Distortion of Indian History

[BulletProofYogi]

This will blow your mind if you have not read it...

Extract from part 2 (link to source and added as attachment for download)


Link: Distortion_of_Indian_History_for_Muslim_Appeasemen t

Part 2

What is the utility of studying history? From history,
one learns the achievements of his ancestors -- their
successes and failures. It enables him to analyse the
reasons that brought the said successes and failures and
hence helps him take 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, partcularly the period of Muslim rule,
and two major guidelines he set for this purpose were,
(1) Muslim rulers were not foreign invaders as they lived
in India and died in India and (2) the 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'." (H. M. Elliot & J. Dowson, ‘History of India: As
Told by Its Own Historians’, III, 184)
In the First Part of the article, it has been narrated how
the so-called secular historians of India are wrongly
projecting the barbaric Muslim ruler Shahjahan as the
author of the famous Red Fort of Delhi, which was built
by the Hindu Kings several centuries before the times of
Shahjahan. In this Second Part, we shall discuss how
these secular historians are narrating anothercruel,
barbaric and lecherous Muslim ruler Akbar as the author
of the invincible fortress of Agra.
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 Tarikhi-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".[1]
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 had
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 shortm period of 4
years.[12] 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 historins, having more rational views,
believe that all the historical monuments of Delhi and
Agra, the authorship of which is at present being
wrongly atributed to the Muslim rulers, were, in fact,
built by the Hindu kings well before the arrival of the
foreign Muslim invders. 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 peripfery of those monuments. So a thorough
scientific and archaeological investigation is urgently
called for revealing the truth and settling all such
contrary views.

References:
[1] H. M. Elliot and J. Dowson, ‘The History of India, as told by its
own historians’ (in 8 Volumes), Low Price Publications, New Delhi
(1996) IV, 450
[2] H. M. Elliot and J. Dowson (ibid) V, 295
[3] H. M. Elliot and J. Dowson (ibid) IV, 522
[4] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, Oxford Clarendon Press
(1982), 76
[5] H. M. Elliot and J. Dowson (ibid) IV, 263-64
[6] R. C. Majumdar, H. C. Raychaudhury and K. Datta, ‘An
Advanced History of India’, MacMillan & Co (1980), 579