What Akbar really was:

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]

Last update : 18-08-2009 09:50

Keywords : Distortion of Indian History for Muslim Appeasement: Part 5C, Radhasyam Brahmachari

Average user rating

   (0 vote)