Truth in History: When we read the history of medieval India, it is told by historians that Akbar, who laid the foundation of the grand Mughal rule in India, was a great ruler. He was nicknamed “The Great” or “Great” by these “distinguished” historians. According to him he was the greatest of all the Mughal rulers. He was rich in a wonderful personality and his political and military might was unmatched. The religious policy he adopted for other religions in his empire, especially the Hindus, was liberal, all-encompassing and tolerant, and so they deserved to be called “great”.

According to historians, Akbar is also “great” because of his invincible military campaigns, the establishment and strengthening of Mughal rule in the Indian subcontinent, its historical expansion and spread, relatively prosperous rule and followed till the 19th century. There are many achievements like the administrative measures instituted by him etc. He had a great personality as he had many characteristics. Even though he was a Muslim, his empire was never Islamic.

He married many Hindu princesses and was a very tolerant person. On the basis of tolerant, liberal, secular and liberal state policy, he was honored with the title of “Great”, so he is the best example of a national king.

He assimilated Indian culture and encouraged the idea of ​​”reconciliation”. Although he was a descendant of Babur, he made Hindustan his homeland and thus he Hindustanised. Terming Akbar’s success as shocking, historian Jawaharlal Nehru concluded that Akbar had created a sense of unity among the different elements of north and central India.

It is important to mention here that such a web of greatness was built around the Mughal ruler Akbar that he was later presented as a story in some films and glorified Akbar as an accomplished king. . Due to all these reasons a popular myth was created about Akbar.

Overall, these historians praised Akbar as a “great” ruler because of the following three broad parameters. These are- a) his uniqueness, b) his skill as a ruler and c) his liberal, secular and all-inclusive religious policy, especially towards the Hindus. Some historians have tried to establish a belief that Akbar was an accomplished ruler who did not discriminate against people of other religions on the basis of religion and followed this as a state policy. Therefore, Akbar’s religious policy was given great emphasis to establish that he was a “great” ruler.

We shall discuss these three aspects objectively in the light of historical evidence, facts and assumptions read by these historians to draw conclusions about the “greatness” of this Mughal ruler. The notion of Akbar the “great” was sown by historians from the Anglican community (followers of the Western Christian orthodoxy), which was later carried forward by Nuhruyugin and leftist historians.

Enchanted by the powers of their British rule, these British historians laid great emphasis on Akbar’s grandeur, his splendor and the politico-territorial expansion of his empire. This included the fact that he had laid the foundation of Mughal glory.

An external invader, who ruthlessly used force in the name of religion, conquered India and established and strengthened the Mughal Empire. The notion of such a ruler being great was created by the British historians because the British also established their rule in this way. He presented Akbar as such to justify the imposition of a centralized system of government on India through his colonialism and foreign rule.

Even if seen on the basis of merit, Akbar’s empire was no bigger than other rulers. If we compare the political area of ​​the Mughal rule under Akbar, it was much smaller than that of his successors like Aurangzeb and the Maurya Empire. It was less than the Maratha Empire, the British Empire and even the Gupta Empire. It can also be understood according to the following table.

Mauryan Empire: 5,000,000, 152 percent

British Rule: 4,574,000, 139 percent

Mughal Empire: 4,000,000, 122 percent

Gupta Empire: 3,500,000, 106 percent

Republic of India (for comparison): 3,287,263, 100 percent

Maratha Empire: 2,500,000, 76 percent

(maximum in square kilometer) (percentage of area of ​​the Republic of India)

Note: In terms of area, Aurangzeb ruled the largest area among the Mughals. According to the East-West Orientation of the Historical Empire.

In this sense, to say that Akbar’s empire was vast is completely wrong, fabricated and tampering with actual historical facts. At the same time, the above facts also prove that the efforts made in support of making the Mughal emperor Akbar’s empire bigger in terms of area, are flawed.

The second argument put forward by the Nehruvian-Left historians is that Akbar was Indian because he was born in India, grew up in India and died in India. He made India his home and like the British, he did not take the wealth of India to his country.

Nothing is beyond historical evidence and facts. He was the grandson of the famous invader Babur, who invaded India with the aim of plundering and grabbing its wealth. He followed the religious duty of killing the infidels, destroying their temples and converting the infidels to Islam.

Even his father Humayun could not rule India completely and he never made India his home, even though he died in India. If we look at the historical accounts {Satish Chandra (2001) Medieval India and Smith, Vincent Arthur (1917)} then Akbar was in Kalanaur (Batla, Punjab) preparing to go to Kabul with his guardian Bairam Khan for his own good, then he knows It is learned that Humayun has died. It was not that Akbar stayed in India with his heart and made India his home. Historical circumstances forced him to fight and stay in India.

Historical events created such circumstances that he had to fight the Second Battle of Panipat (1556) and he won without fighting the battle himself. This war was fought on the basis of religion and its call was to convert India into an Islamic state because only after defeating Hemchandra Vikramaditya ie Hemu in the second battle of Panipat and beheading him, Akbar called “Ghazi”. Took the degree. He sent Hemu’s head to Kabul and hung his torso on a door in Delhi (page 29 v Smith).

The “most tolerant” Mughal ruler, after winning this battle, built a tower from the severed heads of dead soldiers. So in this way a foreign invader whose father and grandfather invaded and plundered India was called “great” for defeating an Indian ruler and establishing the Mughal Empire. If this is not a mockery of logic, then what is? According to this logic, even the British would be called great.

Another assumption made by these historians is that Akbar was very tolerant of other religions. He was the most liberal, tolerant and least fanatical of the other Mughal emperors. According to him, Akbar also fought with Indian rulers, so it was not based on religion at all. His state policy never discriminated against any person on the basis of religion.

No one can deny the facts. Imagine the level at which these supporters of Mughals, trying to read history from the perspective of the present, manipulated, plotted as well as fabricated myths.

The funny thing is that according to him, Akbar did not kill innocent Hindus on the basis of Islam, nor did he fight against the infidels in the name of Islam. And he was the least fanatical of all the Mughal rulers, especially less than the fanatic and dogmatic Aurangzeb.

None of these historians has ruled out that Akbar killed innocents after his conquest of Chittor. Among the Mughals, Akbar destroyed fewer temples so he was “great”. According to their belief, Akbar killed fewer Hindus, so he was the best among the worst rulers.

In his seminal book “The Great Mughal”, Ira Mukhoti states that in 1568, Akbar had conquered the fort of Chittorgarh after a long siege. After winning this war, Akbar ordered the killing of 40,000 innocent Hindus, that too those who were unarmed, farmers and had taken shelter in the fort. This she calls an “immoral policy of omniscience” i.e. the policy of destroying everything or being nothing.

She further states that the defeat of Chittor was declared as the victory of Islam over the infidels and Akbar called himself “engaged in jihad”. Many temples were demolished and hundreds of women who could not commit themselves to Jauhar (according to Hindu belief, a tradition of killing themselves to protect their honour) were taken hostage.

According to the famous historian and eminent scholar James Todd, the “tolerant Islamic Akbar” counted the people killed by counting their thread. After his destruction at Chittor, the thread count he had counted was 74.5 manas (one mana i.e. 40 kg). He further explains that to count the injustice done by Akbar, then counting it will be a challenge in itself. It can be estimated only from this that the weight of a thread is only seven to seven grams.

It is also argued that he married several Indian royal women, reflecting his secular beliefs. But if we look at the historical concepts, we will find that it was only for political gains and not because of its secular or liberal character. It is a historical fact that Akbar forcibly married Salima Sultana Begum, the wife of his patron Bairam Khan.

Vincent Smith writes in his book “The Great Mughal” (page number 81) that “Akbar was overwhelmed by an extraordinary lust for women”. Akbar’s policy of aggressive warfare against various rulers was aimed at making good use of his women, daughters and sisters. It was Akbar who started the Meena Bazar to keep the concubines.

Akbar was a Muslim before becoming the ruler. His calls for war were Islamic and the titles he acquired after winning the war were all Islamic. There is not a single evidence or instance that he destroyed a mosque after defeating a Muslim ruler. He used to send a large amount of money to Mecca on various occasions, which he used to get after winning the war.

It is claimed that he had withdrawn the jizya tax and this presents him as a tolerant ruler. Whereas the truth is that the Jizya tax was temporarily withdrawn and this refund was also not implemented properly. In 1582, the Mughal emperor Akbar outlawed the practice of sati, but no one raised the question of whether he banned the burqa or opened the doors of mosques to women. India’s most powerful Mughal ruler, Akbar, who in 1578 ensured that he was called Ghazi, built the fort of Ilahabas, which later came to be known as Allahabad.

It is also argued that he allowed the construction and revival of Hindu temples. But the truth is that according to Vincent Smith (page number 58) he looted and ransacked Prayag and Banaras. This truth related to Akbar was hidden.

Akbar’s contemporary Monserrat writes (page number 27) that “the religious obstinacy of the Muslims destroyed the revered temples, which were countless in number. In place of Hindu temples innumerable tombs and small shrines were built. Akbar destroyed many temples in the Indian subcontinent but he was “great” because he destroyed fewer temples than his successor Aurangzeb.

We need to revisit the golden pictures shown of an outsider Muslim fanatic and fanatical ruler who ruled India and whom we have given the title of “great”. It is necessary to remove the mask and expose it from this notion spread about Akbar-the Great.

DISCLAIMER: The author is solely responsible for the views expressed in this article. The author carries the responsibility for citing and/or licensing of images utilized within the text.