Distortion of Indian History for Muslim appeasement

By Dr. Radhasyam Brahmachari

What is the utility of studying history? From history, one learns the achievements of his ancestors and their successes and failures. It enables him to analyse the reasons that brought the said successes and failures and hence helps him taking correct steps in present crises. So, if that history is erroneous or distorted, one fails to take proper steps to confront the national problems. There is no doubt that a faulty step in the moment of a crisis may lead to a disaster. From this viewpoint, it becomes evident that distorting national history is not only a serious offense, but an unpardonable crime.

Therefore, every citizen of a country must have the right to know the true history of his nation. But in India today, this right is being pitiably denied. They are permitted to know the history which is horribly distorted due to political reasons. Particularly the history of Muslim conquest and the period of Muslim rule, that lasted for nearly eight centuries, has been so distorted that it is almost impossible for an individual to salvage the true history from those garbage of lies and deceits. The most unfortunate part of the episode is that, children after learning this distorted history in their text books, are developing wrong ideas about their past. They are therefore confused to identify or distinguish a friend from a foe.

It has been pointed out earlier that Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, the prophet of nonviolence, was the originator of the politics of Muslim appeasement in India. As we know, he was the most trusted as well as the most loyal stooge of the British Empire, it was not possible for him to demand India’s independence. In fact, his real intention was to prolong British rule in India. So, to hoodwink the hoi polloi, he imported a vague and mystical term “swaraj” and used to say that he was fighting for that.He further declared that, it was not necessary to terminate British rule for bringing his cherished swaraj, but Hindu-Muslim amity was the most important precondition for that.

It should be noted that his concept of Hindu-Muslim amity was entirely biased and prejudiced. Only Hindus were to make every sacrifice for the sake of the said Hindu-Muslim amity. To achieve that Hindu-Muslim amity, Gandhi suggested alteration or distortion of Indian history, particularly the period of Muslim rule,  and two major guidelines, he set for this purpose, were :

  • Muslim rulers were not foreign invaders as they lived in India and died in India
  • Muslim rule in India was not a colonial rule but a golden period of Indian history

And following these guidelines, a group of (dirty) people called the secular historians, set to distort Indian history in a big way.

But what was the real nature of that Muslim colonial rule and what was the nature of Dhimmitude the Hindus had suffered for centuries after centuries? It is best described through a dialogue between Sultan Alauddin Khilji and a Qazi called Mughisuddin. The incident has been narrated by Alauddin’s court chronicler Ziauddin Barni in Tarikh-i-Firozshahi.

Barni wrote :

 “One day Qazi Mughisuddin visited the court of Sultan Alauddin Khilji and the Sultan asked the qazi, ‘How are Hindus designated in the (Islamic) law, as payers of tribute (Kharaj-gauzar) or giver of tribute (Kharaj-dih)?’ The kazi replied, ‘They are called payers of tribute and when the revenue officer demands silver from them, they should, without question and with all humility and respect, tender gold. If the officer throws dirt into their mouths, they must without reluctance open their mouths wide to receive it. By doing so they show their respect for the officer. The due subordination of the Zimmi (tribute payer) is exhibited in this humble payment and by this throwing of dirt in their mouths. The glorification of Islam is a duty. … Allah holds them in contempt, for He says, ‘Keep them in subjection’. To keep the Hindus in abasement is especially a religious duty because they are the most inveterate enemies of the Prophet and because the Prophet has commanded us to slay them, plunder them and make them captive, saying, ‘Convert them to Islam or kill them, enslave them and spoil their wealth and property. No doctor but the great doctor (Hanifa), to whose school we belong, has asserted to the imposition of the jizya (poll tax) on Hindus. Doctors of other schools allow no other alternative but ‘death or Islam’.”

(Ref : H. M. Elliot & J. Dowson, HISTORY OF INDIA: As Told by It’s Own Historians, III,184).

In the following I chronicle how the so called secular historians of India are wrongly projecting the barbaric Muslim rulers as having constructed multiple architectural marvels – but actually only misappropriated pre-existing structures and history.

Part 1 : The Red Fort at Delhi

Whenever we visit the historical monuments of Delhi and Agra, the guides tell us – this is the fort built by Emperor Akbar, or that is the palace built by Emperor Shah Jahan, or here is the minar made by Sultan Qutb-ud-din and so on and so forth. They try to convince us that all the forts, palaces and other monuments of excellent architecture in Delhi and Agra were authored by the Muslim invaders. We also give them a patient hearing and believe in what they say, as our history books also give similar accounts. Above all, by going through such history books from our childhood, the claim of Muslim authorship of all these edifices has penetrated our mind so deeply that we never apply simple common sense to estimate the credibility of the said claim.

Our history books also tell us that Delhi fell to the Muslim invaders, for the first time in history, in 1192 AD, when Muhammad Ghori defeated Emperor Prithviraj Chauhan in the Second Battle of Tarain. So, it becomes evident that before this incident, Delhi was ruled by the Rajput kings and common sense tells us that Emperor Prithviraj Chauhan and his ancestors also had forts and palaces as dwelling places as well as the seat of their governments.

Definitely they did not live in mud houses or thatched cottages. So the question is – What happened to those forts and palaces and where they have gone? Our historians also tell us that after capturing Delhi, Muhammad Ghori conquered the fort at Ajmer (Sanskrit: Ajeya Meru) in the same year and thereafter, he entrusted to his slave Qutb-ud-din the conquered territory and left India for Ghazni. Later on, Qutb-ud-din captured the forts at Gwalior, Meerut, Ranathombhor, Benares and so on and all these forts belonged to Hindu kings. Again the question arises- In pre-Islamic India, the Hindu kings had so many forts and palaces at so many places, how come then they had none in Delhi? Hence a group of historians believe that the Muslim invaders did not build a single fort or a palace, or any other mansion eiher in Delhi or in Agra and that all the existing forts and palaces, as we see them today, were originally built by he Hindu kings well before the arrival of the barbaric Muslim invaders. These Muslim aggressors only occupied those forts and palaces by force and utilised them as their dwelling places and as royal courts.

Qutb-ud-din’s court chronicler Hasan Nizami in his Taj-ul-Masir writes, “When he (Muhammad Ghori) arrived at Delhi, he saw a fortress which in height and strength had no equal nor second throught the length and breadth of seven climes”.

[1] The question is – Which was the fort Muhammad Ghori saw? Had he seen the Red Fort? There was no other fort that could match the description of Hasan Nizami. But our historians say that Shah Jahan, after ascending the throne of Delhi, decided to set up a new capital to be called Shahjahanabad in Delhi and as a part of that plan he built the Red Fort. Hence they write, “In 1638, Shah Jahan began in Delhi the construction of a new capital, that of Shahjahanbad, to contain within its perimeter a sumptuous palace-fortress fot the accommodation of the imperial household and the court. The palce-fortress, the Red Fort as it is known because of the red sandstone fabric of its rampart walls, has been designed on an unprecedented scale with all the amenities of the busy and luxurious life of an imperial house and court provided for within its walls in a regular and systematic order”.

[2]Our historians tell us that it took ten years to build the fort and write, “The fortress with its halls, palaces, pavalions and gardens was completed in 1648 when on an auspicious day the Emperor entered it ceremonially and formally inaugurated the capital city”.[2] Surprisingly, the same historian writes in another place, “The Diwan-i-am in the Delhi fort, it has to be noted, is also in red sandstone, and it is definitely known to have been the work of Shah Jahan. Behind Diwan-i-am and separated from it by Machchhi Bhavan, stands the Diwan-i-Khas that was erected by, according to the inscription it bears, in 1636-37″.

[3] The question therefore arises- How could Shah Jahan complete the construction of Diwan-i-Am and Diwan-i-Khas, which were the integral parts of the Red Fort, nearly two years before the commencement of the construction of the Red Fort itself in 1638 AD?At he same time, our historians say that while the construction of the Red Fort was in progress, Shah Jahan undertook a massive renovation and repair work of the older palaces and write, “Shah Jahan’s alteration and replacements in the earlier palace-fortress were carried out on a grandiose scale and apparently inspired by the desire to impart to the palaces and other appurtenances an appearance to suit the prevailing character of the court”.

[4] They also say that, as a part of that reconstruction work, Shah Jahan built a Naubat Khana near the Diwan-i-Am and had a Persian couplet inscribed- “If there is paradise on the face of the earth, it is this, it is this, it is this”, on Diwan-i-Khas.

[5] These descriptions make one wonder about Shah Jahan’s authorship of the Red Fort. Had the Red Fort, with all its appurtenances, been a new creation of Shah Jahan, how could the need for reconstruction and remodelling of those newly built mansions and palaces arise? Furthermore, where were the older palaces mentioned above and what was their origin? So, if we piece together all the information mentioned above, it becomes evident that there was an existing fortress in Delhi, built probably many years before the time of Shah Jahan, and Shah Jahan undertook a massive reconstruction and renovation work, mainly to remove all stone carvings bearing Hindu symbols and possible Sanskrit inscriptions and to convert all Hindu temples inside the fortress into mosques, with a view to giving the entire edifice a Muslim face which our historians describe as an attempt to give the fortress “an appearence to suit the prevailing (i.e. Muslim) character of the court”. Shah Jahan’s authorship of the Red Fort becomes all the more suspect when one finds that there is an indirect mention of the Diwan-i-Khas in the Tabaquat-i-Nasisriby the Muslim chronicler Minhas-us-Siraj. He writes that nearly 400 years before the time of Shah Jahan, Bukhtiar Khilji, the then chief warlord of Bihar, came from Bihar to Delhi to meet Sultan Qutb-ud-din. During this visit Bukhtiar Khilji fought a duel with an elephant which took place in a white marble palace in Delhi.

[6] The question is – What other marble place, big enough for holding a duel with an elephant, could be than the Diwan-i-Khas in the Red Fort?

[7] The incident conclusively proves that the Red Fort in Delhi, with Diwan-i-Khas as its integral part, existed more that 400 yers before the time of Shah Jahan. Moreover, another Muslim chronicler Zia-ud-din Barni in his Tarikh-i-Firozshahiwrites, “Towards the end of the year 695H (1296 AD), Alauddin (Khilji) entered Delhi in great pomp and with a large force. He took his seat upon the throne in the Daulat khana-i-Julus and proceeded to the Kushk-e-Lal (red palace), where he took his abode”.

[8] To describe the sme incident, our historians write, “Ala-ud-din then made his triumphal entry into the capital on October 22, 1296, and took up his residence in the Red Palace of Balban, where he was enthroned”..

[9] Who was this Balban?He was no other than Ghias-ud-din Balban, whose original name was Ulugh Khan and became a commander under Sultana Razia. Ulugh Khan belonged to the Khakan tribe of Albari in Turkestan, who was captured by the Mongols as a slave and later on sold to Khwaja Jamaluddin in Ghazni, who brought him to Delhi. Ulugh Khan definitely did not bring a red palace from Turkestan and our history books nowhere mention that he built a red palace in Delhi. So, what could that Red Palace (Kushk-i-Lal) be if not the Red Fort? It has been stated earlier that the fortress, now known as the Red Fort, fell to the foreign invader Muhammad Ghori, for the first time in history, in 1192 AD. Later, several Muslim dynasties used that fortress, built by the Rajput kings, as their royl court and residence. Quite naturally, for some time it went to Ghias-ud-din Balban, alias Ulugh Khan. But it is a pity that despite all such infallible evidences, our historians persist in writing that the sais Red Fort was built by Shah Jahan. Today, there are two forts in Delhi, the Red Fort and the Purana Quila and our historins believe that the Purana Quila was built by Sher Shah

[10]. So, according to their version of history, Delhi did not have a fort before the time of Sher Shah. Again the question is – Which fort Muhammad Ghori had seen, nearly 350 years before the time of Sher Shah, after setting his feet in Delhi? And which fort did the Muslim rulers of Delhi, before the time of Sher Shah, use as their royal court and residence? Above all, how could Delhi play the role of the capital of Delhi Sultanate without having a fortress?

From the above discussions, it becomes evident that the real authors of today’s Red Fort were the Hindu kings of India, perhaps several centuries before the times of Shah Jahan. But after the defeat of Emperor Prithwiraj Chauhan, it fell into the hands of the Muslim invader Muhammad Ghori. Later on, Shah Jahan undertook a massive repairing and renovation work, mainly to remove all stone carvings bearing Hindu symbols and possible Sanskrit inscriptions and to convert all Hindu temples inside the fortress into mosques, with a view to giving the entire edifice a Muslim face, as we see it today. To settle all the above mentioned disputes, it is urgently necessary for the Government to ask the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to ascertain the age of the edifice, now known as the Red Fort, through scientific methods. Only such a step can help the truth come out.

Part 2 : The Fort at Agra

Like the Red Fort in Delhi, the fortress at Agra also suffers similar misrepresentation. The invincible fort at Agra, as we see it today, was not built by any foreign Muslim invader and its authorship is falsely atributed to Akbar.. This marvellous exhibit of Hindu architecture, was also built by the Hindu kings well before the arrival of the barbaric Muslim invaders in India. Like the Red Fort in Delhi, the Muslim invaders forcefully occupied it and used it as their royal court and residence. During the time of Mahabharata, Agra belonged to the kingdom of Mathura ruled by the oppressive king Kansa, who used the prison at Agra to incarcerate his political rivals. In this regard, the Muslim chronicler Abdulla in his Tarikh-i-Daudi writes, “He (Sultan Sikandar Lodi) generally resided at Agra; it is said by some that Agra became a city in his time, before which it had been a mere village , but one of the old standing. The Hindus, indeed, Assert that Agra was a strong place in the days of Raja Kansa, ruled in Mathura, and who confined everyone who displeased him, in the fort at that place, so that in course of time it had become the established state prison”.

But in the same work, chronicler Abdulla says that Muhammad of Ghazni captured Agra and reduced it to a heap of ruins and writes, “In the year when the army of Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni invaded Hindustan, he so ruined Agra that it became one of the most insignificant villges of the land and after that it improved from the times of Sultan Sikandar, and at length, in Akbar’s time, became the seat of the government of Delhi, and one of the chief cities of Hindustan”.

[1] It is important to note here that the above description admits that before the invasion of Mahmud of Ghazni, Agra was city and not a village.Another Muslim chronicler Nizmuddin Ahmed in his Tabaquat-i-Akbari writes, “In the year 972 H (1565 AD), the command was given by Akbar for building a new fort of hewn stone at Agra, instead of the old citadel, which was of bricks and had become ruinous. The foundation was laid and in four years the fortress was completed”.

[2] A Muslim poet named Diwan-i-Salman, who lived during the time of Muhammad Ghori, wrote some poems of historical value. In one of his poems, he said that during the time of Muhammad Ghori, the fortress of Agra was under the control of a Rajput king Jaipal. In the same poem he described the Agra fort and wrote, “The fort of Agra is built amongst the sands like a hill, and its battlements are like hillocks. No calamity had ever befallen its fortification, nor hd deceitful time dealt treacherously with it”.

[3] So, the question naturally arises- Which fort Diwan-I- Salman had seen? The fort he saw was definitely made of stone, otherwise he would not have compared it with a hill. Above all, is it possible to finish the construction of a massive fort made of stone, as we see it today, within a period of 4 years? It should also be mentioned here that the Muslim chroniclers, who claim Akbar’s authorship of the fort at Agra, differ widely regarding the time taken by Akbar to complete the job. According to Abul Fazl, one of the ministers at the Akbar’s court, Akbar took 8 years to build the fort. While according to Jahngir, the son of Akbar, he took 15 years to complete the construction.

[4] It has been said earlier that according to Nizamuddin Ahmed, the job was done within a shorter period of 4 years. It is important to note here that there are other evidence that suggest that the fort of Agra was there during the time of Babur. Babur set his foot at the fort of Agra for the first time on May 4, 1526, and before that his son Humayun had taken control of the fort. Thereafter, Babur left Agra on February 11, 1527, and proceeded to face Maharana Sangram Singh in the battle of Khanua, leaving the fort in the care of his son Humayun.

[5] So, the rational conclusion is that, there was a massive fort, made of stone, at Agra under the control of a Rajput King Jaipal and Muhammad Ghori occupied it by defeating Jaipal in the year 1192. Thereafter, when the fort came under the control of the Mughals, Akbar might have undertaken some repair and renovation work of the then existing fort.
Above all, there is no dispute among our historians that, whether it is the Red Fort in Delhi or the invincible fortress at Agra, Hindu style, particularly the Gujarati and Rajasthani style, is very prominent in the construction of the interior palaces, courts, halls and so on. Especially, the pillars and the gateways of these halls and courts bear pure Hindu style of stone carving. It seems amusing when our historians, in their attempt to explain this overwhelming and pervasive Hindu influence, say that the Muslim rulers who, according to their belief, were very sympathetic to the Hindus, deliberately encouraged Hindu style in building their edifices to promote Hindu-Muslim amity.

[6] So, a group of historians, having more rational views, believe that all the historical monuments of Delhi and Agra, the authorship of which is at present being wrongly attributed to the Muslim rulers, were, in fact, built by the Hindu kings well before the arrival of the foreign Muslim invaders. They also believe that in their endeavour to give these monuments an Islamic face, the Muslim rulers, in the name of repair and renovation, removed almost all the Hindu symbols from these monuments and buried them somewhere within the periphery of those monuments. So a thorough scientific and archaeological investigations is urgently called for revealing the truth and settling all such contrary views.

Part 3 :Distorted History of Qutb Minar

The Qutb Minar (also spelled Qutab or Qutub), a tower in Delhi, India, is the world’s tallest minaret, made of red sandstone. It is 72.5 metres (238 ft) tall with 379 steps leading to the top. The diameter of the base is 14.3 meters wide while the top floor measures 2.75 meters in diameter. The authorship of this magnificent piece of architecture is attributed to the Muslim invader Qutb-ud-din Aibok and the Indian as well as the Western historians write, “Inspired by the Minaret of Jam in Afghanistan and wishing to surpass it, Qutb-ud-din Aibak, the first Muslim ruler of Delhi, commenced construction of the Qutb Minar in 1193, but could only complete its base. His successor, Iltutmish, added three more stories and, in 1386, Firuz Shah Tughluqconstructed the fifth and the last story.“

According to another version, Qutb-ud-din Aibak came to India in 1193 AD, as the ruler of Delhi and laid the foundation of the Qutb Minar in 1206 AD. Before his death in 1210 AD, he could complete the construction of only the first storey of the monument. Later on his son in law Iltutmish (or Altamash) took up the job and added three more stories, and the topmost storey of the minaret was completed in 1386 by Firuz Shah Tughluq. But, after going through all these narrations, following suspicions crops up in an inquisitive mind.

Firstly, all the barbaric Muslims invaders, like Muhammaf Ghori, Qutb-ud-din Aibak, Firuz Shah Tughluq and their lot, came to India to plunder its wealthand not to erect a minaret, like the Qutb Minar, by spending money. Though the so called secular historians are projecting these barbaric invaders as great builders and great admirers of art, sculpture and architecture, it becomes hard to believe that those cruel killers and lecherous vandals had any affinity for art and culture.Thirdly, Hasan Nizami, the court chroniclers and biographer of Qutb-ud-din, has narrated so many events of the times of Qutb-ud-din, in his Taj-ul-masir. Then how it comes that he forgot to mention erecting a splendid and magnificent exhibit of architecture like Qutb Minar by his master, in his Taj-ul-masir?

Another Muslim chronicler, Minhaj-us-Siraj, has also narrated lives of Qutb-ud-din and Iltutmish and their times in Tabaqat-i-Nasiri. He also never mentioned in the said work that Qutb-ud-din had begun to build a minaret in Delhi which Altamash had subsequently finished.

So, a group of historians are convinced that the minaret, now known as Qutb Minar, was built centuries before the arrival of the Muslim invaders in India and it is an excellent exhibit of Hindu architecture. We may now turn to these historians to see what evidence they have to establish their claim.

For example, on 22nd June, or the day of Summer Solstice, when the sun rests on the Tropic of Cancer, it will be inclined by 5.0 degrees to the south in Delhi, as the latitude of Delhi is 28.5 degrees North and that of the Tropic of Cancer is 23.5 degrees North. So, on that day, the length of the shadow of the Qutb Minar at midday would be 19.7 ft. While on 22nd December, or on the day of Winter Solstice, the sun will be inclined by 52 degrees towards north in Delhi and the length of the shadow of Qutb Minar, at midday, would be nearly 288. 0 ft. Hence the difference between the longest (on 22nd December) and the shortest (on 22nd June) shadows would be 268.3 ft. and this facilitates the observer to determine comfortably in which Zodiac the sun is lying.

It should be mentioned here that, like the Meru Stambha in Delhi , Varaha Mihir built a similar pillar in Ghazni , Afghanistan, but with bricks, instead of sandstone. So, it becomes evident that both the Qutb Minar and the minaret at Ghazni were built nearly seven centuries before the arrival of the Muslim invaders and hence they were superb examples of Hindu architecture. But the renowned historian John Marshall, in his Monuments of Muslim India, wrote, “The whole conception of the minar and almost every detail of its construction and ornamentations is essentially Islamic. Towers of this kind were unknown to the Indians, but to the Muhammadans they had long been familiar, whether as mazinas attached to mosques or as free standing towers like those at Ghazni.” It should be mentioned here that the said comment of John Marshall is now being profusely used by the so called secular historians of India to attribute the authorship of the Qutb Minar to Qutb-ud-din Aibak.

In this context, it would be relevant to mention the opinion of another historian, A K Saraswati, who wrote, “Arthur Upham Pope has ably demonstrated how Indian (or Hindu) ideas in art and architecture migrated to Western Asia and reached concrete forms under the technical ingenuity of the Persian builders. Indeed, many of the fundamental forms of Persian architecture, such as the pointed and trefoil arches, the transverse vault, the octagonal form of building, the dome etc. were originated in India . … It is through such cultural contacts that art in the West acquired substance and individuality which the establishment of Islam could hardly change or alter.” So, it becomes evident from the above comment of Arthur Upham Pope that the form and style of architecture, which are now being projected as Islamic or Saracenic, are basically Indian or Hindu architecture.

In this connection, it should be mentioned that the famous Tajmahal at Agra is an octagonal edifice and the so called secular historians highlight this feature to show that the Tajmahal is an example of saracenic architecture, which makes it easier for them to attribute its authorship to Shah Jahan. But, according to Arthur Upham Pope, it is undoubtedly a Hindu style.
It should also be mentioned here that, according to John Marshall, Qutb-ud-din built the Qutb Minar as a part of the Qutb-ul-Islam mosque for giving call to prayer or azan. But this argument is not tenable due to two reasons. Firstly, the Muslims build a minaret as a part of every mosque for giving call to prayers and sighting the moon during Eid-ul-fitr. But the distance in between the Qutb-ul-Islam mosque and the Qutb Minar renders the above argument not only absurd but ridiculous.

Secondly, considering the dimensions of the Qutb-ul-Islam mosque and the Qutb Minar, perhaps no one would be ready to accept that the latter is a part of the former because in that case, the chip would be tougher than the old block.Thirdly, according to the Muslim chroniclers, Qutb-ud-din built the Qutb-ul-Islam mosque with the raw materials collected from the demolished 27 temples of the Qutb Complex. So, it becomes really difficult to believe that Qutb-ud-din built the main structure, the Qutb-ul-Islam mosque, with the raw materials of the demolished temples while he built the auxiliary structure, the Qutb Minar, with fresh raw materials by spending so much money.

It should be mentioned here that, Sir Syed Ahmed, the founder of the Aligarh Muslim University, used to believe that Qutb Minar had been authored by the Hindus and not by the Muslim rulers. In this context, it should also be noted that General Cunningham, the first Director of Archaeological Survey of India, used to hold the same view.

Part 4 : Vandalism of Qutb-ud-din

It has been mentioned above that the Qutb Minar is 238 ft tall and hence can be seen from a far away place. After arriving Delhi in 1193, Qutb-ud-din got extremely fascinated by the beauty and grandeur of the pillar and immediately went to the place with his men. They enquired about the name of the pillar, and someone replied “Meru Stambha”. In Arabic, the word qutb stands for the Pole Star and the interpreter said to Qutb-ud-din that the name of the pillar was Qutb Minar. So, in this way the word qutb was associated with the pillar “Meru Stambha” and it becomes evident that, till then, it was not linked with Sultan Qutb-ud-din. It may be mentioned here that, Qutb-ud-din means the Pole Star of Islam. It was nearly 200 years after the death of Qutb-ud-din, his name was linked, for the first time, to Qutb Minar by a Muslim chronicler called Shams-i-shiraj

Like other diabolical Muslim rulers, Qutb-ud-din was also a monster iconoclast. During his reign, he demolished thousands of Hindu temples. So, his court chronicler Hasan Nijami, in his Taj-ul-masir, writes, “Qutb-ud-din built the Jam-i-Masjid in Delhi and adorned it with the stones and gold obtained from temples which had been demolished by elephants and covered it with inscriptions in Toghra containing the divine cammands (of Koran)”

In 1194, Muhammad Ghori launched a military campaign against Benaras when Qutb-ud-din accompanied his master to play the partner of sodomy. In this context, it may be mentioned that in those days, lecherous Muslim rulers used to purchase young slaves for doing sodomy. However, after occupying Benaras, Qutb-ud-din ordered his troops to destroy temples and to narrate that destruction Minhaj-us-shiraj in his Tabaqat-i-Nasiri, writes, “They destroyed nearly one thousand temples and raised mosques on their foundations”. …”Religion (i.e. Islam) was established, the road of rebellion was closed, infidelity was cut off and foundations of idol worship were utterly destroyed.“

In 1196 AD., Kutubuddin Aibak invaded the fort at Gwalior . To describe the incident, Minhaz-us-Siraj in his Tabakat-I-Nasiri writes, “In compliance with the divine (i.e. Koranic) injunction of holy war (jihad), they drew out their blood-thirsty swords before the enemies of religion (i.e. Hindus)”. To describe the same incident, Hassan Nizami in his Taj-ul-masir writes, “The army of Islam was completely victorious and one lacks Hindus were swiftly dispatched to the hell of fire. … He (Kutubuddin) destroyed the pillars and foundations of idol temples and built their stead mosques, colleges and precepts of Islam”.

In 1197, Kutubuddin invaded the fort at Naharwala in Gujrat. On the way a battle was fought with the king Karan Singh. Describing the incident, Minhaj-us-Siraj in his Tabakat-I-Nasiri writes, “Nearly fifty thousand infidels (Hindus) were dispatched to the hell by the sword and from the heaps of the slain, hills and the plain became one level”. Regarding the capture of the Kalinjar Fort by Kutubuddin in 1202, Minhaz writes, “… fifty thousand men came under the collar of slavery and the plain became as black as pitch with the blood of Hindus”.

In a similar manner, Qutb-ud-din conducted a large scale destruction in the area, now known as the Qutb Complex. He demolished all the above mentioned 27 temples, dedicated to 27 Asterisms and built the Qutb-ul-Islam mosque with the raw materials obtained by the demolition of those temples. Even today, one observes the entire area of the Qutb Complex strewn with remains of demolished buildings and temples.

The History of the Slave Dynasty:

The history books, written by the so called secular historians, say that, with the coronation of Qutb-ud-din, the Slave Dynasty came to power in Delhi . The name Slave Dynasty was coined for the fact that Qutb-ud-din was a slave of Muhammad Ghori, and the next ruler Iltamush was a slave of Qutb-ud-din.Many do not know why Muhammad Ghori nominated his slave Qutb-ud-din as the next king and Qutb-ud-din nominated his slave Iltamush as the next ruler of Delhi . Why both Muhammad Ghori and Qutb-ud-din nominated their slaves as the kings after their death? The so called secular historians say, Muhammad Ghori had nominated Qutb-ud-din as the former had no son and Qutb-ud-din nominated Iltamush as the latter was his son-in-law. But there were more important reasons which these dirty historians hide.

It has been mentioned above that Muhammad Ghori purchased young Qutb-ud-din for doing sodomy. At that time, Qutb-ud-din was a very good looking Turkish boy having a nice physique. Minhaj-us-Siraj, has given a detailed narration of early lives of both Qutb-ud-din and Iltutmish in his Tabaqat-i-Nasiri. It says that Qutb-ud-din, for the first time, was sold to a qazi called Faqruddin Abdul Aziz, in the slave market at Naishapur (a corrupt of Sanakrit Naimusharanya). While staying in the house of qazi, Qutb-ud-din studied the Kora, learned horse riding and archery. Later on, a trader purchased Qutb-ud-din from the qazi and brought him to Delhi and finally Muhammad Ghori purchased Qutb-ud-din from that trader.

Gradually the lecherous Muhammad Ghori became extraordinarily enamoured of Qutb-ud-din and Qutb-ud-din, on the other hand, exploited the opportunity and became the care-taker of the royal stable which provided him the opportunity to join military expeditions. Thus in 1192, he came to India and participated in the Battle of Tarai, against Emperor Prithwiraj Chauhan. Later on, he took part in many other military campaigns and became a mass murderer and a terrible iconoclast. So, before leaving for Ghazni, Muhammad Ghori left his conquered territory in India to the care of his beloved slave Qutb-ud-din, and when Muhammad Ghori was killed by three brave Rajput young men in 1206, Qutb-ud-din declared him the Sultan of Hindustan.Thus the foundation of Dehli Sultanate was laid.

In a similar manner, the next Sultan Iltamush (or Altamash) also began his career as a slave. Tabaqat-i-Nasiri, in this regard, says that young boy Altamash looked very nice and his envious brothers stealthily sold to a horse trader. The said horse trader had brought him to Bukhara and sold him to a man called Haji Bukhari and the latter sold to another man called Jamal-ud-din Chast. According to the narration of Tabaqat-i-Nasiri, the buttocks of Altamash were fleshy and well built and hence he was extremely attractive for the sodomites. So, when Jamal-ud-din Chast brought him to Ghazni, the news spread like wild fire among the sodomites of the city, including Muhammad Ghori who rushed to the spot immediately but became disappointed when Chast claimed 100 gold coins as the price for Altamash. But the dejected Ghori at once issued a notice that, nobody in Ghazni would be allowed to buy Altamash.

At that hour Qutb-ud-din came to Ghazni with immense spoils he gathered from plundering Gujarat and Nahrwala. The news of Altamash reached this lecher as soon he set his feet at Ghazni and rushed to his master to seek his permission to buy Altamash. But his master Muhammad Ghori declined. At this stage, Jamal-ud-din Chast , at his instigation, brought Altamash to Delhi and Qutb-ud-din bought him. It is to be noted here that the sodomite Qutb-ud-din, like his master Muhammad Ghori, gradually became extraordinarily addicted to. Altamash and never hesitated to fulfill his any desire. In this way, Altamash ultimately asked for the hand of Qutb-ud-din’s daughter and Qutb-ud-din fulfilled that desire of his beloved slave too. Finally, Qutb-ud-din nominated his slave cum son-in-law as the future Sultan of Hindustan , after his death.

It has been mentioned earlier that the so called secular historians portray Qutb-ud-din and Altamash or Iltutmish as great admirers of art and architecture.It is left to the reader to assess, from the above narrations, how much admiration these cruel killers and lecherous vandals could have for art and architecture.

However, we may now turn our attention to the evidence that conclusively prove that the pillar, now known as the Qutb Minar, was built by the Hindus, long before the arrival of the barbaric Muslim invaders in India. One finds a stone inscription, written in Nagri and placed in position in Vikram-Samvat 1504 (1147 AD). It has been mentioned that, Muhammad Ghori occupied Delhi in 1192, by defeating Emperor Prithwiraj Chauhan in the Battle of Tarai. So the said epigraph conclusively proves that the Qutb Minar was there, at least 45 years before the arrival of Qutb-ud-din in Delhi.

To reject this evidence, our secular historians say that the Qutb Minar was built with the raw materials collected by demolishing several temples and buildings and the said epigraph had been carried to the Minar along with those raw materials. But it has been pointed out earlier that, not even a single Muslim chronicler has ever mentioned that Qutb-ud-din had built the Qutb Minar with the raw materials collected from demolished temples. On the contrary, they never hesitated to mention that Qutb-ud-din built the Qutb-ul-Islam mosque and the Jam-e-masjid with raw materials obtained by demolishing temples. And hence their argument does not seem to be tenable and the said edict proves conclusively that the Qutb Minar existed before the coming of Qutb-ud-din in Delhi . Furthermore, anyone, after inspecting the said edict, would refuse to admit that it had been carried to the spot as a raw material but carefully installed on the wall of the Minar with a definite purpose.

It has been mentioned earlier that an article by Acharya Bapu Vankar, published in the Itihas Darpan in 1996 contains many imformation regarding the history of the pillar, now called Qutb Minar. Furthermore, Varahamihir Smriti Granth, a book in Hindi, written by Kedarnath Prabhakar, published in 1974, from Saharanpur , India , contains real history of Qutb Minar and many other very important information. It is important to note that the edict of 1147 AD has been mentioned in Varahamihir Smriti Granth, where it has been said that a major renovation and repair work of the Minar was undertaken in 1147 AD, and the names of the skilled Rajput workers, who carried out the job, had been inscribed on the epigraph.

In the above mentioned work, the author Kedarnath Prabhakar writes that Emperor Vikramaditya Chandragupta-II (380 AD – 413 AD) built the Minar in the fourth century AD. It is well known that there is another pillar, made of iron, just beside the Qutb Minar. Regarding this Iron Pillar, Kedarnath Prabhakar writes that there is an inscription on this Iron Pillar, written Sanskrit, using Brahmi alphabet. Most importantly, there is mentioning of the Qutb Minar in that inscription. Here the Qutb Minar has been called the “Prapanshu Vishnudhwaj.”

Kedarnath Prabhakar also writes that this Great Creation of Emperor Vikramaditya was erected by exemplarily killed Rajput workers under the direct supervision of legendary astronomer Varaha Mihir. And in the great ashrama he established at Indraprastha (original name of Delhi ), called Mihiravali, there were 27 temples on one side and on the other side, he built another temple dedicated to Kalkadevi. These 27 temples were about half a mile away from the pillar Vishnudhwaj, which Qutb-ud-din demolished. On the western side of the pillar, on a hillock, there was the Kalkadevi’s temple. The spot is now known as Surajki Thikri. He also writes that, that Emperor Vikramaditya erected a similar pillar in Gandhar (today’s Afghanistan ) and its name was Vedhmaru. For want of skilled Rajput workers, Varahamihir built this pillar with bricks and mortar. It is now known as Minar-e-Jam and Giasuddin bin Sam Ghori, the elder brother of Muhammad Ghori, in the name repair and renovation, removed all the Hindu signs and inscriptions from the Vedhmaruand gave it Islamic look by adding Koranic inscriptions on it.

In this context, it should be mentioned that, though the Qutb Minar does not contain any edict by Qutb-ud-din or Iltutmish, it bears a stone epigraph by the above mentioned Giasuddin Ghori. So, it may be speculated that, in the name of renovation and repair, Giasuddin Ghori removed all Hindu signs and inscriptions from the Vishnudhwaj, and gave it a purely Islamic look by ornamenting it with Koranic inscriptions.

There is another stone edict on the wall of the Qutb-ul-Islam mosque that reads, in Sanskrit,

sūryyameru pṛthwīḥ yantraiḥ mihirāvalī yantreṇ

using same Brahmiscript as used in the inscription on the Iron Pillar. Scholars believe that this edict originally was on one of the 27 temples that Qutb-ud-din had demolished and brought to the Qutb-ul-Islam mosque as raw material. However, the text of the edict conclusively proves that the place was, once upon a time, known as Mihiravali and it was used for making astronomical observation, particularly for the sun, using instruments.

I have written a book in Bengali titled Mithyar Aborane Delhi Agra Fatehpur Sikri (History of Delhi Agra and Fatehpur Sikri under the Shroud of Falsehood) and I use to talk to my students about distortions of Indian history during leisure times. In one occasion, a group of my students went to visit Delhi , Agra and some other places of historical importance, as a part of an educational tour. On their return they came to me and said, “Sir, what you have written in your book is absolutely correct. We have discovered many Hindu symbols in every palace, in every fort and monument. But you have missed a very vital point in your book. We have discovered, with the help of a torch light, an image of Lord Ganesh, in the Qutb Minar, which you should mention in future edition of your book.”Perhaps the reader would admit that, it was not possible for either Qutb-ud-din or Altamash to install an idol of Lord Ganesh in the Qutb Minar, had they been the author of the same.

Part 5 : Glorification of Sher Shah Suri

“The Tiger King”, founder of the Suri Dynasty, was born at Narnaul in Punjab in 1486 and died on May 22, 1545 at Kalinjar. His original name was Farid Khan. His father Hasan was aJagirdar at Sasaram, Bihar . Ill-treated by his stepmother, he left home at an early age. Hewent to Jaunpur where he set himself to serious study and there he acquired good command over the Arabic and Persian languages. Because of his abilities, he was soon appointed by his father to manage the family Jagir at Sasaram.
Farid Khan exploited this opportunity to accumulate riches by highway robbery and plundering the wealth and riches of the Hindus, taking their women and children as captives and selling them as slaves, following the foot steps of Bakhiyar Khalji, the famoue warlord of Bihar , who lived in early 13thcentury AD. In one occasion, Farid succeeded to kill a tiger and hence earned the title “Sher (tiger) Khan“. The money that Sher Khan accumulated by Criminal means helped him raise a small army and hence to begin his political career. Later on, Sher Khan could consolidate his power by gaining the possession of the Chunar Fort by marrying the widow of Taj Khan Sarang-Khani, the Governer of Ibrahim Lodi.

It may be mentioned here that Chunar is in the Mirzapur District of Uttar Pradesh state, India. Though a small town, Chunar has a great influence in Indian history. The Chunar Fort was built by Maharaja Vikramaditya, the King of Ujjain, in honour of the stay of his brother Raja Bhrithari. As per Hindu records, Chunar is the corrupt of Sanskrit Charanadrias Lord Vishnu had taken his first step here in his Vaman incarnation. The place was also well known as Nainagarh.
However, Sher Khan gained considerable strength after defeating the combined army of Bengal and Hamayun with his own Bihari army and some Pashtun tribes men, in 1537.Then he defeated Humayun at the Battle of Kanauj on May 17, 1540, and ascended the throne of Delhi with the title Sher Shah. His reign barely spanned five years, but the so called secular historians of India , who are not prepared to miss even a single opportunity to glorify the Muslim invaders, portray it as a landmark in the history of the Sub-continent. They project Sher Shah as a rare genius and say that he made many brilliant additions and improvements to the existing system of administration.

They narrate Sher shah as an outstanding military genius, a great civilian administrator and, according to them; he left not even a single area of administrative syatem where he had not set up reforms. But to an unbiased reader, all such narrations appear to be nothing but cock-and-bull stories. According to these spineless slave historians, Sher Shah had revolutionized the revenue syatem which Akbar later on copied. But according another group of historians, Todar Mal, a Rajput minister of Akbar’s court, had implemented all such reforms connected to revenue administration,which are now being wrongly attributed to Sher Shah.

Road Building Enterprise of Sher Shah:

The most interesting part of the episode is that, theses spineless historians are projecting Sher Shah as a great builder, particularly a road builder. From their childhood, the students of India are being taught that Sher Shah Suri had built the road which is now known as the Grand Trunk Road ( G.T. Road ).But how far is this correct? Let us read further to find more information on this matter.

During the days of undivided India , the said G.T. Road ran from Sonargaon near Dhaka (now in Bangladesh ) up to the bank of River Indus in Punjab . Historian R.C. Majumdar writes, “Length of the road was 1,500 kos or 3,000 miles (4,800 km).” According to another historian, Shri Atul Chandra Roy, the length of the road was 1,400 miles or less than half of R C Majumdar’s figures. Moreover, R.C. Majumdar holds that the champion road-builder, Sher Shah, undertook construction of three more roads and completed them in his lifetime. “One road from Agra towards south up to Burhanpur (600 miles), the second road from Agra via Chittor up to Jodhpur (200 miles) and the third road from Lahore to Multan (100 miles).”

Thus, according to the estimate of R.C. Majumdar, the total length of all the roads built by Sher Shah stands at 3,900 miles or 6,240 km. These historians also say that Sher Shah planted trees on both sides of these roads to provide shades for the travelers and, in addition to that, he set up sarais (inns) at an interval of 2 kos along the roads where the travelers could take rest. In these sarais, Sher Shah provided separate accommodation facilities for the Hindus and the Muslims. He also employed Brahmin and Muslim cooks for preparing the meals of the Hindu and Muslim visitors. The reader should keep in his mind that all these things Sher Shah did within 5 years, despite his hectic military activities.

It has been mentioned above that the history books also tell that Sher Shah ascended the throne of Delhi on May 17, 1540, by defeating Humayun in a battle near Kannauj and in the same year organised a military campaign to suppress the revolt of the Gakkars in Punjab . He moved east, the next year, to suppress a similar revolt in Bengal in March, 1541 AD. The next year, he moved against the Rajput kings in central India and conquered Malwa. The very next year (i.e. in 1543 AD), he organised a campaign against the Hindu king Puran Mal and took control of the fort at Raisin and then moved against the Rajput king of Marwar. In 1544 he subdued the Rathore king, Maldev and in the subsequent year, he died in an accident in 1545 AD, in Kalinjar.

So, the rule of Sher Shah lasted only for five years and out of these five years, he spent nearly one year to gain control over the fort of Kalinjore. During the rest of his reign, he was on hectic movement from east to west and north to south for suppressing revolts or conquering new forts. It should be mentioned here that the period under consideration was a period of political chaos and lawlessness and to restore order, Sher Shah had to fight many battles and that too with partial success. Thus the question naturally arises-Was it possible for Sher Shah (or any other ruler of that time) to build such long roads within such a short span of time? Furthermore, is it possible to make roads, nearly 6,240 Km long, today using modern technology, within a period of 4 or 5 years? The real story is that, Abbas Khan, a court-chronicler of Sher Shah had written some lies to please and glorify his master and our historians took those narrations at their face value, without applying their common sense to estimate the credibility of those blatant lies.

A close scrutiny of events, during the time of Sher Shah, also reveals that, despite his vast efforts, he did not succeed in bringing the vast stretch of land, from Dhaka in Bengal and River Indus in Punjab, under his control. So, how could Sher Shah carry out such a gigantic project like making a road from Bengal to Punjab , when the territory in question was not under his supreme control?

A Muslim chronicler, Sheikh Nurul Haque, most probably honest, who mentioned in his Zubdatut Tawarikh, the road-building endeavour of Sher Shah, and wrote, “Sher Shah made the road which now runs from Delhi to Agra, by cutting trees in jungles, removing obstacles and built serais. Before that time people had to travel through the doab between these two places.” This description seems plausible and Sher Shah could have built a road, 300 Km long, within his reign of 4 years. It is important to note that this chronicler did not mention a single word about building a road from Bengal to Punjab by Sher Shah.

However, regarding the road building activities of Sher Shah, Abbas Khan, a court chronicler of Sher Shah, in his Tarikh-i-Sher Shah, writes, “May glory and blessings be upon his eminent dignity! For the convenience in traveling of poor travelers, on every road, at a distance of two kos, he made a sarai (inn); and one road with sarais he made from the fort which he built in the Punjab to the city of Sunargaon , which is situated in the kingdom of Bengal , on the shore of the ocean.. Another road he made from the city of Agra to Burhanpur, which is on the borders of the kingdom of the Dekhin, and he made one from the city of Agra to Jodhpur and Chitor; and one road with sarais from the city of Lahore to Multan . Altogether he built 1700 sarais on various roads; and in every sarai he built separate lodgings , both for Hindus and Musulmans, and at the gate of every sarai he had placed pots full of water, that any one might drink; and in every sarai he settled Brahmans for the entertainment of Hindus, to provide hot and cold water, and beds and food, and grain for their horses; and it was a rule in these sarais, that whoever entered them received provision suitable to his rank, and food and litter for his cattle from Government.”

“Villages were established all round the sarais. In the middle of every sarai was a well and a masjid of burnt brick; and he placed an imam and a muezzin in every masjid, together with custodians (shahna), and several watchmen; and all these were maintained from the land near the sarai. In every sarai, two horses were kept, that they might quickly carry news. I have heard that Hussain Tashtdar once, on an emergency, rode 300 kos in one day. On both sides of the highway, Sher Shah planted fruit-bearing trees, such as also gave much shade, that in the hot wind travelers might go along under the trees; and if they should stop by the way, might rest and take repose. If they put up at a sarai, they bound their horses under the trees”, Abbas Khan continues.
From what has been said above, it becomes evident that Abbas Khan wrote darkest lies in his Tarikh-i-Sher Shah, to please and glorify his master and our historians simply copied those narrations without considering the credibility of those narrations. To any unbiased reader, it would appear utterly impossible for Sher Shah to build such long roads, even if he would have devoted his 5 or 4 years of rein entirely for road building setting his military and political aspects aside. However, it is a shame that the spineless secular historians of India , to glorify the foreign invaders, are believing in these cock and bull stories which, perhaps, even a donkey would refuse to admit.

As a matter of fact, India is a great country and its civilization is oldest in the world. And it is needless to say that such a grand civilization could not have developed and sustained without extensive trade and commerce, and without good roads such large scale trade and commerce could not have been possible.. So, simple common sense tells us that there were networks of good roads in existence throughout the country from very ancient times, centuries before the arrival of the Muslim invaders. One should remember that, in those days, military campaigns among the Hindu kings were very common affair. How could these military campaigns have been possible without good roads? It means that there were good roads, wide enough for chariots drawn by four horses, even in very ancient times. For example, the epic Mahabharata describes how kings from remote corners of this country had assembled at Kurukshetra with their army to participate in the war. Did they come to Kurukshetra through jungles?

According to our historians, Sher Shah was not only a champion road builder but “Sher Shah planted shade-giving trees on both sides of the roads and sarais or rest houses at an interval of 2 kos, where separate arrangements were provided for the Muslims and the Hindus.“ How could Sher Shah do all these things within a period of about four years? No sane man would believe in this garbage of lies except the secular historians of India .

To glorify Sher Shah, our historians write, “Sher Shah was indeed a striking personality in the history of medieval India … His military character was marked by a rare combination of caution and enterprise, his political conduct was, on the whole, just and humane; his religious attitude was free from medieval bigotry; and his excellent taste in building is well attested, even today, by his noble mausoleum at Sasaram. He applied his indefatigable industry to the service of the state, and his reforms were well calculated to secure the interests of the people.”

What Sher Shah Really was:

But, in reality, Sher Shah was a Muslim Pathan from Afghanistan and like any other Muslim invaders, he was equally treacherous and cruel to the Hindus. His court chronicler, Abbas Khan, in his Tariq-i-Sher Shah, says that in 1543, Sher Shah invaded the kingdom of the Hindu king, Puran Mal, and put his Raisin fort under siege which compelled the Hindu army to surrender. Puran Mal sought a safe passage for his royal family and army. Sher Shah agreed. So Puran Mal and his army came out of the fort and took shelter in a pre-arranged camp provided by Sher Shah, just outside the fort.
In the meantime, the Pathan army started massacring the Hindus and to describe the wholesale slaughter, Abbas Khan writes, “While the Hindus were employed in putting their women and families to death, the Afghans on all sides commenced slaughtering of the Hindus. Puran Mal and his commanders, like pigs at a bay, failed to exhibit valour and gallantry, and within the twinkle of an eye, all were slain. Such of their wives and families, as were not slain, were captured. One daughter of Puran Mal and three sons of his brother were taken alive and the rest were all killed. Sher Shah gave the daughter of Puran Mal to some itinerant minstrels (bazigars) that they might make her dance in the bazaars, and ordered the boys to be castrated, so that the race of the oppressors (i.e. the Hindus) might not increase.”

At that time, the Rohtas fort in Bihar was under the control of the Hindu king, Hari Krishna Roy, who was a friend of Sher Shah. In 1537, Humayun launched a military campaign against Sher Shah and proceeded to attack the fortress at Chunar. Sher Shah had 1,000 women in his harem in the said fort at Chunar. Apprehending the fall of Chunar fort, Sher Shah requested Raja Hari Krishna Roy to provide a safe place for his harem in the Rohtas fort. Once upon a time, the Raja had given, in a similar crisis, shelter to Mia Nazim (younger brother of Sher Shah) and hence Sher Shah could request the Raja for a similar benevolence. At first, King Hari Krishna was hesitant.

However, on Sher Shah’s promise by touching the Quran, the Raja agreed to give shelter, but could smell a rat. As soon as Raja Hari Krishna agreed, Sher Shah hatched a plan to capture the fort. About 1,200 dolis (palanquins) were made ready overnight and two Afghan soldiers, clad in burqas, occupied each doli. The security staff in the fort checked the first few dolis and failing to detect the conspiracy, allowed the rest to enter the fort. Nearly 2,500 Pathan soldiers succeeded in entering the fort and in the mid-night they started killing the Hindu security guards and thus occupied the fort. King Hari Krishna somehow managed to escape the fort through a secret passage. Our spineless historians describe this incident as exhibit of exemplary military acumen and bravery of Sher Shah.

But Hari Krishna Roy did not know that the Koran instructs the Muslims that they can enter into any agreement with the kafirs and break that agreement in the opportune moment, for the benefit of Islam. Moreover, Allah designates such a treachery with the kafirs as taqiyah or holy deceptionand attaches merit for such treacherous activities.
This kind of treachery is still going on today and an incident may be cited in this context. When Indian Prime Minister A B Vajpayee and Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharf were having peace talks at Rawalpindi in 1998, the Pakistani army, at the instigation of Nawaz Sharif, was crossing the Line of Control (LOC) between India and the Pak occupied Kashmir (POK) and occupying the military bunkers on the Indian side at Kargil.

However, our so-called secular historians carefully avoid all these aspects in their versions of history and prefer to follow two fundamental guidelines, as mentioned above, to glorify the Muslim rulers.

How Farid Khan became Sher Shah:
It has been mentioned earlier that the so called secular and Marxist historians distort the Muslim colonial period of Indian history following the guidelines-

1) The period of Muslim rule in India was not a colonial period as the Muslim rulers, though came from outside, stayed back in this country.
2) The said Muslim period of Indian history should be mentioned as a golden period of Indian history, not a colonial period.
3) The ugly face of Islam is to be suppressed and it should be projected as a noble, generous, extremely tolerant and socialistic religion, and religion of universal brotherhood.
4) The Hinduism is to be exposed as a base religion infected with the inhuman institution like casteism and full of despicable superstitions.
5) The foreign Muslim rulers are to be narrated as highly civilized, generous, polished and valorous people and they were far superior to the Hindus in military skill and bravery.
6) During the Muslim rule, the Hindus and Muslims lived in peace as good neighbours and the present enmity and hatred between the two communities was created later on by the British colonialists.
7) It should never be mentioned that the Muslim rulers had massacred the Hindus in hundreds of thousands, demolished thousands Hindu temples or converted them into mosques.
8)It should never be mentioned that the Muslim rulers converted the Hindus at the point of sword. On the contrary, it should be said the low caste Hindus, being oppressed by the high caste Hindus and attracted by the generous and socialistic ideals of Islam, accepted Islam in droves and so on and so forth.

According to the set guidelines as mentioned above, the so called secular historians are projecting Sher Shah as a great ruler, a rare genius free from religious bigotry and by any similar lofty word the might find in the dictionary. They also say that exemplary military skill, keen foresight, extreme diligence and prudence helped Sher Shah rising from humble Farid Khan and ending up ultimately as the Sultan of Hindustan . But the real story is quite different.

In an earlier article, it has been pointed out that Islam has nothing like human resource development program and it has no plan to develop its followers as wealth creators. On the contrary, the Koran inspires the Muslims to acquire wealth by criminal means such as theft, robbery and plunder of the kafirs by waging jihad against them. Most importantly, their Prophet taught his followers this easy means for acquiring wealth by killing and driving away the Jews from Medina and confiscating and distributing their wealth and the riches among the believers. It is needless to say that these teachings of Islam have made its followers, though poor in creative intelligentsia, expert in criminal activities.

As a Muslim, Farid Khan also utilized that celebrated criminal path to accumulate wealth while he was serving his father to manage his jagir. He used to conduct raids on Hindu villages, plunder the wealth and riches of the Hindu subjects of his father’s jagir, to become rich. As a procedure, he used to encircle a Hindu village, kill the adult males and sell the women and children as slaves and confiscate their properties. He also used to bring false allegations against the Hindu landlords and occupy their wealth and properties after killing them en masse or driving them out of the jagir.

To narrate such a raid in a Hindu village, Abbas Hasan in his Tarikh-i-Sher Shahi, writes, “His horsemen he directed to patrol around the villages, to kill all men they meet and to make prisoners of the women and children, to drive in cattle to permit no one to cultivate the fields, to destroy the crops already sown and not to permit any one to bring anything in from neighbouring parts.”
To describe how Farid Khan attacked and plundered the wealth of the Hindu zamindars, Abbas Hasan, in his Tarikh-i-Sher Shahi, writes, “Early in the morning, Farid Khan mounted and attacked the criminal zamindars, and put all the rebels to death, and making their women and children prisoners, ordered his men to sell them or keep them as slaves and brought other people (i.e. Afghan Muslims) to the village and settled them there.”

While commenting on such oppression of the Muslim rulers on the helpless Hindus, H M Elliotwrites,”Under sauch rulers, we cannot wonder that the fountains of justice are corrupted; that the state revenues are never collected without violence and outrage; that villages are burnt and their inhabitants mutilated or sold to slavery; that the officials, so far from affording protection, are themselves the chief robbers and usurpers; and that the poor find no redress against the oppressor’s wrong and proud man’s consumely.”

He also writes, “The few glimpses we have of Hindus slain for disputing with the Muhammadans, of prohibitions against processions, worship and ablutions, and of other intolerant measures, of idols mutilated, of temples razed, of forcible conversions and marriages of proscriptions and confiscations, of murders and massacres, and of the sensuality and drunkenness of the tyrants who enjoined them, show us that this picture is no overcharged, and it is much to be regretted that we are left to draw it for ourselves from out of the man of ordinary occurrences, recorded by writers who seem to sympathize with no virtues and to abhor no vices.”
But it is a shame that the so called secular historians of India are portraying oppressive and jihadi rulers as extremely kind hearted, generous, tolerant and polished people free of religious bigotry. It is needless to say that, by such false portrayal of those diabolical rulers, they are committing an unpardonable crime.