|
Page 1 of 6
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." [1] 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." [2]
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." [3] One would be extremely frustrated if he tries 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." [4] ;
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." [5] 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." [6] "With such an atmosphere to nourish Akbar's thoughts, it is rather usual for Akbar to become a "dwvilAC incarnate", rather than a divine incarnate.[5]
Last update : 10-08-2009 18:13
|
|
|
(0 vote)