Realily of "Secular" king Akbar "The Great" :

Discussion in 'Indian History' started by Ignorant, May 25, 2015.

  1. Ignorant

    Ignorant New Member

    *Even though the Mughal rule from Akbar to Aurangzeb is about 150 years, which is much shorter than the 350 year rule of the Vijayanagara empire, the history books of today hardly take notice of the latter. In fact the territory under Sri Krishna Devaraya’s rule was much larger than Akbar’s, and yet it is the latter who is called “the Great”!!

    Let's take a look at his "SECULARISM" & "GREATNESS":
    *Just like during other Muslim rulers, Akbar's rule also saw the destruction of many temples and the killing of their inhabitants and cows and the looting of their wealth. Temples were converted into mosques and madrasas or simply destroyed. Often times, these activities were not done under direct command by Akbar but by his commanders and officers.

    *At the second battle of Panipat (1556) he shot an arrow to the eye of Hemchandra Vikramaditya Bhargava, the great Brahmin military general from Rajasthan & then severed the head of unconscious Hemu with his sword to hold the title "ghazi" (killer of Hindu infidels).

    *Hemu's fleeing army and captured 1500 elephants and a large contingent. THERE WAS A GREAT SLAUGHTER OF THOSE WHO WERE CAPTURED and IN KEEPING WITH THE CUSTOM OF HIS ANCESTORS TIMUR LANE AND CHENGIZ KHAN, AKBAR HAD A VICTORY PILLAR BUILT WITH THEIR HEADS. Peter Mundy, an Englishman travelling Mughal empire some 75 years later (during Jahangir and Shah Jahan's rein), found such towers were still being built. HEMU'S AGED FATHER WAS CAPTURED AND ON REFUSING TO ACCEPT ISLAM, WAS EXECUTED.

    *On February 24, 1568, Akbar (the great) called for a pogrom and brutal massacre of 30,000 defenseless Hindus of Chittorgarh, Rajasthan who had refused to convert to Islam. Abul Fazl, Akbar's court chronicler justified this slaughter.

    *Unlike what false history books & movies like "Jodha-Akbar" would imply, in reality countless Rajput women committed 'Jauhar' instead of being taken by muslim kings.(13,000 kshatriya women leapt into the raging flames)

    *Sir Thomas Roe, an Englishman who visited Chitod some fifty years later, found the fort deserted. Rana Pratap Singh of Mewar, son of Rana Uday Singh, kept the Rajput resistance to Akbar alive and tried to reclaim the glory of Chitod.

    *According to the biography by Vincent Smith, Akbar had 300 wives & enjoyed 'a harem consisting of 5000 women, mostly Hindus'. But even today many people are celebrating the 'immortal' love of Jodhaa-Akbar as a Valentine's Day-era makeover!
    Now the questions which arises are:
    1)"Are these the characteristics of a truly 'secular' and 'tolerant' emperor ?"

    2)If Akbar be called 'Great' and 'Secular' only because he was a lesser despot than the rest of the Mughal emperors, then what must have been the extent of brutality of Timur Lane, Babar, Aurangzeb and Nader Shah?

    3)Why don't the Indian School texts give these details of Akbar and What else are they hiding?

    4)While in pre-independent India we had Rana Pratap & Chatrapati Shivaji as our hero, Why independent India has their tormentors, Akbar & Aurangzeb are portrayed as heroes & role-models?

    5)Why are our history books full of 'glories' of Invaders? For ex: The history text book of NCERT for 7th standard, most of the pages, out of the total 154 pages, are used for Mughal, cruel invaders who attacked Hindustan; but history of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj has been given in a very negligible space that is only 5lines!!!!
    By: Pramod A Kolar

Share This Page