अकबर के बारे मैं बहुत भ्रांतियां इतिहासकारों ने फैलायीं हैं .अकबर महान को अशोक के समकक्ष ठहराने का प्रयत्न किया जाता रहा है . अभी हाल ही मैं राहुल गाँधी ने भी औरंगजेब व् अकबर की तुलना कर डाली . यह सच है की औरंगजेब बहुत ही क्रूर व् हिन्दू विरोधी शासक था .उसने हज़ारों मंदिर तुड वाये व् हिन्दुओं को अनेकों तरह से प्रताड़ित किया . पर अकबर को किसी भी तरह एक महान राजा कहना भी गलत होगा . हो सकता हो औरंगजेब का कत्ले आम नादिर शाह की तरह रहा हो परअकबर भी अब्दाली की तरह ही था .
राधे श्याम ब्रहमचारी व् पी एन ओक ने विन्सेंट स्मिथ व्अन्य किताबों का गहन अध्ययन कर अकबर पर लेख लिखे हैं जिनके अंश नीचे दिए जा रहे हाँ . उन्हें पढ़ कर पाठक स्वयं फैसला कर लें की क्या अकबर को महान राजा कहना उचित होगा . युद्ध मैं विजय पराजय तो होती रहती है . हम सदा युद्ध की तकनीक मैं पीछे रहे . जब सिकंदर घोड़ों पर था हम हाथियों पर लड़ते रहे . जब बाबर तोप लाया तो हम घोड़ों से लड़ रहे थे . पर हिन्दू कायर नहीं था .
परन्तु महानता का आंकलन तथ्यों पर होंना चाहिए जिसमें नीचे दिए तथ्यों पर भी विचार करना चाहिए .इस लेख मैं तीन हिस्से हैं ‘
पहला हिस्सा हेमू व् पानीपत की लडाई पर है . उसे छोड़ सकते हैं क्योंकि उसको पढने मैं समय लगेगा .पर बाद मैं उसे भी पढ़ें .
दूसरा हिस्सा व् तीसरा हिस्सा अकबर के चरित्र पर है जिसे अक्सर हम महान कहते हैं . उसका भी पुनर्मूल्यांकन करने की आवश्यकता है .तीसरा हिस्सा पी एन ओक की किताब पर आधारित है .
http://www.voi.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=200
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/indian-history-/cATEFid18ok
पार्ट – १ 
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 andthen 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 Kalpl. 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
Voice of India Features
http://voi.org Powered by Joomla! Generated: 15 January, 2014, 10:35
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 (Gurdaspur,Punjab).
At that time, Himu sought permission of Adil to attack Delhi . Ahmmad Yadgar narrates, “Himun went in front of thethrone 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 (AdilShah) 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]
Voice of India Features
http://voi.org Powered by Joomla! Generated: 15 January, 2014, 10:35
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 aMusulman 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]
. 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
Voice of India Features
http://voi.org Powered by Joomla! Generated: 15 January, 2014, 10:35
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
Voice of India Features
http://voi.org Powered by Joomla! Generated: 15 January, 2014, 10:35
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 prisoner
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
Voice of India Features
http://voi.org Powered by Joomla! Generated: 15 January, 2014, 10:35
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 , in stead 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 subhumans 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,
Voice of India Features
http://voi.org Powered by Joomla! Generated: 15 January, 2014, 10:35
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.
पार्ट – २
Later Life Akbar As An Adult
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_
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
[
सोमवार, 30 मई 2011
कौन कहता है कि अकबर महान था? (भाग-एक)
पुरुषोत्तम नागेश ओक, (२ मार्च,१९१७-७ दिसंबर,२००७), जिन्हें लघुनाम श्री.पी.एन.ओक के नाम से जाना जाता है, द्वारा रचित पुस्तक “कौन कहता है कि अकबर महान था?” में अकबर के सन्दर्भ में ऐतिहासिक सत्य को उद्घाटित करते हुए कुछ तथ्य सामने रखे हैं जो वास्तव में विचारणीय हैं…..
अकबर जब अहमदाबाद आया था २ दिसंबर १५७३ को तो दो हज़ार (२,०००) विद्रोहियो के सिर काटकर उससे पिरामिण्ड बनाए थे ! जब किसी विद्रोही को दरबार मे लाया जाता था तब उसके सिर को काटकर उसमे भूसा भरकर तेल सुगंधी लगा कर प्रदर्शनी लगाता था “अकबर महान” बंगाल के विद्रोह मे ही अकेले उस महान अकबर ने करीब तीस हज़ार (३०,०००) लोगो को मौत के घाट उतारा था ! अकबर के दरबारी भगवनदास ने भी इन कुकृत्यों से तंग आकार स्वयं को ही चुरा-भोक कर अत्महत्या कर ली थी | चित्तौड़गढ़ के दुर्ग रक्षक सेनिकों के साथ जो यातनाएं और अत्याचार अकबर ने किए वो तो सबसे बर्बर और क्रूरतापूर्ण थे |
२४ फरवरी, १५६८ को अकबर चित्तौड़ के दुर्ग मे प्रवेश किया उसने कत्लेआम और लूट का आदेश दिया हमलावर पूरे दिन लूट और कत्लेआम करते रहे विध्वंस करते घूमते रहे एक घायल गोविंद श्याम के मंदिर के निकट पड़ा था तो अकबर ने उसे हाथी से कुचला ! आठ हजार योद्धा राजपूतो के साथ दुर्ग मे चालीस हज़ार (४०,०००) किसान भी थे जो देख रेख और मरम्मत के कार्य कर रहे थे ! कत्ले आम का आदेश तब तक नहीं लिया जब तक उसमे से तेतीस हज़ार (३३,०००) लोगो को नहीं मारा , अकबर के हाथो से ना तो मंदिर बचे और ना ही मीनारें ! अकबर ने जीतने युद्ध लड़े है उसमे उसने बीस लाख (२०,०००००) लोगो को मौत के घाट उतारा !अकबर यह नही चाहता था की मुग़ल साम्राज्य का केन्द्र दिल्ली जैसे दूरस्थ शहर में हो; इसलिए उसने यह निर्णय लिया की मुग़ल राजधानी को फतेहपुर सीकरी ले जाया जाए जो साम्राज्य के मध्य में थी। कुछ ही समय के बाद अकबर को राजधानी फतेहपुर सीकरी से हटानी पड़ी। कहा जाता है कि पानी की कमी इसका प्रमुख कारणथा। फतेहपुर सीकरी के बाद अकबर ने एक चलित दरबार बनाया जो कि साम्राज्य भर में घूमता रहता था इस प्रकार साम्राज्य के सभी कोनो पर उचित ध्यान देना सम्भव हुआ। सन १५८५ में उत्तर पश्चिमी राज्य के सुचारू राज पालन के लिए अकबर ने लाहौर को राजधानी बनाया। अपनी मृत्यु के पूर्व अकबर ने सन १५९९ में वापस आगरा को राजधानी बनाया और अंत तक यहीं से शासन संभाला ।
(१.)यदि अगर अकबर से सभी प्रेम करते थे, आदर की दृष्टि से देखते थे तो इस प्रकार शीघ्रतापूर्वक बिना किसी उत्सव के उसे मृत्यु के तुरंत बाद क्यों दफनाया गया ? (२.)जब अकबर अधिक पीता नहीं था तो उसे शराब पर अधिक ध्यान देने की आवश्यकता क्यों पड़ी ? (३.)आखिर अकबर को इतिहास महान क्यों कहता है, जिसने हिन्दू नगरों को नष्ट किया ? (४.)अगर फतेहपुरसीकरी का निर्माण अकबर ने कराया तो इस नाम का उल्लेख अकबर के पहले के इतिहासों में कैसे है ? (५.)क्या अकबर जैसा शराबी, हिंसक, कामुक, साम्राज्यवादी बादशाह खुदा की बराबरी रखता है ? (६.)क्या जानवरों को भी मुस्लिम बना देने वाला ऐसा धर्मांध अकबर महान है ? (७.)क्या ऐसा अनपढ़ एवं मूर्खो जैसी बात करने वाला अकबर महान है ? (८.)क्या अत्याचारी, लूट-खसोट करने वाला, जनता को लुटने वाला अकबर महान था ? (९.)क्या ऐसा कामुक एवं पतित बादशाह अकबर महान है ! (१०.)क्या अपने पालनकर्ता बैरम खान को मरकर उसकी विधवा से विवाह कर लेने वाला अकबर महान था | (११.)क्या औरत को अपनी कामवासना और हवस को शांत करने वाली वस्तुमात्र समझने वाला अकबर महान था | अकबर औरतो के लिबास मे मीना बाज़ार जाता था | मीना बाज़ार मे जो औरत अकबर को पसंद आ जाती, उसके महान फौजी उस औरत को उठा ले जाते और कामी अकबर के लिए हरम मे पटक देते |
One Response to “क्या अकबर सचमुच महान था – राधे श्याम ब्रह्मचारी :Was Akbar Really Great”