- "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 8"
- "Distorted Indian History Part 9"
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.”  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.” 
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.”  One would be extremely frustrated if he try 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.”  ;
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.”  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.“  “With such an atmosphere to nourish Akbar’s thoughts, it is rather usual for Akbar to become “divine incarnate“, rather than a divine incarnate.
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.”  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? 
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.” 
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” 
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.
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.” 
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.” 
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. 
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.”  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.”  Col Tod, to describe the incident as, writes, “The emperor’s proceedings were marked by the most illiterate atrocities.” 
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.” (RCM, BVB, VII<, 334)But historian A K Roy writes, “Thirty thousand were slain; among them was gallant Patta, who fell after he had displayed prodigies of valour.”  While another historian writes, “According to Abul Fazl, 30,000 persons were slain, but the figure seems to be highly exaggerated.” 
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.”  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 jannah 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. 
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. 
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 in 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.
 R.C. Majumdar, H.C. Raychaudhury and K. Datta, An Advanced History of India, Macmillan & Co (1980), 439.
 R. C, Majumdar, The History and Cultures of the Indian People, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan (in 12 Vols) , VII ,106.
 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.
 V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, Oxford Clarendon Press, 50.
 Akbar The Great A Tyrannical Monarch - http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/akbar_ppg.html
 V. A. Smith, ibid, 294.
 R C Majumdar, ibid, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, VII, 308..
 R C Majumdar, ibid, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, VII, 306
 R C Majumdar, ibid, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, VII, 307.
 C Roy, Bharater Itihas (in Bengali), Maulik Library, Calcutta (1985), I, 16.
 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).
 V.A. Smith, ibid, 20.
 Shelat J.M, Akbar, Bharatiya Vidya Bhawan, 1964, Bombay , 27.
 P N Oak, Islamic Havoc in Indian History, ibid, 305.
 V.A. Smith, ibid, 90.
 P N Oak, Islamic Havoc in Indian History, ibid, 302
.R C Majumdar, ibid, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, VII, 334.
 R C Majumdar, ibid, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, VII, 122.
 .R C. Majumdar, H.C. Raychaudhury and K. Datta, ibid, (1980), 443.
 V.A. Smith, ibid, 91.
 V.A. Smith, ibid, 103.