- "Distorted Indian History Part 1"
- "Distorted Indian History Part 3"
- "Distorted Indian History Part 4"
- "Distorted Indian History Part 5"
- "Distorted Indian History Part 6"
- "Distorted Indian History Part 7"
- "Distorted Indian History Part 8"
- "Distorted Indian History Part 9"
By Dr. Radhasyam Brahmachari
What is the utility of studying history? From history, one learns the achievements of his ancestoes and their successes and failures. It enables him to analyse the reasons that brought the said successes and failures and hence helps him taking correct steps in present crises. So, if that history is erroneous or distorted, one fails to take proper steps to confront the national problems. There is no doubt that a faulty step in the moment of a crisis may lead to a disaster. From this viewpoint, it becomes evident that distorting national history is not only a serious offense, but an unpardonable crime.
Therefore, every citizen of a country must have the right to know the true history of his nation. But in India today, this right is being pitiably denied. They are permitted to know the history which is horribly distorted due to political reasons. Particularly the history of Muslim conquest and the period of Muslim rule, that lasted for nearly eight centuries, has been so distorted that it is almost impossible for an individual to salvage the true history from those garbage of lies and deceits. The most unfortunate part of the episode is that, children after learning this distorted history in their text books, are developing wrong ideas about their past. They are therefore confused to identify or distinguish a friend from a foe.
It has been pointed out earlier that Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, the prophet of nonviolence, was the originator of the politics of Muslim appeasement in India. As we know, he was the most trusted as well as the most loyal stooge of the British Empire, it was not possible for him to demand India’s independence. In fact, his real intention was to prolong British rule in India. So, to hoodwink the hoi polloi, he imported a vague and mystical term “swaraj” and used to say that he was fighting for that.He further declared that, it was not necessary to terminate British rule for bringing his cherished swaraj, but Hindu-Muslim amity was the most important precondition for that.
It should be noted that his concept of Hindu-Muslim amity was entirely biased and prejudiced. Only Hindus were to make every sacrifice for the sake of the said Hindu-Muslim amity. To achieve that Hindu-Muslim amity, Gandhi suggested alteration or distortion of Indian history, partcularly the period of Muslim rule. and two major guidelines, he set for this purpose, were, (1) Muslim rulers were not foreign invaders as they lived in India and died in India and (2) the Muslim rule in India was not a colonial rule but a golden period of Indian history. And following these guidelines, a group of dirty people called the secular historians, set to distort Indian history in a big way.
But what was the real nature of that Muslim colonial rule and what was the nature of Dhimmitude the Hindus had suffered for centuries after centuries? It is best described through a dialogue between Sultan Alauddin Khilji and a qazi called Mughisuddin. The incident has been narrated by Alauddin’s court chronicler Ziauddin Barni in Tarikh-i-Firozshahi. Barni wrote,
“One day Qazi Mughisuddin visited the court of Sultan Alauddin Khilji and the Sultan asked the qazi, ‘How are Hindus designated in the (Islamic) law, as payers of tribute (Kharaj-gauzar) or giver of tribute (Kharaj-dih)?’ The kazi replied, ‘They are called payers of tribute and when the revenue officer demands silver from them, they should, without question and with all humility and respect, tender gold. If the officer throws dirt into their mouths, they must without reluctance open their mouths wide to receive it. By doing so they show their respect for the officer. The due subordination of the Zimmi (tribute payer) is exhibited in this humble payment and by this throwing of dirt in their mouths. The glorification of Islam is a duty. … Allah holds them in contempt, for He says, ‘Keep them in subjection’. To keep the Hindus in abasement is especially a religious duty because they are the most inveterate enemies of the Prophet and because the Prophet has commanded us to slay them, plunder them and make them captive, saying, ‘Convert them to Islam or kill them, enslave them and spoil their wealth and property. No doctor but the great doctor (Hanifa), to whose school we belong, has asserted to the imposition of the jizya (poll tax) on Hindus. Doctors of other schools allow no other alternative but ‘death or Islam’.” (H. M. Elliot & J. Dowson, HISTORY OF INDIA: As Told by It’s Own Historians, III,184).
In the First Part of the article, it has been narrated that, how the so called secular historians of India are wrongly projecting the barbaric Muslim ruler Shahjahan as the author of the famous Red Fort of Delhi, which was built by the Hindu Kings several centuries before the times of Shahjahan. In this Second Part, we shall discuss how these secular historians are narrating another cruel,barbaric and lecherous Muslim ruler Akbar as the author of the invincible fortress of Agra.
Picture of Agra Fort
The Fort at Agra:
Like the Red Fort in Delhi, the fortress at Agra also suffers similar misrepresentation. The invincible fort at Agra, as we see it today, was not built by any foreign Muslim invader and its authorship is falsely atributed to Akbar.. This marvellous exhibit of Hindu architecture, was also built by the Hindu kings well before the arrival of the barbaric Muslim invaders in India. Like the Red Fort in Delhi, the Muslim invaders forcefully occupied it and used it as their royal court and residence. During the time of Mahabharata, Agra belonged to the kingdom of Mathura ruled by the oppressive king Kansa, who used the prison at Agra to incarcerate his political rivals. In this regard, the Muslim chronicler Abdulla in his Tarikh-i-Daudi writes, “He (Sultan Sikandar Lodi) generally resided at Agra; it is said by some that Agra became a city in his time, before which it had been a mere village , but one of the old standing. The Hindus, indeed, Assert that Agra was a strong place in the days of Raja Kansa, ruled in Mathura, and who confined everyone who displeased him, in the fort at that place, so that in course of time it had become the established state prison”.
But in the same work, chronicler Abdulla says that Muhammad of Ghazni captured Agra and reduced it to a heap of ruins and writes, “In the year when the army of Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni invaded Hindustan, he so ruined Agra that it became one of the most insignificant villges of the land and after that it improved from the times of Sultan Sikandar, and at length, in Akbar’s time, became the seat of the government of Delhi, and one of the chief cities of Hindustan”. It is important to note here that the above description admits that before the invasion of Mahmud of Ghazni, Agra was city and not a village.
Another Muslim chronicler Nizmuddin Ahmed in his Tabaquat-i-Akbari writes, “In the year 972 H (1565 AD), the command was given by Akbar for building a new fort of hewn stone at Agra, instead of the old citadel, which was of bricks and had become ruinous. The foundation was laid and in four years the fortress was completed”. A Muslim poet named Diwan-i-Salman, who lived during the time of Muhammad Ghori, wrote some poems of historical value. In one of his poems, he said that during the time of Muhammad Ghori, the fortress of Agra was under the control of a Rajput king Jaipal. In the same poem he described the Agra fort and wrote, “The fort of Agra is built amongst the sands like a hill, and its battlements are like hillocks. No calamity had ever befallen its fortification, nor hd deceitful time dealt treacherously with it”. So, the question naturally arises- Which fort Diwan-i-Salman had seen? The fort he saw was definitely made of stone, otherwise he would not have compared it with a hill. Above all, is it possible to finish the construction of a massive fort made of stone, as we see it today, within a period of 4 years?
It should also be mentioned here that the Muslim chroniclers, who claim Akbar’s authorship of the fort at Agra, differ widely regarding the time taken by Akbar to complete the job. According to Abul Fazl, one of the ministers at the Akbar’s court, Akbar took 8 years to build the fort. While according to Jahngir, the son of Akbar, he took 15 years to complete the construction. It has been said earlier that according to Nizamuddin Ahmed, the job was done within a shortm period of 4 years. It is important to note here that there are other evidence that suggest that the fort of Agra was there during the time of Babur. Babur set his foot at the fort of Agra for the first time on May 4, 1526, and before that his son Humayun had taken control of the fort. Thereafter, Babur left Agra on February 11, 1527, and proceeded to face Maharana Sangram Singh in the battle of Khanua, leaving the fort in the care of his son Humayun. So, the rational conclusion is that, there was a massive fort, made of stone, at Agra under the control of a Rajput King Jaipal and Muhammad Ghori occupied it by defeating Jaipal in the year 1192. Thereafter, when the fort came under the control of the Mughals, Akbar might have undertaken some repair and renovation work of the then existing fort.
Above all, there is no dispute among our historians that, whether it is the Red Fort in Delhi or the invincible fortress at Agra, Hindu style, particularly the Gujarati and Rajasthani style, is very prominent in the construction of the interior palaces, courts, halls and so on. Especially, the pillars and the gateways of these halls and courts bear pure Hindu style of stone carving. It seems amusing when our historians, in their attempt to explain this overwhelming and pervasive Hindu influence, say that the Muslim rulers who, according to their belief, were very sympathetic to the Hindus, deliberately encouraged Hindu style in building their edifices to promote Hindu-Muslim amity.
So, a group of historins, having more rational views, believe that all the historical monuments of Delhi and Agra, the authorship of which is at present being wrongly atributed to the Muslim rulers, were, in fact, built by the Hindu kings well before the arrival of the foreign Muslim invders. They also believe that in their endeavour to give these monuments an Islamic face, the Muslim rulers, in the name of repair and renovation, removed almost all the Hindu symbols from these monuments and buried them somewhere within the peripfery of those monuments. So a thorough scientific and archaeological investigations is urgently called for revealing the truth and settling all such contrary views.
 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) IV, 450.
 H. M. Elliot and J. Dowson (ibid) V, 295.
 H. M. Elliot and J. Dowson (ibid) IV, 522.
 V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, Oxford Clarendon Press (1982), 76.
 H. M. Elliot and J. Dowson (ibid) IV, 263-64.
 R. C. Majumdar, H. C. Raychaudhury and K. Datta, An Advanced History of
India, MacMillan & Co (1980), 579.