* VivekaJyoti *: Akbar, The Great — A Tyrannical Monarch

• * VivekaJyoti *: Akbar, The Great — A Tyrannical Monarch

• http://www.diigo.com/06gcn

  tags: no_tag

  • Akbar's Ancestors

     

    Akbar's ancestors were barbarous and vicious, 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 demoniac pleasure which Babur used to derive by raising towers of heads of people he used to slaughter,
  • Akbar seems to have preserved this "great" legacy of erecting minarets as is obvious from the accounts of battles he fought.
  • 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!

  • ---

    Akbar's (Immoral) Character and Nature

     

    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. The Rajput women of Chittor prefered "Jauhar" (immolation) than to be captured and disrespectfully treated as servants and prostitutes in Akbar's harem.

  • Sodomy was a precious service of Akbar's own family. Babur, Akbar's grandfather, has given a lengthy description of this sodomic infatuation for a male sweetheart. Humayun was no different. Though perhaps Akbar did not engage in sodomy, he "allowed" it to be practiced by his servants, courtiers and sycophats.
  • That Akbar remained monogamous throughout his life is indeed history falsified myth. Again quoting V.Smith (pp.47),".. Akbar, throughout his life, allowed himself ample latitude in the matter of wives and concubines!" and further, " Akbar had introduced a whole host of Hindu the daughters of eminent Hindu Rajah's into his harem." (pp.212).
  • It should also be observed that adimittance into Akbar's harem was available mainly to virgins and others' were "disqualified".
  • 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.
  • Akbar's Barbarites
  • At an tender age of 14, Akbar slashed the neck of his Hindu adversary Hemu brought before him unconcious and bleeding. After the fateful battle of Panipat, the unconcious Hemu was brought before Akbar who smote Hemu on his neck with his scimitar, and in Akbar's presence, the bystanders also plunged their swords into the bleeding corpse. Hemu's head was sent to

    Kabul

    and his trunk was gibbeted at one of the gates of

    Delhi

    .
  • The 8000 strong Rajput garrison having been zealously helped during the seige by 40,000 peasants, the emperor ordered a general massacre which resulted in the death of of 30,000 (even thought the struggle was over). Many were made prisoners." Such terrible was his humanitarian outlook as towards his defeated adverseries.
  • At one time, enraged on seeing a hapless lamplighter coiled up near his couch, Akbar order that the servant be shreded into thousand pieces! What else can one expect the barbaric and unscrupulous Akbar?
  • The Sanyasins assembled at the holy tank were divided into two parties, called the Kurs and Puris. The leader of the latter complained to the King that that the Kurs had unjustly occupied the accustomed sitting place of the Puris who were thus debarred from collecting the pilgrims' alms." They were asked to decide the issue by mortal combat.
  • In this fight between the two Hindu sanyasin sects Akbar saw to it that both were ultimately annihilated by his own fierce soilders. The chronicler unctuously adds that Akbar was highly delighted with this sport.
  • The kings grief for the death of his son increased his desire for the conquering the

    Deccan

    , as a means of diverting the mind.
  • Akbar's cruelty towards the Hindu women kidnapped and shut up in his harem were stagerring and his much vaunted marraiges said to have been contracted for communal integration and harmony were nothing but outrageous kidnappings brought about with the force of arms. This is apparent from Akbar's marriage to Raja Bharmal's daughter that occured at Deosa "when people Deosa and other places on Akbar's route fled away on his approach." (Shrivastava, pp.63). Why would the people flee in terror if at all Akbar was "visiting" Raja Bharmal and that the marraige was congenial and in consent with the bride's party?
  • Far from abolishing the practice of Sati, Akbar invited the Jesuit priests to watch the "considerble fun" and supporting it by his weighty judgement and explicit approbation.
  • Akbar's Fanaticism
  • Time and time again different people had approached seeking exemption from Jiziya. Everytime the exemption was ostensibly issued, but never was actually implemented.
  • 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." Badauni says that this [the above] special type of humiliation was reserved by Akbar only for Hindus. Says Badayuni, "... if other than Hindus came, and wished to become disciples at any sacrifice, His Majesty reproved them."
  • Akbar had filled both his hands with 50 gold coins when Badayuni expressed his strong desire to take part in a "holy war" (massacring Hindus)
  • he [Husayn Khan, Akbar's governer at Lahore] ordered the Hindus as unbelievers to wear a patch (Tukra) near the shoulders, and thus got the nick name of Tukriya (patcher).
  • The patch was obviously to mark the "unbelievers" out as pariahs for providing special degrading treatment.
  • The holy Hindu cities of Prayag and

    Banaras

    , writes Vincent Smith (p.58), 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!
  • Not only did the muslims destroy the idols, but usurped the existing temples and converted them into tombs of insignificant people.

  • ---

    Akbar's (mal) Administration

  • he considered himself to be heir of all his subjects, and ruthlessly seized the property of every deceased whose family had to make a fresh start ... Akbar was a hard headed man of business, not a sentimental philanthropist,
  • Akbar's lawless and rapacious rule also led to horrible famines
  • the famine was not caused by drought or the failure of seasonal rains, but was due to the destruction wrought by prolonged wars and rebellions
  • epidemics and inundiation often marred Akbar's reign, and at the time of such distress, writes Badayuni (Blochmann, p.391), parents were allowed to sell their children.
  • The (usurped) Buildings

  • With constant famines, wars and revolts occuring the Akbar's era, where then did he get the time and money to construct buildings of magnificence and grandeur,
  • However, as seen earlier, Akbar simply renamed pre-existing townships of Hindu origin and claimed to have been built by himself.
  • One such unfortunate township is that of Fatehpur Sikri. It has a massive defensive wall around it, enclosing redstone gateways and a majestic palace complex, explicitly in the Rajput style. It is the creation of these buildings and gateways that are accredited to Akbar.
  • These 15th century references will, for now, suffice to prove the existence of Fatehpur Sikri before even Akbar was born, and that the beautiful buildings were not built by Akbar.
  • The Red Fort of Agra, also originally of Rajput design and construction, was usurped by Akbar.
  • Similarly, the palaces and mansions in

    Ajmer

    ,

    Allahabad

    , Manoharpur and other townships were simply usurped by Akbar. He never ordered engineers and architects to build to build magnificent buildings. Testifying to this, Monserrate in his Commentarius (p.16) remarks, ".. musalmans whose nature is indeed that of barbarians, take no interest in such things (erecting massive and ornate buildings and townships).
  • Summary
  • http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/akbar_ppg.html