|
Page1
While dishonest Indian historians lustily hail Mohammed Tughlak as a well-meaning sultan whose so called reformist plans all went awry, a few, little more honest and intelligent, but not quite so discerning, dub him a mad man.
Mad he was because his 25-year-long reign (1325 to 1350 A.D.) was one long story of a sultan going berserk. However, there was a method in his madness. This Muslim hothead was pregnant with ideas of Islamic torture which he perpetrated with fanatic zeal for over a quarter of a century. The murder of his own father Ghiyasuddin in that rest house specially built to kill him on his way back to Delhi, is a burning example (see Ghiyasuddin Tughlak).
These scoundrel sultans had numerous mean Muslim flatterers as chroniclers who would record blatant lies for money and patronage. Ziauddin Barni was one such clown and the other was Ibn Batuta. And their lying records have been made the basis of the Indian history that is taught to our children. It is a matter of perpetual national disgrace that generations of our students are being brain-washed with false accounts of Muslim misrule.
The conduct of these flattering Muslim chroniclers is revealed in Ibn Batuta's own words. This tramp came all the way from Tangiers in dark Africa to write glorified accounts on Mohammed Tughlak's reign. On his arrival in Delhi, he says: "The King was absent but the Queen Mother received me. I was presented with splendid robes, 2,000 dinars and a house to live in. On sultan's return I was treated even more splendidly. I received a grant of villages worth 5,000 dinars per annum, a present of ten female captives (obviously captive Hindu women), a fully caparisoned horse and a further sum of 5,000 dinars." (Pg. 586, Vol. III, Elliot & Dowson)
It is obvious that such generous gifts from pillaged Hindu subjects, kept the scribes in fine Islamic fettle to write blatant lies. One such falsehood recorded by Batuta and repeated parrot-like by myopic archeologists is about Ghiyasuddin Tughlak's tomb outside the massive walls of the so called Tughlakabad in Delhi. Liar Batuta tells us: "Ghiyasuddin was a just and excellent prince (who) enjoyed sovereign power in peace for four years. He was buried in a tomb which he himself had built." (Pg. 608, Vol. III, Elliot & Dowson). Quite clearly, every word of the above statement is a white lie. We know now how, unbeknown to himself, Ghiyasuddin was unexpectedly murdered in that rest house by his son Mohammed Tughlak. Then how did he foresee his imminent death and plan his own tomb in time for his burial? Ibn Batuta knew it very well but his Islamic pride was hurt, to tell the world that the tomb where Ghiyasuddin was finally buried after his assassination, was a Hindu temple. It is bad enough but what is even worse is that such lie, which is so transparent to even laymen with some commonsense, is accepted as the truth by secular historians of Nehru's India!
Author : Shri Purushottam Nagesh Oak
|
