without hving a fortress?

From the above discussions, it becomes evident that the real authors of today’s Red Fort were the Hindu kings of India, perhaps several centuries before the times of Shah Jahan. But after the defeat of Emperor Prithwiraj Chauhan, it fell into the hands of the Muslim invader Muhammad Ghori. Later on, Shah Jahan undertook a massive repairing and renovation work, mainly to remove all stone carvings bearing Hindu symbols and possible Sanskrit inscriptions and to convert all Hindu temples inside the fortress into mosques, with a view to giving the entire  edifice a Muslim face, as we see it today.

To settle all the above mentioned disputes, it is urgently necessary for the Government to ask the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to ascertain the age of the edifice, now known as the Red Fort, through scientific methods. Only such a step can help the truth come out.

References:

[1] H. M. Elliot and J. Dowson, The History of India, as told by its own historians

(in 8 Volumes), Low Price Publications,  New Delhi (1996) II,216.

[2] R. C. Majumdar (Gen Ed), History & Culture of the Indian People (in 12

Volumes), Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai (1996), VII, 787.

[3] R. C. Majumdar (ibid) Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, VII, 784-85.

[4] R. C. Majumdar (ibid) Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, VII, 783.

[5] R. C. Majumdar (ibid), Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, VII,789.

[6] H. M. Elliot and J. Dowson (ibid) II, 306.

[7] R. C. Majumdar (ibid), Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, VII, 790.

[8] H. M. Elliot and J. Dowson (ibid) III, 160.

[9] R. C. Majumdar (ibid), Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, VI,18.

[10] R. C. Majumdar, H. C. Raychaudhury and K. Datta,  An Advanced History of India, MacMillan & Co (1980),578

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.