The Nehruvian Penalty: 50 wasted years

The Goldman Sachs report 'Dreaming with BRICs: The Path 2050' by Dominic Wilson and Roopa Purushothaman, dated October 31, 2003, has, with good reason, caused quite a stir, especially in India . It is especially noteworthy for its optimistic statements about India, for example:

India has the potential to show the fastest growth over the next 30 and 50 years. Growth could be higher than 5% over the next 30 years and close to 5% as late as 2050 if development proceeds successfully.

In US dollar terms, China could overtake Germany in the next four years, Japan by 2015 and the US by 2039. India's economy could be larger than all but the US and China in 30 years.

There are plenty of caveats, of course. But the very fact that an American investment bank is now talking up India is significant. There is a whole slew of other positive news, for example an adulatory cover story in Businessweek ('The Rise of India,' December 8, 2003) http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_49/b3861001_mz001.htm and a Pacific News Service article ('Return of the Old Empires: India and China) http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=6261b8c8117ae9848d747eb3da747eeb and a new buzz about India's economic prospects in the world media. Even Peter Drucker, the grand old man of American management, weighed in recently, saying very positive things about India's prospects especially as contrasted with China.

The American investment banks have been especially diligent in talking up China in the last few years. This probably had something to do with the fat fees they were expecting from the initial public offerings of some large Chinese firms, for example China Telecom, whose multi-billion-dollar offer must have brought them very large fees.

India has not had juicy carrots like these in the pipeline, and in any case investment banks in India are quite capable of managing any large offers. So if the Goldman Sachs of the world are now positive on India, that must mean they smell some juicy business. The new American ambassador-designate is, perhaps not coincidentally, a banker from Credit Suisse First Boston.

The BRIC (Brazil , Russia, India, China) report bases its conclusions on some growth model assumptions:

• high rates of return from increased capital per worker
• the ability to leapfrog technologies
• significant increases in the exchange rate
• growth in employment.

Based on India's positive demographic profile which means workers will come into the economy for longer than in other BRICs, Goldman Sachs expects India's high growth rate will continue for longer than the other countries.

The report cautions that its projections are dependent on the following, so there is no room for complacency:

• Macroeconomic stability: low inflation, supportive government policy, sound public finances and a well-managed exchange rate
• Institutional capability: legal system, functional markets, health and education systems, financial institutions and government bureaucracy
• Openness: to trade and foreign direct investment
• High levels education: there is a strong positive correlation between secondary education and growth

Clearly, it is for Indians collectively to lose this race. For every one of the above is an area of some concern. In particular, education is a key matter: the Goldman Sachs report suggests that 1 additional year of schooling for the workforce on average provides a 0.3% faster annual growth rate over the next 30 years. This is a vulnerability for India. The issue of openness is a double-edged sword: over-eager openness to FDI and trade, especially in an atmosphere of 'managed trade', may be suicidal. Americans, up until now zealous proponents of 'globalization', are beginning to have second thoughts: it seems 'free trade' is good only insofar as it benefits the West. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/06/opinion/06SCHU.html?8bl

Much of what Goldman Sachs says is a priori sensible; the projections are merely startling in their boldness about how India will overtake all other nations barring China and the US by 2050. The following table summarizes their projections for both GDP and per capita GDP growth over the next fifty years. Note the tortoise-hare scenario: India is slow to get off the block, but grows consistently faster in the long run. China's early lead, however, enables that country to have a significantly greater GDP per person by 2050.

	China GDP % growth	India GDP % growth	China GDP per capita % growth	India GDP per capita % growth
2000-2005	8.0	5.3	9.2	3.7
2005-2010	7.2	6.1	11.2	7.5
2010-2015	5.9	5.9	9.2	7.4
2015-2020	5.0	5.7	7.8	7.2
2020-2025	4.6	5.7	7.3	7.4
2025-2030	4.1	5.9	6.9	8.2
2030-2035	3.9	6.1	6.5	8.9
2035-2040	3.9	6.0	6.3	8.9
2040-2045	3.5	5.6	5.9	8.3
2045-2050	2.9	5.2	5.4	7.6

Given these assumptions, here are the GDPs and per capita GDPs of major nations in 2050, in constant 2003 US$, sorted by projected GDP in 2050:

Country	GDP in 2050 (billion US$)	GDP per capita in 2050 (US$)
China	44,453	31,357
US (G6)	35,165	83,710
India	27,803	17,366
Japan (G6)	6,673	66,805
Brazil	6,074	26,592
Russia	5,870	49,646
UK (G6)	3,782	59,122
Germany (G6)	3,603	48,952
France [ Images ] (G6)	3,148	51,594
Italy [ Images ] (G6)	2,061	40,901

All this is good news, but in a way it merely buttresses the optimism many of us have had about the Indian economy.

But what I found most interesting in the report was the Goldman Sachs economists' attempt to test their model but running it backwards for the period 1960-2000. That is, they attempted to see how well the model would have predicted actual growth if applied to major developing countries in 1960. Here are the results of that analysis:

Country	Predicted GDP growth rate 1960-2000%	Actual GDP growth rate 1960-2000%
Argentina	4	2.4
Brazil	5.8	4.8
France	3.4	3.2
Germany	3.3	3.1
Hong Kong	6.2	7.4
India	7.5	4.5
Italy	3.5	3.3
Japan	4.5	4.8
Korea	6.8	7.8
UK	2.6	2.4
US	2.8	3.2

I would draw your attention to the row regarding India. Forecast for annual GDP growth 1960 to 2000, based on its endowment: 7.5% per annum, actual: 4.5% per annum. That 3% per annum shortfall sounds small, but it isn't. Look at what (South) Korea has accomplished: by growing at 7.8% in those forty years, they, who started at roughly the same point as India, is now far ahead of India in GDP per capita, and their GDP is roughly the same as India's, although they are a far nation.

Put another way, in forty years GDP would have grown by a factor of 1800% without the Nehruvian Penalty, instead of the actual growth of 580%. Instead of an actual GDP of about $460 billion in 2003, and also a per capita GDP of about $450, India's numbers would have been $1451 billion GDP and a per capita GDP or about $1400. India's economy would have been the fourth largest in the world, after the US, Japan and Germany! Per capita, Indians, while far behind the G6, would have been better off than Chinese.

In other words, the 3% shortfall has condemned a quarter of a billion people to grinding poverty. It is an economic crime against humanity. The blood, sweat and tears of a billion Indians, for one half century. Wasted.

And what was the reason for the 3% shortfall? That, gentle reader, is the Nehruvian Penalty, the effect of the Nehru dynasty, India's Sorrow. Had it not been for the dubious and half-digested economic ideas eagerly accepted by Nehru and fellow Stalinists, India would have been far better off.

One of those Old Left hoi-polloi, one Raj Krishna, coined the untruthful phrase 'Hindu rate of growth' to refer to the pathetic Nehruvian Rate of Growth of 2% to 3% a year. The unlovely Comrade knew he could get away with demeaning Hindus. He is referred to as 'the famous economist Raj Krishna' although I believe he is only famous for having coined this insult. So according to the famous Raj Krishna, I take it that Pakistan's pathetic economic showing would be the 'Muslim rate of growth'? But of course, no Comrade would ever say anything that might 'hurt Muslim sentiments.'

I hope if I can now claim I am 'the famous economist Rajeev Srinivasan' for having coined the phrase 'The Nehruvian Penalty.' Gentle reader, I implore you to propagate this rude but accurate phrase so that I may truly become a 'famous economist.'

The shortfall is clearly cause and effect. Nehru was here, and India had the 3% gap. Now Nehru is dead, and his acolytes are out, and India now has managed to get back to 7+ % growth, which is what Hindu India enjoyed before the Muslim and Christian colonization sprees. The 8.4% growth achieved in Q2FY2003 is an indication of the true Hindu rate of growth. Clearly the Nehruvian Albatross is now gone. And good riddance, too.

I have noticed recent attempts by Nehru hagiographers to polish up the man's image. But, in an example of the axiom that you cannot fool all the people all the time, large numbers are beginning to question all the wonderful things the JNU court jesters claim our Jawaharlal accomplished. I have been thinking about this for some time, and have come to the conclusion that Jawaharlal was an unmitigated disaster for India.

It is clear that Nehru screwed up big time on Tibet, Kashmir, the NAM, the Security Council, in fact everything he touched. Nehru's little lambs never fail to claim that even if he did nothing else right, Nehru started the IITs, which has led to India's increasing prestige in the world. Wrong. The IITs have done the exact opposite of what Nehru intended, in a spectacular example of the principle of unintended consequences.

Nehru, being himself a deracinated person with no understanding of Indian culture (read his autobiography where he confesses that he was brought up as an Uncle Tom, a little Briton in brown face), hoped to create good coolies for the use of his idols, the British and the Communists. Nehru was not burdened with a massive intellect (as he admits in his autobiography) or with great knowledge (as you can see from the absolute howlers in his Glimpses of World History, which should be titled more properly The Word According to Garp and shelved under 'fiction'). He wanted, in continuation of the Macaulayite project, to create de-Indianized and de-Hinduized robots, much like himself.

What has happened, ironically enough, is that the majority of IIT products have not followed the plan: they have not become rootless. (There are some notable exceptions, though, who, infected with 'South-Asianitis', are eager to bring the benefits of IT services to Karachi, that is when the good citizens there can tear themselves away from their AK-47s.)

What the IITs have done is to locate a bright group of students, teach them a lot of engineering, and substantially enhance their self-esteem. This last was not part of the Nehruvian/Macaulayite project, but this is perhaps the one thing that most IIT graduates share: self-confidence and a belief that they are the best of the best. Since people do what they expect themselves to do, this has become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

This self-confidence has enabled many IIT graduates to make a mark in whatever they chose to do. It is poetic justice that it is JNU students who have fulfilled Nehru's objective of providing slaves for the Communists and the West. It is to intimidate these innumerate and generally intellectually challenged individuals that I have included the numbers above. I forecast that the hate mail from them will carefully skirt the numbers and confine themselves to abusing me as a human being: perfect, because that is a purely subjective opinion for which they have to show neither proof nor thought process, just knee-jerk sloganeering.

In passing, there is a crying need in India for a world class school focusing on the humanities. In the sciences, we have the Indian Institute of Science; in engineering, the Indian Institutes of Technology; in medicine, the All India Institute of Medical Sciences; in the law, the National Law School University of India; in management, the Indian Institutes of Management and the Indian School of Business, all clearly world class.

It is time that a globally competitive Indian Institute of the Humanities be set up, perhaps in Hyderabad or Bangalore, to do original research into the unsung contributions of Indic culture to the world. Some focus areas could be Indology; classical languages Sanskrit, Pali/Prakrit and Tamil; yoga; ayurveda; economics; statecraft (eg. the Arthashastra); astronomy; mathematics (eg Aryabhatiya); all areas in which Indic thought is far too underrated. This will help us to avoid Nehruvian Albatrosses in future, based on half baked and imported ideologies.

Fifty wasted years. A billion people forced to live below their potential. Since I believe in the long cycles of history, I have to believe that having to put up with the Nehruvian Penalty has atoned for whatever sins India has committed for a thousand years. And now this is India's century. As Businessweek commented, for the first time a developing nation is clawing its way out of poverty by using the intelligence of its citizens, not natural resources that come out of a hole in the ground.

Courtesy : Rajeev Srinivasan at rediff.com

Historical Blunders by Congress those haunt India forever

Kashmir Mess

There can be no better example of shooting one’s own foot than India’s clumsy handling of the Kashmir issue. It is a saga of naivety, blinkered vision and inept leadership.

Hari Singh was the reigning monarch of the state of Jammu and Kashmir in 1947. He was vacillating when tribal marauders invaded Kashmir in October 1947, duly backed by the Pakistan army. Unable to counter them, Hari Singh appealed to India for assistance and agreed to accede to India. Indian forces blunted the invasion and re-conquered vast areas.

First, India erred by not insisting on unequivocal accession of the state to the Dominion of India and granted special status to it through Article 37p0 of the Constitution. Secondly, when on the verge of evicting all invaders and recapturing the complete state, India halted operations on 1 January 1949 and appealed to the Security Council. It is the only case in known history wherein a country, when on the threshold of complete victory, has voluntarily forsaken it in the misplaced hope of winning admiration of the world community. Thirdly and most shockingly, the Indian leadership made a highly unconstitutional offer of plebiscite in the UN.

Forty percent area of the state continues to be under Pakistan’s control, providing it a strategic land route to China through the Karakoram ranges. As a fall out of the unresolved dispute, India and Pakistan have fought numerous wars and skirmishes with no solution in sight. Worse, the local politicians are holding India to ransom by playing the Pak card. Kashmir issue is a self-created cancerous furuncle that defies all medications and continues to bleed the country.

The basic mistake was not rushing the Indian Army after his SOS.Sardar Patel was swift to move but was stalled by Nehru for inexplicable reason dithered.had the army been moved swiftly,Pakistan would have had no chance of entering Kashmir. The inexplicable reason was Farouk Abdullah(the so called Blood Bother of Nehru).Old timers know what it is.

Ignoring Chinese Threats and Neglecting the Military

Memories of the year 1962 will always trouble the Indian psyche. A nation of India’s size had lulled itself into believing that its protestations and platitudes of peaceful co-existence would be reciprocated by the world. It was often stated that a peace-loving nation like India did not need military at all. The armed forces were neglected. The political leadership took pride in denigrating the military leadership and meddled in internal affairs of the services to promote sycophancy. Foreign policy was in shambles. The intelligence apparatus was rusty.

Even though signs of China’s aggressive intentions were clearly discernible for years in advance, the Indian leadership decided to keep its eyes shut in the fond hope that the problem would resolve itself. When China struck, the country was caught totally unprepared. Troops were rushed to snowbound areas with summer clothing and outdated rifles. Despite numerous sagas of gallantry, the country suffered terrible embarrassment. India was on its knees. With the national morale and pride in tatters, India was forced to appeal to all nations for military aid. Inept and incompetent leadership had forced a proud nation to find solace in Lata Mangeshkar’s Ae Mere Watan Ke Logo.

The Tashkent Agreement and Return of Haji Pir Pass

Following the cease-fire after the Indo-Pak War of 1965, a Russian-sponsored agreement was signed between India and Pakistan in Tashkent on 10 January 1966. Under the agreement, India agreed to return the strategic Haji Pir pass to Pakistan which it had captured in August 1965 against heavy odds and at a huge human cost. The pass connects Poonch and Uri sectors in Jammu and Kashmir and reduces the distance between the two sectors to 15 km whereas the alternate route entails travel of over 200 km. India got nothing in return except an undertaking by Pakistan to abjure war, an undertaking which meant little as Pakistan never had any intention of honouring it.

Return of the vital Haji Pir pass was a mistake of monumental proportions for which India is suffering to date. In addition to denying a direct link between Poonch and Uri sectors, the pass is being effectively used by Pakistan to sponsor infiltration of terrorists into India. Inability to resist Russian pressure was a manifestation of the spineless Indian foreign policy and shortsighted leadership.

The Simla Agreement

With the fall of Dhaka on 16 December 1971, India had scored a decisive victory over Pakistan. Over 96,000 Pak soldiers were taken Prisoners of War (PoWs). Later, an agreement was signed between the two countries on 2 July 1972 at Shimla. Both countries agreed to exchange all PoWs, respect the line of control (LOC) in Jammu and Kashmir and refrain from the use of threat or force. Additionally, Bhutto gave a solemn verbal undertaking to accept LOC as the de facto border.

India released all Pak PoWs in good faith. Pakistan, on the other hand, released only 617 Indian PoWs while holding back 54 PoWs who are still languishing in Pakistani jails. The Indian Government has admitted this fact a number of times but has failed to secure their release. India failed to use the leverage of 96,000 Pak PoWs to discipline Pakistan. A rare opportunity was thus wasted. Forget establishing permanent peace in the sub-continent, India failed to ensure release of all Indian PoWs – a criminal omission by all accounts.

The naivety of the Indian delegation can be seen from the fact that it allowed Pakistan to bluff its way through at Shimla. The Indian leadership was fooled into believing Pakistan’s sincerity. Unquestionably, Pakistan never intended to abide by its promises, both written and verbal. Fruits of a hard-fought victory in the battlefield were frittered away on the negotiating table by the bungling leadership.

The Nuclear Muddle

Subsequent to the Chinese Nuclear Test at Lop Nor in 1964, India showed rare courage in carrying out its first nuclear test on 18 May 1974 at Pokharan. Outside the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, India was the only nation to prove its nuclear capability. The whole country was ecstatic and every Indian felt proud of its scientific prowess. But Indians had not contended with their Government’s penchant for converting opportunity into adversity and squandering hard-earned gains.

Instead of asserting India’s newly acquired status of a nuclear power and demanding recognition, India turned apologetic and tried to convince the world that it had no nuclear ambitions. It was a self-deprecating stance. Displaying acute inferiority complex, India did not want to be counted as a member of the exclusive nuclear club.

Whereas a few more assertive follow-on tests would have forced the world to accept India as a member of the nuclear club, India went into an overdrive to placate the world through a self-imposed moratorium on further testing. It lost out on all the advantages provided to it by its scientists. It suffered sanctions and yet failed to gain recognition as a nuclear power. The country missed golden opportunities due to the timidity and spinelessness of its leaders.

Illegal Immigration and Passage of IMDT Act

It is a standard practice all over the world that the burden of proving one’s status as a bona-fide citizen of a country falls on the accused. It is so for India as well under Foreigners Act, 1946. Political expediency forced the Government to make an exception for Assam. In one of the most short-sighted and anti-national moves, India passed the Illegal Migrants – Determination by Tribunals (IMDT) Act of 1984 for Assam. It shifted the onus of proving the illegal status of a suspected immigrant on to the accuser, which was a tall and virtually impossible order. Detection and deportation of illegal immigrants became impossible.

Whenever demands were raised for repealing the Act, the Congress, the Left Front and the United Minorities Front resisted strongly. Illegal immigrants had become the most loyal vote bank of the Congress. Worse, every protest against the Act was dubbed as ‘anti-minority’ , thereby imparting communal colour to an issue of national security. The government’s ‘pardon’ of all Bangladeshis who had come in before 1985 was another unconstitutional act that aggravated the problem.

The Act was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on July 13, 2005, more than 20 years after its enactment. The Apex Court was of the view that the influx of Bangladeshi nationals into Assam posed a threat to the integrity and security of northeastern region. Unfortunately, immense damage had already been done to the demography of Assam and the local people of Assam had been reduced to minority status in certain districts. Illegal immigrants have come to have a stranglehold over electioneering to the extent that no party can hope to come to power without their support. Nearly 30 Islamic groups are thriving in the area to further their Islamist and Pan-Bangladesh agenda. It is incomprehensible that a nation’s leadership can stoop so low and endanger even national security for garnering votes.

All these pseudo secular parties have proved that they go any extent to capture power, even to the extent of making all those Illegal immigrants as voters of India there by endangering the security and Integrity of India.

Courtesy : Major general Mrinal Suman/ Ramanan50 (blog with some changes)

The Blunder of Pandit Nehru

In one of his article, well-known Tibet and Kashmir expert "Claude Apri" wrote:

Everything started in early 1946 when the Indian National Congress had to elect a new president. It was an accepted fact that the leader chosen as Congress president would become the first prime minister of independent India. Three candidates were in the race: Acharya Kripalani, Jawaharlal Nehru, and Sardar Patel. The working committee of the INC and the pradesh committees had to send their nomination for one of the three candidates.

Sardar Patel was easily the most popular. Everyone knew his efficiency and his toughness for tackling difficult problems. Twelve out of 19 Pradesh committees nominated him. None nominated Nehru.

From the start Gandhi had indicated that he favoured Nehru. His reasoning was that his British education was an asset: 'Jawaharlal cannot be replaced today whilst the charge is being taken from the British. He, a Harrow boy, a Cambridge graduate, and a barrister, is wanted to carry on the negotiations with the Englishmen.'

Another point Gandhi made was that while Sardar Patel would agree to work as Nehru's deputy, the reverse might not happen. He also felt that Nehru was better known abroad and could help India play a role in international affairs.

Eventually, in deference to Gandhi, Kripalani nominated Nehru and withdrew from the race. Patel had no choice but to follow his colleague 'so that Nehru could be elected unopposed.' Dr Rajendra Prasad later stated: 'Gandhi has once again sacrificed his trusted lieutenant for the sake of the glamorous Nehru.'

It is how India got a Kashmiri Pandit as its first prime minister.

I have always found it strange that a man professing to be above caste or religion agreed to be called 'Panditji.' Nonetheless, the fact that a Pandit was the prime minister made Kashmir a state different from the 500 other princely states.

Soon, the conflicting aspects in Nehru's persona came to the fore. On one hand, he was a democrat and revolutionary; on the other, he was often carried away by his 'Socialist' ideals to the point of blundering with India's destiny.

After his election as Congress president, he gave his support to his friend Sheikh Abdullah (he called him his 'blood brother') who had been jailed by Maharaja Hari Singh of Kashmir. In June 1946, he decided to go to the valley to free Abdullah. The situation was certainly not shining in Kashmir (as in the rest of India), but to take on the maharaja at this point in time was a serious mistake.

However, for Nehru, 'Anything that happens in Kashmir has a certain importance for the rest of India, but recent events there have had an even greater importance, [they] became symbols of a larger struggle for emancipation. Thus Kashmir became symbolic of the [princely] States in India.' He wanted to take on 'the autocratic and often feudal rule that prevails there.' He did not realise that the princes' support and collaboration would be indispensable during this all-important transition period for the nation.

Though prohibited to enter the maharaja's state, in July 1946 Nehru decided to defy the ban. Patel and other members of the working committee tried to dissuade him: there were more important matters to tackle in Delhi after the Cabinet Mission had come to discuss the transfer of power.

In a letter to D P Mishra, Patel explained: 'He [Nehru] has done many things recently which have caused us great embarrassment. His actions in Kashmir … are acts of emotional insanity and it puts tremendous strain on us to set the matters right.' However, Patel, always fair, added: 'but in spite of all these innocent indiscretions he has unparalleled enthusiasm and a burning passion for freedom.' Patel, thus, pointed out the two powerful (and opposing) aspects of Nehru's personality.

A year later, hardly two weeks before Independence, Nehru still wanted to go to Srinagar. He wrote to Gandhi: 'I shall go ahead with my plans. As between visiting Kashmir when my people need me there and being prime minister, I prefer the former.' Once again he had to be dissuaded.

At the stroke of the midnight hour on August 14, India awakened to life and freedom. Unfortunately, Maharaja Hari Singh remembered the events of the previous year and while most princes signed the Instrument of Accession of their state to the Dominion of India, Hari Singh prevaricated. What would happen to him and his state under Nehru's rule? He also knew that the future of his state could not lie with Jinnah and his government.

In September, he decided to offer Kashmir's accession to India. This was refused by Nehru, who first wanted Sheikh Abdullah to be freed and installed as prime minister of the state. This was not acceptable to the maharaja.

Things came to a head at the end of October 1947 when raiders from the North West Frontier Province entered the state, killing, looting, and raping along. On October 26, they had reached the outskirts of Srinagar. Hari Singh agreed to sign the Instrument of Accession.

On the same day a historic meeting was held in Delhi with Mountbatten, the governor general, as chairman. A young army colonel named Sam Manekshaw, who attended the meeting, recalled: 'As usual Nehru talked about the United Nations, Russia, Africa, God Almighty, everybody, until Sardar Patel lost his temper. He said, 'Jawaharlal, do you want Kashmir, or do you want to give it away?' He [Nehru] said, 'Of course, I want Kashmir.' Then he [Patel] said: 'Please give your orders.'

This anecdote perfectly exemplifies Nehru, who could make the greatest speeches, but was unable to take a decision at a crucial moment. Thanks to Patel's decisiveness, troops were flown to Srinagar the next morning and the airport, the only link with India, was saved. Military operations to expel the raiders started.

Nehru's colleagues soon discovered they had made another serious blunder, a collective one. They had chosen Mountbatten to be the first governor general of independent India while Jinnah had kept the post for himself in Pakistan. At that time, it was probably easier for the Congress to have a foreigner as the head of the Dominion; it conveniently avoided having to choose among themselves. However, Mountbatten manipulated matters so well that he became chairman of a newly created defence council. Nehru did not see a problem in this: Mountbatten (and his wife) were his best friends.

But this was to have grave repercussions on Kashmir policy. Mountbatten, a British officer, was now at the helm of the executive defence machinery. British generals still serving in India reported to him. Mountbatten was not working for India's interests, but the British crown's.

Nehru's sentimental attachment to the Mountbattens deeply vitiated the Kashmir issue. It was certainly the most important factor for the failure to find a solution in the first years of the conflict.

Events took a turn for the worse at the end of December 1947 when the governor general managed to convince Nehru that India had to refer the Kashmir issue to the UN instead of conducting a military counterattack in West Punjab. Patel did not agree. But at this precise point in time the Sardar, who had so far looked after the relations with the princely states, was sidetracked. On December 23, he wrote his resignation, but was prevented (by Gandhi) from pressing for it. From that day, with Patel out of Kashmir affairs, things went from bad to worse.

In the first months of 1948, during the UN hearings, the British showed where their interests lay. The original Indian complaint was completely left aside and the Security Council began adopting anti-India resolutions.

Abdullah had already started his crusade (particularly with the US administration) for Kashmir's independence. He remained Nehru's friend till his scheming became too dangerous for India. In August 1953, he was finally dismissed by Karan Singh, the sadar-i-riyasat. Two months earlier, Shyama Prasad Mookerjee, who had been arrested by Abdullah and left without medical care in Srinagar, died in mysterious circumstances. Nehru had visited the capital of Kashmir a few days earlier, but did not find the time to call on his former Cabinet colleague. He later wrote to Mookerjee's mother: 'Indeed, I hoped that the healthy climate of Kashmir might lead to an improvement in Shyama Babu's health.'

Though in the following years Nehru hardened his position when different UN commissions (Dixon, Graham, Jarring) visited Delhi, it was too late. Pakistan was certainly not interested in vacating the so-called 'Azad Kashmir', rendering the plans for a plebiscite mentioned in the UN resolutions of August 1948 and January 1949 irrelevant.

A few days before his death Nehru sent a freshly released Abdullah to meet Ayub Khan with a proposal to have a confederation of India, Pakistan and Kashmir. The proposal was contemptuously rejected as 'absurd' by the Pakistani military ruler. It was Nehru's last attempt to solve the issue and it failed.

In retrospect, despite Nehru's love for great principles, his incapacity to take decisions in time, his inability to work with colleagues like Patel, and his friendship with individuals such as the Mounbattens or Abdullah, who had their own interests, blinded him so much that he did not further India's national interests. The consequences have been tragic and the muddle created 57 years ago remains far from being sorted out.

Courtesy : Sri Pankaj Madhukar

Himu: The Hindu ‘hero’ Of Medieval India-- MUST READ BOOK

Book: Himu: The Hindu ‘hero’ Of Medieval India (against The Background Of Afghan-mughal Conflicts)

READ GOOGLE BOOK Click


Neither Fate Nor Historians Have Been Kind To Himu... Historians, Medieval And Modern, Have Scant Justice To, And Failed To Show Due Appreciation Of The Unique Personality And Greatness Of A Hindu Who, During The Heyday Of Muslim Rule In India, Worked His Way From A Grocer S Shop To The Throne Of Delhi, And, But For An Accident In A Battle Which Turned Victory Into Defeat, Might Have Founded A Hindu Ruling Dynasty, Instead Of The Mughals, In Delhi... (R.C. Majumdar). The Author Has Made An Attempt To Fill Up This Gap In History. He Has Studied Himu Against The Historical Background Of Afghan-Mughal Conflicts.The Presentation Of The Matter Is Objective, Unbiased And Free From Prejudices And Supernaturalism.It Is Hoped That The Book Would Be Found Useful By Students And Researchers Of Medieval History. It Would Also Be Of Great Interest For The Layman.

Buy at http://www.flipkart.com/himu-sunil-kumar-sarker-hindu/8171564836-xv23f9xpt7
___________________

DISTORTION OF INDIAN HISTORY FOR MUSLIM APPEASEMENT, Part 5A
Posted by Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari on 6/15/09 • Categorized as Op-Ed

Advertise here. faithfreedom2 @ gmail.com
Written by Faithfreedom.org Contributing Editor Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari





Akbar, The Great (?) Monarch:


It is really amazing and ridiculous that, not only the so called pseudo secular and the Marxist historians of India , but also the Western historians portray the Mughal emperor Akbar as a great monarch. But are there sufficient grounds to project him as a great man? The Indian historians, according to the guideline set by the ongoing politics of Muslim appeasement, have to glorify each and every Muslim ruler including Akbar as a compulsion. But it is really incomprehensible why the historians of the West are also in the race in glorifying Akbar, who, in reality, was a foreign invader and came to India to plunder this country. Above all, Akbar was a Muslim and, like each and every Muslim, he possessed three basic Islamic qualities – treachery, lechery and butchery. In several occasions, Akbar played vile treachery with the Hindu kings. Akbar was a cruel killer, who butchered innocent Hindus in millions. As a lecher, Akbar maintained a harem of 5000 women, most of whom were abducted Hindu housewives. So it is necessary to make a fresh estimate of Akbar to asses his greatness.


Picture of Emperor Akbar

Abu’l-Fath Jalal-ud-din Muhammad Akbar was born on 23 November 1542 at Umarkot Fort, Sind and died on27 October 1605, at the age of 63 at Fatehpur Sikri, Agra. His father was Nasiruddin Humayun and his mother’s name was Nawab Hamida Banu Begum Sahiba. At birth Akbar was named Badruddin Mohammed Akbar, because he was born on the night of a badr (full moon). After the capture of Kabul by Humayun his date of birth and name were changed to throw off evil sorcerers. His name was changed to Jalal-ud-din Muhammad Akbar and his birthdate was officially changed to October 15, 1542. He was given the name Akbar at birth after his maternal grandfather, Shaikh Ali Akbar Jami. [1]
He succeeded his father Humayun as ruler of the Mughal Empire from 1556 to 1605. He was the grandson of Babur who founded the Mughal dynasty in India . On the eve of Akbar’s death in 1605, the Mughal empire spanned almost 1 million square kilometers. [1]

Akbar, widely considered the greatest of the Mughal emperors, was only 14 when he ascended the throne in

Delhi, by defeating the Hindu king Samrat Hem Raj Vikramaditya, also called Himu at the Second Battle of Panipat He was descended from Turks, Mongols, and Iranians — the three peoples who predominated in the political elites of northern India in medieval times. He consolidated his power, during first two decades of his reign and bring parts of northern and central India into his realm. He also reduced external military threats from the Pashtun (Afghan), the descendants of Sher Shah, by waging wars against Afghan. He also solidified his rule in India by pursuing diplomacy with the powerful Rajput rulers of northern part of the country, and by admitting Rajput princesses in his harem. [1]


Picture of Samrat Hem Raj Vikramaditya

Akbar spent a part of his early life in the Princely State of Rewa (in present day Madhya Pradesh) where Akbar grew up in the village of Mukundpur . Akbar and prince Ram Singh who later became the Maharaja of Rewa grew up together and stayed close friends through life. Humayun was the eldest son of Babur. For some time, Akbar was raised by his uncle Askari and his wife in the eastern country of Persia and Afghanistan.He spent his youth learning to hunt, run, and fight, but he never learned to read and write. The so called pseudo-secular and Marxist historians paint Akbar as a generous, kind hearted tolerant king free from religious bigotry, and a genius with refined tastes in the arts, architecture, music and literature. But it is to be seen, how far their portrayal is true.

It has been mentioned earlier that Sher Shah ascended the throne of Delhi on May 17, 1540, by defeating Humayun in a battle near Kannauj and he died in an accident in 1545 AD, in Kalinjar. After his death, anarchy appeared again. The nobles made Jalal Khan, the second son of Sher Shah, the Sultan of Delhi , depriving the eldest Adil Khan as the latter was incompetent, lazy, and ease-loving. After ascending the throne, Jalal Khan assumed the title of Islam Shah. Soon after, a group of nobles made a conspiracy to murder Islam Shah and put Adil Khan on the throne. But the plan divulged and Islam Shah put all the conspirators to the sword.

Chaos after the Death of Sher Shah:


On November 22, 1554, Islam Shah, after ruling for 9 years and’ 6 months, died and his nobles put his minor son Firuz on to the throne. But after a few months, Mubariz Khan, a cousin of Firuz, murdered him and ascended the throne assuming the new name of Muhammad Adil Shah. But he was unsuitable as a ruler. On the other hand, the news of Islam Shah’s death inspired Humayun to invade India and recover his lost territory. At this juncture, Bairam Khan came to Humayun’s help that enhanced his strength considerably and enabled him to re-conquer Kabul, News of these developments made Adil Shah very shaky and he gave up all the responsibilities to his most trusted employee Himu, a Hindu officer, and this incident facilitated Himu to raise himself as the most important man in North Indian politics.


This was the time when the star of Himu’s fortune shone brightest- Adil Shah appointed him the Wzir (Prime Minister) and the incident initiated his rapid rise. But most of the Muslim historians did not like an infidel to hold the highest post in the court of a Muslim king and hence they tried to blacken his character it every opportunity.


Who this Himu was ? Historian R. C, Majumdar, in this regard, writes, “Himu was born in a poor family of Dhansar section of the Baniya caste, living in a town in the southern part of Alwar”.[2] Muslim historian Badayuni has described him as a resident of a small town called Rewari in the taluk of Mewat, and according to him, Himu began his life as a green vendor.[2] Others believe that Himu was a hawker in the town of Mewat.[2] However, at a certain stage, he succeeded to draw the attention of Adil Shah, who appointed him the Superintendent of the Delhi market. But by dint of his sincerity and sense of responsibility, he became a favourite of Adil, who started to elevate him to more and more responsible posts. When Adil Shah died, Himu was the Chief of the Intelligence Department and, at the same time, the Head of the Postal Department (Daroga-i-Dak Chowki).


To introduce Himu, the Muslim historian Ahmmad Yadgar, in his Tarikh-I-Salatin-i-Afghana, writes, “There was a man named Himu, who was a weighman in the bazar, who found means to approach the King on different affairs, and in whom he daily reposed more and more confidence. By degrees he became very powerful and influential, so that he managed the business of the State”. [3]


At that time, Junaid Khan, the governor of Bayana, and his son, the phaujdar of Ajmir rebelled. Adil Shah sent Jamal Khan against him with a large force. But in a severe battle at Kanulapur, Junaid became victorious. The incident made Adil Shah very depressed. Then Himu said, “O Lord of the World, if you will trust me with a small force, I will either overcome Junaid Khan, or perish in the attempt”. [4] The King yielded to his solicitations and sent Himu with 3000 or 4000 horsemen and four war-elephants. Junaid deputed his assistant Daulat Khan to defend Himu. A battle was fought and Daulat Khan was defeated and slain.


Then Junaid himself advanced with 8000 strong cavalry to confront Himu, while Himu had only 3000 horses. So he decided to attack the enemy in the darkness of night and Ahremad Yadgar, in his Tarikh-i-Salatin-i-Afghana, writes, “The enemy remained on the alert during the three watches of the night; but in the last watch they grew negligent and fell asleep, The soldiers of Adil Shah fell furiously on them on all sides. Himu did not give the time to put enemy their armour and the Afghans, sword in hand, passed through their enemy slaughtering all they met.”[5] Himu then went to the court of Adil Shah and Yadgar writes, “He (Himu) then stood with folded hands in front of the throne. Adil Shah honoured him with a purple khilat (garment), the coller and the skirt of which were covered with jewels”.[6]


At that time, Ibrahim Khan, a cousin of Adil.Shah and the governor of Agra , rebelled. Adil Shah sent a detachment against him, but Ibrahim routed them. Then Ibrahim marched towards Delhi and ultimately occupied the city. Inspired by the success of Ibrahim, Ahmmad Khan Sur, the governor of Lahore and brother-in-law of Adil, assumed the name Sikandar Shah and rebelled. In the east, Muhammad Khan Sur, the governor of Bengal revolted and assumed the title of Shamsuddin Muhammad Ghazi. So the empire of Sher Shah got divided into four parts, Delhi and Agra went to Ibrahim Khan, Punjab went to Sikandar Shah, Bengal to Shamsuddin Muhammad and the remai­ning part under the control of Adil Shah.


Meanwhile, in 1555, Sikandar Shah invaded Delhi , in a severe battle he defeated Ibrahim and thus Delhi went under the control of Sikandar. On the other hand, the rivalry among the Afghans provided a great opportunity for the Mughals to recover their lost empire. In November 1554, Humayun left Kabul , advanced towards Lahore , and in February 1555, gained control over the city almcst without any resistance. Then Sikandar Shah marched against Humayun with a 30,000 strong cavalry. A severe battle took place at Machhiara near Ludhiana and Sikandar Shah suffered a complete defeat. Sikandar then marched again against Humayun with 80,000 horsemen, but he was again defeated in a battle near Sirhind and fled to Sivallk Hills.


Ascendency of Himu:


In that hour of crises, Adil Shah Appointed Himu the Wazir, or the Prime Minister of his court and handed over civil, military, finance and, in fact, every other responsibility to him. It is really surprising that Adil Shah, a Muslim king, selected a Hindu kafir for the highest position of his government, and there is no doubt that had Adil could find Muslim candidate suitable for the post, he would certainly not have selected an infidel like Himu for the post. The incident shows that the competency of Himu, for the post, was beyond any dispute.


After assuming the new responsibility, Himu at once marched against Ibrahim and defeated him twice, first at Kalpi and then at Khanwa. To narrate Himu’s victory, Nizamuddin Ahmroad in his Tabakat-i-Akbari, writes, “Adil now sent, the bakkal, who was the Wazir, with a large force, and with 500 war-elephants and artillery, against Agra and Delhi . When Himu reached Kalpi, he resolved to dispose of Ibrahim first and hastened to meet him. A great battle followed, in which Himu was victorious, and Ibrahim fled to his father at Bayana, Himun followed and Invested Bayana, which he besieged for three months”.[7] Himu then marched against Muhammad Shah and a battle was fought at Chhapparghatta , a place 20 miles away from Kalpl. Muhammad Shah was defeated and Himu gained control over Bengal.[8]


Following the chaos over the succession of Islam Shah (Sher Khan Suri’s son), as mentioned above, Humayun reconquered Delhi in 1555, with the help of an army partly provided by his Persian ally Shah Tahmasp.But a few months later, on January 26, 1556, Humayun died and Bairam Khan, the guardian of Akbar, cleverly concealed the report of Humayun’s death in order to prepare for Akbar’s accession to the throne. On February 24, 1556, Akabar, a 13 year-old boy, was proclaimed Shahanshah (Persian for “King of Kings”) of Hindustan . by Bairam Khan at Kalanaur (Gurdaspur, Punjab).


At that time, Himu sought permission of Adil to attack Delhi . Ahmmad Yadgar narrates, “Himun went in front of the throne and said, “O King, the case is this; he (Akbar) is now a child of ten years old, who has lost his father, and the Mughal army is not yet firmly established. It is easy to root up a small plant”. Adil Shah derived confidence from his speech and prepared a powerful force. He sent 7000 horsemen and 20 war-elephants with Himun, who went march by march to Gwalior”.[9] From Gwallor, Himu advanced towards Agra and Adil Shah, on the other hand, went to the safe place at the fort of Chunar.


As Himu got closer to Agra , frightened Iskandar Khan, the Mughal governor of the city, fled to Delhi . So Himu occupied Agra practically without resistance and then the victorious Wazir marched towards Delhi . Alikuli Khan, the Mughal governor of Delhi , also prepared a strong force to confront Himu and a fierce battle followed. Ahmmad Yadgar, to narrate the incident, writes, “When Himu saw that the Mughals were in good spirit and the Afghans disheartened, he advanced with his own division and routed them. They (Mughals) were unable to rally, and as they were utterly defeated, they took to flight. Himu pursued them and slaughtered many, … So much plunder of Mughal army fell into Himun’s hands that it was impossible to take an account of it -160 elephants, l000 horses of Arab breed and an immense quantity of property and valuables”. [10]


Then victorious Himu entered Delhi and Nizamuddin Ahmmad, in his Tarikh -i-Akbari , writes,”Himun had greatly vaunted his achievements at Delhi and had taken to himself the title of Raja Bikrsmjit”.[11] To narrate the same victory, Ahmmad Yadgar, in his Tarikh-i-Salatin-i-Afghana, writes, “Himun rejoiced this victory, sent an account of his success, together with the Spoils captured from the Mughals, to Adll Shah, who was exceedingly pleased when he received it,…He (Adil Shah) gave a great festival and sent Himun a dress of honour, adorned with jewels and worked with gold threads”[12] Ahmmad Yadgar continues to write,” … he (Himu) entered Delhi, raised the Imperial Canopy over him and ordered coins to be struck in his name. He appointed a governor (of Delhi) of his own and brought the Delhi territory and the neighbouring parganas under his control and in order to console the King, he sent an account of the victory in these words,”Your slave, by the royal fortune, has routed the Mughal army, … but I hear that Humayun’s son commands a numerous force and advancing against Delhi”.[13]


Himu’s Misfortune:


The news of defeat of the Mughal governor of Delhi and the skill and braveiy of Himu reached the Mughal prince Akber in time. Nearly 10 months later, Akbar, with a great force of 26,000 horsemen under the command of Bairam Khan marched towards Delhi . So Ahmmad Yadgar, in his Tarikh-i-Salatin-i-Afghana, writes, “He (Akbar) marched without halting, with Bairam Khan. …When they reached Thanesar, a census was taken of the army, which was found to consist of 26,000 horsemen”. [14] And to describe Himu’s army, Nizamuddin Ahmmad in his Tarikh-i-Akbari, writes, “He (Himu) had gathered under his command a mighty force and had 1600 war-elephants. With those, he hastened to meet the Imperial (Mughal) army”. [15]


The battle began in the morning on 5th November, 1556, at Panipat and to describe the same, Nizamuddim Ahmmad writes, “Himun then advanced with his elephants, and made such a determined charge on the Imperial army that the left wing was shaken…. Himu then drew off his forces, and made an assault upon the centre, which was under the command of Khan-Zaman. He led all his elephants against the Khan’s men, who received him with shower of Arrows. An arrow pierced the eye of Hemun, and came out at the back of his head. When those who were fighting under him saw his condition, their hands were paralyzed, and they broke. The Imperial forces pursued them, and cut many of then, to pieces.” [16] According to Abul Fazl, Himu had divided his army into three divisions and he himself was leading the central division with 500 elephants and 20,000 Afghan and Rajput horsemen. [17] So, many believe, when Himu was on the verge of winning the this battle, the accident occured, leading to his defeat.


Ahmad Yadgar had tried to invent a reason for Himu’s defeat, which is extremely incredible. He writes, “The evening preceding the day on which he (Himu) expected the battle, he went to the sanctified mausoleum Kutub-ul-Aktab of His Highness Kutb-ul-Hakk, (the pole-star of religion of Islam), ……and placing the head of entreaty on the august threshold, vowed that, if he were destined to conquer Delhi, if the throne of Delhi were granted to him, he would become a Musulman on his return to Delhi, and diffuse the religion of Muhammad” [18] Yadgar continues, “The Almighty (Allah) gave them (Mughals) victory. But he (Himu) perjured himself, and did not become a Musulman, or forsake his heathen prejudices; nay, he even persecuted the Musulmans. But at last he saw, what he did see”. [18]

Yadgar also writes that, on the previous night, Himu became extremely disheartened after a dream of bad omen. He writes, ”.. he (Himu) beheld in a dream, a torrent come down and carry away the elephant on which he was mounted. When he was nearly drowned, a Mughal came and cast a chain round his neck, and drew him out”. On the next day, an interpreter said, “The torrent which you saw is the Mughal army,..and the chain signifies; the blood which will flow from your body when you are wounded.” [18] This made Himu much frightened, but he said, “The very reverse of the dream will happen”. [18]

But, in fact, it was Akbar who got frightened by observing the valour of Himu and his mighty force, and Bairam Khan, to inspire him, said, “This is the commencement of His Majesty’s reign. This infidel has routed the whole Mughal army, and is now making preparations against us. If you do your best in this business, with one heart and soul, Hindustan is yours. I place my trust in Allah. If we fail in this, you, whose homes are at a distance of 500 kos (1000 miles), will not be able to find an sylum”. [19]


However, the military skill and bravery that Himu displayed in the battle field on November 5, could not have been ignored by even the Muslim historians. So Ahmmad Yadgar writes, “Himu, having made himself ready for action came out into the plain, and seated himself in a howda on an elephant in order the that he might be able to overlook and superintend his troops, …. Bairan Khan also drew up the people of Chaghatai to the right and left in battle array,.. Bairam Khan placed Akbar Mirza’s own private tent in an elevated position, and left 3000 horse to guard him, … Himu was excessively arrogant on account of his troops and elephants. He advanced, fought, and routed the Mughals, whose heads lay in heaps, and whose blood flowed in streams. He thus at first vanquished the Mughals……” [20]


But fortune was not with Himu and his victory turned into a defeat due to an accident and Ahmmad Yadgar writes, “… by the decree of the Almighty, an arrow struck Himu in the forehead. He told his elephant driver to take the eleph­ant out of the field of battle, then the Afghans saw that the animal was retreating, they believed that Himun was flying. … as no benefit is ever derived from disloyalty, he Sustained a complete defeat”. [20]


To narrate the same incident, Vincent Smith writes, “On November 5, Himu succeeded in throwing both the right and the left wings of his opponents into confusion, and sought to make his victory decisive by bringing all his mountain-like elephants to bear on the centre of the enemy, commanded by Khan Zaman. Probably he would have won but for the accident that he was struck in the eye by an arrow which pierced his brain and rendered him unconscious” [21]


Akbar’s Display of Greatness:

After the battle was ended, in accordance with the ghastly custom of the times, a tower was built with the heads of the slain. This “tower of heads” tradition and ceremony was religiously observed by the “magnanimous” Akbar, like his ancestors.

According to Yadgar, Alikuli Khan could trace the elephant of Himu in the forest, brought it back and placed Himu before Bairam Khan, and writes, “Bairam Khan … caused Himu to descend from the elephant, after which he bound his hands, and took him before the young and fortunate Prince, and said, “As this is our first success, let your Highness’s own august hand smite this infidel with the sword”. The Prince, accordingly, struck him, and divided his head from his unclean body”. [22]


Nizamuddin Ahmmad, to describe the incident, writes, “Shah Kuli Khan,… drove the elephant , along with several others which had been captured in the field, to the presence of the Emperor. Bairam Khan Khan Kanan then put Himu to death with his own hand.” [23] So, according to Nizamuddln Ahmmad, Bairam Khan executed himu with his own hand. And similar was the view maintained by Badayuni, Abul Fazl and Faizi. So, Badayuni writes, “Bairam Khan said, “This is your first war (ghazd), prove your sword on this infidel, for it will be a meritorious deed”, Akbar replied, “He is now no better than a dead man, how can I strike him? If he had sense and strength, I would try my sword”. Then, in the presence of them all, the Khan, the warrior of the faith, cut him down with his sword. Himun’s head was sent to Kabul, and his body to Delhi, to be exposed over the gates”.[23]


But according to Vincent Smith, Akbar himself struck Himu with his sword to earn the title of Ghazi , and writes, “Bairam Khan desired Akbar to earm the title of Ghazi, or slayer of the infidel, by fleshing his sword on the captive. The boy naturally obeyed his guardian and smote Hemu on the neck with his scimitar. The bystanders also plunged their swords into the bleeding corpse. Hemu’s head was sent to Kabul to be exposed, and his trunk gibbeted at one of the gates of Delhi “. [24]


He also writes, “Akbar, a boy of fourteen cannot be justly blamed for complying with the instructions of Bairam Khan. … The official story, that a magnanimous sentiment of unwillingness to strike a helpless priso­ner already half dead compelled him (Akbar) to refuse to obey his guardian’s instructions, seems to be the late invention of courtly flatterers, and is opposed to the clear statement of Ahmed Yadgar and the Dutch writer, van der Broecke, as well as to the probabilities of the case”. [24] That was the pathetic end of the saga of a great son of Mother India, who tried his best to restore independence of this ancient country, our beloved motherland, by defeating the Muslim invaders and occupiers, but did not succeed only due to a mere accident. Furthermore, it is a matter of great regret that the people of this country have forgotten that great Hindu hero and the fascinating story of his life, achievements and sacrifice.


Akbar’s Subsequent Display of Greatness:


But the tale of Himu did not end with his death. Intelligence came to Akbar that Himu’s father, his widow and other members of his family were living in Alwar, with their properties and wealth, and, on the pretext of a possible revolt by Haji Khan, the governor of Alwar, he sent a detachment to Alwar, under the command of Nasir-ul-mulk, a.k.a, Pir Muhammad. The Mughal has brought the Mewat region under the rule of Delhi and Pir Muhammad executed Himu’s father. To narrate the incident, Abul Fazl, in his Akbamama, writes, “Himu’s father was taken alive, and brought before Nasir-ul-mulk, who tried to convert him to the faith (of Islam); but the old man said, “For eighty years, I have worshipped God in way of my own religion; how can I forsake my faith? Shall I, through fear of death, embrace your religion without understanding it?” Maulana Pir Muhammad treated his question as unheard, but gave an answer with the tongue of the sword”. [25] Immense treasures were taken with the family of Hemu whose aged father was executed.” This “tower of heads” tradition and ceremony was religuously preserved by the “magnanimous” Akbar.



Historian R. C, Majumdar, while offering his respect to Himu, writes, “Such was the noble end of the family of a great Hindu who was born in a humble life, but made his way to the throne of Delhi by dint of sheer ability and military skill – a unique episode in the history of India during the Muslim rule” [26]


Almost all the Muslim chroniclers have tried to paint Himu a traitor and disloyal, because he ascended the throne of Delhi , in stead of offer­ing the same to his master Adil Shah. But, in this context, R. C. Majumdar writes “No one today can reasonably claim to know the thoughts in Himu’s mind. But a little reflection will show that there was nothing unreasonable or immoral in the aspiration of Himu. No doubt, personal ambition played a great part, but it may not be altogether wrong to think that he was also inspired by the idea of founding a Hindu Raj. This is supported by his assumption to the title of Vikramaditya”. [27] And, perhaps, most shameful as well as most deplorable is the role of the so called secular and the Marxist historians, the most despicable group of people of independent India who, like the Muslim historians, are continuing their efforts to blacken Himu’s character by portraying him a betrayer to his Muslim Master.

So, the historian R. C. Majumdar, in this context, writes, “Unfortunately, Himu’s history has been written almost wholly by his enemies who dreaded him most, and, far from doing justice to his greatness, they have tarnished his name with unmerited odium. It is time to resuscitate the memory and give a true account of the life of Hemchandra, a really great hero, whose dreams and achievements have been forgotten by his countrymen”.[26]

So, it is really unfortunate that our so called secular historians, following their sinister political guideline of Muslim appeasement, are glorifying the foreign Muslim invaders, including Akbar, by concealing their demonic activities, while projecting a real patriotic fighter, like Himu, as a villain. These people, guided by the said policy of Muslim appeasement and motivated by allurement, are going on writing distorted history of this country and thus depriving the people and their posterity from getting acquainted with their real history.


The Muslim rulers who massacred hundreds of thousands of innocent Hindus within a single day in umpteen occasions, these historians are projecting those killers as honest and benevolent rulers. Those blood-thirsty Muslim rulers who, by coercion and torture, converted hundreds of millions of Hindus to Islam at the point of sword, these despicable sub-humans called secular historians are portraying those Muslim despots as noble hearted magnanimous kings. The foreign Muslim invaders who demolished hundreds of thousands of Hindu temples or converted them into mosques, these historians are describing them as generous people liberal in the matter of religion. The abominable and lecherous Muslim invaders, who carried hundreds of thousands of Hindu women and children as captives to the Middle East to be sold as slaves, these wicked historians are painting them as kind and soft-hearted rulers. Those foreign Muslim invaders, who forcibly occupied the forts and palaces of Hindu kings and did not lay a single brick, these historians are highlighting them as great admirers of architecture or great architects, and we fools are cramming those narrations years after years, without assessing the realities of those narrations.


But we, the citizens of free India , have every right to know their true history. They have every right to know, who this Himu was and what were his achievements. We have the right to know the spectacular life of this great son of India , a great patriot who sacrificed his life to defend the foreign occupier Akbar. And, had not by an accident, an arrow pierced Himu’s eye and rendered him unconscious on November 5, 1556, the day on which the Second Battle of Panipat was fought, the people of India would have a different history to read- the chapter of Mughal Dynasty would have been replaced by the Hindu Dynasty of Vikramaditya Heraraj. And at same the time, the hour has arrived to decide who was really Great, Akbar or the Emperor Vikramaditya Hemraj, who now being slighted as Himu.


References:

[1] http://www.culturalindia.net/indian-history/akbar.html, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomb_of_Akbar_the_Great , http://www.boloji.com/history/011.htm
[2] R. C, Majumdar, The History and Cultures of the Indian People, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan (in 12 Vols) , VII ,97
[3] H. M.Elliot and J, Dowson, History of India ; As Told by Its Own Historians, Low Price Publications , Delhi , (in 8 Vols) , V, 48,

[4] H. M. Ellict and J. Dowson, ibid, V, 48.

[5] H. M, Elliot and J. Dowson, ibid, V, 50.

[6] H. M. Hllict and J. Dowson , ibid, V, 51.

[7] H. M. Elliot and J, Dowson, ibid, V, 244

[8] H. M., Elliot and J- Dcwson, ibid, V, 490.

[9] H. M. Elliot and J, Dowson, ibid, V, 59.

[10] H. M. Elliot and J, Dowson, ibid, V, 61

[11] H. M, Elliot and J. Dowson , ibid, V, 252.

[12] H. M- Elliot and J. Dowson, ibid, V, 60,

[13] H. M. Elliot and J. Dowson, ibid, V,61-62,

[14] H. M. Elliot and J. Dowson, ibid, V,62,

[15] H. M. Elliot and J. Dowson, ibid, V, 252.

[16] H. M. Elliot and J. Dowson , ibid, V, 252.

[17] H. M. Elliot and J. Dowson, ibid, V, 252-53.

[18] H. M, Elliot and J. Dcwson, ibid, V, 63.

[19] H. M, Elliot and J, Dowscn, ibid, V, 64.

[20] H. M. Elliot and J. Dowson, ibid, V, 65.

[21] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, Oxford Clarendon Press, 38.

[22] H. M. Elliot and J. Dowson, ibid, V, 66.

[23] H. m. Elliot and J. Dowson, ibid, V, 253.

[24] V. A. Smith, ibid, 39.

[25] H. M. Elliot and J. Dowson, ibid, VI, 21.

[26] R.C. Majumdar, ibid, Bharatiya Vidya Bnavan , VII ,100.

[27] R. C. Majumdar, ibid, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, VII, 101.

Courtesy : http://intellibriefs.blogspot.com/