Here’s another twist to the Jodhaa Akbar
Tuesday, February 19th, 2008 7:44 am
Here’s another twist to the ‘Jodhaa Akbar’ yarn, after Ashutosh Gowariker’s film released countrywide. Vaishyas have charged the filmmaker that he has not taken note of the existence of Hemu, the warrior-ruler who not only went on a spree of conquests over Mughals but also ascended to Delhi’s throne in 1556 under the name Vikramaditya.
The Vaishyas argue that Hemu was from their caste (and not a Brahmin). They also claim that Akbar captured Hemu by deceit during the second battle of Panipat and the Mughal king either himself beheaded the captive or asked Bairam Khan to do so.
The Vaishya sabha said Akbar was a “shrewd diplomat” as he had 400 wives, 4,000 ‘patranis’, unaccounted ‘mutta’ (temporary) wives and was also responsible for forcing over 4,000 Rajputana women to perform ‘jauhar’ (suicide by jumping into fire). “And then Akbar the great is portrayed being so deeply in love with Jodhaa”. Leading Aligarh Muslim University historian Shirin Moosvi has said that Jodhaa never existed — at least there is no account of her in ‘Akbarnama’, and the name Jodhaa Bai became popular after the release of ‘Mughal-e-Azam’ in 1960.
“Unfortunately, Hemu, the unsung hero of medieval Indian history, hasn’t been a darling of Indian historians. Was it because his father was not a ruler but a petty food trader? Or was it because he was not a prince but a simple merchant?” The Vaishya sabha, which is running a campaign to restore Hemu’s glory, has demanded that the ruler’s statue be erected in front of Lal Qila. Some historical accounts show that after Hemu was killed, his head was sent to Kabul as a mark of victory and his torso was exposed on a gibbet (gallows) in Delhi.
One of Akbar’s military chiefs, Iskandar Khan, is said to have chased Hemu’s army and captured a large contingent of elephants, while Pir Mohammad Khan’s troops went after Hemu’s wife who escaped from Delhi. Thousands of those captured by the Mughal armies were said to have been slaughtered and a victory stand built with their severed heads.
The salvo has been fired by the Vaishyas and they charge that the filmmaker hasn’t even taken note of the existence of Hemu, the warrior-ruler who not only went on a spree of conquests over Mughals but also ascended to Delhi’s throne in 1556 under the name Vikramaditya.
February 27th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Hindu King ‘Samrat Hem Chander Vikramaditya’ is shown in the movie in shabby manner as described by Mugal writers in Akbarnama and Aaneakbari. Hemu or Hemu Vikramaditya had gone to the war after winning 22 battles spanning the entire North india, and was a likely winner. But the director of the film shows him as if he is the villen. The entire commentry by Amitabh Bachchan commends and pampers the Mugals and Akbar.
To cater to his Muslim audiences in different countries, the director delibrately pampers Akbar and shows Hemu degraded.Akbar and Bairam Khan were afraid of Hemu’s might and had not participated in the battle at Panipat.They were stationed at a distance of some 15 Kilo Metres from Panipat under instructions to run away to Kabul if their Army lost the war. However, the director of the movie has shown Akbar and Bairam Khan in the war-zone, and Bairam Khan fighting with a sword. Such untruth and wrongs leave a bad taste of the movie and raises questions on the intentions of the director.