NaMo NaMo

Namo Event

Thursday, 4 July 2013

History is suppressed or hided under evil rulers & greedy historians

“History moves under a divine guidance” and equally true is that “History is suppressed or hided under evil rulers & greedy historians”

History comes from the Latin word HISTORIA which basically means Fact sheet.

One thing to remember is “It is difficult to learn more difficult to unlearn the garbage of greedy historians” but discovery of  self will only come from process of unlearning the garbage & learning the true history.

I would have started stating facts from pre Christ era but knowingly & deliberately I am starting from Muslim invasion era as it was the period of degradation distortion of the true history.

I find very difficult to swallow the fact that after their atrocities, barbaric rules, We still have roads, buildings etc named after Muslim/British Butchers. No person with self-respect wants to pamper butcher of his mother father ancestor, Remember Chinese made Japan publically apologies for atrocities committed by them during WW2.Only we Indians are in habit of pampering them literally treating them as “Son in Law”.Our previous greedy historians tactfully highlight (Distort in many case) social reforms, Glorify Muslim Rules, Praise British rule, Denigrate Hindu Rulers /Hindu Value System and there main armor becomes “Manu Smriti”  with out even reading it.

In the following article I want to highlight barbaric, Cruel, inhuman rules & deeds of and in Muslim & British Rules / invading. The world famous historian, Will Durant has written in his Story of Civilisation that “the Mohammedan conquest of India was probably the bloodiest story in history”.

711: the Arabs conquer Sindh and Multan (Now in Pakistan)

977: Sebaktigin, a slave general, founds the Ghaznavid dynasty in Afghanistan, northern India and Central Asia

997: Mahmud of Ghazni raids northern India

998: Mahmud of Ghazni conquers Punjab

1019: Mahmud Ghaznavid raids north India and destroys Kanauj, capital of the Gurjara-Pratihara empire

1021: Mahmud appoints Malik Ayaz to the throne and makes Lahore the capital of the Ghaznavid Empire

1030: the Ghaznavid empire conquers Punjab

1175: Ghurid Turks defeat the Ghazni Turks in the Punjab and the Ghaznavid state is absorbed into the Ghurid empire

1192: Turkic-speaking chieftains from Afghanistans led by Muhammad of Ghor defeat Prithvi Raj, capture Delhi and establish a Muslim sultanate at Delhi

1197: the Ghuris destroy the Hindu monasteries at Nalanda and Vikramashila

1211: Iltutmish Shams becomes the sultan of Delhi

1206: The Ghurid prince Qutb al-Din Aybak becomes the first sultan of Delhi (Delhi Sultanate)

1225: Qutb al-Din Aybak builds the Qutb Minar in Delhi, the tallest minaret in the world

1250: the Urdu language develops by absorbing elements of Persian, Arabic and Indian dialects

1266: one of Iltutmish's slaves, Baban, seizes power of the Delhi sultanate, and welcomes Islamic refugees fleeing the Mongol hordes the Delhi sultanate

1298: the Muslims of Delhi capture Cambay in Gujarat

1303: Jalal al-Din Firuz rebuilds Delhi

1321: Jordanus, a Dominican monk, is the first Christian missionary in India

1325: Muhammad ibn Tughluq becomes sultan of Delhi

1327: sultan Muhammad ibn Tughluq moves his capital from Delhi to Daulatabad (Deogiri) in the Deccan

1345: Muslim nobles revolt against Muhammad ibn Tughluq, declare their independence from the Delhi sultanate, and found the Bahmani dynasty in the Deccan

1398: Timur invades India and sacks Delhi, causing the decline of the Delhi Sultinate

1451: Succeeding the last king of the Sayyid dynasty, Bahlul Lodi founds the Lodi dynasty of Afghan origin that rules the Delhi Sultanate

1497: Babur, a descendant of both Genghis Khan and Timur, becomes the ruler of Ferghana (Uzbekistan)

1504: Babur captures Kabul (Afghanistan)

1526: After the battle of Panipat, Babur captures Delhi from Ibrahim, the sultan of Delhi, and founds the Mughal/Mogul dynasty in India with capital in Agra

1530: Babur dies and his son Humayun succeeds him

1537: Afghan warlord Sher Khan Sur invades Bengal

540: Babur's son Humayun loses the empire to Afghan Leader Sher Shah Sur and goes into exile to Lahore

1545: Sher Shah Sur dies and is succeeded by Islam Shah Sur

1553: Humayun with help from the Safavids reconquers Kabul

1555: Humayun reconquers Delhi from the Sur ruler

1556: the Mogul emperor Humayun dies and is succeeded by his 12-year old son Akbar under the tutelage of the Persian Shia noble Bairam Khan

1558: the Mogul conquer Ajmer in Rajastan and Gwalior

1560: Akbar fires Bairam Khan and assumes sole power

1568: Muslim invaders destroy the Sun Temple at Konark

1605: Akbar dies and is succeeded by his son Salim, who renames himself Jahangir

1617: Jahangir's son, prince Khurram, pacifies the southern states and receives the title of Shah Jahan

1628: After a civil war that pits Nur Jahan against her brother the wazir Asaf Khan, Jahangir's son Khurram (Asaf Khan's choice) is proclaimed emperor with the name Shah Jahan while Jahangir's other son Shahryar (married to Nur Jahan's daughter) is executed together with all the other potential pretenders

1633: Shah Jahan adopts Sharia and destroys Hindu temples

1657: Shah Jahan falls ill and his four sons fight a civil war (the progressive and intellectual Dara Shukoh from the capital, the conservative and integralist Aurangzeb from the Deccan, Shah Shuja from Bengal, Murad from Gujarat)

1658: Aurangzeb arrests his father Shah Jahan, wins the civil war against his three brothers, becomes the new Mogul emperor and enforces an orthodox version of Islam

1707: Aurangjeb dies, and is succeeded by his son Muazzam, with the title Bahadur Shah, who kills his brothers Azam Shah and Kam Bakhsh, while Shahu is released from jail, challenging Tara Bai for control of the Maratha kingdom, and while the Rajput Ajit Singh reconquers Jodhpur from the Mogul and bans Islam

1712: Mogul emperor Bahadur Shah dies and is succeeded by his son Jahandar Shah, the protege of amir Zulfikar Khan, who becomes the new wazir

1713: Mogul emperor Jahandar Shah and his wazir Zulfikar Khan are overthrown by Farrukhsiyar, who becomes the new emperor, and Sayyid Abdullah Khan, who becomes the new wazir

Dec 1782: Tipu Sultan becomes the ruler of Mysore


In 1000 AD Mahmud defeated Raja Jaipal, a scion of the Hindu Shahiya dynasty of Kabul. This dynasty had been for long the doorkeeper of India in the Northwest. Mahmud collected 250,000 dinars as indemnity. That perhaps was normal business of an empire builder. But in 1004 AD he stormed Bhatiya and plundered the place. He stayed there for some time to convert the Hindus to Islam with the help of mullahs he had brought with him.

In 1008 AD he captured Nagarkot (Kangra). The loot amounted to 70,000,000 dirhams in coins and 700,400 mans of gold and silver, besides plenty of precious stones and embroidered cloths. In 1011 AD he plundered Thanesar which was undefended, destroyed many temples, and broke a large number of idols. The chief idol, that of Chakraswamin, was taken to Ghazni and thrown into the public square for defilement under the feet of the faithful. According to Tarikh-i-Yamini of Utbi, Mahmud’s secretary,

“The blood of the infidels flowed so copiously [at Thanesar] that the stream was discolored, notwithstanding its purity, and people were unable to drink it. The Sultan returned with plunder which is impossible to count. Praise he to Allah for the honor he bestows on Islam and Muslims.”

In 1013 AD Mahmud advanced against Nandana where the Shahiya king, Anandapal, had established his new capital. The Hindus fought very hard but lost. Again, the temples were destroyed, and innocent citizens slaughtered. Utbi provides an account of the plunder and the prisoners of war:

“The Sultan returned in the rear of immense booty, and slaves were so plentiful that they became very cheap and men of respectability in their native land were degraded by becoming slaves of common shopkeepers. But this is the goodness of Allah, who bestows honor on his own religion and degrades infidelity.”

The road was now clear for an assault on the heartland of Hindustan. In December 1018 AD Mahmud crossed the Yamuna, collected 1,000,000 dirhams from Baran (Bulandshahar), and marched to Mahaban in Mathura district. Utbi records:

“The infidels…deserted the fort and tried to cross the foaming river…but many of them were slain, taken or drowned… Nearly fifty thousand men were killed.”

Mathura was the next victim. Mahmud seized five gold idols weighing 89,300 missals and 200 silver idols. According to Utbi, “The Sultan gave orders that all the temples should be burnt with naptha and fire, and levelled with the ground.” The pillage of the city continued for 20 days. Mahmud now turned towards Kanauj which had been the seat of several Hindu dynasties. Utbi continues: “In Kanauj there were nearly ten thousand temples… Many of the inhabitants of the place fled in consequence of witnessing the fate of their deaf and dumb idols. Those who did not fly were put to death. The Sultan gave his soldiers leave to plunder and take prisoners.”

The Brahmins of Munj, which was attacked next, fought to the last man after throwing their wives and children into fire. The fate of Asi was sealed when its ruler took fright and fled. According to Utbi, “…. the Sultan ordered that his five forts should be demolished from their foundations, the inhabitants buried in their ruins, and the soldiers of the garrison plundered, slain and captured”.

Shrawa, the next important place to be invaded, met the same fate. Utbi concludes:

“The Muslims paid no regard to the booty till they had satiated themselves with the slaughter of the infidels and worshipers of sun and fire. The friends of Allah searched the bodies of the slain for three days in order to obtain booty…The booty amounted in gold and silver, rubies and pearls nearly to three hundred thousand dirhams, and the number of prisoners may be conceived from the fact that each was sold for two to ten dirhams. These were afterwards taken to Ghazni and merchants came from distant cities to purchase them, so that the countries of Mawaraun-Nahr, Iraq and Khurasan were filled with them, and the fair and the dark, the rich and the poor, were commingled in one common slavery.”

Mahmud’s sack of Somnath is too well-known to be retold here. What needs emphasizing is that the fragments of the famous Sivalinga were carried to Ghazni. Some of them were turned into steps of the Jama Masjid in that city. The rest were sent to Mecca, Medina, and Baghdad to be desecrated in the same manner.

Mahmud’s son Masud tried to follow in the footsteps of his father. In 1037 AD he succeeded in sacking the fort of Hansi which was defended very bravely by the Hindus. The Tarikh-us-Subuktigin records: “The Brahmins and other high ranking men were slain, and their women and children were carried away captive, and all the treasure which was found was distributed among the army.”

Masud could not repeat the performance due to his preoccupations elsewhere.


Invasion of India by Islamic imperialism was renewed by Muhmmad Ghori in the last quarter of the 12th century. After Prithiviraj Chauhan had been defeated in 1192 AD, Ghori took Ajmer by assault.

According the Taj-ul-Ma’sir of Hasan Nizami, “While the Sultan remained at Ajmer, he destroyed the pillars and foundations of the idol temples and built in their stead mosques and colleges and precepts of Islam, and the customs of the law were divulged and established.”

Next year he defeated Jayachandra of Kanauj. A general massacre, rapine, and pillage followed. The Gahadvad treasuries at Asni and Varanasi were plundered. Hasan Nizami rejoices that “in Benares which is the centre of the country of Hind, they destroyed one thousand temples and raised mosques on their foundations”.

According to Kamil-ut-Tawarikh of Ibn Asir, “The slaughter of Hindus (at Varanasi) was immense; none were spared except women and children, and the carnage of men went on until the earth was weary.”

The women and children were spared so that they could be enslaved and sold all over the Islamic world. It may be added that the Buddhist complex at Sarnath was sacked at this time, and the Bhikshus were slaughtered.

Ghori’s lieutenant Qutbuddin Aibak was also busy meanwhile. Hasan Nizami writes that after the suppression of a Hindu revolt at Kol (modern day Aligarh) in 1193 AD, Aibak raised “three bastions as high as heaven with their heads, and their carcases became food for beasts of prey. The tract was freed from idols and idol worship and the foundations of infidelism were destroyed.”

In 1194 AD Aibak destroyed 27 Hindu temples at Delhi and built the Quwwat-ul-lslam mosque with their debris. According to Nizami, Aibak “adorned it with the stones and gold obtained from the temples which had been demolished by elephants”.

In 1195 AD the Mher tribe of Ajmer rose in revolt, and the Chaulukyas of Gujarat came to their assistance. Aibak had to invite reinforcements from Ghazni before he could meet the challenge. In 1196 AD he advanced against Anahilwar Patan, the capital of Gujarat. Nizami writes that after Raja Karan was defeated and forced to flee, “fifty thousand infidels were dispatched to hell by the sword” and “more than twenty thousand slaves, and cattle beyond all calculation fell into the hands of the victors”.

The city was sacked, its temples demolished, and its palaces plundered. On his return to Ajmer, Aibak destroyed the Sanskrit College of Visaladeva, and laid the foundations of a mosque which came to be known as ‘Adhai Din ka Jhompada’.

Conquest of Kalinjar in 1202 AD was Aibak’s crowning achievement. Nizami concludes: “The temples were converted into mosques… Fifty thousand men came under the collar of slavery and the plain became black as pitch with Hindus.”

A free-lance adventurer, Muhammad Bakhtyar Khalji, was moving further east. In 1200 AD he sacked the undefended university town of Odantpuri in Bihar and massacred the Buddhist monks in the monasteries. In 1202 AD he took Nadiya by surprise. Badauni records in his Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh that “property and booty beyond computation fell into the hands of the Muslims and Muhammad Bakhtyar having destroyed the places of worship and idol temples of the infidels founded mosques and Khanqahs”.

(Ghori), the tormentor of Hindus was a descendant of Hindu converts to Islam

He was appointed Governor of Ghazni (which his elder brother Ghiyasuddin had captured from the weak successors of Mahmud of Ghazni in 1163) in 1173. He decided to extend the boundary of his kingdom and also gain wealth, through conquests. To realize his ambition, he made his first incursion into India in 1175. After subduing the Ismaili Muslim heretics of Multan, he made an unsuccessful advance into Gujarat in 1178.

Nevertheless he became successful in seizing Peshawar and building a fort at Sialkot in 1181. With the help of the ruler of Jammu, Jaidev he put an end to the rule of Ghaznavids in Punjab and captured Lahore in 1186 A.D. With this the way was opened for him to push his conquests further into India. But he now had to face the formidable Rajputs led by the enigmatic Prithviraj Chauhan, ruler of Delhi and Ajmer.

For the defense of the country’s north-west frontiers and what may be called the “Gateway” of India, the Chauhan ruler had strongly fortified the bordering towns of his kingdom. Muhammad Ghori first attacked Bhatinda and laid siege to the city in 1189. Historical evidences show that Prithviraj Chauhan was not prepared for this attack made in a sudden and deceitful manner. Hence the army defending the city was defeated and it laid down its arms after the defeat.

Muhammad Ghori left a garrison under the command of Ziauddin to defend the fort, and he himself prepared to back when the Chauhan ruler arrived at the head of a huge army to recapture the fort. So Ghori had to stay his departure in order to face Prithviraj. The rival armies met at Tarain, near Thaneshwar. The forces of Prithviraj inflicted a crushing defeat on Ghori’s army. Muhammad Ghori himself was critically wounded and captured. But Prithviraj pardoned Ghori as a goodwill gesture, which Ghori repaid in a most contemptible manner.

This was the second defeat of Muhammad Ghori at the hands of the Indian rulers. But the second defeat appeared to him more disgraceful than the first inflicted on him by Bhim Dev. On his return to Ghazni, Ghori made hectic preparations to avenge the defeat. He proceeded towards India with a large force numbering 120000 mounted men. When he reached Lahore, he sent his envoy to Prithviraj to demand his submission, but the Chauhan ruler refused to comply. Prithviraj saw through Ghori’s stratagem. So he issued a fervent appeal to his fellow Rajput chiefs to come to his aid against the Muslim invader. About 150 Rajput chiefs, both big and small, responded favourably. Except the ruler of Kannauj Raja Jaichand who met Ghori an divulged the secrets of Chauhan’s planning of war

Malik Kafur (1296 – 1316)

Malik Kafur (1296 – 1316), was a eunuch slave who became a general in the army ofAlauddin Khilji, ruler of the Delhi sultanate from 1296 to 1316 AD. He was originally seized by Alauddin’s army after the army conquered the city of Khambhat. Alauddin Khilji fell in love with the effeminate beauty of Malik Kafur, castrated and converted him to Islam. Kafur was also called “Thousand Dinar Kafur”or Hazar Dinari, probably[by whom?] the amount paid by sultan for his possession. Kafur rose quickly in the army. He was made malik naib, the senior commander of the army. In 1294 he led the sultan’s army against the capital city of the Yadava kingdom, Devagiri. He led further invasions southward into the Kakatiya dynasty, winning immense riches for the sultanate and sacking many Hindu temples.

The booty from Warangal included the famous diamond Koh-i-Noor. During the course of the attack he sacked and plundered many Hindu temples including the famous Hoyasaleshwara temple in Halebidu.

According to Muslim historian Ziauddin Barani, Kafur came back to Delhi with 241 tonnes of gold, 20,000 horses and 612 elephants laden with the looted treasure.

According the traditional accounts, the Muslim army lead by Malik Kafur entered the Srirangam temple throught the northern gateway of the 3rd enclosure. The resistance of the Brahmins was overcome easily, the treasury and the storehouse were plundered and numerous icons were desecrated and destroyed. Malik Kafur’s foray however did not last long and soon, he retreated to the north with all the treasure he had looted from the temples of South India. The temple rituals resumed as before after the Muslim army retreated.

Sikandar Lodi

Bodhan – a Hindu renunciate (sadhu), was burnt alive for saying the following: Islam and Hindu Dharma are both equally acceptable to God if followed with sincerity.

Coin of Sikandar Lodi

The History of the Delhi sultanate by M.M. Syed says the following about him: he frequently razed temples to the ground and erected mosques in their place, as evidenced by his behaviour at Mandrail, Utgir, and Narwar. At Mathura he prevented Hindus from bathing in their sacred ghats or having themselves shaved. The stones of broken Hindu idols were given away to butchers to be used as weights.

Afzal Khan

During his campaign against Maratha, Afzal Khan started with capture of Tuljapur, where the Adil Shahi forces razed the statue of the Hindu Goddess Bhavani. Afzal khan’s forces also captured Pandharpur and destroyed many holy ancient Hindu Temples along with killing of local worshipers.

In a preplanned move, Shivaji moved to Pratapgad Fort to lure Afzal Khan’s army in dense forest valley area of Jawali (near Pratapgad Fort) . This terrain suited Shivaji’s relatively small army and made Afzal Khan army’s cannons, muskets, elephants, horses and camels ineffective.

Shivaji also lured Afzal Khan by conceding defeat and with very valuable gifts. Shivaji also requested him to come Jawali to discuss terms of surrender by suggesting he was very worried to meet Afzal Khan anywhere else. Shivaji also suggested if Afzal khan was worried about outcome of meeting, He should arrive with all his force.

Though Afzal khan was very suspicious of Shivaji’s intentions, He agreed only when meeting was arranged with two personal bodyguards on each side during meeting. Afzal Khan was confident of either killing or capture of Shivaji during meeting and capture of Pratapgad Fort with large forces and cannons should Shivaji refused to surrender.

Expecting certain skulduggery from Afzal Khan, Shivaji armed himself with the concealable weapons bichhwa (dagger) and wagh nakh (tiger claws) and wore a chilkhat (chain-mail armour) under his clothing for the meeting. During Afzal Khan pretended to graciously embrace Shivaji as per custom and attempted to stab Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj in the back with a kataar (a short waist-holstered dagger). Shivaji’s agility, strength and his armour in addition to being prepared helped him survive this attack. Shivaji drew his wagh nakh and counter-attacked, disemboweling Afzal Khan. Following Shivaji’s counterattack on Khan, Khan’s bodyguard Krishna Bhaskar, poised to attack Shivaji with his Patta(~9 feet long thin double edged belt). But Shivaji’s bodyguard Jiva Mahale jumped between to save Shivaji. Jiva Mahala chopped of Krishna Bhaskar’s hand in quick combat before killing him.

Just outside the meeting tent Sayeed Banda(consul of Afzal Khan ) attacked Shivaji. In quick battle Shivaji killed Krishnaji Bhaskar Kulkarni. Injured Afzal Khan fled the tent but Sambhaji Kavji attacked him just before he could reach safety and decapitated him .

As per plan, After reaching Pratapgad Fort, Shivaji signaled his waiting forces hiding in forest , to launch a surprise attack. Afzal Khan’s army was completely routed in subsequent battle. Afzal Khan’s son managed to escape. The severed head of Afzal Khan was sent to Rajgad to be shown to Jijabai, Shivaji’s mother.

Afzal Khan’s death alarmed the all major forces in Indian subcontinent including Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb.


Shamsuddin Iltutmish who succeeded Aibak at Delhi invaded Malwa in 1234 AD. He destroyed an ancient temple at Vidisha. Badauni reports in his ‘Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh’:

“Having destroyed the idol temple of Ujjain which had been built six hundred years previously, and was called Mahakal, he levelled it to its foundations, and threw down the image of Rai Vikramajit from whom the Hindus reckon their era, and brought certain images of cast molten brass and placed them on the ground in front of the doors of mosques of old Delhi, and ordered the people of trample them under foot.”

Muslim power in India suffered a serious setback after Iltutmish. Balkan had to battle against a revival of Hindu power. The Katehar Rajputs of what came to be known as Rohilkhand in later history, had so far refused to submit to Islamic imperialism. Balkan led an expedition across the Ganges in 1254 AD. According to Badauni,

“In two days after leaving Delhi, he arrived in the midst of the territory of Katihar and put to death every male, even those of eight years of age, and bound the women.”

But in spite of such wanton cruelty, Muslim power continued to decline till the Khaljis revived it after 1290 AD.


Jalaluddin Khalji led an expedition to Ranthambhor in 1291 AD. On the way he destroyed Hindu temples at Chain. The broken idols were sent to Delhi to be spread before the gates of the Jama Masjid. His nephew Alauddin led an expedition to Vidisha in 1292 AD. According to Badauni in Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh, Alauddin “brought much booty to the Sultan and the idol which was the object of worship of the Hindus, he caused to be cast in front of the Badaun gate to be trampled upon by the people. The services of Alauddin were highly appreciated, the jagir of Oudh (or Avadh – Central U.P.) also was added to his other estates.”

Alauddin became Sultan in 1296 AD after murdering his uncle and father-in-law, Jalaluddin. In 1298 AD he equipped an expedition to Gujarat under his generals Ulugh Khan and Nusrat Khan. The invaders plundered the ports of Surat and Cambay. The temple of Somnath, which had been rebuilt by the Hindus, was plundered and the idol taken to Delhi for being trodden upon by the Muslims. The whole region was subjected to fire and sword, and Hindus were slaughtered en masse. Kampala Devi, the queen of Gujarat, was captured along with the royal treasury, brought to Delhi and forced into Alauddin’s harem. The doings of the Malik Naib during his expedition to South India in 1310-1311 AD have already mentioned in earlier parts.


Muslim power again suffered a setback after the death of Alauddin Khalji in 1316 AD. But it was soon revived by the Tughlaqs. By now most of the famous temples over the length and breadth of the Islamic occupation in India had been demolished, except in Orissa and Rajasthan which had retained their independence. By now most of the rich treasuries had been plundered and shared between the Islamic state and its swordsmen. Firuz Shah Tughlaq led an expedition to Orissa in 1360 AD. He destroyed the temple of Jagannath at Puri, and desecrated many other Hindu shrines. According to ‘Sirat-i-Firoz Shahi’ which he himself wrote or dictated,

“Allah who is the only true God and has no other emanation, endowed the king of Islam with the strength to destroy this ancient shrine on the eastern sea-coast and to plunge it into the sea, and after its destruction he ordered the image of Jagannath to be perforated, and disgraced it by casting it down on the ground. They dug out other idols which were worshipped by the polytheists in the kingdom of Jajnagar and overthrew them as they did the image of Jagannath, for being laid in front of the mosques along the path of the Sunnis and the way of the ‘musallis’ (Muslim congregation for namaz) and stretched them in front of the portals of every mosque, so that the body and sides of the images might be trampled at the time of ascent and descent, entrance and exit, by the shoes on the feet of the Muslims.”

After the sack of the temples in Orissa, Firoz Shah Tughlaq attacked an island on the sea-coast where “nearly 100,000 men of Jajnagar had taken refuge with their women, children, kinsmen and relations”. The swordsmen of Islam turned “the island into a basin of blood by the massacre of the unbelievers”.

A worse fate overtook the Hindu women. Sirat-i-Firuz Shahs records: “Women with babies and pregnant ladies were haltered, manacled, fettered and enchained, and pressed as slaves into service in the house of every soldier.”

Still more horrible scenes were enacted by Firuz Shah Tughlaq at Nagarkot (Kangra) where he sacked the shrine of Jvalamukhi. Firishta records that the Sultan “broke the idols of Jvalamukhi, mixed their fragments with the flesh of cows and hung them in nose bags round the necks of Brahmins. He sent the principal idol as trophy to Medina.”


The climax came during the invasion of Timur in 1399 AD. He starts by quoting the Quran in his Tuzk-i-Timuri: “O Prophet, make war upon the infidels and unbelievers, and treat them severely.”

He continues: “My great object in invading Hindustan had been to wage a religious war against the infidel Hindus…[so that] the army of Islam might gain something by plundering the wealth and valuables of the Hindus.” To start with he stormed the fort of Kator on the border of Kashmir. He ordered his soldiers “to kill all the men, to make prisoners of women and children, and to plunder and lay waste all their property”. Next, he “directed towers to be built on the mountain of the skulls of those obstinate unbelievers”. Soon after, he laid siege to Bhatnir defended by Rajputs. They surrendered after some fight, and were pardoned. But Islam did not bind Timur to keep his word given to the “unbelievers”. His Tuzk-i-Timuri records:

“In a short space of time all the people in the fort were put to the sword, and in the course of one hour the heads of 10,000 infidels were cut off. The sword of Islam was washed in the blood of the infidels, and all the goods and effects, the treasure and the grain which for many a long year had been stored in the fort became the spoil of my soldiers. They set fire to the houses and reduced them to ashes, and they razed the buildings and the fort to the ground.”

At Sarsuti, the next city to be sacked, “all these infidel Hindus were slain, their wives and children were made prisoners and their property and goods became the spoil of the victors”. Timur was now moving through (modern day) Haryana, the land of the Jats. He directed his soldiers to “plunder and destroy and kill every one whom they met”. And so the soldiers “plundered every village, killed the men, and carried a number of Hindu prisoners, both male and female”.

Loni which was captured before he arrived at Delhi was predominantly a Hindu town. But some Muslim inhabitants were also taken prisoners. Timur ordered that “the Musulman prisoners should be separated and saved, but the infidels should all be dispatched to hell with the proselytizing sword”.

By now Timur had captured 100,000 Hindus. As he prepared for battle against the Tughlaq army after crossing the Yamuna, his Amirs advised him “that on the great day of battle these 100,000 prisoners could not be left with the baggage, and that it would be entirely opposed to the rules of war to set these idolators and enemies of Islam at liberty”. Therefore, “no other course remained but that of making them all food for the sword”.

Tuzk-i-Timuri continues:

“I proclaimed throughout the camp that every man who had infidel prisoners should put them to death, and whoever neglected to do so should himself be executed and his property given to the informer. When this order became known to the ghazis of Islam, they drew their swords and put their prisoners to death. One hundred thousand infidels, impious idolators, were on that day slain. Maulana Nasiruddin Umar, a counselor and man of learning, who, in all his life, had never killed a sparrow, now, in execution of my order, slew with his sword fifteen idolatrous Hindus, who were his captives.”

The Tughlaq army was defeated in the battle that ensued next day. Timur entered Delhi and learnt that a “great number of Hindus with their wives and children, and goods and valuables, had come into the city from all the country round”.

He directed his soldiers to seize these Hindus and their property. Tuzk-i-Timuri concludes:

“Many of them (Hindus) drew their swords and resisted…The flames of strife were thus lighted and spread through the whole city from Jahanpanah and Siri to Old Delhi, burning up all it reached. The Hindus set fire to their houses with their own hands, burned their wives and children in them and rushed into the fight and were killed…On that day, Thursday, and all the night of Friday, nearly 15,000 Turks were engaged in slaying, plundering and destroying. When morning broke on Friday, all my army …went off to the city and thought of nothing but killing, plundering and making prisoners….The following day, Saturday the 17th, all passed in the same way, and the spoil was so great.that each man secured from fifty to a hundred prisoners, men, women, and children. There was no man who took less than twenty. The other booty was immense in rubies, diamonds, garnets, pearls, and other gems and jewels; ashrafis, tankas of gold and silver of the celebrated Alai coinage: vessels of gold and silver; and brocades and silks of great value. Gold and silver ornaments of Hindu women were obtained in such quantities as to exceed all account. Excepting the quarter of the Saiyids, the Ulama and the other Musulmans, the whole city was sacked.”

Zahiru’d-din Muhammed Babur (1526-1539)

Babur was soldier of fortune, founder of the Mughal dynasty in India, diarist and poet, descending in the fifth generation from Timur, was born on 14 February 1483. In June 1494, he succeeded his father, 'Umar Shaik , as ruler of Farghana, whose revenues supported no more than a few hundred cavalry. With this force of helmeted, mailclad warriors, Babar began his career of conquest. He joined in the family struggle for power, thrice winning and thrice losing Samarkand, alternately master of a kingdom or a wanderer through the hills. In 1504, he made himself master of Kabul and so came in touch with India whose wealth was a standing temptation. In 1517 and again in 1519, he swept down the Afghan plateau into the plains of India. He entered the Punjab in 1523 on the invitation of Daulat Khan Lodhi, the governor of the province, and 'Alam Khan, an uncle of Ibrahim Lodhi, the Delhi Sultan. But, wars in his home country however, compelled Babar to return so that his final invasion was not begun until November 1525.

Babar's army of 12,000 men was mostly undisciplined group of men who wanted to loot the riches of India. These 12,000 men, a tiny army with which to attempt the conquest of Ibrahim Lodhi's realm, first devasted Punjab.Guru Nanak in his famous epic named "Babarvani" describes the atrocities of Babar and his men in Punjab.

Babur – the homosexual drunkard child molester

The autobiography clearly establishes Babur as a compulsive homosexual child molester. So those defending Babri Masjid should first clearly explain if Islam justifies homosexuality and child-molestation. If not, Babur was a disgrace in name of Islam and hence any structure constructed by him is also a disgrace in name of Islam.

1. In Page 120-121 of the biography he says that he was not much interested in his wife but was maddened by a boy named Babri. He confesses that he had not loved anyone like he was mad for this boy. He used to compose verses in love of the boy. For example: “There has been no lover except me who is so sad, passionate and insulted. And there is no one more cruel and wretched than my lover!”

2. He says that Babri used to come ‘close’ to him and that used to make Babur so excited that he could not even utter a word. Because of being intoxicated, he could not even thank Babri for his show of love.

3. Once Babur was roaming with his friends when Babri came in front of him in a lane. Babur had loss of speech and could not even look at him due to excitement. He narrated:”I get embarrassed looking at my lover. My friends leer at me and I leer someone else.”

4. He admits that in passion and desire of youth, he got mad and used to roam around naked head and naked foot without even looking at anything else.

5. He writes, ”I used to get mad in excitement and passion. I could not think that lovers have to face this. I could not go away from you, nor can I stay with you due to high level of excitement. You have made me completely mad, O my (male) lover!”

Now this proves beyond doubt that:

A. Babur and his gang were homosexual and child molesters. Punishment for these, as per Islamic Shariat, is death by stoning. This is prevalent even today in Islamic countries.

B. Babri Masjid is nothing but a memoir in name of Babur’s sex-partner.

Does Islam consider monuments created by or named after such sexual perverts to be mosques or symbols of shame?

Hence, it is clear that Babri Masjid was nothing but a symbol of homosexuality and child-molestation. I do not know who were the people behind its destruction. But whosoever they may be, they have destroyed a structure of shame for Hindus and Muslims alike.

It is a matter of greatest shame that a structure which is symbolic of India being defeated by sexual perverts was considered to be a heritage site. If this be so, then perhaps the Mumbai CST where Pakistani terrorists fired openly on innocent crowd would be the next ‘heritage’ spot to be named ‘Kasab’ bhoomi!

Babur – the barbaric killer, looter, rapist, drunkard and drug-addict

(Only a few samples from this barbaric vulgar autobiography of Babur are being provided as it is too brutal and gross for detailed reading.)

- Page 232: He writes that his gang beheaded the innocent Afghans who came to him for truce, and then created a pillar from these heads. The same feat was repeated in Hangu where 200 Afghan heads were killed to create a pillar.

- Page 370: Because people of Bajaur did not believe in Islam, more than 3000 people were murdered and their wives and children were taken as captives.

- Page 371 – Several heads of captured people were sent to Kabutl, Balkh and other places to spread news of victory.

- Page 371 – A tower of cut heads was setup on ground to celebrate victory.

- Page 371 – There was a wine party on Muharram where we drank whole night. (Translator notes here that Babur was a heavy drunkard till end of his life). A large portion of Baburnama describes these wine parties.

- Page 373 – Babur took such intoxicants once that he could not go even for prayers. He further says that had he taken such intoxicants today, he would not have produced half the intoxication.

- Page 374 – Babur fathered several children from several women in his brothel. His first wife promised to adopt all these illegitimate children, whenever they are born in future, because several children born to her could not live. It looks as if Babur’s brothel was akin to a poultry farm for chicken production!

- Page 385-388 – Babur was so happy with birth of Humayun that he went to a boat with his friends and drank wine whole night and ate narcotics. Then they fought with each other due to intoxication and party broke up. After a similar party, he vomited a lot and forgot everything by morning.

- Page 527 – A party was given in the pillared porch of the domed building in Agra (referring to Taj Mahal falsely associated with Shah Jahan)

Almost all pages of his autobiography describe how he looted, threatened, murdered and plundered wherever he went and ate ‘haram’ meat. Note that the way Babur includes all this in his autobiography implies that he was proud of all this. One would shudder to imagine what all other crimes he had committed that do not form part of this self-eulogizing biography.

B. Babri Masjid, named after Babur’s homosexual partner Babri, is a symbol of sexual perversion of a murderer and rapist. To call it a ‘heritage’ and implicating those who destroyed such a symbol of ‘barbaric perversion’ demonstrates how wretched we have become down the course of history.

Source: Babur Nama

Place:Chanderi (Madhya Pradesh)

In AH 934 (CE 1528) I attacked Chanderi and by the grace of Allah captured it in a few hours...We got the infidels slaughtered and the place which had been daru'l - harb for years was made into a daru'l-islam.

Babur's poem on killing Hindus

For the sake of Islam I became a wanderer;

I battled infidels and Hindus.

I determined to become a martyr.

Thank God I became a Ghazi(killer of non-Muslims)

Quoted in Dr. Harsh Narain's article:Rama-Janma Bhumi Muslim testimony

Indian Express Feb,26,1990 Place:Uttar Pradesh

Since the establishment of Zahiru'd-Din Ghazi's rule ...officers and religious leaders spread Islam vigorously destroying Hindu faith. We cleared of the filth of Hinduism from Faizabad and Avadh.

Guru Nanak on Babur's atrocities:

Source:Rag Asa Guru Nanak Dev witnessed first hand the atrocities Babur committed on Hindus and recorded them in his poems. He says:

Having attacked Khuraasaan, Babar terrified Hindustan. The Creator Himself does not take the blame, but has sent the Mugal as the messenger of death. There was so much slaughter that the people screamed. Didn't You feel compassion, Lord? pg (360)

On the condition of Hindu women in Babur's monster rule:

Those heads adorned with braided hair, with their parts painted with vermillion - those heads were shaved with scissors, and their throats were choked with dust.They lived in palatial mansions, but now, they cannot even sit near the palaces.... ropes were put around their necks, and their strings of pearls were broken. Their wealth and youthful beauty, which gave them so much pleasure, have now become their enemies. The order was given to the soldiers, who dishonored them, and carried them away. If it is pleasing to God's Will, He bestows greatness; if is pleases His Will, He bestows punishment pg(417-18)

On the nature of Mughal rule under Babur:

First, the tree puts down its roots, and then it spreads out its shade above. The kings are tigers, and their officials are dogs; they go out and awaken the sleeping people to harass them. The public servants inflict wounds with their nails. The dogs lick up the blood that is spilled. Source:Rag Malar, (pg.1288)

After defeating Rana Sangram Singh at the Battle Khanua, Fatehpur Sikri, Babar massacred nearly 100,000 prisoners of war and another 100,000 civilians and raised two towers with the slain heads of the victims. Akbar seems to have preserved this great legacy of erecting minarets with slain heads of the Hindus in several occasions, as is obvious from the accounts of battles he fought, particularly at Chittore Fort.

Humayun (26 December 1530 AD – 17 May 1540 AD 22 February 1555 AD– 27 January 1556 AD)

Humayun, the son of Babar, was even more degenerate and cruel than his father. After repeated battles, Humayum captured his elder brother Kamran and subjected the latter to brutal torture. A detailed account is left by Humayun's servant Jauhar and is quoted by Smith (p.20), which says, " .. (Humayun) had little concerns for his brother's sufferings .. One of the men was sitting on Kamran's knees. He was pulled out of the tent and a lancet was thrust into his eyes .. Some lemon juice and salt was put into his eyes .. After sometime he was put on horseback." One can imagine the cruelty and torture that Humayun was capable of inflicting on others when he subjected to his own brother to such atrocities. Humayun was also a slave to opium habit, engaged in excessive alcohol consumption and a lecherous degenarate when it came to women (Shelat, p.27). He is also known to have married a 14 year old Hamida Begum by force

Hindus were killed,tortured,womens were raped, Had to pay heavy taxes. Humayun,like his father had a similar legacy of cruelty, slaughtering Hindus in thousands and taking Hindu women and children as captives


Akbar was a merciless cruel killer. Akbar beheaded helpless Samrat Vikramaditya Hemraj to earn the title of Ghazi (the slayer of infidel).Ppseudo secular historians are trying to distort the history and conceal Akbar's inhuman cruelty. It should be mentioned here the opinion of the renowned historian R C Majumdar in this context. He writes, "In this helpless condition, Himu was put to death, according to some, by Bairam, on the refusal of Akbar to kill him with his own hands and, according to others, by Akbar himself at the instigation of his protector."

But still there are some historians, though very rare, who does not hesitate to expose the truth. Such a historian, Mr S Roy, writes, "Akbar accordingly struck Himu with his sword and Bairam Khan followed him. The story of Akbar's magnanimity and refusal to kill a fallen foe seems to be a later courtly invention. The humane and liberal

emperor of Hindustan who preached ‘sulh-i-kull' (universal toleration) was not born but made."

In this context, an incident may be described to expose Akbar's mindless cruelty. The incident has been narrated by

Asad Beg in his Wikaya. It reads, "At that time the Emperor used to retire for a long interval, after evening prayers, during which time the servants and courtiers used to disperse, assembling again when they expected His Majesty to re-appear.

That evening he (Akbar) happened to come out sooner than usual, to hear the news from the Dakhin, and at first found none of the servants in the palace. When he came near the throne and couch, he saw a luckless lamplighter, coiled up like a snake, in a careless death-like sleep, close to the royal couch. Enraged at the sight, he ordered him to be thrown from the tower, and he was dashed into a thousand pieces." One would be extremely frustrated if he tries to discover such an act of cruelty by a Hindu king, because Hindu kings were human beings. Humayun, Akbar's father, blinded his elder brother Kamran so that he could never pose a threat to the throne and Akbar assassinated Kamran's son for the same reason. To describe this cruelty of Akbar, Vincent Smith writes, "Executing Kamran's son [namely, Akbar's own cousin] at Gwalior in 1565, Akbar set an evil example, initiated on a large scale by his descendents Shahjahan and Aurangzeb." "Akbar was born and brought up in a illiterate and foul atmosphere characterized by excessive drinking, womanizing and drug addiction." After defeating Muzaffar Shah, the ruler of Ahmedabad, in November 1572, "Akbar ordered his opponents to be trampled to death by elephants. Hamzaban, commander of Akbar's forces laying siege to Surat in 1573 A.D. was barbarously punished by Akbar by excision of his tongue. Masud Hussain Mirza, a near relation of Akbar, who had risen in revolt, had his eyes sewn up after capture. ... Some of them (300 supporters) were executed with various ingenious tortures. "It is disgusting to find a man like Akbar sanctioning such barbarism which he inherited from his Tartar ancestors", says Smith." Such were the acts of Akbar's barbaric cruelty In 1567 AD, Akbar advanced with a large army against Rana Uday Singh, the son of Rana Sangram Singh, of Mewar and put the Chottore Fort under siege. But even after 4 months, no indication of surrender was visible from the other side. On the contrary, the Mughal army continued to suffer large scale casualties due to occasional Rajput attack under the leadership of brave Rajput generals Jaimal and Patta

At last, Akbar ordered to dig two Sabats (a trench covered with leather is called a Sabat) from a far away places to the wall of the fort. Then explosives in large quantities were dumped at the walls of the fort and a severe blasts collapsed the wall. Expecting imminent fall of the fort, nearly 300 Rajput women sacrificed their lives in Jauhar (self immolation in fire) When the Mughal army entered the fort, nearly 800 Rajput soldiers were alive and all of them were put to the sword. Next morning, victorious Akbar entered the fort riding an elephant. The Emperor was not so pleased as he had to face a lot of hardship in occupying the fort. At that time there were nearly 40 thousand civilians in the fort and this civilian population had assisted the Rajput army to inflict damage to the Mughal army. And hence they became the target of Akbar's wrath. To narrate the event, Vincent Smith writes, "The eight thousand Rajput soldiers who formed the regular garrison having been jealously helped during the siege by 40,000 peasants, the emperor ordered a general massacre,which resulted in the death of 30,000." [15] Col Tod, to describe the incident as, writes, "The emperor's proceedings were marked by the most illiterate atrocities." Akbar had a curiosity to know the actual number of Hindus slain. As it was impossible to manually count the heaps of dead bodies, Akbar ordered his men to collect the sacred threads from the corpses. The order was carried out the sacred threads collected were weighed. What was the result of weighing? Vincent Smith, in this regard, writes, "The recorded

amount 74½ mans of eight ounce each."

It has been mentioned above that when Akbar occupied the Chittor Fort, more than 300 Rajput women jumped into fire (Jauhar) so that they may not be abducted to Delhi and dumped into the hell called Akbar's harem to spend the rest of their lives as prostitutes and sex-slaves. Akbar, the devil incarnate, possessed a inordinate lust for women, just like his ancestors and predecessors. One of Akbar's motives during his wars of aggression against various rulers was to appropriate their women, daughters and sisters of the defeated Hindu kings. That was the reason, the Rajput women of Chittor prefered "Jauhar"( self immolation) than to be captured and disrespectfully treated as servants and prostitutes in Akbar's harem.

Monserrate, a contemporary of Akbar, writes (p.27), "the religious zeal of the Musalmans has destroyed all the idol temples which used to be numerous. In place of Hindu temples, countless tombs and little shrines of wicked and worthless Musalmans have been erected in which these men are worshipped with vain superstition as though they were saints." Not only did the muslims destroy the idols, but usurped the existing temples and converted them into tombs of insignificant people.


He severely punished Kaukab, Sharif and Abdul Latif for showing inclination to Hinduism. He also prohibited the free inter-marriage customs between Hindus and Muslims in Kashmir. Hindus marrying Muslim girls and those who had already married were given a hoice between Islam and death. Many were killed.

Jahangir's torture of Guru Arjun Dev ji: Guru was imprisoned at Lahore fort. He was chained to a post in an open  place exposed to the sun from morning to evening in the summer months of May to June. Below his feet a heap of sand was put which burnt like a furnace. Boiling water was poured on his naked body at intervals. His body was covered with blisters all over. In this agony Guru used to utter.

Tera Kiya Metha lage, naam padarath Nanak mange(whatever you ordain appears sweet. I supplicate for the gift of name)

The Guru was ordercd to be executed. In addition a fine of Rupees two lakhs was imposed on him. Some historians say that, as a measure of clemency at the intervention of Mian Mir, this fine was imposed in lieu of the sentence of death. The Sikhs offered to pay the fine themselves but the Guru forbade them to do so. He replied to the Emperor,"Whatever money I have is for the poor, the friendless and the stranger. If thou ask for money thou mayest take what I have; but if thou ask for it by way of fine, I shall not give thee even a Kaurz (penny)." The Guru accepted death by torture

Jahangir, was so enamored of Kashmir that he used to go there every six months. He was ready to give away his whole kingdom but not Kashmir. His generals abducted or bought Kashmiri women because they wanted their children to have a fair complexion. Thus the honour of Kashmiri women was also attacked under the fascist Mughals

Shah Jahan(1658-1707)

In 1632 Shah jahan ordered that all Hindu temples recently erected or in the course of construction should be razed to the ground. In Benares alone seventy six temples were destroyed. Christian churches at Agra and Lahore were demolished. In a manner befitting the Prophet he had ten thousand inhabitants executed by being "blown up with powder, drowned in water or burnt by fire". Four thousand were taken captive to Agra where they were tortured to try to convert them to Islam. Only a few apostacised, the remainder were trampled to death by elephants, except for the younger women who went to harems.

Shahjahan put enormous eonomic pressure on Hindus particularly peasents to become Muslims. The criminals too were forced to become Muslims

When Shuja was appointed as governor of Kabul he carried on a ruthless war in the Hindu territory beyond Indus...The sword of Islam yielded a rich crop of converts....Most of the women (to save their honour) burnt themselves to death. Those captured were distributed among Muslim Mansabdars.

Under Shahjahan peasents were compelled to sell their women and children to meet their revenue requirements....The peasents were carried off to various Markets and fairs to be sold with their poor unhappy wives carrying their small children crying and lamenting. According to Qaznivi Shahjagan had decreed they should be sold to Muslim lords.

For him, India or Hindustan was, not his motherland but, a country to loot and to wage jihad against its Hindu infidels. His primary intention was to earn the title of Ghazi by killing the Hindus, to glorify and establish the supremacy of his faith by pulling down Hindu temples, to turn entire country into a dar-ul-Islam and to swell his harem by inducting Hindu women by force. It should also be mentioned here that, the faith called Islam is a product of pastoral Arabia and hence pastoral barbarity, brutality, cruelty and lechery is the part and parcel of every Muslim, and Shah Jahan was not above this trend

The most horrendous example in this regard is his desecration of the temple of Lord Shiva at Agra and converting it into a mausoleum, now called Taj Mahal.

Shah Jahan blinded and, later on, stabbed his own brother Khusru, his most prominent political rival, to death. How he brutally killed his other political rivals

It has been said earlier that the so called secular historians are busy in painting Shah Jahan as a liberal and generous king free of religious discrimination and fanaticism. But in reality, he was as fanatic in religious matters as the other Muslim rulers of India. A few incidents may be presented here to expose his religious frenzy. In 1632, when he was returning from a military campaign in Kashmir, it was brought to his knowledge that, many Muslim women in Rajouri, Bhimbar region and some other places of Gujarat, were marrying Hindu boys, and subsequently they were converted to Hinduism. The emperor immediately sent his men to bring those couples to the capital and issued an order that, they could retain their wives only on their embracing Islam. Most of the Hindu boys declined and they were executed. As many as 4,500 women were recovered and reconverted to Islam.

According to Jean Baptiste Tavernier, the French traveller, 20,000 workers laboured for 17 years to complete the construction of Taj Mahal and he in hisTravels in India writes, “The labour was all forced and very little payment made in cash to the 20,000 workmen, who were said to have employed for 17 years.” [9] The Keene’s Handbook, in this regard, says,“The labour was forced and little was paid to the workmen in cash, while their allowances of cash was curtailed by the rapacious officials. So great was their distress and so frightful the mortality among them that they must have cursed the memory of Mumtaj and cried out in dispair: Have mercy, God, in our distress, So we die too, with the Princess.” He chopping the hands of the workmen so that they might not be able to build another Taj Mahal. Even if these stories are partially true, one is led to conclude that Shah Jahan was nothing but a fearful and brute monster. In this context, the question naturally arises – What construction activities Tavernier had observed? We have seen earlier thatthe building, now called Taj Mahal, was built by the King Paramardidev of of Bundelkhand, nearly 600 years before the times of Shah Jahan.So, it was not possible for Tavernier to see its construction. It, therefore, leads one to conclude that Tavernier must have seen the minor work undertaken by Shah Jahan to turn the building into a mausoleum and give it an Islamic face. One should also notice that the number of labours, Shah Jahan employed for that minor work, was much less that 20000. However,even this small number of workers was ill treated mercilessly exploited by Shah Jahan.


Abdul Muzaffar Muhiuddin Muhammad Aurangzeb Bahadur Alamgir I, Padshah Ghazi aka Aurangzeb was the greatest and 6 th Mughal Emperor of all the time but only after the Akbar the great as claimed to the accompanying of drums by the pseudo secular Indian historians. He ruled from 1658 to 1707. Although he was a great winner throughout his wretched life he was a bad and notorious emperor apart from being a religious bigot who set destruction of his own empire and illustrious dynasty into motion by his ill conceived policies. Although he was claimed to be a pious and holy Qoran bound Mussalman and lived pious life as stated by the guided Indian historians, he was full of all negative qualities and he was the manifestation of religious intolerance that finally resulted in destruction of Mughal Empire. To some extent, Mir Osman Ali Khan, the Nizam 7 of Hyderabad state could be compared to him in the matters of simplicity of dress and persecution of Hindus through Razakars during 1947-48 till he was deposed by police action. Although he was a great achiever by no mean standards as claimed by historians, the way he ruled was most outrageous and unworthy of an emperor. He alienated every one probably except sadistic fundamentalist Mullahs who failed to convert India into Dar ul Islam. Some of Aurangzeb’s shameful deeds are :

1.Aurangazeb‘s act of pseudo greatness began in 1644 when Aurangzeb's sister Jahanara Begum was accidentally burned in Agra. This event precipitated a family crisis which had political consequences. Aurangzeb suffered his father's displeasure when he returned to Agra three weeks after the event, instead of immediately on hearing of the accident.

2. In 1652, Aurangzeb was re-appointed governor of the Deccan. The Deccan produced poor tax revenue for the Mughals. In his previous term, Aurangzeb ignored the problem, allowing state-sanctioned corruption and extortion to grow. This time Aurangzeb set about reforming the system, but his efforts often placed additional burdens on the locals and were poorly received.

3. It was during this second governorship that Aurangzeb first recounts destroying a Hindu temple.

4.. Dara shikoh true successor of Shah Jahan was illegally dethroned by Aurangazeb. With the help of his younger brother Murad, Aurangzeb attacked Dara shikoh and defeated him and he declared Dara shikoh was no longer a Muslim. Dara shikoh was betrayed by an Afghan Chief to the Mughals and brought to Delhi on 23 August 1659.. Dar Shikoh was the most learned man of Hindu scriptures and wrote translations of some Upanishads. He was great Sufi in fact. Before Dara was killed, he was paraded on a dirty elephant on the streets so that people saw him and understood that their most liked prince was no more in reckoning. Dara was executed on 30 August 1659.

5) After getting rid of Dara by engineering death sentence through the Mullahs, Aurangzeb betrayed his younger brother Murad by arresting him after intoxicating him and later executed his own brother on 4 December 1661 on a frivolous murder charge of elimination Diwan Al Naqwi.

6. Sulaiman Shikoh the eldest son of Dara shukoh was also captured after betrayal by a provincial king and he was administered slow poison and he died in May 1662.

7) He executed Dara Shikoh in Delhi on 30 August 1659 and sent Dara’s severed head to Shah Jahan who was under house arrest.

8) He brought prohibitions against building new Hindu temples, and protection tax on non Muslims. He destroyed most precious Hindu temples at Gujarat, Kashi and Mathura. Probably breaking Hindu temples was his best hobby.

9) Aurangzeb began to enact and enforce a series of edicts with punishments. Most significantly, Aurangzeb initiated laws which interfered with non-Muslim worship. These included the destruction of several temples (mostly Hindu), a prohibition of certain religious gatherings, collection of the jizya tax, the closing of non-Islamic religious schools, and prohibition of practices deemed immoral by him, such as temple dances


10)He executed Guru Tegh bahadur in 1675, one of the most revered among Sikhs by framing false charges. ( He was the father of last Guru Gobind Singh who converted Sikhs into a martial race). He brought untold miseries on Guru Gobind Singh where sons of Sikh guru Guru Gobind Singh were killed. Two sons of him died in war while fighting along with his father and two were bricked alive most cruelly at Sirhind by Governor Wazir Khan of Sirhind.

11) In economic and political terms, Aurangzeb's rule significantly favored Muslims over non-Muslims:” In many disputed successions for hereditary local office Aurangzeb chose candidates who had converted to Islam over their rivals. Pargana headmen and quangos or record keepers were targeted especially for pressure to convert. The message was very clear for all concerned. Shared political community must also be sharing religious belief."

12) The Pashtun revolted against Aurangzeb in 1672 that was triggered when soldiers under the orders of the Mughal Governor Amir Khan attempted to molest women of the Safi tribe. The policies of Governors can not be different from that of the emperor.

13) He alienated many of his children and wives, driving some into exile and imprisoning others. When his son Akbar revolted against him in 1681 while fighting against the Rajputs during the war of succession after the death of Rana Jaswant Singh of Marwar on 10 December,1678, Aurangzeb played most dirty by writing a letter and ensuring that it fell into the hands of Rajputs thus driving a wedge between his son and Rajputs. This was the dirtiest act. Akbar finally left India and stayed in Persia fearing his father where he subsequently died unsung and unheard in 1704.

14. Aurangzeb also imprisoned his eldest son Mohammed Sultan to whom the princes of Golconda was married. The poor prince died in captivity in 1676. He thought his sons were danger to his power. He was the most cruel and treacherous father infact.

15. He conquered Golconda kingdom in Deccan ( South India) in 1687. Abdullah Pani a small time fort commander opened a small gate at fort wall in the early hours of 21 September 1687 after getting bribed and the fort soon fell.

16. After the fall of Golconda kingdom in Deccan, its king Sultan Abul Hasan Kutubshah ( 1672-1687) was imprisoned at Kaula Mahal in Daulatabad ( Maharashtra State) fort and was pensioned off. During his captivity, it is learnt that his wife gave birth to a son and this boy was subsequently taken to Delhi where he was taken care of. Abul Hassan Kutub Shaha died in 1699-1700. Many Kutubshai nobles took service in Mughal court and whenever the Deccani Prince entered the court, the nobles rose and paid respects. This however annoyed the emperor. To ensure that there was no chance for revival of Kutubshahi kingdom at a later stage, he sent the prince to Gwalior where he was administered opium regularly as a slow poison and the poor prince died in oblivion. The prince was called Bandi ( Prisoner) Sultan. ( There is no written proof available for this and is based on a popular belief and probably could be true considering the qualities of the emperor)

17. He invited the great Shivaji Maharaja to the court in May 1666 and insulted him and later imprisoned him at Agra. It is a different thing that Shivaji cleverly escaped from the house arrest at Agra and reached his capital on 30 November 1666 and led a crusade against Mughal in subsequent years.

18. He got killed Sambhaji Maharaja the Maratha King ( Son of Shivaji Maharaja) most inhumanly after capturing him on 11 February 1689.. He forced him to convert to Islam and Sambhaji preferred death than to shed his faith.He was put to death on 16 March 1689 in a most gruesome way. He kept Sahu, Sambhajis son as captive at his palace. Sahu was released only after the death of Aurangzeb in 1707 by the next emperor ( Muazzam) Bahadurshah I as an act of reconciliation with Marathas and to divide the Marathas in the war of succession in their kingdom.

19. He dismissed court singers and painters and artists.

20 . He got white washed most precious and great paintings in the palace of Bijapur ( Now in state of Karnataka) in Deccan after its capture and deposing the ruler Sikander Adil Shah in September 1688.All such great art was lost forever.

On death bed, he wrote to his son, fully exhausted, "I came alone and I go as a stranger. I do not know who I am, nor what I have been doing," the dying old man confessed to his son in Feb 1707. "I have sinned terribly, and I do not know what punishment awaits me." At the ebb of his life, he expressed his loneliness and perhaps a regret for his militant intolerant rule. His personal piety is undeniable. Unlike the often alcohol- and women-absorbed personal lives of his predecessors, he led an extremely simple and pious life. He followed Muslim precepts with his typical determination, and even memorized the entire Qur'an. He knitted haj caps and copied out the Qur'an throughout his life and sold these anonymously. He used only the proceeds from these to fund his modest resting place. He died in Ahmednagar on Friday, February 20 1707 at the age of 88, having outlived many of his children. His modest open-air grave in Khuldabad in Aurangabad expresses his strict and deep interpretation of Islamic beliefs.

Repentance in the end does not change history. It may draw sympathy from the almighty as per scriptures. In practical life, such repentance has no meaning when he inflicted such damage on the people and nation particularly Hindus. The later Mughals were wretched incompetent and worthless womanizers, morally corrupt debauches, sexual perverts and drunkards. It is most astonishing to note that in a span of 150 years after death of Aurangzeb in 1707 Mughal dynasty could not produce a single competent and worthy ruler who could restore the Mughal power. Was it a curse from the Allah who desired destruction of the dynasty and empire too? Naturally such rulers have no place. None should feel sorry for their tragic end. They surely deserved such fate.

Some one said the grave of Aurangzeb at Khuldabad in Aurangabad (Maharashtra State) is the most deserted and haunting one and any one visiting the site would suffer heart pain, headache and nausea and discomfort even to day after the death of the tyrant in 1707. This may be exaggerated. The soul of emperor who played tricks and dirty politics all his life and killed his own brothers and ill-treated his father for the kingship cannot rest in peace. Many saw him as manifestation of Satan although Indian bogus historians praise him as a Raja yogi ( Saint King) and true Muslim to appease the Muslims in India with eye on vote bank of Muslims. The Indian history books hide all his atrocities on his subjects particularly Hindus by direction and to earn awards from the pseudo secularists. His life was tarnished by scores of Brahmins killed by him. He was probably the biggest and cruelest Sunni Wahhabi on the earth although Wahabism was found later on. He was against all Kafirs and destroyed temples and deserves severe condemnation in the view of most of the people. His deeds have naturally led to fall of his own dynasty. Just note the fate of his worthless descendents. Is it an act of punishment by God?But Indian Historians look other way and clap that al was well with him. Shame indeed.


1. Muazzam titled Bahadur shah I( 1707-1712) I his son and who became emperor died with in 5 years of his rule. He killed his brother in the war of succession…… 5 years

2. Moizuddin Zahandarshah ( 1712-1713) son of Bahadur Shah I a debauch and was the most incompetent man to rule. He was overwhelmed by a concubine Lal kumari. His brothers were also slain in the war of succession. He was strangled after he was deposed within one year of rule by Farukhsiyar and his head was cut off and sent for display….. 1 year rule

3. Muhammed Farukhsiyar ( 1713- 1719) a great grand son of Aurangzeb ( Son of Azimus shan, brother of Zahandar shah) became emperor. He was deposed and blinded and imprisoned. He was killed in the most cruelest manner by the Sayyad brothers, the king makers. 6 years ruled.

4. Rafi ud Darjat (1719) son of Rafis us shan brother of Jahandar Shah who was killed in war of succession. He died in the same year of accession 1719 ( obviously murdered).. with in year

5. Rafi ud Ddaula ( Shah jehan II) ( 1719) son of Rafis us shan brother of Jahandar Shah who was killed in war of succession. He died in the same year of accession i.e 1719( Obviously murdered)… within year same year as above

6. Mohd Ibrahim (1720) son of Rafiq us shan. Died soon

6. Muhammed Shah Rangeela ( pleasure seeker) ( 1719-1748) ( Roshan Akhtar) son of Jahan shah the brother of Jahander shah the biggest pleasure seeker and womanizer .He died of cirrhosis of liver and also syphilis.. Nadir Shah the Persian king invaded Delhi during his time. 29 years rule

7. Ahmed Shah (1748- 1754) was blinded by his wazir Ghaziuddin in 1754… 6 years

8.. Azizuddin Alamgir II (1754 -- 1759) son of Jahander shah was assassinated by Gaziuddin.. 5 years

9. Shah Jehan III (1960), grandson of Kambaksh the son of Aurangzeb. Three months

10.Mirza Abdullah Shah Alam II also known as Ali Gauhar ( 1759-1806) was blinded in 1788 by Afgahn Rohilla chieftain and the staunch enemy of Mughals after having failed to find Mughal treasures and Shah Alam II lived pathetic life and died ( Although a nominal emperor..47 years

11. Bidar Bakht ( 1788).

12.Akbar II son of Shah Alam II ( 1806 --1837) nominal emperor remained in Delhi unsung and un heard…31 years

13,Bahadur Shah II ( zafar) ( 1836-1858) was deposed by East India Company in 1858 after the Sepoy mutiny. He was sent to Rangoon prison where he died in 1862……...22 years rule


Above list does not reflect well for the dynasty of brave Baber. The untold crimes committed by Aurangzeb on humanity, other religions and on his own brothers and father during his long reign have not gone down well with the unknown power called the God and his successors paid heavy price in course of time. There have been dynasties earlier that vanished after wars. But later Mughals no doubt suffered continuously and as said earlier, it could not produce even one able ruler to turn the tide. It has to be seen as the curse of humanity (Particularly Hindus?) in India on the Mughal dynasty during rule of Aurangzeb.

Tipu Sultan

Tipu Sultan had, ruled his kingdom only for sixteen-and-a-half years, from December 7, 1782 to May 4, 1799. The territory of Malabar was under his effective control only for a short period of eight years. If he had not secured the assistance of the wily Purnaiyya, there would not have been so many Muhammadans in the states of Kerala and Karnataka. Hindus also would not have become less prosperous, and fewer in number.

When that Brahmin Prime Minister, Purnaiyya, presented to Tipu Sultan 90,000 soldiers, three crore rupees, and invaluable ornaments made of precious stones, he was tempted to rule as the Emperor of the South India. Tipu did not consider the Hindu rulers of Maharashtra, Coorg and Travancore or the Muslim ruler Nizam as impediments. He was afraid of only the British. He had convinced himself that he could

easily become the Emperor of South India if he could somehow vanquish the British. Because of his intense and-British attitude, the so-called progressive and secular historians have made a vain attempt to paint Tipu Sultan as a great national hero.

Opposition to foreign powers need not always be due to love for one’s country. To achieve his selfish goal and to face the British forces, Tipu Sultan sought the assistance of another foreign power, the French, who were manoeuvring to establish their own domination in the ountry. How is it possible, therefore, for Tipu Sultan to be an enemy of foreign forces when he himself had sought help from Napoleon who was then a prisoner in St. Helena Island and also the French King, Louis XVI?

Besides, he also wanted to establish Islamic rule in the country; to achieve that he had to first defeat the British. For this purpose, Tipu Sultan solicited the assistance of Muslim countries like Persia, Afghanistan and Turkey. It is true that Tipu did not harm the Raja of Cochin or anyone for that matter who surrendered and pledged loyalty to him. But how does that make him a friend of Hindus?

Tipu and the Nizam were the only Muslim rulers in the Deccan at that time and hence he wanted to avoid any dispute with the Nizam. He insisted that the Nizam should agree to give his daughter in marriage to his son. But the Nizam, considering Tipu as an upstart with no aristocratic heredity, refused the offer. (According to Bhagwan Gidwani, Hyder Ali Khan had suggested earlier to the Nizam that he should agree to the marriage of his daughter to the young Tipu, then in his teens.) As if to spite the Nizam, Tipu Sultan got another of his sons married to the daughter of Arackal Bibi of Cannanore mainly to secure the loyalty of Malabar Muslims for subjugating the entire Malabar region. The result was for everybody to see in due course. It may be noted that the family of Arackal Bibi, though converted to Islam, followed the matriarchal system a system which the Muslim fanatic, Tipu, wanted to reform.


He wanted to become an Emperor after defeating the British. He

wanted to achieve his ambition after consulting the astrologers. There

were a few Brahmin astrologers in Sree Ranganatha Swami Temple. They predicted that if some of the suggested remedial rituals were performed, Tipu would achieve his cherished ambition. Believing that he could become the undisputed ruler of the whole of South India, after defeating the British, he performed all the suggested rituals in the Sree Ranaganatha Swami Temple, besides giving costly presents to the astrologers. This act is being widely interpreted by secularist

historians as love and respect for Hindu religion and traditions! They

also doubt if there were any Hindu temples which were desecrated or

destroyed by Tipu Sultan and his Islamic army in Malabar.

The reputed historian, Lewis Rice, who wrote the History of Mysore after going through various official records, stated as follows: “In the vast empire of Tipu Sultan on the eve of his death, there were only two Hindu temples having daily pujas within the Sreerangapatanam fortress. It is only for the satisfaction of the Brahmin astrologers who used to study his horoscope that Tipu Sultan had spared those two temples. The entire wealth of every Hindu temple was confiscated before 1790 itself mainly to make up for the revenue loss due to total prohibition in the country.”

There are people who proclaim to the world that Tipu Sultan’s rule was fair and progressive in his own state of Mysore. It would be appropriate to have a look at what a Mysorean, M.A. Gopal Rao, stated a few years ago in one of his articles: ‘In a deliberately designed taxation scheme, the religious prejudice of Tipu Sultan became quite clear. His co-religionists, Muslims, were exempted from house tax, commodity tax and also the levy on other items of household use. Those who were converted to Muhammadanism, were also given similar tax exemptions. He had even made provisions for the education of their children. Tipu Sultan discontinued the practice of appointing Hindus in different administrative and military jobs as practised by his father, Hyder Ali Khan, in the past. He had deep hatred towards all non-Muslims. During the entire period of sixteen years of his regime, Purnaiyya was the only Hindu who had adorned the post of Dewan or minister under Tipu Sultan. In 1797 (two years before his death) among the 65 senior Government posts, not even a single Hindu was retained. All the Mustadirs were also Muslims. Among the 26 civil and military officers captured by the British in 1792 there were only 6 non-Muslims.In 1789, when the Nizam of Hyderabad and other Muslim rulers decided that only Muslims would be appointed henceforth in all Government posts, Tipu Sultan also adopted the same policy in his Mysore State. Just because they were Muslims, even those who were illiterate and inefficient, were also appointed to important Government posts. Even for getting promotions, one still had to be a Muslim under Tipu Sultan’s regime. Considering the interest and convenience of only Muslim officers, all the records relating to tax revenue, were ordered to be written in Persian rather than in Marathi and Kannada as followed earlier. He even tried to make Persian the State language in place of Kannada. In the end all the Government posts were filled by lazy and irresponsible Muslims. As a consequence the people had to suffer a great deal because of those fun-seeking and irresponsible Muslim officers.The Muslim officers, occupying important posts at all levels, were all dishonest and unreliable persons. Even when people complained to him with evidences against those officers, Tipu Sultan did not care to inquire about the complaints lodged.”


Gopal Rao had written all these on the basis of the writings of Tipu’s own son, Ghulam Muhammad, and Muslim historians like Kirmani. Even the Hindu names of places, the Sultan could not tolerate. Therefore, Mangalapuri (Mangalore) was changed to Jalalabad, Cannanore

(Kanwapuram) to Kusanabad, Bepur (Vaippura) to Sultanpatanam or Faruqui, Mysore to Nazarabad, Dharwar to Quarshed-Sawad, Gooty to Faiz-Hissar, Ratnagiri to Mustafabad, Dindigul to Khaliqabad, and Calicut (Kozhikode) to Islamabad. It was after the death of Tipu Sultan that the local people reverted to old names.


The cruelties which Tipu Sultan committed in Coorg, has no parallel in history. On one occasion, he forcibly converted over ten thousand Hindus to Muhammadanism. On another occasion, he captured and converted to Islam more than one thousand Hindu Coorgis before imprisoning them in the Sreerangapatanam fortress. In the period of confusion and anarchy prevailing in Sreerangapatanam during the last war of Tipu Sultan against the British, all the Coorgi prisoners escaped from the prison and became Hindus again after reaching their native kingdom. Against the solemn oath given to the Raja of Coorg, Tipu Sultan forcibly abducted a young princess from the Coorg royal family and made her his wife against her will.

The atrocities committed by Tipu Sultan in Bidnur in North Karnataka during and after its capture by him, were most barbarous and beyond description. Ayaz Khan who was Kammaran Nambiar from Chirackal Kingdom before his forcible conversion to Islam by Hyder Ali Khan, had been appointed as Governor of Bidnur. Tipu Sultan was jealous of and opposed to Ayaz Khan from the very beginning because Hyder Ali Khan had considered the latter more intelligent and smart. When Ayaz Khan learnt that Tipu Sultan was scheming to kill him secretly, he escaped to Bombay with plenty of gold. Tipu Sultan came to Bednur and forcibly converted its entire population to Islam. The people accepted Islam for the sake of their lives.

After the capture of Mangalore, thousands of Christians were also forcibly sent to Sreerangapatanam where all of them were circumcised and converted to Islam. Tipu Sultan’s justification was that during the Portuguese domination, prior to the arrival of the British, many Muslims had been converted to Christianity by their Missionaries. He proudly proclaimed his action as a sort of punishment for the conversion of many Muslims by the Portuguese.

Then he marched upto Kumbla on the northern borders of Kerala, forcibly converting to Islam every Hindu on the way. This time, his argument (repeated by the Muslim and secularist historians of today) was that if all belonged to one religion – Muhammadanism – there would be unity and consequently it would be easy to defeat the British!


In Malabar, the main target of Tipu Sultan’s atrocities were Hindus and Hindu temples. According to Lewis B. Boury, the atrocities committed by Tipu Sultan against Hindus in Malabar were worse and more barbarous than those committed against the Hindus in Hindustan by the notorious Mahmud of Ghazni, Alauddin Khalji, and Nadir Shah. He disputes in his book Mukherjee’s version that Tipu Sultan had converted only his opponents. Normally even a cruel person kills or tortures only his enemies. But that argument does not justify the cruelties committed by him against innocent women and children.


According to the Malabar Manual of William Logan who was the District Collector for some time, Thrichambaram and Thalipparampu temples in Chirackal Taluqa, Thiruvangatu Temple (Brass Pagoda) in Tellicherry, and Ponmeri Temple near Badakara were all destroyed by Tipu Sultan. The Malabar Manual mention that the Maniyoor mosque was once a Hindu temple. The local belief is that it was converted to a mosque during the days of Tipu Sultan.

Vatakkankoor Raja Raja Varma in his famous literary work, History of Sanskrit Literature in Kerala, has written the following about the loss and destruction faced by the Hindu temples in Kerala during the military regime (Padayottam) of Tipu Sultan: “There was no limit as to the loss the Hindu temples suffered due to the military operations of

Tipu Sultan. Burning down the temples, destruction of the idols installed therein and also cutting the heads of cattle over the temple deities were the cruel entertainments of Tipu Sultan and his equally cruel army. It was heartrending even to imagine the destruction caused by Tipu Sultan in the famous ancient temples of Thalipparampu and Thrichambaram. The devastation caused by this new Ravana’s barbarous activities have not yet been fully rectified.”


As per the provisions of the Treaty of Mangalore of 1784, the British had allowed Tipu Sultan to have his suzerainty over Malabar. ‘In consequence, the Hindus of Malabar had to suffer the most severe enormities the world had ever known in history,’ observes K.V. Krishna Iyer, in his famous book, Zamorins of Calicut, based on historical records available from the royal house of Zamorins in Calicut. “When the second-in-line of Zamorins, Eralppad, refused to cooperate with Tipu Sultan in his military operations against Travancore because of Tipu’s crude methods of forcible circumcision and conversion of Hindus to Islam, the enraged Tipu Sultan took a solemn oath to circumcise and convert the Zamorin and his chieftains and Hindu soldiers to Islamic faith,” he adds.

L.B. Boury writes: “To show his ardent devotion and steadfast faith in Muhammaddan religion, Tipu Sultan found Kozhikode to be the most suitable place. It was because the Hindus of Malabar refused to reject the matriarchal system, polyandry and half-nakedness of women that the ‘great reformer’ Tipu Sultan tried to honour the entire population with Islam.” To the Malabar people, the Muslim harem, Muslim polygamy and the Islamic ritual of circumcision were equally repulsive and opposed to the ancient culture and tradition in Kerala. Tipu Sultan sought a marriage alliance with the matriarchal Muslim family of Arackal Bibi in Cannanore. Kozhikode was then a centre of Brahmins and had over 7000 Brahmin families living there. Over 2000 Brahmin families perished as a result of Tipu Sultan’s Islamic cruelties. He did not spare even women and children. Most of the men escaped to forests and foreign lands.

Elamkulam Kunjan Pillai wrote in the Mathrubhoomi Weekly of December 25, 1955: “Muhammadans greatly increased in number. Hindus were forcibly circumcised in thousands. As a result of Tipu’s atrocities, strength of Nairs and Chamars (Scheduled Castes) significantly diminished in number. Namboodiris also substantially decreased in number.”

The German missionary Guntest has recorded: ‘Accompanied by an army of 60,000, Tipu Sultan came to Kozhikode in 1788 and razed it to the ground. It is not possible even to describe the brutalities committed by that Islamic barbarian from Mysore.” C.A. Parkhurst also noted that ‘Almost the entire Kozhikode was razed to the ground.”


Thali, Thiruvannur, Varackal, Puthur, Govindapuram, Thalikkunnu and other important temples in the town of Kozhikode as well as those nearby were completely destroyed as a result of Tipu’s military operations. Some of them were reconstructed by the Zamorin after he returned following the defeat of Tipu Sultan in Sreerangapatanam and the Treaty of 1792.

The devastation caused by Tipu Sultan to the ancient and holy temples of Keraladheeswaram, Thrikkandiyoor and Thriprangatu in Vettum region was terrible. The Zamorin renovated these temples to some extent. The famous and ancient Thirunavaya Temple, known throughout the country as an ancient teaching-centre of the Vedas, revered by the devotees of Vishnu from Tamil Nadu, and existing before the advent of Christ, was also plundered and destroyed by Tipu’s army (Malabar Gazetteer). After dismantling and destroying the idol, Tipu converted the Thrikkavu Temple into an ammunition depot in Ponnani (Malabar Manual). It was the Zamorin who repaired the temple later. Kotikkunnu, Thrithala, Panniyoor and other family temples of the Zamorin were plundered and destroyed. The famous Sukapuram Temple was also desecrated. Damage done to the Perumparampu Temple and Maranelira Temple of Azhvancherry Thamprakkal (titular head of all Namboodiri Brahmins) in Edappadu, can be seen even today. Vengari Temple and Thrikkulam Temple in Eranadu, Azhinjillam Temple in Ramanattukara, Indyannur Temple, Mannur Temple and many other temples were defiled and damaged extensively during the military regime.

Tipu Sultan reached Guruvayoor Temple only after destroying Mammiyoor Temple and Palayur Christian Church. If the destruction caused by Tipu’s army is not visible today in the Guruvayoor Temple, it is mainly because of the intervention of Hydrose Kutty who had been converted to Islam by Hyder Ali Khan. He secured the safety of the

temple and the continuation of land-tax exemption allowed by Hyder Ali earlier, besides the renovation and repairs done by the devotees later. According to available evidences, fearing the wrath of Tipu Sultan, the sacred idol of the Guruvayoor Temple was removed to the Ambalapuzha Sri Krishna Temple in Travancore State. It was only after the end of Tipu’s military regime, that the idol was ceremoniously reinstated in the Guruvayoor Temple itself. Even today, daily pujas are conducted in Ambalapuzha Sri Krishna Temple where the idol of Guruvayoor Temple was temporarily installed and worshiped.

Damages caused to the nearby temples at Parampathali, Panmayanadu and Vengidangu are visible even today. The deplorable state of the architecture of the sanctum sanctorum of Parampathali Temple destroyed during the military operations of Tipu Sultan is really heart-rending. The atrocities committed in Kozhikode during the nightmarish days of the military occupation are vividly described in the works of Fra Bartolomaeo who had travelled through Kerala at that time. How cruelly Tipu Sultan, ably assisted by the French Commander M. Lally, had treated the Hindu and Christian population can be clearly understood from his writings.


Govinda Pillai says in his famous book, History of Literature; “During Malayalam Era 965 corresponding to 1789-90, Tipu Sultan crossed over to Malabar with an army of uncivilised barbarians. With a sort of fanatical love for Islamic faith, he destroyed many Hindu temples and Christian churches which were the custodians of precious wealth and

religious traditions. Besides, Tipu Sultan abducted hundreds of people and forcibly circumcised and converted them to Islam – an act which was considered by them as more than death.”

A small army of 2000 Nairs of Kadathanadu resisted the invasion of the huge army of Tipu Sultan from a fortress in Kuttipuram for a few weeks. They were reduced to starvation and death. Tipu Sultan entered the fort and offered to spare their lives, provided they accepted conversion to Islam. The unfortunate lot of 2000 Nairs were then forced to eat beef after being converted to Islamic faith, at the end of usual religious ritual of mass circumcision. All the members of one branch of Parappanad Royal Family were forcibly converted to Muhammadan faith except for one or two who escaped from the clutches of Tipu Sultan’s army. Similarly, one Thiruppad belonging to Nilamboor Royal Family was also forcibly abducted and converted to Islam. Thereafter, it was reported that further conversions of Hindus were attempted through those converts. In the end, when the Kolathiri Raja surrendered and paid tribute, Tipu Sultan got him treacherously killed without any specific reason, dragged his dead body tied to the feet of an elephant through the streets, and finally hanged him from a tree-top to show his Islamic contempt for Hindu Rajas.

It may be mentioned here that the entire Wodayar Royal Family of Mysore had been humiliated and kept in prison by Hyder Ali Khan and Tipu Sultan in their capital city, Sreerangapatanam. Even the Palghat Raja, Ettipangi Achan who had surrendered, was imprisoned on suspicion and later taken to Sreerangapatanam. Nothing was heard of him subsequently. Christians in Palghat fled out of fear. Tipu Sultan terrified the entire Hindu population in Malabar, stationing his army contingents in different regions for the purpose. The tax initially imposed by Hyder Ali Khan was forcibly collected by Tipu Sultan. Standing crops were confiscated. This act provoked even some influential Mappila landlords to revolt against Tipu Sultan.

Hyder Ali Khan had exempted temples from the payment of land tax. But Tipu Sultan forced the temples to pay heavy taxes. The famous Hemambika Temple at Kalpathi of the Palghat Raja who had surrendered to Hyder Ali Khan, the Kachamkurissi Temple of the Kollamkottu Raja who had deserted the Zamorin and sided with Hyder Ali Khan, and also the Jain Temple at Palghat suffered serious damages due to the cruel policies of Tipu Sultan.

Many Nair and Brahmin landlords fled the country leaving their vast wealth behind. The Mappilas forcibly took possession of their lands and wealth. Tipu Sultan did not object to their actions. Most of the Mappila landlords of today claim that they purchased the ownership of the landed properties from Nairs and Brahmins after paying heavy

compensation. These blatant lies are being repeated by them in spite of the fact that practically nothing was paid to the Hindu landlords then or later. (The same Islamic treachery was repeated during the Mappila riots of 1921.)

In any case, Tipu Sultan succeeded in mass killing, convertinglakhs of Hindus to Islamic faith, driving thousands out of their traditional homes, and finally making the rest extremely poor. Many Hindus belonging to lower castes accepted conversion to Islam under duress. However, many others, especially the Thiyyas, fled to Tellicherry and Mahe for safety.

When the British established their rule in Malabar and the Hindu landlords made efforts to recover their landed properties, illegally occupied by the local Mappilas, Mullahs started preaching to their fanatic followers that “killing of Hindu landlords was a sacred Islamic act,” leading to frequent Mappila outrages in Malabar.1

In Cherunad, Vettathunad, Eranad, Valluvanad, Thamarassery and other interior areas, local Mappilas unleashed a reign of terror on the Hindu population, mainly to retain the illegally occupied land and to establish their domination over Hindus as during Tipu’s regime. Fearing the organised robberies and violence, people could not even travel

freely in the Malabar hinterland of predominantly Mappila population.

Lt. Col. E. Phitiyan, Andriansi, Mayan, K.P. Padmanabha Menon Sadasyathilakan T.K. Velu Pillai, Ullur Parameshwara Iyer, and other prominent people have described vividly the various types of atrocities committed by Tipu Sultan during the days of his Islamic rule in Malabar.

There is no count of the wealth looted from Hindu temples and taken away by him to Sreerangapatanam. It is, therefore, very pitiable that a few shameless Hindus of today have come forward to orchestrate the nefarious propaganda of the fanatic Muslims, namely, that it was the imperialist divide-and-rule policy of the British that was responsible for blaming the Muslims for various atrocities committed against Hindus.

This Big Lie was surreptitiously entered subsequently in history books and related records. It is obvious that these “Hindus” are speaking on the theme of Hindu-Muslim unity and praising the ‘secular’ credentials of the Muslim League, Tipu Sultan and Aurangzeb to the sky, not sincerely for the sake of Hindu-Muslim amity but only because of their inherent cowardice. They even proclaim that the notorious Mappila outrage of 1921 was part of the freedom struggle!


A few observations about the attack of Tipu Sultan on the Travancore State would be appropriate in this context. If the Nedunkotta had not been constructed earlier mainly to stop the danger from the powerful Zamorin, the same fate would have befallen the helpless Travancore State as well. Because of the above fortification, Tipu Sultan could wreak vengeance only in Angamally, Alwaye, Varapuzha, Alangod and other towns on the northern borders of Travancore State. That is what the Dewan of Travancore, Madhava Rao, had written in the history of Travancore. It may be emphasized here that he had relied on the original local records, not the ones published by the European historians. He wrote: “Whatever cruelties, the local Mappilas were desirous of indulging in the land, Tipu Sultan and his army of Muslim converts did. The ancient and holy temples were heartlessly defiled or burnt down. The ruins of those temples destroyed by Tipu’s fanatic army are the existing evidences of the atrocities committed by Muslims in the country. Christian churches also had to suffer widespread destructions. However, Tipu Sultan spared only the territories of Cochin Raja who had surrendered to Hyder Ali Khan in the beginning itself. Still, when Tipu Sultan and his army entered Parur and started firing at Kodungallur, the Cochin Raja sent a letter to the Travancore Raja requesting him ‘to protect me and my family’.” (A copy of the original letter was also published in the book.)

These are the recorded facts about the atrocities unleashed by Tipu Sultan during his military regime notoriously known as Padayottakalam. Poets have written a number of poems about the sufferings of the people and the land during those nightmarish days. The following was written by a member of the Katathanad Royal Family about the  consequences of Padayottakalam:


British landed here on the plea of doing business but shattered its social structure with continuous attacks on peasants, communal harmony and rules of the home business.

The East India Company originated on 31 December 1600 through royal charter with monopoly on all trade with the East Indies. The Company’s ships first arrived at Surat in 1608. Sir Thomas Roe gained permission to establish a factory at Surat from Mughal Emperor, Jahangir, in 1615. Gradually the British set up numerous trading posts along the east and west coasts of India. As early as in 1669 Gerald Ungier, chief of Bombay factory had written to his directors: “The time now requires you to manage your general commerce with the sword in your hands”. So from then, they were looking for establishing their root here in India even at the cost of bitter fights. With the continuation, in 1717, the Company achieved the most critical success when it received a Dastak or royal edict from the Mughal Emperor exempting the Company from the payment of custom duties in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. Taking this advantage, company employees carried on personal business without paying duty to Nawab Siraj Ud Daulah. In this way the East India Company strengthened their root in the soil of India. This was one of their major successes. But conspiracy did not bring to a halt.

In 1752, Robert Orme, in a letter to Clive, noted that the company would have to remove Alivardi Khan in order to prosper. Instructions on October 13, 1756 from Fort St. George, Madras instructed Robert Clive, “to effect a junction with any powers in the province of Bengal that might be dissatisfied with the violence of the Nawab’s government or that might have pretensions to the Nawabship”. Accordingly, Clive deputized William Watts to negotiate with two potential contenders. One of them was Nabab’s generals, Yar Latif Khan and other was his relative and Army Chief, Mir Jafar Ali Khan. On April 23, 1757 the Board of Directors of the Company approved Coup d’état as its policy in Bengal. British succeeded infiltrating the Nawab’s highest ranks, his own family, his Army Chief and his financers. ‘Nimak Haramer Deuri’ or the ‘Traitor’s Gate’ still stand today as witness to the secret meeting where Watts met Mir Jafar in disguise of a Borkha clad women in a Palanquin. Finally, on June 5, 1757 a written agreement was signed between the Company, represented by Clive, and Mir Jafar which ensured that Mir Jafar would be appointed Nawab of Bengal once Siraj Ud Daulah was deposed.

The Bengal Nawab became engaged in war of existence as Clive made some cunning steps. The war of Palashi against Clive was the war to save Indian glory and also to resist British aggressors. But Siraj lost. Treachery was the reason. Enemies were set among their own. At the beginning of the war Nawab forces conquered. But Clive was emboldened by reinforcement from Madras. Moreover, the Nawab was also preoccupied with the invasion from the west by Ahmed Shah Abdali of Afghanistan. More than anything else, chief Army officer of Nawab, Mir Jafar Ali Khan was a betrayer in spite of having advantage of more soldiers. Thus the British business company started a heinous way of betrayal and treachery. That laid its shadow through the whole period of Indian colony.

British colonies spread through the world by adopting three ways.

In Settlement colonies the colonizing country migrated to and eventually took complete control of every resource. Natives were annihilated through killing or by exposure to disease. Colonies of settlement were located in temperate zones, with climates similar to Europe’s. Examples of settlement colonies include English colonies in parts of the United States, Canada, and Australia.

Secondly, `Colonies of Exploitation’. Those were the tropical dependencies where British went primarily as planters, administrators, merchants, or military officers. Foreign colonizers established political control, if necessary using force against colonial resistance. But natives were not displaced or killed. Colonies of exploitation included Indonesia and Malaya in Southeast Asia, and Nigeria and Ghana in West Africa.

Third one is of contested type. A significant number of European settlers took up permanent residence. They tended to develop their own government parallel to the parent country and politically dominated native peoples. Examples of contested settlement colonies include Algeria and Southern Rhodesia, both in Africa.

There are several other types of colonialism and imperialism, including preexisting empires. Preexisting empires were or had been powerful states that possessed a large population, strong political structures, and a sophisticated economy. India under English rule is an example.

British started an unfair journey in India.

Now a brief narration of boundless British lootings and silent murders will be presented.

Since 1600, the British trading company used to buy delicate fineries from India and paid in gold and silver. The issue created vast uproar of protest among the British people, resenting the draining of the precious metals from England to India. In those days, Europe had nothing to export that had demand in India. But as soon as the company seized control of Bengal Taxation after Palashi war, Indian commodities were bought with the Indian currency. Besides while vying for all of India and even for war waged in foreign location, the British Indian army was financed by the Indian money. So exploitation and aggression got more acute.

Right after Plassey, the looting and exploitation by the company started unabated. As per agreement with Mir Jafar, Clive collected £ 2.5 million for the company and £ 234,000 for himself from the Nawab’s treasury. In addition, Watts collected £ 114,000 for his efforts. The annual rent of £ 30,000 payable to the Nawab for use of the land around Fort William was also transferred to Clive for life. To put this wealth in context, an average British nobleman could live a life of luxury on an annual income of £ 800.

During Warren Hastings, the first Governor General of India, expansion of British rule was pursued vigorously. In 1784 Hastings was succeeded by Cornwallis, who initiated the Permanent Settlement. Whereby an agreement in perpetuity was reached with Zamindars or landlords for revenue collection. British started a kind of genocide with the law. Blueprints were made with the law to paralyze the peasants of India politically and economically. Peasants had to be more dependants. British initiated slavery. Peasants drowned under loan and were not able to collect courage to resist the British. A numerous number of peasants lost their lives, sons and even their wives’ respects due to atrocities of the Jamindars. This British imposed mute genocide made the Indian social structure collapse.

During Wellesley, total British territorial expansion was achieved. Major victories against Tipu Sultan of Mysore and the Marathas, and finally the subjugation and conquest of the Sikhs in a series of Anglo- Sikh Wars led to British occupation all over India. In some places, the British practiced indirect rule placing a Resident at the native ruler’s court. By Lord Dalhousie’s notorious doctrine of lapse, native states became part of British India if there was no male heir at the death of the ruler. Often annexation was justified on misrule. Thus annexation and harsh revenue policies exhausted all the potentialities of Indian agriculture.

Thus exploitation and being indifferent to the distress of local people led to many terrible famines in India. Due to plundering of resources and sheer indifference to the dire straits of the victims, Indian people started suffering from full scale famines. The Great Bengal Famine of 1769-70, caused deaths to 10 million Indians in Bihar and Bengal. During 1782-84, 11 million died for famine in Madras, Mysore, Delhi and Punjub. During 1791-92, another 11 million died in Hyderabad, Southern Maratha country, Deccan, Gujarat, and Marwar. The Agra famine of 1837–38 caused 800,000 deaths. Orissa famine of 1866 killed 1 million. Rajputana famine of 1869 killed 1.5 million. The Great Famine of 1876–78 killed 5.25 million in British territories of Madras and Bombay alone. Bengal famine of 1943 killed 3 million in Bengal. All through the 190 years of British rule, economic exploitation continued, reflecting the fate of a Preexisting Colony of Exploitation. How should we label this? Isn’t this genocide? Of course it is. Indirect genocide; done by the British. What they wanted was to kill Indians on any ground.

Thus for almost 200 years, wealth from India was systematically transferred to Britain. British Banks used Indian capital to fund industry in the US, Germany and elsewhere in Europe. Industrial revolution and modern capitalism in the west were based on the colonization of India. It was the forced pauperization of vast Indian population that allowed nations like Britain and US to industrialize and “modernize”. This capital was collected through various means including uneven trades, forced use of land and labor, great remittance of Indian income and excessive extraction from the common Indians.

British used arms with no considerations breaching all the boundaries of humanity. The western civilization raised on the base of the blood of Indian peasants.

Atrocities by the British against upsurges

Atrocities committed by the British started long before the 1757 Plassey conquest. With their usual cunning and calculative conspiracy, the British company successfully used the internal Indian conflicts to bring down many rulers. These were done coldly with unrestrained use of weapons and widespread atrocities. The started fortifying their trade posts with an imperial greed. The way the British supervised the cruelty done to Siraj and his family.

Rampant and coercive exploitation by the British incited many rebellions aimed to throw away the yolk of colonial subjugation. After Plassey and during the imperial expansion throughout India, the peasants in many areas flared many local peasant revolts and all of these uprising were quelled through extreme atrocities by the British. Especially after the Great Bengal Famine of 1770, both Hindu and Muslim peasants of north and central Bengal revolted against the British and their collective agents. Fakirs like Majnu Shah and Sanyasis like Bhabani Pathak led the uprising that lasted for three decades. It took the British at least a decade of burning villages and slaughtering Indians to quell the revolt. Wasn’t it genocide? British had no right here. They did not belong here. Even they could not be a part of the country like others. Instead they transferred properties of the country to theirs. Killed people. Obliterated vast areas.

Against their unruly, another peasant uprising in Rangpur district of north Bengal in 1783-4, the Chuar uprising in Bankura and Midnapur that lasted till 1799. These revolts killed many British and the reprisals from them were brutal. Warren Hastings failed to suppress the Chuar uprising and finally in 1799, Governor General Wellesly crushed the uprising through a pincer attack. Many of the rebels were hung from trees near Salboni in Midnapor, a place still known as the ‘heath of the hanging upland’ or ‘Fanshi Dangar Math’. The question is who killed whom coming from thousands miles apart? What right the British had to hang natives from trees? Wasn’t this genocide?

Among later peasant and working class revolts, more vital ones include Bheel uprising from 1817 to 1846 in Bundelhkand of Uttar Pradesh, Jat revolt of Rohtak and Hissar in Haryana, The Koli revolt of 1839 to 1845 all over Gujarat, aboriginal uprising during 1830 to1833 in Chotanagar among the Mundas. The most important revolt was by the major uprising by the Santals for attaining independence. These entire grassroots level survival struggle against the wanton exploitation by the British gained much ground and at those primary years of colonization they posed major threats to British presence and their mercantile exploitation that oppressed the grassroots poor. This threat of annihilation to budding British rule was smashed by insensitive and all-out atrocities and bloodshed resulting in defeat of the isolated but well-determined liberation struggles by the poorest of the poor under East India Company. Later on, the Muslim led Wahabi and Faraizi uprising, though inspired by Islamic principles, was in fact a direct struggle to uproot British rule from the subcontinent.

One salient point in British ascendancy in India was their cunning strategy to use the feuds among local rulers to pit one of them against the other by taking side with those inclined to them. Even in deposing Siraj they manipulated the local conflicts. Later on conflicts between various Indian rulers was also successfully utilized by the British in spreading their domination all over India. This basic strategy of ‘Divide and Rule’ was persistent all through the British domination and lingered into the ending decades of the British rule inciting communal conflicts. They intentionally backed the two-nation theory to make sure that the British India gets divided into warring states and becomes weak in pursuing a real secular and united development approach facilitating neo-colonialism.


India provided capital to the nascent industrial revolution in England by providing cheap raw materials, capital and a large captive market for British industry. In certain areas, farmers were forced to switch from subsistence farming to commercial crops such as opium, indigo, jute, tea and coffee. This resulted in famines and uprisings on a large scale. In all these plundering exploits, the British company successfully used the local people to extract revenue from their own fellow citizens at the grassroots level. Weapons was used indiscriminately and often at inhuman scale to clear the way to exploitation and destitution.

Later on, as soon as the company secured Diwani or Tax collection rights for Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, they fueled their exploitation of India by Indian resources. Excessive and atrocious taxing policy loosened widespread devastation in the agrarian sector with a height of inhumanity that killed millions of toiling Indians through frequent famines and perpetual pauperization.


Drawing inspiration from these localized revolts, the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 was fought by Hindu and Muslim sepoys together to oust the British, an incident cited by many historians as the ‘First Struggle of Independence’ in India. The exterminating violence resorted by the British in all revolts proved them to be a bloodthirsty rulers prepared to perpetrate any level of inhuman atrocities, violence and conspiracy to safeguard their colonial possession.

During the Sepoy Mutiny, rebel sepoys were blown by cannon fires and in Delhi, the Mughal princes were massacred en masse. Force was also used in compelling the local farmers to cultivate cash crops. Under the crown as well, atrocities were perpetrated to quell the armed revolts in various Indian sections. The cruel Jallianwalla Bagh massacre due to protests against the Rowlatt Act in 1919 is another example of such atrocities. In the two World Wars, the British entangled India and used Indian soldiers and money to fight the wars opposing Indian popular descent. During the nationalistic movements, police atrocities and hateful conspiracy by the British caused deaths to hundreds of patriotic Indians. The British are even indirectly responsible for the communal genocide during partition of India, as they are the one who deliberately incited communal hatred and pressed for the partition of India. Communal division of Punjab and Bengal and the Kashmir issue still remain as a problem today.

Atrocities by the British went unabated even after the Sepoy revolt as retribution to stop such occurrence in future. But little was the success of such moves. Driven by the paramount urge to extract as much of Indian resources for repatriating to England, their level of exploitation never was downsized and as local Indians got exposed to western education and comparatively human citizen rights prevailing in native lands of the colonial power, a steady sense of independence from the yolk of Foreign subjugation started taking organized forms leading India into nationalistic freedom movement. Starting from the armed resistance to oust British from India up to lawful movement for peaceful settlement of the colonial question, the British, though subdued enough not to be as brutal as before, left no stone unturned to quell such movement by armed might in addition to treachery, conspiracy and hateful collaboration of local cronies.

As awareness and fighting spirit of the Indian mass escalated, the British realized the ineffectiveness and risk of all out suppression of the Indian demand for their legitimate rights. Nevertheless, they utilized every opportunity to split the solidarity of Indians to weaken their demand. Engineering communal divide between Hindu and Muslim communities was one such manipulation that has enduringly negative impact on the oppressed Indian mass and caused indescribable communal conflict and colossus bloodshed both before and after the partition of India. Not much earlier than 1919, the Jalinwalabagh massacre represents such an atrocity on unarmed public to quell the newly emerged nationalistic movement for self rule that was ultimately demanding ousting of the British rule.

Cultural Annihilation

The British looked down at the Indian people. Ironically, Indian civilization was far superior to the colonizing England. It only lacked the modern weaponry. From the very beginning, the British negated Indian culture. They introduced alien education to cut off the Indians from their traditional heritage and cultural pride. Zamindar and rich middle class went to England to be educated in ‘civilized’ values by a country which gained economic power through enslaving others and through insensate violence against colonized people.

For running the Indian Empire, owing to limited number of Britons, the service of Indian people was imperative. So, a class of clerically competent Indian people was educated in British system to create a specific class in India who, according to Macaulay, would be individuals ‘Indian in Body but British in Mind’. As many of the Indians, especially the Hindu community was admiring and supporting the British, they vigorously set themselves to learning the clerical version of British Education with a distinctive plot– serving as English speaking loyal subjects as well as to glorify the superficial English education as the pinnacle of wisdom. This alienated them from the persistent plights from British exploitation and made them an accomplice in annihilating the heritage of Indian culture and education that used to be far more superior then the British. At one point these middle class Indians were ashamed of their Indian ancestry and most of these so called English educated people turned into die hard supporters of British colonialism. As leading Indians started abhorring everything Indian, excessively obsessed to destroy the centuries old and racially harmonious Indian wisdom, they failed to appreciate both Indian and British education from the right perspective. In all forms of arts and literature practiced among these privileged collaborators of British exploitation, the indigenous culture appeared obsolete and crude.

Through superior technology, huge resources plundered from the colonies and their supreme status as colonizers, they were able to impose their culture on the subjugated populace, a phenomenon that Rudyard Kipling ironically described as ‘white men’s burden’ to emancipate barbarian colonized people, whereas most had a superior culture.

Thus the older and intrinsically richer Indian civilization was pushed to the backstage. What ensued was an almost irreversible decay in the sense of self-identification for the Indian Mass. The greatest blow to the Indian culture was the inciting of communal tension by the British which disrupted the century-old coexistence of various religions. The ‘divide and rule’ policy of the British had led to the demise of communal and racial harmony and assimilatory culture that once earned respect world over. Totally disoriented by the British plots, the Indians became foreigner in their own land and acted as puppets of the British in all the ill designs against the local people, economy and culture.

From the Plessey until the Partition, the British conquest and empire building followed a dark path of vile conspiracy, wanton bribing, breach of faith, sheer atrocity and indiscriminate exploitation to destroy the economy, culture and the very fabric of the superior Indian civilization. People of the subcontinent are still reeling from the blow. Many of our current dire straits are a direct predicament of denuding the Indians from their ancient and profoundly richer culture having a lot to offer to the British colonizers.

The deep rooted exploitation, indiscriminate atrocities and deliberate cultural annihilation perpetrated by the British in India has irrevocable ramification for the later history of this subcontinent. People of this one time British colony still suffer from the pervasive decay and lingering divide created and nurtured by the British colonizers. By all standards, the British owe to the colonized Indians and their present generation a profound, true and far reaching ‘Apology’ for their vile maneuvers in the colonial days. This type of ‘historical’ or ‘official’ apology is not a new phenomenon and it has many noticeable precedents. Universal human justice demands that this issue of outrageous siphoning of Indian resources and the permanent harm inflicted by the British rule on the Indian people should be brought into account.

Recent years have seen a wave of official apologies for wrongs committed in the distant past. Most recently in 2008, Italy apologized to Libya for colonial misdeeds and the Canadian and American government apologized to the Red Indians as did Australia to its aboriginal people. Former Japanese Prime Mi Junichiro Koizumi expressed “deep remorse” for Japanese World War II era conduct in China and Korea. Following the presidential victory of George W. Bush in November 2004, a website ‘’ suddenly appeared permitting Americans “to offer apologies to the rest of the world.” Other instances include Tony Blair’s 1997 regrets for British inaction during the Irish Potato Famine in the mid-nineteenth century; Danish Prime Minister Poul Nyrup Rasmussen’s apology for the forced relocation of Inuit people in 1953; President Bill Clinton’s apology for failure to act during the 1994 genocide in Rwanda; France’s acknowledgement of the massacre of Algerians at Sétif in May 1945; a Canadian government apology in 2001 for military executions during the First World War; a German government apology for the colonial-era massacre of ethnic Herero people of Namibia by German soldiers; and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s apology for his part in the incitement that led to assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. The most famous apologizer of recent times was the late Pope John Paul II, whose apologies reached far back in history, and included contrition about the Religious Wars, the Inquisition, Jews, women, Blacks, schisms, Martin Luther, and the Church’s denunciation of Galileo.

Along with these, there are refusals to apologize for historic wrongs. Thus, despite requests, Soviet and later Russian leaders have never apologized for the massacre of thousands of Polish officers in the forest of Katyn in 1940; the Israelis refused the invitation of Egyptian Foreign Minister Mahmoud Riad in 1968 to apologize for their “aggression” the year before; Australian Prime Minister John Howard would not apologize for the European settlers’ treatment of the aboriginal population in that country; and President George Bush, Sr., declined to apologize for the Americans’ use of the atomic bomb against Japan in 1945.

Despite such cases, the wave has continuing force. Apologies are scarcely ever rejected for being irrelevant or misplaced, but rather for being insufficient, inadequate, or insincere. So the British also owe us a sincere and significant apology, at the soonest possible time. We should demand all possible reparations to address this history of Himalayan plunder and inhuman atrocities inflicted for centuries upon this subcontinent, effect of which still remain as the principle obstruction in the development of this region.

On 30 August 2008, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi apologized to Libya for damage inflicted by Italy during the colonial era and signed a 5-billion-dollar investment deal by way of compensation. Similarly, universal justice demands that Britain should also make a compensating apology for the harm inflicted on British India. A compensation of 5 million pound for each of the 190 colonizing years would be the minimum for making a plausible apology.

British Rule in India and Nazi rule. What is the difference?

BY Nita

Indian History books teach the pros and cons of British rule

The subject of British rule in India is an emotional one for most Indians but even those Indians who are aware that Britain plundered India and treated locals as sub-humans and killed the indigenous industry, reluctantly admit that Britain did build infrastructure and made English popular in India. Guess if it wasn’t for British rule all those years ago I wouldn’t be writing this very piece in English, would I? And well, Britain did unite all those little kingdoms and gave all of us a pan Indian identity.

But if most Indians believe that British rule did some good (not everyone agrees about the high price paid) I think the credit is due to the way we were taught history. The advantages of British rule were clearly brought out.

Britain apparently teaches a biased view of the British Raj

What surprised me was a front page report in today’s Times of India (Mumbai). It said that British school children are not taught the evil aspects of British rule – in fact there is a controversy going on in Britain right now about teaching school-children about Jallianwala Bagh, where hundreds of peacefully protesting Indians were massacred (including women and children). It’s difficult to understand why Britain wants to brush this under the carpet..after all if German school children can be taught about the evils of Nazi rule, why can’t British school-children be taught about the evils of British rule in India? Sure, the Nazis did more damage in a short period of time and killed millions of Jews.

But who has calculated the damage that Britain did? Are there any records of the number of Indians killed and enslaved by the British during the British Raj? Are there any records of ill-treatment meted out on a regular basis to the Indians? Has anyone calculated the economic damage caused to India because of the East India Company and British rule? Ofcourse not.

Britain does not want to know

The truth is that the truth is too painful. And neither the Brits nor the Indians in Britain are trying very hard to do anything about it. On the other hand, it is because of the power of the Jewish community that Germany said sorry…and meant it. It is because of the Jewish people that today German school children know the truth. Surely, history is important?

Britain’s attempt to change the curriculum is being opposed

Britain is trying to change the curriculum to give British school-children a ‘valuable insight into shared, if painful and often controversial aspects of the relationship between Indian and Britain’ but there are groups opposing this because this kind of teaching is considered anti-British. How can the dissemination of truth be anti anything?

The root of racism

But then, this is the very root of racism. Children in developed countries are taught in school itself that they come from a ‘superior’ stock. They are taught to take on the ‘White Man’s Burden’. A burden which makes it mandatory for the ‘superior’ race to ‘civilize’ the ‘inferior’ races. This was the attitude of the British when they came to India. They came, they saw and they plundered. They believed it was their right as ‘rulers’. At the same time they came down heavily on some of the barbaric practices they saw in India.

Yes, some barbaric things went on in Indian society (and we are not completely rid of them) but what the British failed to see that what they were doing was equally barbaric. They robbed and enslaved not just a few people, but a whole country.

What Britishers did not realise was that India had a far longer history of ‘civilization’ than war-like Britain. The problem was that India’s civilization was cloaked in dhotis, saris and turbans and some ancient practices (not too far removed from equally medieval practices that took place in Britain). These differences convinced the shirts, skirts and trousers who came to India that India was uncivilized. Every culture and every country has it’s dark side…but the developed world can only see the evils of other countries…not their own.

What chance does truth stand?

What’s amazing is that the developed world today prides itself on freedom and democracy…so why not own up to the bad things of the past? True, Britishers were probably not as bad as the Nazis, but they did far greater harm than the Nazis by the very virtue of their being around for more than a hundred years. The British East India Company arrived in India as far back as 1757 (proxy rule by the British) and then direct British rule started in 1858, lasting until 1947. The Nazis under Adolph Hitler ruled only from 1933 to 1945 – which is just a dozen years! One does not need much of an imagination to realise the damage the British must have done to India.

The sad part is is that millions of young Britishers are growing up thinking that Britain did India a big favour by ruling her. Why, the Queen herself wears a diamond stolen from India in her crown. The Wikipedia calls this diamond the ‘spoils of war.’ Funny.

British Atrocities on Indians – Holocaust or Genocide ?

courtesy Yahoo disucussion

In his book Late Victorian Holocausts, published in 2001, Mike Davis tells the story of famines that killed between 12 and 29 million Indians. These people were, he demonstrates, murdered by British state policy. When an El Niño drought destituted the farmers of the Deccan plateau in 1876 there was a net surplus of rice and wheat in India. But the viceroy, Lord Lytton, insisted that nothing should prevent its export to England. In 1877 and 1878, at the height of the famine, grain merchants exported a record 6.4m hundredweight of wheat. As the peasants began to starve, officials were ordered “to discourage relief works in every possible way”. The Anti-Charitable Contributions Act of 1877 prohibited “at the pain of imprisonment private relief donations that potentially interfered with the market fixing of grain prices”. The only relief permitted in most districts was hard labour, from which anyone in an advanced state of starvation was turned away. In the labour camps, the workers were given less food than inmates of Buchenwald. In 1877, monthly mortality in the camps equated to an annual death rate of 94%.

As millions died, the imperial government launched “a militarised campaign to collect the tax arrears accumulated during the drought”. The money, which ruined those who might otherwise have survived the famine, was used by Lytton to fund his war in Afghanistan. Even in places that had produced a crop surplus, the government’s export policies, like Stalin’s in Ukraine, manufactured hunger. In the north-western provinces, Oud and the Punjab, which had brought in record harvests in the preceeding three years, at least 1.25m died.

Three recent books – Britain’s Gulag by Caroline Elkins, Histories of the Hanged by David Anderson, and Web of Deceit by Mark Curtis – show how white settlers and British troops suppressed the Mau Mau revolt in Kenya in the 1950s. Thrown off their best land and deprived of political rights, the Kikuyu started to organise – some of them violently – against colonial rule. The British responded by driving up to 320,000 of them into concentration camps. Most of the remainder – more than a million – were held in “enclosed villages”. Prisoners were questioned with the help of “slicing off ears, boring holes in eardrums, flogging until death, pouring paraffin over suspects who were then set alight, and burning eardrums with lit cigarettes”. British soldiers used a “metal castrating instrument” to cut off testicles and fingers. “By the time I cut his balls off,” one settler boasted, “he had no ears, and his eyeball, the right one, I think, was hanging out of its socket.” The soldiers were told they could shoot anyone they liked “provided they were black”. Elkins’s evidence suggests that more than 100,000 Kikuyu were either killed or died of disease and starvation in the camps. David Anderson documents the hanging of 1,090 suspected rebels: far more than the French executed in Algeria. Thousands more were summarily executed by soldiers, who claimed they had “failed to halt” when challenged.

These are just two examples of at least 20 such atrocities overseen and organised by the British government or British colonial settlers; they include, for example, the Tasmanian genocide, the use of collective punishment in Malaya, the bombing of villages in Oman, the dirty war in North Yemen, the evacuation of Diego Garcia. Some of them might trigger a vague, brainstem memory in a few thousand readers, but most people would have no idea what I’m talking about. Max Hastings, on the opposite page, laments our “relative lack of interest” in Stalin and Mao’s crimes. But at least we are aware that they happened.

In the Express we can read the historian Andrew Roberts arguing that for “the vast majority of its half-millennium-long history, the British empire was an exemplary force for good … the British gave up their empire largely without bloodshed, after having tried to educate their successor governments in the ways of democracy and representative institutions” (presumably by locking up their future leaders). In the Sunday Telegraph, he insists that “the British empire delivered astonishing growth rates, at least in those places fortunate enough to be coloured pink on the globe”. (Compare this to Mike Davis’s central finding, that “there was no increase in India’s per capita income from 1757 to 1947″, or to Prasannan Parthasarathi’s demonstration that “South Indian labourers had higher earnings than their British counterparts in the 18th century and lived lives of greater financial security.”) In the Daily Telegraph, John Keegan asserts that “the empire became in its last years highly benevolent and moralistic”. The Victorians “set out to bring civilisation and good government to their colonies and to leave when they were no longer welcome. In almost every country, once coloured red on the map, they stuck to their resolve”.

There is one, rightly sacred Holocaust in European history. All the others can be denied, ignored, or belittled. As Mark Curtis points out, the dominant system of thought in Britain “promotes one key concept that underpins everything else – the idea of Britain’s basic benevolence … Criticism of foreign policies is certainly possible, and normal, but within narrow limits which show ‘exceptions’ to, or ‘mistakes’ in, promoting the rule of basic benevolence”. This idea, I fear, is the true “sense of British cultural identity” whose alleged loss Max laments today. No judge or censor is required to enforce it. The men who own the papers simply commission the stories they want to read.

Turkey’s accession to the European Union, now jeopardised by the trial of Orhan Pamuk, requires not that it comes to terms with its atrocities; only that it permits its writers to rage impotently against them. If the government wants the genocide of the Armenians to be forgotten, it should drop its censorship laws and let people say what they want. It needs only allow Richard Desmond and the Barclay brothers to buy up the country’s newspapers, and the past will never trouble it again.

“With the disappearance of the native Court, trade languishes, the Capital decays and thepeople are impoverished. The Englishman flourishes and acts like a sponge, drawing up the riches from the banks of the Ganges and squeezing them down upon the banks of the Thames.”1850s British Writer and Traveler John Sullivan

A Report By Vrin Parker (VP Vedic Friends Association)

The following is from the book Rani of Jhansi-LAKSHMI BAI by E. Paul and published by Lotus Collection Roli books. In this book are authentic quotes from British authors and witnesses to the many massacres carried out by the British in mid 19th century India. These incidents are not denied they are just ignored. The fact is the world has yet to come to terms with the horrific record of the British Empire. Whether it’s the infamous tea-clippers that were really opium runners or the intentional distribution of small pox infected blankets to the Red Indians, and many other crimes against humanity too numerous to mention here, the British record is horrific. There are those who will try to deny any connection between this and the

ongoing Vedic renaissance. The fact is a correct understanding of the brutish British record allows one to differentiate between fact and fiction. To this day India and Hinduism in particular, is burdened by many false accusations. If we can understand that much of this burden has been artificially imposed upon Indian society by the policies and actions of the British administration we will able to understand the trauma of modern India. Even on the economic level we find that before British rule, India was responsible for nearly a 3rd of world trade output. Agriculturally, India was a bountiful bread basket.

However the British enforced the growing of crops such as cotton, tea, opium etc. and thus nearly destroyed India’s natural agricultural rhythm and self sufficiency. Only now, starting in the year 2001 has India been able to catch up and become the agricultural power house it had been throughout history.

All through history, India has been recognized as a land of plenty, a realm overflowing with fabulous wealth. That is one of the reasons conquerors such as Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar tried to reach India. It was Cleopatra’s supposed knowledge of a route to India that first attracted Caesar to her. India has always been a target for trade, conquest and knowledge. Again it was Columbus’s belief that he could reach India that led to the European discovery of the Americas. Scholars of today are loath to admit this and will use terms such as “Columbus’s search for the Indies etc.” Actually he was trying to reach INDIA, the same India the Portuguese had reached earlier under Vasco de Gama. The fact is, the British stripped India of its wealth, massacred its people and set up a strategy that has now placed the world on a path towards Armageddon. Pakistan, a British-Saudi-US creation, is the legacy of the British Empire and a kind of poison apple now stuck in the throat of the world.

The sooner we can expose the British record; the sooner humanity will be able to unravel the hell we have inherited. Whether it’s Israel/Palestine, India/Pakistan, Iraq/Kuwait, Greek/Turk Cypriots, N. Ireland Catholic/Protestant or Zimbabwe/Rhodesia, the world has been burdened by the policies of the British. We can also thank the British for the ongoing violence of Afghanistan. Current events in Afghanistan are rooted in the “Great Game” of Empire played out between the British and Russian Empires during the 1800s. It was the British who built up the Japanese military as a deterrent to Russia. The Japanese then went on to massacre thousands of Chinese, Koreans and others. Rather than the British, it was thousands of young Americans who died in the effort to contain the Japanese Imperialists. On the intellectual and academic level, again we find

that some of history’s barbaric philosophies found their genesis within British Imperial circles. The Eugenics movement and the Aryan Racial concept were both British creations. The atrocities committed by the Nazis have a direct connection to the policies and philosophy of the British Imperialists.

Through knowledge of the history of a problem, society can find just solutions. As the physician is empowered by the knowledge of a patient’s history, in the same way, knowledge of the past will empower society to overcome the burdens of the past.

It is also important to recognize that it is the policy of the British elite that is to be condemned and not the British people. No race or nation has a monopoly on nobility or inhumanity. But the  record of the British in India has never been clearly and accurately

presented. Any true student or researcher of history would demand to know the facts as they were. It is in this spirit that I share this information. Below is some information on the acts of the British in India during the late 1850s. Vrin Parker March 23, 2004


“In May 1857, Colonel James Neil, a Scotsman, arrived in Benares with the 1st Madras European Fusiliers and unleashed the most hideous terror in the province. Colonel Neil’s “hangings” became notorious and are described thus and quoted in M. Edwards’ book Red Year: “Volunteer hanging parties went out into the districts and amateur executioners were not wanting to the occasion. One gentleman (original word used by British author) boasted of the numbers he had finished off in an artistic manner with mango trees for gibbets and elephants for drops, the victims of this wild justice being strung up, as though for pastime, in the form of a figure eight.”

Neil next moved to Allahabad and the town was bombarded and set on fire. As the inhabitants tried to escape, they were mowed down by grapeshot. The surrounding villages were attacked and set on fire, while European British troops ringed the villages and anyone who tried to escape the fire was shot down.

In a few months Colonel Neil was promoted to the rank of General. But he got his just deserts when he was ambushed by the Sipahis (Sepoys) in the streets of Lucknow and shot through the head. Queen Victoria awarded Neil a posthumous knighthood and his praises were sung by many British writers.

There were hundreds of others as diabolical as Neil, massacring old men and helpless women. The British were bent on paying off scores making up for one British life by killing fifty Indians. To kill an Indian became the “Best Sport”. Thousands perished at Varanasi (Benares) and “their corpses hanging from branch and signpost all over town….For three months did eight dead carts daily go their rounds from sunrise to sunset to take down the corpses which hung at the crossroads and marketplaces poisoning the air of the city and to throw their loathsome burdens into the Ganges,” wrote

Bholanath Chander in the Travels of a Hindu.

One of the most gruesome punishments adopted by the British was the blowing away of rebels from the mouths of cannons. The victim was lashed to a cannon, the small of his back or the pit of his stomach against a muzzle and then, “he was smeared with the blood of the Englishmen murdered by the rebels.” When the gun was fired, the head of the victim, hardly disfigured, would fly through the smoke and then fall to the ground slightly blackened, followed by the arms and leg, which would also only be partially mutilated. The trunk would, of course, be shattered giving off a “beastly smell” and pieces of flesh and intestines and blood would fall on the gunners and the eager spectators who had ventured too close. The vultures flying above would, with amazing skill, snap up the bits of flesh in their beaks.

An eyewitness account of this punishment quoted by Sir John Smythe from the History of the 86th regiment, British Infantry, is worth reproducing here….

“It was indeed a fearful sight. The square was formed on three sides, the fourth being occupied by the artillery with a field piece which was about to blow the poor wretch to eternity. I must confess I felt a shiver of horror when I beheld the doomed man

approach. He was a splendid looking fellow, the perfect cut of a Hindoo high-caste soldier. He stepped firmly and resolutely as if on a parade, not a shake or shiver of his limbs, not a trace of emotion on his countenance denoting the slightest fear of the frightful fate he was about to encounter. He did not appear to be more than twenty-

five years of age. He placed himself composedly before the gun to which he was fastened. Although perfectly aware that he might expect the word “Fire” that would blow him into a thousand pieces, his face never altered, but a slight sneer might be traced on his upper lip.

It was a moment of horror to all, and when the word “Fire” was given it was almost a relief. We heard a dull “thud”, a Scotch word more expressive than any English one I could give, and after a second or two, the remains of the Hindoo soldier were falling to the ground like large hailstones, and particles of bone and muscle struck my officer and men who were stationed behind the gun. There was dead Silence….”

(Note: The above incidents took place after the war of 1857 had begun, the incidents below preceded the outbreak of war)

…What further fuelled the people’s hatred for the British was their worsening economic situation. The administrative setup of the Maharaja of Jhansi was dismantled by the British as a result of which several people became unemployed. Many landowners suffered and some were dispossessed of their land. British Major Erskine, the commissioner of Sagar and Narbada territories, also ordered that all land granted by the Rani of Jhansi must be confiscated. The Jhansi army had already been disbanded and the soldiers were unemployed. The effect of all these measures was that the purchasing power of the elite declined and the economy of Jhansi suffered, adding to the woes of the people. D.B.Parasnis in his book Jhansi ki Rani, 1894 quotes John Sullivan who wrote, “With the disappearance of the native Court, trade languishes, the Capital decays and the people are impoverished. The Englishman flourishes and acts like a sponge, drawing up the riches from the banks of the Ganges and squeezing them down upon the banks of the Thames (river in London).”

Another measure which was particularly galling to the Rani of Jhansi, as to all Hindus, was the introduction of cow slaughter to Jhansi. In all Hindu states of the country, cow slaughter was

strictly prohibited and the introduction of this in Jhansi showed total British disregard of the religious sentiments of the people.Further offense was given to the Rani and the people by the British measures relating to the beautiful Mahalakshmi temple. This temple,built beside a lake on the outskirts of the city, was a place of worship for a majority of Jhansi inhabitants. The Rani also worshipped there regularly. The former Maharaja had granted two villages in perpetuity two villages to this temple and the revenues were used for its upkeep. The British ruled that these two villages must be resumed along with the rest of the State of Jhansi. This would have dire consequences for the temple. The Rani’s protests were in vain. Already there were sinister rumours among the people all over north and central India that both Hindus and Muslims were being forcibly converted to Christianity. In Jhansi, the measures against the temple and introduction of cow slaughter fanned this widespread fear.

In the case of Nagpur, where the Bhonsle family had ruled, the British annexation was implemented in a way which gave great offense to public feeling. Despite the protests of the ladies of the royal household, the elephants, the horses and even the bullocks were sold off to cattle dealers at the price of carrion. The furniture was removed from the palace and these, along with the jewels of the Bhonsle family, were sent for sale to the Calcutta market. These

actions created a worse impression on the surrounding provinces than the British seizure of the kingdom itself.

It was during the time of Lord Dalhousie was Governor-General (1847-56) that a stupendous growth took place in the British territory in India. Dalhousie annexed several Indian States under the policy of lapse, whereby on the failure to produce natural heirs, the sovereignty of the `dependent’ states lapsed to the British government. It also did not acknowledge the right of those states to adopt heirs, which had been a long standing practice among Hindus, without the consent of British authorities. Consequently, whenever a ruler died without a natural heir, the British got an opportunity for territorial aggrandizement. S.N. Sen, the historian, has offered the provocative assessment of the impact of Dalhousie’s policy. In his view, annexation contributed unwittingly to the political unification of India and thus became the foundation of the modern Indian nation.

Dalhousie’s policy led to a strong sense of insecurity and injustice among the rulers of various Indian states. Many discontented princes, expropriated landlords and their followers and retainers were thusdriven to join the revolt against British rule. Dalhousie left India a year before the 1857 war broke out, ravaged by disease, and died a few years later at the early age of forty-seven. After the outbreak of hostilities, he was bitterly criticized in Britain for his

policies, particularly the policy of lapse. As a result he stopped keeping copies of his private correspondence and forbade publication of his private papers until fifty years after his death. Ironically Dalhousie had no sons and his own titles became extinct on his death. It would seem that even the Gods disapproved of his policy. (Note:The following 3 paragraphs are written by Vrn Parker)

These and other British policies led to the cause of India’s 1857 War for Independence. The British, to this day, try to portray the whole affair as simply a mutiny. However the fact that the

British went on a massive genocidal campaign and massacred thousands of non-combatants proves they recognized the true nature of the struggle. In a mutiny only the mutineers are targeted. However wars of liberation are national efforts that encompass all members of a

community. Thus the British targeted all members of the community in their drive to strike fear and terror into the hearts and minds of one and all.

Another crucial point to recognize is that the 1857 struggle was a united effort. Whether Hindu or Muslim, they all saw themselves as Indians and worked together to liberate India from the British. When the Indian Sepoys in the British army rebelled they issued a proclamation, “The people are God’s, the country is the King’s and the two religions Govern.” In other words, all are children of God;it didn’t matter if God was called Allah or Rama. All, Hindu and Muslim both, agreed to accept the Moghul Emperor, Bhahadur Shah as Sovereign and to recognize both Hindu and Islam as the official State religions. It was this spirit of unity that was destroyed by the

British in the years following the 1857 war. It was the result of this policy that led to the creation of Pakistan. When it was created in 1947, 30% of its citizens were Hindus. Within a few years,

the Hindu population dropped to 3%. On the other hand, India maintained its tradition of inclusiveness without regard for religious identity. Thus, today, modern India has more Muslim

citizens than even Pakistan and has the world’s second largest Muslim population. While not one Muslim nation has had a Hindu in its government, India has had four Muslim Presidents. The Hindu perception of Nationality encompasses all of its citizens. Hindu Civilization recognizes all of its citizens to be Indians. All are accepted regardless of religion, race, social status, caste or creed.(Note: The incidents below took place after the British falsely accused the Rani of Jhansi of massacring British citizens and after the outbreak of the 1857 War of Indian Independence. It took nearly two weeks for the British to storm Jhansi. Even then they only succeeded with the help of a traitor, Dulaji Thakar. The British later awarded him an estate for his betrayal of Jhansi.)


Halwaipura, an elegant locality, where the Sardars and other wealthy people lived, had been looted by the British soldiers and then set on fire. Men, women and children in their hundreds were burnt to death.

Shrieks of agony, crying and wailing could be heard in the fort along with the sounds of fighting, shooting and pillaging…. Heavy street fighting continued in Jhansi for two whole days. No

quarter was given even to women and children. Those who could not escape threw their women and babes down wells, and then jumped down themselves. The British were not just intent on capturing Jhansi but on destroying the people-they were out for revenge. “No maudlin

clemency was to mark the fall of the city,” wrote British Dr Lowe. “The Jezebel of India was there, the young, energetic, proud, unbending, uncompromising Rani.” Looting and massacre were freely allowed. British soldiers dived into every house and searched its dark corners and pulled down walls. All gold and silver articles were taken, even the deities of Gods from temples. They pulled jewelry off women’s ears and necks. One Indian eyewitness, Vishnu Godse, a Brahmin priest, described how one band of British soldiers would descend on a house and the inmates, in fear of their lives, would hand over all their valuables, but along would

come a second band and not finding anything of value, would put them to the sword anyway.

After the fall of Jhansi to the British, it was the turn of the inhabitants of this city to be put through the horror of wholesale slaughter and looting. English writers have maintained a discreet

silence about this and the only one person to have mildly suggested that there was looting was the assistant surgeon accompanying British troops, Dr. J.H. Sylvester. “So as soon as the fighting had ceased, officers and men began to look about them with that spirit of curiosity. They dived into every house and searched its dark corners and pulled down walls, all in this self same spirit of curiosity…not to loot of course. One class of articles, however, seemed to me to be looked on as fair loot by even the most scrupulous, these were the gods found in temples.”

Vishnu Godse, who went through the nightmare of the killing and looting by the British in Jhansi, has painted a grim picture: “Everyone thought they were standing at the edge of the graveyard.” He asked his host, “How are we going to save ourselves from being massacred?” His host Keshav Bhat told him not to worry as in a nearby haveli (mansion), there were bakhars or recesses built into the thick walls where no one would find them. These recesses were dark and stifling but that was where they must hide. That night Godse looked at the city from the roof-top and the whole of Jhansi looked like a cremation ground with the fires blazing everywhere. In

the light of these fires he would see people in the streets crying pitifully and hugging the corpses of their loved ones. In Halwaipura,the elegant havelis of the rich were on fire, the flames leaping to the skies. There was no way they could be extinguished and the fires

were spreading from one house to the next. “That night, says Godse, “the gunfire was incessant. I could not sleep; I lay trembling, my mouth and throat dry.” The next day, Godse and his hosts fled their home and crept to their hiding place. When they got there it was crammed with people and they forced their way in. Vishnu Godse, with a tinge of humor says that

the niche in which he took shelter was very small and he was squeezed against a couple of attractive young women for several hours but not one carnal thought entered his mind, He could only visualize the horror outside.

In three days of looting, the white soldiers had emptied the houses of all valuables: gold, silver and gems. After that came the Indian contingents of Madras and Hyderabad and they made off with brass and copper vessels, clothes and even grain stored in houses. On the eighth day an amnesty was declared. It was the month of April and it was hot. Hundreds of dead bodies lay rotting in the streets and a loathsome stench pervaded the city. The main royal palace of Jhansi had the accumulated wealth of several generations of Maharajas. The British denuded it of all its treasures, the Panna diamonds and other gems, the priceless carpets and miniature paintings and other artifacts. The greatest loss was the library. This had been damaged in the bombardment but many manuscripts and books could have been saved. But now the European

soldiers attracted by the rich and beautiful cases and silk bindings in which the manuscripts were kept, tore out the pages and took away the cases. These books were irreplaceable and Indian writer Parasnis says this wanton destruction was worse than the ancient depredation

of the Mongols. The library had been founded by the Rani’s late husband, Maharaja Gangadhar Rao, who had obtained rare manuscripts in Sanskrit, Hindi and Marathi from centres of learning in North India as well as the Deccan. The Rani continued this splendid institution

and helped to increase its collection. Unfortunately, the library was destroyed during the British bombardment and the world is the poorer for it.

The loot from the royal palace of Jhansi, the horses and elephants and other treasures, were auctioned by the British. Scindia of Gwalior, a British ally, delightfully snapped up most of the prize animals and other precious items from the palace. By Sep 22 1857, Delhi had been reoccupied. Delhi then suffered its reign of terror. There was no sanctity of life or property. The

innocent suffered along with the rebel-they were shot and strung up on gibbets; the revenge was bloody and cruel. Ghalib, the great poet wrote, “Here is a vast ocean of blood before me. God alone knows what more I have to behold….thousands of my friends are dead. Whom should I remember and to whom should I complain? Perhaps none is left even to shed tears on my grave.” The Moghul Emperor Bahadur Shah was made a prisoner and his three sons were killed although they had surrendered on the condition that their safety would be guaranteed.

Twenty one other princes of the royal family were hanged. The three sons were killed in cold blood after putting their faith in British honor. The Emperor was tried in court and banished to Rangoon, Burma where he died a few years later, far from his home and his family, unhonoured and unsung.End Quotes from the book, Rani of Jhansi-Lakshmi Bai. Some have tried to whitewash the British actions as an example of `collateral damage’ frequently sustained in combat conditions.They highlight atrocities committed by Indians and completely ignore

the fact that these acts were generally carried out by individuals and groups acting independently. Whereas the British atrocities were part of official State policy the Indian atrocities had no official sanction. Some have even suggested that the Rani of Jhansi, Lakshmi

Bai, was implicated in the massacre of British women and children. We only need to read a letter to Damodar Rao, the adopted son of the Rani of Jhansi, written by T.A. Martin, one of the Englishmen at Jhansi who managed to escape the massacre. Martin wrote the letter in 1889.

It says, “Your poor mother was very unjustly and cruelly dealt with and no one knows her true case as I do. The poor thing took no part whatever in the massacre of the European residents of Jhansi in June 1857. On the contrary, she supplied them with food for two day after they had gone into the fort, got one hundred matchlock men from Kurrura, and sent them to assist us. But after being kept a day in the fort they were sent away in the evening. She then advised Major Skeene and Captain Gordon to fly at once to Duttia and place themselves under the Raja’s protection-but this even they would not do-and finally, they were all massacred by our own troops-the police, jail and customs etc. (all in the employ of the British.) How could the poor Rani have succoured them?”

Sir Robert Hamilton, an Agent of the Governor–General for central India had met the Rani on several occasions. He says, “Not a paper incriminating the Ranee did I find nor did there appear any evidence that she desired or was privy to the murder of any Europeans….the English were induced to leave the fort (and thus massacred) by the persuasion of the Darogah (warden) of the jail and by a Rissaldar of the Irregulars. The Ranee was not present nor any

man on her behalf.”

General Sir Hugh Rose, the leader of the Jhansi campaign had this to say about Lakshmi Bai, the Rani of Jhansi. “The most important result was the death of the Ranee of Jhansi who although a lady, was thebravest and best military commander of the rebels.” Yamuna Sheorey, a grand-daughter of the Rani’s uncle gives the following account on the death of the Rani. “The Rani had already donned her red soldier’s uniform. The bombardment from the British cannons began. The Rani mounted her steed and plunged into battle. As the hand to hand fighting developed, a white soldier lunged at the Rani with his bayonet and pierced her below the chest. She turned like a lioness and struck the man down. She saw her companion, Mundar Bai, killed by a bullet. Another bullet hit the Rani on her left thigh. She dropped the sword in her left hand and pressed the wound and with the second sword in her right hand slashed and hit a soldier. A third assailant struck the Rani on the head with his sword, cutting the right side of her face and eye wounding her mortally. Her followers valiantly extracted her from the battle and carried her to the hut of Baba Ganga Das and the Sadhu put Ganges  water in her mouth. She was heard to mutter, `Har Har Mahadev’ before passing into eternal sleep. A funeral was hurriedly made up of dry grass and her wish that her body not fall into British hands was fulfilled.”

British Military Secretary to the Commander in Chief in India, Sir O.T. Burne wrote in his book Clyde and Strathnairn, published in 1891, “This Indian Joan of Arc was dressed in a rd jacket and trousers and a white turban. She wore Scindia’s celebrated pearl necklace she had taken from his treasury. As she lay mortally wounded, she ordered these ornaments to be distributed among her troops. The whole rebel army mourned her loss.” Let me conclude by offering a couple glimpses from the life of Queen Lakshmi Bai of Jhansi. The first incident took place at the beginning of her reign and the other on the eve of her final battle. “Twice a week, the Rani and her son, Damodar, went in procession to the Mahalakshmi temple, with its lake filled with lotus flowers. The procession was an impressive one and wound through the main streets

of the city. Sometimes she went on horseback and at other times in a palanquin decorated with curtains and gold brocade. Her ministers, feudatories, and other officials mounted on horses accompanied her.At the head of the procession were a drummer and a flag bearer while

the rear was taken up by a mounted escort of soldiers in Maratha uniforms. A further touch of glamour was added by her beautifully attired handmaidens who walked alongside her palanquin. If it became dark men baring flaming torches lit the way. At the palace gates, the

melodious notes of the shenai greeted her return.

One cold wintry evening, while returning from the temple, she saw the poor of the town in coarse cotton garments huddling around hastily built fires in the by lanes of the city. She got down from her palanquin and asked them all to come to her palace in four days time. All the tailors of the town were kept very busy for those four days.When the poor in their hundreds gathered in front of the palaces,every one of them was handed over a woolen jacket, cap and a blanket.”

“…as a morale-boosting measure, she decided to make the annual ceremony of Haldi Kunku into a far more brilliant function than usual. As this ceremony is only for women, Lakshmi Bai invited most of the women of Jhansi from all walks of life, caste and creed, Hindu and Muslim alike. The wives of the noblemen and officials arrived in richly hung palanquins with liveried attendants whilst the majority walked to the palace. An image of Goddess Gauri adorned with diamond jewelry was installed and the Durbar Hall of the palace was resplendent with brocade curtains, rich carpets, fragrant flowers and brilliantly lit chandeliers. One hundred handmaidens were in attendance passing around silver trays laden with sweetmeats, haldi kunku, sandalwood paste and flowers. The function continued from two in the afternoon to nine at night. The women were dressed in shimmering silk saris or brocade lenghas and cholis and gorgeous jewelry. The function achieved its objective of restoring confidence, as the women, on returning home, talked of her warm hospitality and her determination to win the forthcoming battle.”


Arun Kumar Tiwari


1.RC Majumdar, HC Roy Chaudhri, Kalikinakra Datta, An advanced History of India, Macmillan, London, 1967, III Edition,

2.Dr PV Ramachadra Rao, South Indian History, 1336-1765, Telugu Academy, Hyderabad, 1991,

3.Dr K Prabhakar Rao, Strategic studies into Muslim fundamentalism, its rise in India and its growing threat to India’s security across the borders. Ph D (Strategic studies) Thesis, TIU, USA, 2002

Todd, Annals of Rajasthan, Annals of Mewar, Allied publishers, Bombay and Calcutta,

V D Mahjan. Moghul rule in India, S Chand and Coy private Ltd. New Delhi, Edition 10, 1971

Sir Jadunath Sircar, History of Aurangzeb, Volume no V, Sircar and sons, Calcutta , 1919

A B Pandey, Later medieval India, 1520-1701, Central Book Depot, Allahabad, edition 3, 1995.

P.C.N. Raja

Smith, V., "Akbar, The Great Mogul," 2nd Edition, S.Chand and Co., Delhi, 1958.

Todd, James.,"Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan," 2 volumes, Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd., London, 1957.

 Shelat J.M, "Akbar," Bharatiya Vidya Bhawan, 1964, Bombay.

Blochmann, H., "Ain-e-Akbari," translation of Abul Fazal's Persian text, 2nd Edition, Bibliotheca Indica Series, published by the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal.

Briggs, John, "History of Mahomedan Power in India (till the year 1612 A.D)," Vol.2, Translated from the original Persian of Mahomad bin Ferishta, S. Dey Publication, Calcutta, 1966.

Shrivastava, A.L., "Akbar the Great," Vol.1, Shiv Lal Agarwal and Co., Agra.

Monserrate S.J., "The Commentary," translated from original Latin by J.S. Hoyland, annotated by S.Banerjee, Humphrey Milford, Oxford Univ. Press, London, 1922.

Blochmann H., "Ain-i-Akbari" edited by D.C Phillot, Calcutta, 1927.

Elliot and Dowson," Tuzak-i-Babari", Vol.4.

.Source: Badshah Nama, Qazinivi & Badshah Nama , Lahori

V.A. Smith, ibid, 91..

Oak, Islamic Havoc in Indian History, ibid, 268).

Shelat J.M, Akbar, Bharatiya Vidya Bhawan, 1964, Bombay , 27.

C Roy, Bharater Itihas (in Bengali), Maulik Library, Calcutta (1985),

H.M. Elliot and J. Dowson, The History of India -As Told by Its Own Historians (in 8 volumes), Low Price Publication,

Delhi (1996) VI, 164.   Source: Manucci, Storia do Mogor vol-II p.451 & Travels of Frey Sebastian Manrique


No comments:

Post a Comment