- "Distorted Indian History Part 1"
- "Distorted Indian History Part 2"
- "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 9"
Picture of Akbar
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 Indians. So 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.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment