नम्रता आणि सारिकाच्या वेगवेगळ्या प्रतिक्रिया ऐकून आणि माझ्या अपेक्षा अनेक पटीनी कमी करून मी 'जोधा अकबर' बघायला गेले आणि हृथिक रोशन च्या प्रेमात पडूनच थिएटर च्या बाहेर आले.
इतका हळूवार आणि तरल चित्रपट बनवल्याबद्दल आशुतोष गोवारिकर चे मनापासून कौतुक केले पाहिजे. चित्रपट बघताना अनेक प्रश्न मनात येता येता तसेच राहून गेले कारण पडद्यावर जे दिसत होतं ते इतकं सुंदर होतं, इतकं आकर्षक होतं की जे दिसतयं ते आधी बघावं आणि मग विचार करावा असंच वाटत राहिलं. थोडक्यात 'जहाँ-पन्हा का दिल दिमाग पे भारी हो गया ' :)
http://www.dhingana.com/album/hindi/latest/jodhaa-akbar/2898
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
About Me
- RadiantSmile
- Yahaan alag andaaz hain..... Jaise chhidka koi saaz hain..... Har kaam ko taala karte hain.... Yeh sapne paalaa karte hain
The Maple Tree
1 comment:
Truth of "Jodha-Akbar": wound on Hindu's heart !
Shameful Hindus who throng to watch Jodhaa-Akbar, a film which glorifies Hindu hater Cruel Akbar, are worthy of getting killed by Terrorists! Hindus boycott 'Jodha Akabar' Movie
Even historians have not realized piety signified in ‘marriage’ ceremony To show historians’
Failure to understand the word ‘marriage’ mentioned in Islamic chronicle, Shri. Oak writes, “Shrivastava says that King Raval Hariraya of Jaisalmer married his daughter to Akbar. Here, he never realized that the word ‘marriage’ used by him is most inappropriate.”
Raja Bhagawandas went to Jaisalmer to bring his daughter. He took this helpless princess to harem of Akbar. This shows that nobody from Jaisalmer’s royal family took her to Akbar. It was like sending a man and a cartful of food for demon Bakasur to eat everyday. Every Hindu orJihadiking or Nawab had to offer his daughter to Akbar irrespective of his surrendering to or giving a fight to Akbar since Akbar was extremely lascivious. Kings like Bhagawandas and Mansingh, who had surrendered to Akbar, used to advise other Rajputs that it was better to provide Akbar with their women and wealth rather than fight with the powerful Emperor. As per their advice, except Maharana of Udaypur, all the other kings and princes had surrendered to Akbar either by giving a fight or without fight. After their surrender, they did not get away with sending just one princess; but they had to send a carriage-full of women. How in a wedding, presents are distributed to the people from one’s family as per their status, these Hindu women used to be sent to army personnel of Akbar as gifts. Children of these Hindu women used to get grow up hating Hindus since very young age and after growing up, they used to carry on the legacy of killing Hindus, converting them and raping Hindu women.
On page 213-215, Shri. Shrivastava says, “King Ravalpratap of Banswada and King Raval Asakarna of Dongarpur were induced to surrender to Akbar and since then, they were known as subjugates of Akbar. The princess of Dongarpur was sent to the harem of Akbar. Lunkarna and Birbal induced both the kings to conciliate with Akbar. Both the kings brought princess of Dongarpur to Akbar’s camp. Akbar was on his way to Fattehpur Sikri. Even during the journey, Hindu ladies from royal families were supplied to satiate Akbar’s sexual desires. The princess of Dongarpur was taken to Akbar from her father’s shelter to Akbar’s camp. In Hinduism, ‘marriage’ is a rite, however, Akbar destroyed the sanctity of marriage.
Akbar used to demand Hindu women for providing to relatives and friends
Shri. Oak has shown how to surmise the descriptions written by fanatic chronologists who were refugees of Akbar and who believed in keeping him happy. Shri. Oak writes, “Akbar used to ask for women belonging to his enemies’ families defeated by him and he used to call for Hindu women even for his relatives and friends, e.g. the ruler of Tibet was asked to send his daughter for Akbar’s son Shahajada Salim (Jahangir). Accordingly, she went to the harem in Lahore on 1st January 1572. Who will be ready to send his daughter willingly to a dissipated lustful Mughal king? This shows that the king of Tibet could not have sent his daughter along with his wealth unless he was threatened of getting his kingdom destroyed. He had to therefore, sacrifice his daughter.
On 26th June 1586 daughter of Rayasinh of Bikaner too entered the harem of Salim (Jehangir). Historians are describing these incidents as marriages which is totally wrong. Had it been ‘marriage’, the ceremony would have taken place in the palace of Bikaner. Whole of Bikaner would have strongly condemned if such ceremony would have taken place in there.
There is a reference of Akbar marrying two Hindu princesses to Salim (Jahangir) in a book authored by Shallot. He says in the book that on 2nd February 1584, there was a grand celebration of Salim’s wedding with daughter of King Bhagawandas in Lahore and in the year 1596, Salim was wedded to the daughter of Rayasinh. It was natural to celebrate for Muslims as it was their policy to defile Hindu princesses; but it was a matter of grief for Hindus. It was a hell for Hindu women to spend the rest of their lives in dark prison like harems along with their co-wives with such dissipated and immoralJihadihusbands. Moreover, Hindu princesses had to even take abuses hurled at them for being Hindus as Hindus were treated inferior.
Bhagawandas and Mansinh, the two princes became agents of Akbar and they used mediate and send other Rajput princesses to Mughal harems. It used to be deathly for the parents of such girls to sacrifice their daughters to Mughals; therefore, they used to avoid going and used to send their daughters through Bhagawandas and Mansinh with a little satisfaction that their daughter was sent (to hell) through a Hindu Rajput so that the daughters would be able to hear at least a few Hindu words in that hell.
On Jodhbai’s death, Rajputs refused to perform ‘kshour’ rites
Now we shall study an incident that took place after Jodhabai’s death from the book written by Shri. Oak. It is given in the book titled ‘Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan’ (Part 2, page 385) by Colonel James Todd that Akbar ordered all Rajputs to perform ‘kshour (cut hair and beard)’ after Jodhbai’s death. When the barbers reached the camp of Hada Rajput, they refused to get their hair cut and beat up the barbers. Among the protesters, there was Raja Bhoj. He was the son of Rao Surajan whose capital was Fort Ranathambore. Those against Raja Bhoj, informed Akbar about the incident that the barbers sent by him were beaten up by Hada Rajput and they refused to observe mourning for Jodhabai.
Bhoj Raja was a valiant king. He had no other option but to stay in the camp along with other Hindu Rajaput as a hostage. As Akbar heard about Bhoj’s resistance, he ordered that Raja Bhoj should be fettered and his mustache should be cut.
The news reached Hada camp and all the occupants were enraged. They took out their swords and planned to revolt. Finally, Akbar had to personally go there and made peace with them; even he did not dare to touch a hair of Rajputs.
The crux in this incident was that Jodhabai was from Jaipur’s royal family. Her name was written off by Rajput since she was taken to his harem by Akbar and as such she was ostracized by the Rajputs and they felt that she was not a Rajput and did not deserve to be honoured in any manner. Therefore, Rajputs were not ready to perform rites even after her death or observe mourning. King Bhoj thought that what right did Akbar has to force upon us such rites and ask us to cut our hair.
For every Rajput, mustaches was a sign of his honour, pride and manliness. They used to be ready to even sacrifice their lives to save their mustaches. On the other hand, Akbar was bent upon insulting Rajputs in every possible way and wanted to make them helpless. Akbar was very particular about others obeying his orders and their bowing before him. Akbar thought it very insulting that Rajputs were not ready to perform rites for Jodhabai as she was his slave. He, therefore, tried, by hook or by crook, to make Rajputs perform the rites; but his plan did not succeed.
Even today, the thought of marrying one’s daughter to aJihadiis loathsome
For the past 60 years, Hindi film industry has this bad habit of showing allJihadicharacters as very chivalrous. Now even a very depraved king like Akbar is being glorified. It has been 402 years since Akbar’s death; but even now, a Hindu father would not be ready to marry of his daughter to a Muslim. Such thought is very loathsome for a Hindu even today. How bad it must have been even earlier? Hindus have to now decide whether they want to believe in a so-called love story produced by a film producer with his eyes only on earning money or have faith in the proven history told by a virtuous person and protect our women folk.
Akbar’s name was actually Jalaluddin Mohamad and as the name suggests he was fiery. When barely 18-19 years of age he got Behramkhan, the very man who had brought him to power, murdered because he was lusting for Behramkhan’s wife. So with his murder the path was clear to take Khan’s wife to his harem. The monarch of Jaipur Bhagwandas accepted his sovereignty and gave the hand of his sister, who it is said was named Jodhabai in marriage to Akbar. There is also some confusion regarding the words Jodhbai and and Jodhabai. One of them is associated with Akbar and the other with his son Salim (Jahangir).
Akbar the brute who molested several Hindu princesses !
The great India historian who can be equated to a sage, Shri P.N. Oak has written a well researched book titled ‘Akbar Thor nhavtaach’ meaning Akbar was certainly not great. This book elucidates many misdeeds of Akbar. So Jodha Akbar is only one aspect of misdeeds of Akbar of grabbing Hindu women.
Oak writes, ‘Even an ordinary person with no knowledge of Indian history could say that it was impossible for Akbar to marry a Rajput princess. Even the most ordinary Hindu man would prefer Hindu women to die instead of them being captured by Muslims. To save the honour of their women Rajputs even gave up their lives. So it is absurd to say that a Rajput king chose Akbar belonging to another country and who always remained in his harem drinking wine and smoking opium, as an ideal suitor for his daughter.
One of the reasons for the deadly hatred of the Kshatriya kings for Akbar was his lust for their beautiful women. Akbar had also developed the superiority complex that he would become the emperor by abducting their women and by way of his being a Muslim.
In fact everyJihadiyouth even if he be poor always dreams of abducting a Hindu girl.They think this is a praiseworthy act. Islam teaches its followers that aJihadihas every right to snatch away everything from a kafir. And it does not end at that. They abduct the Hindu girl and oppressing the kafirs force them to embrace Islam. This is their ultimate objective.
Akbar being a powerfulJihadihe thought it was his duty to use as many women from Hindu kingly families as possible. In fact he was convinced that he was entitled to abducting Hindu women more than other women firstly because he was an emperor and secondly because he was a Muslim.
In this way Akbar began to fill his harem with Rajput women. Is it not important to substantiate whether the bride had formally accepted the groom, whether they were engaged formally, the names of the Rajput princesses, whether the bride’s relatives attended the wedding, whether families of both the bride and groom were invited to the wedding, whether the wedding was held in the Hindu style with the antarpat and akshata, whether the bride’s family had sent out invitations, whether the wedding procession had taken the chief royal road and whether banquets were being organised for months together to entertain people of all levels from the groom’s darbar ? It is absolute foolishness that without even little evidence the claim is made that a Hindu princess married Akbar.’
Threat of destroying the Hindu kingdom if the princess was not handed over to him !
How false and deluding the historical claim that the monarch of Jaipur happily consented to the marriage of his daughter to Akbar is is described by Shri Oak thus, ‘An average history book narrates this incident as - the 19 year old poor Akbar who had come to pay homage at the dargah of the fakir Moinuddin Chisti with pure, religious emotion halted on the way to Ajmer at the Sambhar village .Here King Bharmalla of Jaipur came to greet him and pleaded with him to marry his daughter as if it were a great opportunity that he seized to grab this excellentJihadiyouth emperor crossing his territory, as a suitor for his daughter. Bharmalla is believed to have pleaded with him saying, “I would be elated if you would accept my daughter as your bride. Then I will no longer remain in her debt.” And it is projected that Akbar married her as a favour on the king (actually he oppressed her in his harem).
The average reader and historian both think that the above story is true. However even the average reader will be able to substantiate the falsity of the above untrue story. It is sheer madness to believe that a Rajput king got his daughter married to Akbar ( or for that matter that other Rajput princesses marriedJihadiemperors/sultans) when it is well known how Rajputs would do anything, even wage wars or kill their women to prevent them from being captured by the Muslims!
Let us see why King Bharmalla had to surrender to Akbar. The lesson in Ashirvadilal Srivastav’s book (pg 61 -63) says :-“ A commander from Akbar’s army, Sharfuddin attacked Bharmalla’s kingdom time and again and created terror. Falling prey to such attacks Bharmalla had to accept defeat. Sharfuddin captured three Rajput princes, Sangar, Rajsingh and Jagannath who retaliated this attack and imprisoned them. At Sambhar using Islamic tactics of attack they treated them cruelly, even threatened to kill them. To save these princes King Bharmalla was compelled to sacrifice his daughter to these sex-lorn Muslims.Usually men were not allowed to see even the hands or feet of the beautiful Rajput women . When they were given so much protection by their men would a Rajput father hand over his own daughter to an unjust, cruelJihadi? Certainly not. Because this was akin to a man handing over his family cow to a Jihadibutcher. King Bharmalla had to finally surrender unto Akbar as he had no alternative and could no longer bear the destruction of his kingdom. Bharmalla was compelled to submit to all the conditions laid down by Akbar and handing over his daughter to Akbar was a part of that treaty. Only then were the three captive princes released .”
Let us now acquaint ourselves with the credentials of Shri Ashirvadilal Srivastav, the author of ‘Akbar the Great’. He was the head of department of history at the Agra University and has three doctorates to his credit . In his book in some places Shri Oak has already made a reference to this book.
It was not a wedding, rather a dacoity !
Further Shri Oak says, ‘Along with the daughter as per the treaty Bharmalla was compelled to gift Akbar with hundred elephants, thousand horses, gold , silver, jewels, etc. It was done only so that Akbar would not kill the three princes. In his book Srivastav has also recorded that when Akbar’s army was approaching Sambhar the entire village of Devsa on the way was deserted and fear-ridden. This proves that Akbar’s army had unleashed terror by looting, plundering and murdering the villagers and raping their women. This army was certainly not a happy marriage procession with music, etc. AJihadicalled Chagatikhan was nominated by Bharmalla to strike a compromise with Akbar. If these were talks regarding marriage then would the Rajput king select aJihadimediator for such an auspicious cause ?After Bharmalla’s surrender in this manner Akbar commanded Sharfuddin to attack another Rajput kingdom of Medta. If this were a marriage then would he attack another Rajput kingdom in the same way ?
By abducting Rajput princesses and taking them to his harem Akbar certainly did not insist on calling it a wedding. In fact he could not care less whether the darbar recorded it as a wedding or not.’
Why are details on the marriage of a Hindu girl not available ?
When giving the causes for inability to trace the names of Rajput princesses along with Jodhabai ,Shri Oak writes, ‘It was impossible to call this abduction a marriage from the side of Rajputs because no religious ritual was performed. Besides, the sanskar of Vivaha with the abductors was next to impossible. The kings had no option but to let go of their daughters akin to one caught in a crocodile’s jaw be it by head or foot. In this way like hungry crocodiles theJihadiattackers held the kings to ransom . So they had no alternative but to let go of their women- daughters, sisters, mothers, etc. They had lost their valour to give up their lives to protect the chastity of these women. The Rajputs did not realise where down the line they lost their courage, their warrior radiance. They would give up the woman and then out of shame never utter her name again saying that now “she was dead for them”. As even uttering the name of a kafir was a sin for the fickle- minded Muslims, in theJihadidarbar the Hindu girl would be projected as aJihadiby changing her name. In this way these unfortunate Hindu women’s names were wiped out from both sides and never remained on record That is why history only has records of abduction of Hindu princesses from Basvada, Dongarpur, Jaipur, Jodhpur and other kingdoms to the harems of so-and-soJihadisultan or emperor. No details about their names , family, date of abduction, perpetrator, etc. are on record. This alone is sufficient to testify that this was not a marriage. YetJihadiprotagonist teachers and professors from the very beginning have quietly fed this falsity down the generations in such a way that none has dared to oppose this. See how useless our historians who have studied this history are.
Kalyanmalla was the monarch of Bikaner. His brother Kahan’s daughter had to be gifted to Akbar and him as a darbar hostage.But he was so obese that he could not even ride a horse because of which he was permitted to return to Bikaner. Till date historians have not dared to project to the world how all this was a type of slavery. The abducted princesses were not only oppressed in theJihadiharems but also to prevent the Rajput kings from revolting against them theirJihadiperpetrators would keep those kings and their sons in theJihadicapital darbar under strict vigilance.’
Post a Comment