Emperor Akbar :The Real Father of the Indian Nation

 ' Mahatma ' Gandhi is called the father of the Indian nation. But , as I have pointed out in my previous posts ( see ' Gandhi--A British Agent ', ' Gandhi and Caste ', ' Here is the Father of your nation ', etc on my blog justicekatju.blogspot.in ), Gandhi in fact was objectively a British agent and did great harm to India. He has wrongly been called the Father of the nation.

 The real Father of the Indian nation was the great Mughal Emperor Akbar ( 1542-1605 ). What we Indians are today is largely because of the solid foundation laid by Akbar, who ( along with Ashoka ) was perhaps the greatest ruler the world has ever seen.  Because of Akbar, we are Indians today, not just Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Jains, Parsis etc.

  And yet the tragedy is that many Hindus call Akbar a Muslim, while many Muslims call him a Hindu ( because he observed many Hindu festivals and ceremonies ), which proves my point that 90% Hindus and 90% Muslims in India are fools. The truth is that while being a Sunni Muslim, Akbar was a true Indian.

  Akbar saw that India was a country of great diversity ( see my article ' What is India ? ' on my blog justicekatju.blogspot.in and the website kgfindia.com ). Hence the only way to keep India united was by giving equal respect to all communities and sects. It was because of this realization that Akbar adopted the wise policy of Suleh-e-Kul, that is, Universal Toleration of all Religions ( his attempt to found a common religion called ' Din-e-Ilahi was a failure, but ' Suleh-e-Kul was a grand success ).

 In this respect, Akbar was far ahead of his times, and far ahead of even Europeans who were at that time massacring each other in the name of religion, Catholics massacring Protestants e.g. the St. Bartholomew Day massacre in 1572 by Catholics of the minority Protestant community ( called Huguenots ) in France, the massacre of Protestants by the Spanish Duke of Alba in Holland, the burning at the stake ( auto de fe ) of heretics during the Inquisition, etc, the subsequent massacre of Catholics in Ireland by Cromwell, and the mutual massacre of Catholics and Protestants in the Thirty Year War  in Germany ( 1618-1648 ) as well as the killing of Jews by Christians throughout Europe ( culminating in the Holocaust in the Second World War, 1939-1945 ).

 In my judgment in  the Supreme Court in Hinsa Virodhak Sangh vs.Mirzapur Moti Koresh Jamaat, 2011 ( see online ) I observed :
"  The architect of modern India was the great Mughal Emperor Akbar who gave equal respect to people of all communities and appointed them to the highest offices on their merits irrespective of their religion, caste, etc.

The Emperor Akbar held discussions with scholars of all religions and gave respect not only to Muslim scholars, but also to Hindus, Christians, Parsis, Sikhs, etc. Those who came to his court were given respect and the Emperor heard their views, sometimes alone, and sometimes in the Ibadatkhana (Hall of Worship, which still exists in Fatehpur Sikri), where people of all religions assembled and discussed their views in a tolerant spirit.

The Emperor declared his policy of Suleh-e-Kul, which meant universal tolerance of all religions and communities. He abolished Jeziya in 1564 and the pilgrim tax in 1563 on Hindus and permitted his Hindu wife to continue to practise her own religion even after their marriage. This is evident from the Jodha Bai Palace in Fatehpur Sikri which is built on Hindu architectural pattern.

In 1578, the Parsi theologian Dastur Meherji Rana was invited to the Emperor 's court and he had detailed discussions with Emperor Akbar and acquainted him about the Parsi religion. Similarly, the Jesuit Priests Father Antonio Monserrate, Father Rodolfo Acquaviva and Father Francisco Enriques etc. also came to the Emperor 's court on his request and acquainted him about the Christian religion. The Emperor also became acquainted with Sikhism and came into contact with Guru Amar Das and Guru Ram Das (see`The Mughal Empire by R.C. Majumdar).

Thus, as stated in the Cambridge History of India (Vol.IV The Mughal Period) Emperor Akbar conceived the idea of becoming the father of all his subjects, rather than the leader of only the Muslims, and he was far ahead of his times. As mentioned by Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru in `The Discovery of India , " Akbar 's success is astonishing, for he created a sense of oneness among the diverse elements of India ".

In 1582, the Emperor invited and received a Jain delegation consisting of Hiravijaya Suri, Bhanuchandra Upadhyaya and Vijayasena Suri. Jainism, with its doctrine of non-violence, made a profound impression on him and influenced his personal life. He curtailed his food and drink and ultimately abstained from flesh diet altogether for several months in the year. He renounced hunting which was his favourite pastime, restricted the practice of fishing and released prisoners and caged birds. Slaughter of animals was prohibited on certain days and ultimately in 1587 for about half the days in the year.

Akbar 's contact with Jains began as early as 1568, when Padma Sunder who belonged to the Nagpuri Tapagaccha was honoured by him.

As mentioned in Dr. Ishwari Prasad 's `The Mughal Empire' , the Jains had a great influence on the Emperor. A disputation was held in Akbar's Court between the Jain monks Buddhisagar of Tapgaccha and Suddha Kirti of Khartargaccha on the subject of Jain religious ceremony called Pansadha ( probably Paryushan, which is the most important Jain function ) in which the winner was given the title Jagatguru by Akbar.

Having heard of the virtues and learning of Hir Vijaya Suri in 1582 the Emperor sent an invitation to him through the Mughal Viceroy at Ahmedabad. Suri accepted it in the interests of his religion. He was offered money by the Viceroy to defray the expenses of the journey but he refused. The delegation consisting of Hir Vijaya Suri, Bhanu Chandra Upadhyaya and Vijaya Sen Suri started on their journey and walked on foot to Fatehpur Sikri,( begging alms on the way, as was their custom ), and were received with great honour befitting imperial guests.

 Hir Vijaya Suri had discussions with Abul Fazl. He propounded the doctrine of Karma and an impersonal God. When he was introduced to the Emperor he defended true religion and told him that the foundation of faith should be daya (compassion) and that God is one though he is differently named by different faiths.

The Emperor received instruction in Dharma from Suri who explained the Jain doctrines to him. He discussed the existence of God and the qualities of a true Guru and recommended non-killing (Ahinsa). The Emperor was persuaded to forbid the slaughter of animals for six months in Gujarat and to abolish the confiscation of the property of deceased persons, the Sujija Tax (Jeziya) and a Sulka (possibly a tax on pilgrims) and to free caged birds and prisoners. He stayed for four years at Akbar' s court and left for Gujarat in 1586. He imparted a knowledge of Jainism to Akbar and obtained various concessions to his religion. The Emperor is said to have taken a vow to refrain from hunting and expressed a desire to give up meat- eating for ever as it had become repulsive to him.

When Suri was leaving for Ahmedabad,the Emperor presented to him Padma Sundar scriptures which were preserved in his palace. He offered them to Suri as a gift and he was pressed by the Emperor to accept them. The killing of animals was forbidden for certain days.

Emperor Akbar was a propagator of Suleh-i-Kul (universal toleration) at a time when Europeans
were indulging in religious massacres e.g. the St. Bartholomew Day massacre in 1572 of Protestants, (called Huguenots) in France by the Catholics, the burning at the stake of Protestants by Queen Mary of England, the massacre by the Duke of Alva of millions of people for their resistance to Rome and the burning at the stake of Jews during the Spanish Inquisition. We may also mention the subsequent massacre of the Catholics in Ireland by Cromwell, and the mutual massacre of Catholics and Protestants in Germany during the thirty year war from 1618 to 1648 in which the population of Germany was reduced from 18 million to 12 million. Thus, Emperor Akbar was far ahead of even the Europeans of his times.

Emperor Akbar himself abstained from eating meat on Fridays and Sundays and on some other days, as has been mentioned in the Ain-I-Akbari by Abul Fazl.
It was because of the wise policy of toleration of the Great Emperor Akbar that the Mughal empire lasted for so long, and hence the same wise policy of toleration alone can keep our country together despite so much diversity. ".

 Emperor Akbar was greatly attached to Dargah Ajmer Sharif, the shrine of the great saint Khwaja Moinuddin Chishty. The first time he went there he travelled on foot in plain white clothes all the way from Agra, and thereafter too had annual pilgrimages to the shrine for many years, travelling on foot for the last 10 or 12 miles to Ajmer.
Apart from that, he had great faith in the great living saint Sheikh Salim Chishty, who used to live in a cave in the Sikri hill. On his first visit there ( when Sikri was just a forest on a hill ) the Emperor walked the 40 miles to it from Agra in the plain clothes of a pilgrim, and told the saint of his sorrow because he had no son to carry on his dynasty. The saint said that God would give him 4 sons, and when the first was born ( of Jodha Bai ) he was named Salim, after the saint, and a new capital called Fatehpur Sikri was built at Sikri.
 Akbar had great respect for all religions, and there was not a trace of communalism in him. Hindus like Todar Mal, Man Singh, Birbal etc held high positions in his Court, and were often military commanders as well.

 The tragedy is that the 90% fools and idiots living in India today do not even know who is the real Father of their Nation !

 It is said that Gandhi gave us Independence in 1947. This is totally false. In fact by regularly preaching Hindu religious ideas like Ramraj, goraksha  ( cow protection ), varnashram ( caste system ), brahmacharya ( celibacy ) etc in open public meetings, and thus constantly injecting religion into politics, he was driving Muslims towards a fundamentalist organization like the Muslim League. This served the British policy of divide and rule. By diverting the genuine revolutionary independence struggle against the British in India started by great freedom fighters like Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekhar Azad, Surya Sen ( Masterda ), Ashfaqulla, Ram Prasad Bismil, Rajguru, Sukhdev, Khudiram Bose, etc to harmless and nonsensical channels like  'satyagrah ' Gandhi was ensuring that India should not become independent.

 Why then did the British leave ? Surely it was not because of the dramas Gandhi was doing ( fasting, salt march, etc ). Does anyone give up an Empire because of this ?
 A genuine freedom struggle is always an armed struggle, because no Imperialist gives up his Empire without an armed fight. Did the Americans fight their War of Independence against the British ( 1775-1781 ) by presenting flowers and bouquets to the British, or with a Continental Army under George Washington ? Did Bolivar ( called the ' Great Liberator ) fight the Spaniards in Latin America with his batallions, or by satyagrah ? Did Ho Chi Min fight the French with guns or by salt marches ? Did the Chinese fight the Japanese by fasting and singing Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram ?

 No, it was because Germany attacked England in the Second World War and considerably weakened it ( in fact Germany would probably have conquered England if America had not helped it ) that England, realizing that she could not continue holding on to India politically, withdrew. Also, there was American pressure on the British to withdraw.

It is high time that Indians realize the truth and know who is the real Father of our Nation

Our history books need to be rewritten

The initial Muslim invaders who came into India no doubt broke a lot of Hindu temples, like for instance, Mahmood Ghazni who broke the Somnath temple.

However, their descendents who became local Muslim rulers in various parts of India, far from breaking temples used to give grants to temples and celebrated Hindu festivals like Holi and Diwali.  For instance, Babar was an invader but Akbar was not an invader, he was born in India and was very much an Indian.

Now the descendants of those invaders who became local Muslim rulers had a population of 80-90% Hindus.  If they broke temples there would be a revolt or turmoil which no ruler wants.   So in their own interest almost every one of the local Muslim rulers fostered communal harmony, they gave grants to Hindu temples, they celebrated Hindu festivals.  For instance, the Nawab of Avadh used to organize Ramleela, and celebrate Holi and Diwali.  Tipu Sultan used to give annual grants to 156 Hindu Temples, his Prime Minister was a Hindu called Punaiya his commander-in-chief, was a Hindu called Krishna Rao.  Tipu Sultan sent 30 respectful letters with grants to the Shankaracharya of Shringeri (see online ‘History in the Service of Imperialism’ which is a speech given by Prof. B. N. Pandey in  the Upper House of the Indian Parliament in 1977).  The Nawabs of  Avadh, Murshidabad and Arcot were secular kings.

            Now the first part, that the Muslim invaders broke temples, has been mentioned in our history books, but the second part, which is of ten times longer duration, that the descendants of these invaders, who were local rulers used to foster communal harmony, they used to give land grants for building Hindu temples, they celebrated and organized Hindu festivals, etc. has been deliberately suppressed by the British from our history books, the whole game being divide and rule.  Hindus and Muslims must be made to fight each other.

 If you go on line and read the speech ‘History in the Service of Imperialism’ by Professor B. N. Pandey, you will read how the British policy was to make Hindus and Muslims inimical to each other.  For instance, Dr. Pandey has mentioned that in 1928 when he was a Professor of History in Allahabad University some students came to him with a book written by one Professor Harprasad Shastri, Professor of Sanskrit of Calcutta University in which it was mentioned that Tipu Sultan told 3000 Brahmins to convert to Islam otherwise they will be killed, and those 3000 Brahmins committed suicide rather than becoming Muslims. On reading this Professor B. N. Pandey wrote to Professor Harprasad Shastri asking him the source of his information?  Prof. Shastri wrote back that his source of information is the Mysore Gazetteer.  Then Prof.  Pandey wrote to Prof. Shrikantia, Professor of History in Mysore University asking him whether it is correct that in Mysore Gazetteer it is mentioned that Tipu Sultan told 3000 Brahmins to convert to Islam. Prof. Shrikantia  wrote back that this is totally false, he had worked  in this field and there is no such mention in the Mysore Gazetteer, rather the correct version was just the reverse, namely, that  Tipu Sultan used to give annual grants to 156 Hindu Temples, he used to send  grants to the  Shankaracharya of Shringheri, etc.  

               Now, just imagine what mischief has been done.  Deliberately our history books have been falsified so that the mind of a child at an impressionable age is poisoned so that a Hindu child should start hating Muslims in India, and a Muslim child in Pakistan should start hating Hindus. The poison put in the mind of an impressionable age is very difficult to remove at a later age.  All our history books have been falsified in this manner.

            It is time we re-write our History books and show that in fact upto 1857 there was no communal problem at all in India.  A composite culture in India had developed by then.  Hindus used to participate in Eid and Muharram, and Muslims used to participate in Holi, Diwali etc.  There were some differences no doubt but they were becoming narrower.

 In 1857 the great Mutiny took place.  Hindus and Muslims jointly fought against the British.  After suppressing that Mutiny it was decided by the British rulers that the only way to control this country was to divide and rule. Orders came from the British Government in London to the Viceroy in India to this effect ( some of them have been quoted in Prof. B.N.Pandey's speech ). In other words, Hindus and Muslims must be made to fight each other.

 All communal riots start after 1857.  The English Collector would secretly call the Hindu Pandit and give him money to speak against Muslims, and similarly he would secretly call the Maulvi and give him some money to speak against Hindus. Agent provocateurs were hired by the British authorities to create hostility between Hindus and Muslims e.g. by deliberately playing loud music when Muslims were praying in a mosque, or throwing the carcass of a dead cow in a Hindu temple. A beautiful racket was started in this way. The Minto-Morley 'Reforms', 1909 created separate electorates for Hindus and Muslims.  All this resulted ultimately in the Partition of 1947, with all its horrors ( see the short stories of Manto ), in which those British agents Gandhi and Jinnah played an important role.          

            Now the time has come when we must see through this game.  How long are we going to be taken for a ride? Are we fools that anybody can come and make fools out of us and make us fight each other?

 Our history books need to be rewritten.

Suleh-e-Kul

A fb message received from a Shia lady, and my reply. I have deleted her name.

Dear sir plz xpress yr views on Shia Muslims....

As Shias r d biggest victim of Sunni's terrorism....whether its Iraq,Saudi, Taliban  Pakistan... or any other

country. Now, ISI..!!!!!

In fact, by killing d innocent people they r destroying d decent image of religion...and Islam is for all Muslims including Shias

What a bigger problem for Shias at international level!!!!!

My reply :

I have repeatedly said that for peace and prosperity there must be religious tolerance and secularism.

 Secularism does not mean that one cannot practice his/her religion. Secularism means that religion is one's private affair, unconnected with the state, which will have no religion, and that everyone will be free to practise and profess whatever one wants.

 Muslims believe that there is only one god ( Allah ) and are against idol worship, while Hindus have many gods ( some say 33 crore, or 330 million ) and do idol worship. Are Hindus breaking the heads or chopping off the limbs of Muslims by doing so ?

Similarly, Ahmedis allegedly do not regard Prophet Mohammed as the last prophet. Are they breaking the heads or chopping off the limbs of orthodox Muslims by this belief ?

 Shias do not accept Abu Bakr, Omar and Usman as genuine Khalifas (which Sunnis do ) but only Ali. Are they breaking the heads or chopping off the limbs of Sunnis by their belief ?

 Everyone should be entitled to believe whatever he/she wants, and practise and profess whichever religion he/she wants. This is particularly important in our sub continent which has so much diversity.

This was the policy of Suleh-e-Kul ( Universal Toleration of all Religions and sects ) declared by the great Emperor Akbar, whom I regard as the real ' Father of the Nation', and who ( along with Ashoka ) was the greatest ruler the world has ever seen, being 200 years ahead of his times.

And this is the only policy which will lead our country to peace and prosperity.

'गांधी नहीं, मेरे आदर्श अशोक और अकबर हैं'

'गांधी नहीं, मेरे आदर्श अशोक और अकबर हैं'- नवभारत टाइम्स के साथ इंटरव्यू

'सच बोलने से अगर कुछ लोग आहत होते हैं तो यह उनकी समस्या है मेरी नहीं।'

_________
सुप्रीम कोर्ट के जज रह चुके मार्कंडेय काटजू जब-तब मीडिया की सुर्खियां बटोरते रहे हैं। कभी कैटरीना कैफ की खूबसूरती से वह इतना प्रभावित हो जाते हैं कि उसे राष्ट्रपति बनाने की वकालत करने लग जाते हैं और कभी शाजिया इल्मी उन्हें इतनी अच्छी लगने लगती हैं कि वह उन्हें सीएम का कैंडिडेट बनाने के लिए बीजेपी लीडरशिप को सलाह दे डालते हैं लेकिन इस बार मामला गंभीर हो गया है। उन्होंने अपने ब्लॉग में गांधी जी को लेकर टिप्पणी की है, जिसकी वजह से उनके खिलाफ राज्यसभा में निंदा प्रस्ताव पारित किया गया। यूपी की विधानसभा भी उनके खिलाफ प्रस्ताव पास कर चुकी है। कई जगहों पर उनके खिलाफ एफआईआर भी हुई है। इस तरह के बयानों के पीछे उनका क्या है शगल, यह जानने को जस्टिस काटजू से बात की पॉलिटिकल एडिटर नदीम ने :
__________________________
NBT: गांधी जी को लेकर आपने अपने ब्लॉग पर जो लिखा क्या वह उचित है?

Ans: बिल्कुल उचित है। मैंने गांधी को लेकर जो लिखा है, वह एक तरह से बहुत कम है। गांधी ने दो तरह से अंग्रेजों के हितों की पूर्ति की है। एक तो भारत वापसी से लेकर अपनी मृत्यु तक उन्होंने धर्म और राजनीति को मिलाए रखा। 'द कलेक्टेड वर्क्स आफ गांधी' पढ़ें आप खुद पाएंगे कि उनके ज्यादातर लेख और भाषण 'रामराज्य' 'गो रक्षा' 'वर्णाश्रम' 'ब्रह्मचर्य' और इसी तरह के तमाम दूसरे हिंदू विचारों पर केंद्रित हुआ करते थे। उनकी सभाओं में रघुपति राघव राजा राम जैसे हिंदू भजन गाए जाते थे। दूसरे आजादी के लिए शुरू हुए क्रांतिकारी आंदोलन से भयभीत अंग्रेजों का डर निकालने को गांधी उनके मददगार बने और उन्होंने पूरे आंदोलन का रूप बदल दिया।

NBT: लेकिन आजादी तो गांधी की वजह से ही मिली?
Ans: यह कहना कि आजादी गांधी की वजह से मिली पूरी तरह से गलत और बकवास है। क्या यह विश्वास करने वाली बात है कि अंग्रेज अपना इतना बड़ा साम्राज्य गांधी के उपवास, सत्याग्रह और दांडी मार्च या इसी तरह के दूसरे ड्रामों की वजह से छोड़ गए? भारत को 1947 में आजादी इस लिए मिली कि दिवतीय विश्वयुद्ध में जर्मनी ने इंग्लैंड को कमजोर कर दिया था और अमेरिका का प्रेशर था।

NBT: आपके तर्क कुछ भी हों लेकिन एक शख्स जिसे राष्ट्रपिता का दर्जा हासिल हो, Ans: उसके लिए इस तरह की भाषा या विचार को कैसे जायज ठहराया जा सकता है?
गांधी को राष्ट्रपिता गलत कहा जाता है। हकीकत में उन्होंने भारत का बहुत नुकसान किया। वह ब्रिटिश एजेंट थे और उसका ताजा सबूत यह है कि लंदन में अभी उनकी मूर्ति का अनावरण किया गया अंग्रेजों की तरफ से। अंग्रेजों ने भगत सिंह, चंद्रशेखर आजाद, अशफाकउल्लाह, खुदीराम बोस, राम प्रसाद बिसमिल की मूर्ति का अनावरण क्यों नहीं किया?

NBT: अभिव्यक्ति की स्वतंत्रता का अधिकार क्या दूसरों की भावनाओं को आहत करने का अधिकार देता है?
Ans: सच बोलने से अगर कुछ लोग आहत होते हैं तो यह उनकी समस्या है मेरी नहीं।

NBT: अब जब राज्यसभा और यूपी की विधानसभा निंदा प्रस्ताव पास कर चुकी है तो आपको यह लगता नहीं है कि खेद व्यक्त करना चाहिए?
Ans: बगैर मेरा पक्ष जाने मेरे खिलाफ निंदा प्रस्ताव पारित कर देना नेचरल जस्टिस के खिलाफ है। सदनों को मुझसे माफी मांगनी चाहिए।

NBT: आपका आदर्श कौन है?
Ans: सम्राट अशोक और अकबर।

NBT: गांधी पर लिखने से पहले आप कैटरीना कैफ और शाजिया इल्मी पर रीझ गए थे? इस तरह की बेबाकी का शगल आपको कैसे पैदा हो गया?
Ans: कैटरीना कैफ और शाजिया इल्मी वाली बात तो बस हंसी मजाक वाले टोन में थी लेकिन बेवकूफ लोग हंसी मजाक भी नहीं समझते। दरअसल हुआ यह था कि एक रोज मैंने अखबार में देखा कि एक खूबसूरत महिला क्रोएशिया की राष्ट्रपति चुन ली गई तो हमने भी मजाक के मूड में फेसबुक पर यह पोस्ट डाल दी कि हमारे देश के नेता लोग चुनाव के समय वादों के सिवा कुछ नहीं करते तो इससे अच्छा हम लोग किसी खूबसूरत महिला को ही वोट क्यों न दें? कम से कम अखबारों और टीवी पर उसका खूबसूरत चेहरा ही देखने को मिलता रहेगा।

NBT: कहीं ये पब्लिसिटी स्टंट तो नहीं?
Ans: मुझे इस तरह की पब्लिसिटी की जरूरत नहीं। मैं जो कुछ कहता हूं, उसका आधार और तर्क होता है। जो लोग मुझसे असहमत हों उन्हें अपनी बात रखनी चाहिए अपने तर्कों के साथ, लेकिन अक्सर होता यह है कि लोग मुझे गालियां देने लगते हैं बगैर किसी कारण के।

NBT: आपकी गम्भीर छवि के इतर अब आपको लोग दिग्विजय सिंह और लालू यादव कर श्रेणी में रखने लगे हैं?
Ans: मुझे इसकी फिक्र नहीं कि लोग मेरे बारे में क्या सोचते हैं या कहते हैं। मैं देश के लोगों को सच बताने का दायित्व निभाता रहूंगा।

NBT: आप जब महिलाओं पर लिखते हैं तो आपके परिवार की क्या प्रतिक्रिया होती है?
Ans: कुछ नहीं सब लोग हंसते हैं।

NBT: क्या राजनीति में आने का इरादा है?
Ans: मेरा राजनीति में आने का कोई इरादा नहीं लेकिन राजनीति से बिल्कुट कटा भी नहीं हूं। मैं देश के लोगों से कहना चाहता हूं कि उन्हें लम्बे समय से नेताओं की तरफ से बेवकूफ बनाया जा रहा है।

http://navbharattimes.indiatimes.com/india/39gandhi-my-ideal-would-ashoka-and-akbar39/articleshow/46636586.cms

The Real Father of the Indian Nation

 ' Mahatma ' Gandhi is called the father of the Indian nation. But , as I have pointed out in my previous post, Gandhi in fact did great harm to India, and he has wrongly been called the Father of the nation.

 The real Father of the Indian nation was the great Mughal Emperor Akbar ( 1542-1605 ). What we Indians are today is largely because of the solid foundation laid by Akbar. Because of Akbar, we are Indians, not just Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Jains, Parsis etc.

  And yet the tragedy is that many Hindus call Akbar a Muslim, while many Muslims call him a Hindu ( because he observed many Hindu festivals and ceremonies ), which proves my point that 90% Hindus and 90% Muslims in India are fools. The truth is that while being a Sunni Muslim, Akbar was a true Indian.

  Akbar saw that India was a country of great diversity ( see my article ' What is India ? ' on my blog justicekatju.blogspot.in and the website kgfindia.com ). Hence the only way to keep India united was by giving equal respect to all communities and sects. It was because of this realization that Akbar adopted the wise policy of Suleh-e-Kul, that is, Universal Toleration of all Religions.

 In this respect, Akbar was far ahead of his times, and far ahead of even Europeans who were at that time massacring each other in the name of religion, Catholics massacring Protestants e.g. the St. Bartholomew Day massacre in 1572 by Catholics of the minority Protestant community ( called Huguenots ) in France, the massacre of Protestants by the Spanish Duke of Alba in Holland, the burning at the stake ( auto de fe ) of heretics during the Inquisition, etc, the subsequent massacre of Catholics in Ireland by Cromwell, and the mutual massacre of Catholics and Protestants in the Thirty Year War  in Germany ( 1618-1648 ) as well as the killing of Jews by Christians throughout Europe ( culminating in the Holocaust in the Second World War, 1939-1945 ).

 In my judgment in  the Supreme Court in Hinsa Virodhak Sangh vs.Mirzapur Moti Koresh Jamaat, 2011 ( see online ) I observed :

"  The architect of modern India was the great Mughal Emperor Akbar who gave equal respect to people of all communities and appointed them to the highest offices on their merits irrespective of their religion, caste, etc.

The Emperor Akbar held discussions with scholars of all religions and gave respect not only to Muslim scholars, but also to Hindus, Christians, Parsis, Sikhs, etc. Those who came to his court were given respect and the Emperor heard their views, sometimes alone, and sometimes in the Ibadatkhana (Hall of Worship), where people of all religions assembled and discussed their views in a tolerant spirit.

The Emperor declared his policy of Suleh-e-Kul, which meant universal tolerance of all religions and communities. He abolished Jeziya in 1564 and the pilgrim tax in 1563 on Hindus and permitted his Hindu wife to continue to practise her own religion even after their marriage. This is evident from the Jodha Bai Palace in Fatehpur Sikri which is built on Hindu architectural pattern.

In 1578, the Parsi theologian Dastur Meherji Rana was invited to the Emperor 's court and he had detailed discussions with Emperor Akbar and acquainted him about the Parsi religion. Similarly, the Jesuit Priests Father Antonio Monserrate, Father Rodolfo Acquaviva and Father Francisco Enriques etc. also came to the Emperor 's court on his request and acquainted him about the Christian religion. The Emperor also became acquainted with Sikhism and came into contact with Guru Amar Das and Guru Ram Das (see`The Mughal Empire by R.C. Majumdar).

Thus, as stated in the Cambridge History of India (Vol.IV The Mughal Period) Emperor Akbar conceived the idea of becoming the father of all his subjects, rather than the leader of only the Muslims, and he was far ahead of his times. As mentioned by Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru in `The Discovery of India , " Akbar 's success is astonishing, for he created a sense of oneness among the diverse elements of India ".

In 1582, the Emperor invited and received a Jain delegation consisting of Hiravijaya Suri, Bhanuchandra Upadhyaya and Vijayasena Suri. Jainism, with its doctrine of non-violence, made a profound impression on him and influenced his personal life. He curtailed his food and drink and ultimately abstained from flesh diet altogether for several months in the year. He renounced hunting which was his favourite pastime, restricted the practice of fishing and released prisoners and caged birds. Slaughter of animals was prohibited on certain days and ultimately in 1587 for about half the days in the year.

Akbar 's contact with Jains began as early as 1568, when Padma Sunder who belonged to the Nagpuri Tapagaccha was honoured by him.

As mentioned in Dr. Ishwari Prasad 's `The Mughal Empire' , the Jains had a great influence on the Emperor. A disputation was held in Akbar s court between the Jain monks Buddhisagar of Tapgaccha and Suddha Kirti of Khartargaccha on the subject of Jain religious ceremony called Pansadha in which the winner was given the title Jagatguru by Akbar.

Having heard of the virtues and learning of Hir Vijaya Suri in 1582 the Emperor sent an invitation to him through the Mughal Viceroy at Ahmedabad. Suri accepted it in the interests of his religion. He was offered money by the Viceroy to defray the expenses of the journey but he refused. The delegation consisting of Hir Vijaya Suri, Bhanu Chandra Upadhyaya and Vijaya Sen Suri started on their journey and walked on foot to Fatehpur Sikri and were received with great honour befitting imperial guests.

 Hir Vijaya Suri had discussions with Abul Fazl. He propounded the doctrine of Karma and an impersonal God. When he was introduced to the Emperor he defended true religion and told him that the foundation of faith should be daya (compassion) and that God is one though he is differently named by different faiths.

The Emperor received instruction in Dharma from Suri who explained the Jain doctrines to him. He discussed the existence of God and the qualities of a true Guru and recommended non-killing (Ahinsa). The Emperor was persuaded to forbid the slaughter of animals for six months in Gujarat and to abolish the confiscation of the property of deceased persons, the Sujija Tax (Jeziya) and a Sulka (possibly a tax on pilgrims) and to free caged birds and prisoners. He stayed for four years at Akbar' s court and left for Gujarat in 1586. He imparted a knowledge of Jainism to Akbar and obtained various concessions to his religion. The Emperor is said to have taken a vow to refrain from hunting and expressed a desire to leave off meat- eating for ever as it had become repulsive.

When Suri was leaving for Ahmedabad,the Emperor presented to him Padma Sundar scriptures which were preserved in his palace. He offered them to Suri as a gift and he was pressed by the Emperor to accept them. The killing of animals was forbidden for certain days.

Emperor Akbar was a propagator of Suleh-i-Kul (universal toleration) at a time when Europeans 

were indulging in religious massacres e.g. the St. Bartholomew Day massacre in 1572 of Protestants, (called Huguenots) in France by the Catholics, the burning at the stake of Protestants by Queen Mary of England, the massacre by the Duke of Alva of millions of people for their resistance to Rome and the burning at the stake of Jews during the Spanish Inquisition. We may also mention the subsequent massacre of the Catholics in Ireland by Cromwell, and the mutual massacre of Catholics and Protestants in Germany during the thirty year war from 1618 to 1648 in which the population of Germany was reduced from 18 million to 12 million. Thus, Emperor Akbar was far ahead of even the Europeans of his times.

Emperor Akbar himself abstained from eating meat on Fridays and Sundays and on some other days, as has been mentioned in the Ain-I-Akbari by Abul Fazl.

It was because of the wise policy of toleration of the Great Emperor Akbar that the Mughal empire lasted for so long, and hence the same wise policy of toleration alone can keep our country together despite so much diversity. ".

 The tragedy is that the 90% fools and idiots living in India today do not even know who is the real Father of their Nation !

 It is said that Gandhi gave us Independence in 1947. This is totally false. In fact by diverting the genuine revolutionary independence struggle against the British in India ( see my previous post ) to harmless and nonsensical channels like n' Satyagrah ' Gandhi was ensuring that India should not become independent.

 Why then did the British leave ? Surely it was not because of the dramas Gandhi was doing ( fasting, salt march, etc ). Does anyone give up an Empire because of this ?

 No, it was because Germany attacked England in the Second World War and considerably weakened it ( in fact Germany would probably have conquered England if America had not helped it ) that England, realizing that she could not continue holding on to India politically, withdrew. So it is not Gandhi who gave us Independence but Adolf Hitler ( though of course that was not his intention )

Dargahs and Sufis

I am strongly opposed to religious extremism. That is why I highly respect the Sufis, and I do not approve of the religious extremism and intolerance of the Wahabis.

Sufis were the liberals among the Muslims. They spread the message of love of God and love of all humanity ( not merely Muslims). While they were Muslims, they were of the view that there are other ways of approaching god, and not merely Islam.

As the great sufi saint, Nizamuddin Aulia said ( in Persian) on observing Hindu worshippers bathing in the Jamuna :
"Har qaum raast raahe, din-e-wa Qibla gaahe"

which means that every qaum or community has its own path for reaching god.

Sufis were often persecuted by the extremist Muslims for their belief in tasawwuf or mysticism, and were opposed by the Wahabis, who are fundamentalists among the Muslims.

The great Emperor Akbar, whom I regard, along with Ashoka, as the greatest ruler the world ( and not just India) has ever seen, had great respect for sufi saints e.g. Sheikh Salim Chishti, Moinuddin Chishti, etc. For about 12 years he used to annually visit the shrine of Sheikh Moinuddin Chishti in Ajmer.
Dargahs are shrines having the graves of sufi saints. HIndus do not go to mosques, Muslims do not go to temples, but both go to dargahs. Thus dargahs unite all communities, and I love whatever unites.

The Wahabi type Muslims regard dargahs as places of butparasti, or idol worship, which is forbidden by Islam. They believe that going to a dargah is worshipping the grave of the sufi saint, whereas Islam permits worship of only Allah. 

This only shows the foolishness and religious extremism of such people. By going to a dargah one only shows respect to the sufi saint, and it does not amount to worshipping his grave.

In Saudi Arabia dargahs will be immediately destroyed if built. In Pakistan many dargahs have been bombed, and many people going there killed. This shows the intolerance of such fanatics, and that is why Pakistan has become a Jurassic Park.

In a subcontinent of such diversity such as ours, religious tolerance is essential if we want our country to remain united and progress.