Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Hemu

Hemu (c. 1501 – 5 November 1556), born Hemchandra Bhargava into a family in Rajasthan's , was a Hindu general under the Sur dynasty who rose from humble trading origins to military prominence, ultimately proclaiming himself emperor of as after capturing the city from forces in October 1556. Serving initially as a supplier and administrator for Afghan rulers, Hemu commanded armies that secured victories across northern India, defeating Afghan rebels from to and repelling early incursions under . Exploiting the power vacuum following Humayun's death in early 1556, Hemu led Sur forces to seize and then on 7 October, routing the Mughal governor Tardi Beg in a decisive that killed nearly 3,000 enemy soldiers, after which he assumed the throne in the as the second ruler titled , marking the last Hindu sovereignty over for over three centuries. His rapid ascent culminated in a string of 22 consecutive battlefield triumphs against combined and opposition, showcasing tactical prowess with war elephants and that briefly halted expansion. However, Hemu's reign ended abruptly less than a month later at the Second Battle of Panipat on 5 November 1556, where an arrow to the eye felled him during combat against the 13-year-old Akbar's forces under regent , leading to his capture, beheading, and the reassertion of Mughal dominance; Persian chronicles like the , penned by victors' courtiers, minimized his achievements while Hindu nationalist interpretations later elevated him as a symbol of resistance against foreign conquest.

Early Life

Origins and Family

Hemu was born around 1501 CE in the area of , now in modern , though some accounts place his birthplace in the nearby Machheri village near in . His family belonged to the trading class, with his father, referred to as Puran Das or Rai Puran Mal, engaged in commerce involving salt, saltpetre, or provisions, which he supplied to military forces during the . This humble mercantile background necessitated Hemu assisting in street vending of saltpetre in to support the household after early hardships. Persian chronicles from the period, such as those under patronage, depict Hemu originating from modest Hindu merchant roots without reference to , portraying his ascent as stemming from administrative acumen in oversight and provisioning rather than hereditary . Later regional and nationalist interpretations have contested his social origins, assigning him affiliations ranging from Bania or trading castes—consistent with empirical trade evidence—to retrospective claims of or descent, often to align with post-colonial identity narratives rather than primary records. These debates underscore a lack of specification in contemporary sources, prioritizing instead his self-reliant progression in a dominated by Muslim rulers. Brought up in a amid territories under Sur and earlier control, Hemu's early environment fostered resilience and practical skills, enabling his transition from trader to state functionary without reliance on royal or warrior pedigree. This foundation highlights a merit-driven trajectory atypical for rulers of the era, countering dismissals rooted in presumed low social standing by affirming verifiable commercial proficiency as the basis for his later prominence.

Entry into Service

Hemu, originating from a modest family in (present-day ), transitioned into imperial service by leveraging his commercial expertise in commodities like saltpetre, which were vital for military provisioning. Introduced to the court through connections with local traders, he began contracting supplies for the Afghan rulers of the Sur dynasty during the 1540s, initially under (r. 1545–1554), Sher Shah's successor. This mercantile role evolved into formal administrative duties, including oversight of market operations as shahna-i-bazar (market superintendent), where he managed pricing, distribution, and revenue from bazaars to support state finances and army logistics. His reliability in ensuring uninterrupted supply chains during campaigns—despite lacking lineage—earned him incremental trust and promotions within the Sur , such as roles in revenue collection and supervision. These early positions highlighted Hemu's acumen in logistical coordination, drawing on networks to mitigate shortages in , ammunition precursors, and other essentials, thereby proving indispensable to the empire's operational continuity amid internal rivalries.

Rise in the Sur Empire

Administrative Roles

Hemu initially entered administrative service under (r. 1545–1554), where he functioned as a consultant on critical matters of state, contributing to the governance of the 's extensive territories extending from to . His roles included oversight of intelligence and postal systems, which facilitated efficient information flow and administrative coordination across the realm. Following Islam Shah's death, Hemu advanced under (r. 1554–1556), who appointed him wakil, or , entrusting him with comprehensive advisory duties that encompassed the empire's day-to-day operations. In this capacity, Hemu handled key bureaucratic functions, including and diplomatic relations, drawing on the centralized administrative framework established by , which emphasized revenue collection and provincial oversight. As a Hindu serving Muslim rulers, Hemu's pragmatic approach prioritized effective and loyalty to the state over religious or ethnic divisions, enabling his elevation despite prevailing biases in elite circles.

Initial Military Engagements

Hemu's initial military engagements under the focused on suppressing rebellions by disaffected nobles and factions in the region, the fertile tract between the and rivers, where local warlords challenged central authority following Sher Shah Suri's death in 1545. As a rising commander under (r. 1545–1553), Hemu directed forces employing the Sur dynasty's advancements in and firearms, originally systematized by Sher Shah to counter cavalry tactics. These innovations allowed for effective bombardment and suppression of rebel strongholds in dispersed skirmishes, prioritizing mobility and firepower over prolonged sieges. By 1553, Hemu's campaigns had extended eastward to , where he quelled uprisings against Sur governors, securing victories through coordinated assaults that integrated war elephants for shock charges alongside artillery support. Elephants, numbering in the hundreds for such operations, disrupted enemy formations and provided elevated platforms for archers and light guns, a tactic empirically validated in prior Sur victories like those against . These successes, undocumented in precise counts from contemporary chronicles but corroborated in later historical analyses, numbered among the early components of Hemu's reported 22 pitched battles against rebels, fostering temporary cohesion amid the empire's internal fractures. This undefeated streak in initial confrontations highlighted Hemu's reliance on —infantry screening , cavalry pursuits, and elephant-led breakthroughs—rather than sheer numerical superiority, setting precedents for his tactical evolution without reliance on unverified hagiographic claims. Primary accounts, such as those derived from the , emphasize these foundations while reflecting Mughal retrospection, yet the causal efficacy of Sur gunpowder integration remains evident in the quelled insurgencies.

Ascendancy to Power

Political Instability Post-Islam Shah

Islam Shah Suri's death on 22 October 1554 triggered immediate succession turmoil within the , as his young son Firuz Shah, aged approximately twelve, was installed as ruler but swiftly assassinated by the courtier Mubariz (also known as Qutb ), who seized the throne as Muhammad Adil . Adil Shah's tenure from late 1554 to mid-1556 exemplified feeble governance, dominated by indulgence in luxuries and dissipation, which eroded administrative efficacy and . Efforts to appease fractious nobles through profuse grants of jagirs and honors proved insufficient, fostering instead a climate of betrayal and rivalry that fragmented loyalties across the empire's Pashtun power base. This internal decay manifested in proliferating rebellions, with provincial governors like those in and declaring independence or aligning with rivals, effectively dismantling the centralized control Sher Shah had established and leaving northern in a state of balkanized by 1556. Amid this dissolution following Shah's death in May 1556, Hemu—a non-dynastic Hindu who had risen to command significant forces under the Surs—exploited the ensuing void by redirecting resources toward personal command structures, eschewing allegiance to transient figures like in favor of operational mastery over , , and supply lines to consolidate effective authority.

Victories Leading to Delhi

In the wake of Humayun's death on 27 January 1556, the faced internal disarray, providing an opportunity for the Sur remnants to regroup. , seeking to stem the Mughal resurgence, appointed Hemu to lead a campaign against their forces in northern . Leveraging his prior administrative experience in provisioning armies, Hemu mobilized a substantial force estimated at 50,000 and 500 war elephants, enabling swift logistical support across contested territories. Hemu's initial target was , a key stronghold recently under their control following Humayun's reconquest. He besieged and captured the city with minimal resistance, defeating the local governor and securing vital supply routes that facilitated further advances. This success at , achieved through coordinated artillery and infantry assaults, marked the beginning of his rapid territorial gains in the fall of 1556. Advancing toward , Hemu confronted the Mughal vanguard commanded by Tardi Beg at Tughlaqabad on 7 1556. Despite Tardi Beg's defensive position near the fort, Hemu's army exploited numerical superiority—outnumbering the s by at least three to one—and launched a surprise envelopment, shattering the enemy lines within a single day of fighting. Approximately 3,000 soldiers perished, and Tardi Beg fled the field, later meeting his death at the hands of pursuing forces. The triumph at Tughlaqabad enabled Hemu to occupy unopposed, consolidating control over the imperial capital. These conquests formed part of a documented series of 22 victories Hemu secured between 1553 and 1556, primarily against rebellious Afghan chieftains challenging Sur authority from to , as well as select engagements with detachments. His mastery of supply chains, honed from roles managing grain markets and under , underpinned the speed and sustainability of these campaigns, allowing sustained momentum without overextension.

Reign as Vikramaditya

Coronation and Title Adoption

Following his victory over Mughal forces at the Battle of Delhi on 7 October 1556, Hemu entered the city and conducted a formal coronation ceremony at Purana Qila, where he proclaimed himself emperor. During this self-initiated rajyabhishek, he adopted the regal title Vikramaditya, evoking the legacy of ancient Indian monarchs such as Chandragupta II of the Gupta Empire, who bore the epithet to signify valor and solar sovereignty. The full adopted name, Hem Chandra Vikramaditya, reflected a deliberate invocation of pre-Islamic imperial nomenclature, absent from Delhi's throne since the early 13th century. This act positioned Hemu as the first Hindu sovereign to rule in approximately 350 years, succeeding the Muslim-dominated established by in 1206. The ceremony, performed with traditional Hindu rites in the presence of Afghan and military leaders, underscored a transient of kingship amid the Sur Empire's collapse. Contemporary Persian chronicles, such as those drawing from Abbas Sarwani's Tarikh-i-Sher Shahi, note the title's conferral earlier by as Vikramajit for administrative roles, but its elevation to full imperial status post- conquest marked Hemu's independent assertion of authority. Hemu's adoption of the , rather than a Muslim , aligned with merit-driven consolidation of power from diverse Hindu soldiery, bypassing rigid hierarchies in favor of . Later accounts like Abu'l-Fazl's minimize the event's legitimacy by emphasizing Hemu's humble origins, yet corroborate the title's use in coinage and official proclamations issued from . This brief assertion of Hindu imperial symbolism contrasted with prevailing Indo-Persian norms, highlighting a causal pivot toward revived native before reconquest.

Governance and Policies

Hemu's brief tenure as focused primarily on reorganization to underpin administrative , drawing upon the Sur Empire's established systems for revenue assessment and judicial administration without introducing novel reforms amid ongoing threats. Historical accounts note that he retained the zabt revenue measurement practices pioneered by , which prioritized land surveys for fair taxation to fund campaigns and maintain order in recaptured territories like and . In justice matters, continuity with Sur precedents ensured local qazis and officials handled disputes efficiently, though no specific edicts from Hemu survive due to the abbreviated nature of his rule and the destruction of records following his defeat. To foster loyalty among troops, Hemu favored the appointment of Hindu officials in key roles, replacing some captains with trusted Hindu commanders, while pragmatically retaining Muslim soldiers integral to his Sur-inherited army of approximately 50,000 and ; this selective preferment secured cohesion without alienating diverse ranks essential for battlefield efficacy. Such measures reflected causal in balancing ethnic favoritism for core allegiance against the need for broad troop tolerance, as evidenced by the multi-confessional composition of forces that enabled his rapid conquests prior to . Hemu outlined expansionist policies targeting to neutralize Mughal remnants under Humayun's heirs, intending to march westward after consolidating northern , a plan documented in Mughal chronicles but aborted by the confrontation. These efforts prioritized empirical stabilization through decisive action over speculative institutional overhauls, aligning with his background in Sur where efficiency in supply and command proved pivotal.

Fall at Panipat

Strategic Preparations

By late October 1556, following his capture of on October 7, Hemu rapidly assembled a substantial to the advancing forces under , comprising approximately 30,000 cavalry, including and horsemen, supported by 1,500 armored war and an train. Estimates of total strength vary, with some contemporary accounts citing up to horsemen and additional numbering over , drawn from remnants, local levies, and allies bribed into loyalty. This force composition emphasized shock tactics via elephant charges and firepower, reflecting Hemu's prior successes against fragmented detachments like Tardi Beg's at . Hemu opted for a defensive posture near , entrenching his army on open plains familiar from prior battles, with forming the and positioned for enfilade fire, while reserving select for flanking maneuvers. This positioning aimed to leverage numerical superiority and terrain to blunt advances, yet it underestimated Bairam Khan's resolve to press a rapid offensive despite Akbar's youth and recent losses, as Hemu anticipated internal discord would delay a cohesive response. lapses compounded this, with Hemu failing to fully account for Bairam Khan's of Timurid tactics and reinforced defenses, drawn from Babur's earlier playbook, which neutralized rushes. Central to Hemu's preparations was an overreliance on personal oversight, as he planned to command directly from an elephant-mounted platform, a model that concentrated decision-making but introduced systemic vulnerability in pre-modern warfare where leader incapacitation often triggered routs among less cohesive forces. Lacking robust delegated command structures—unlike the Mughals' layered regency under —Hemu's setup prioritized his tactical acumen, honed from 22 victories, over distributed authority, a causal risk evident in historical precedents where autocratic field leadership faltered against opportunistic strikes.

The Second Battle and Defeat

The Second Battle of Panipat took place on November 5, 1556, pitting Hemu's forces against the army led by under the nominal command of . Hemu's army comprised approximately 50,000 , substantial , and 1,500 war elephants, significantly outnumbering the Mughals' roughly 10,000 , including 5,000 seasoned veterans. Hemu initiated the battle with an aggressive using his elephant corps, which initially disrupted Mughal lines and provided his side an advantage. The Mughals countered with archery volleys and cavalry maneuvers, exploiting the vulnerabilities of elephant charges against mobile horse archers. Riding his personal to direct operations, Hemu was struck in the eye by an , rendering him unconscious; the projectile reportedly exited through the back of his head. This injury triggered a , causing Hemu's heterogeneous forces—composed of diverse elements like and Rajputs—to panic and disintegrate rapidly. While the arrow incident is highlighted in historical accounts as pivotal, the swift collapse underscores deeper tactical shortcomings, including overreliance on personal command without robust deputy structures and the limitations of massed tactics against disciplined, cohesive formations. The Mughals' superior unit cohesion and tactical adaptability ultimately secured their victory despite the numerical disparity.

Death and Aftermath

Execution Details

Following his capture during the on , 1556, Hemu—unconscious from a severe arrow wound to the eye—was brought before the 14-year-old and his regent . , seeking to confer upon the title of (slayer of an ), urged the young emperor to strike the fatal blow. reportedly hesitated and refused, citing the captive's defenseless state, prompting to behead Hemu himself. chronicles such as the attribute the execution to under 's direction, emphasizing the ritual to legitimize restoration, though variant accounts highlight 's reluctance. Hemu's head was severed and dispatched to for display, while his torso was gibbeted—hung on a pole—and publicly exhibited at the gate in as a warning to potential rebels. This desecration underscored the conquerors' assertion of dominance, with no recorded overtures for Hemu's prior to death in primary narratives.

Short-Term Consequences

Following Hemu's defeat on November 5, 1556, forces under swiftly reoccupied and , dispersing the remnants of Hemu's army and preventing immediate organized counterattacks. This victory entrenched Akbar's nominal authority at age 14, with as regent enforcing loyalty among nobles and eliminating potential defectors through executions and purges. Mughal campaigns in 1557 targeted surviving Sur dynasty leaders, including the capture and execution of Muhammad Adil Shah Suri, the final claimant to the Afghan Sur throne, thereby eradicating structured opposition from former Sur territories in northern India. Localized resistance from Hemu's Hindu and Afghan supporters, including holdouts in forts like Gwalior, was methodically suppressed, quelling short-lived uprisings and securing the Gangetic plains for Mughal administration. The collapse of Hemu's centralized and systems—derived from Sur efficiencies—introduced administrative disruptions, as Mughals reimposed their own fiscal mechanisms amid disrupted collections and noble rivalries, fostering that persisted until assumed direct control around 1560. This transitional phase nonetheless facilitated initial eastward probes against residual Afghan groups, laying groundwork for broader expansion without facing unified Hindu-led opposition.

Historical Assessment

Military Achievements

Hemu secured 22 consecutive victories from 1553 to 1556 as the Sur Empire's chief military commander under , campaigns chronicled in Persian histories including the by and accounts by Badauni. These engagements suppressed Afghan rebellions across , extending from to , and included defeats of forces at and . His forces demonstrated tactical proficiency through the combined deployment of war elephants, reserves, and early pieces, enabling breakthroughs against numerically superior or disorganized foes. In the 1555 Battle of Chhapparghatta, for example, Hemu employed elephant-led charges backed by to rout an under Muhammad Khan Sur. Similarly, at Tughlaqabad in 1556, aggressive maneuvers with elephant-mounted troops and infantry overwhelmed defenders, securing after minimal losses. These empirically verified successes, achieved without major defeats prior to , highlight Hemu's effectiveness in leveraging in an era of fragmented warfare, sustaining Sur territorial integrity against Afghan warlords and Timurid challengers.

Critiques from Contemporary Sources

Abu'l-Fazl, in the , portrays Hemu as a rebellious upstart whose "ambition of " ignited after defeating Mughal governor Tardi Beg Khan's forces outside on October 7, 1556, framing his subsequent as an illegitimate grasp for power that necessitated through Akbar's victory. This official Mughal chronicle further labels Hemu an "evilly-ending miscreant," emphasizing his challenge to Timurid legitimacy while omitting the empirical basis of his rise through meritocratic service under Afghan Suri rulers, where he commanded armies against internal rebellions from onward. Abdul Qadir Badauni, in Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh, echoes this disparagement by detailing Hemu's formidable but presumptuous host—1,000 war elephants, 50,000 cavalry, and 51 cannons—at on November 5, 1556, yet attributes his defeat to valor rather than strategic parity, accusing him implicitly of in exploiting Humayun's death on January 26, 1556, to betray prior allegiances. Such accounts, produced by court historians beholden to Akbar's regime, systematically undervalue Hemu's verifiable loyalty to until that ruler's demise on May 22, 1556, during which he quelled 22 successive campaigns against dissidents, a even these sources partially corroborate to the posed. Afghan-oriented chroniclers proffered narrower rebukes, centering on Hemu's lack of dynastic pedigree; Ahmad Yadgar, in his history of rulers, notes that Hemu "raised the royal canopy over him and ordered coin to be struck in his name" with nominal assent post-Adil Shah, but critiques this as vaulting overreach by a non-royal Hindu general amid succession chaos, lacking the hereditary sanction expected in Turko- polities. These texts, while less vituperative than ones, reflect factional bias toward noble lineages, deriding Hemu's merchant origins in —sarcastically dubbing him "Hemu Bakkal" (grocer)—and causal realism of his ascent via proven generalship rather than birthright.

Legacy in Modern Historiography

In modern historiography, Hemu has frequently been sidelined in accounts that prioritize the Empire's establishment under , aligning with a narrative that underscores Akbar's policies of while downplaying empirical indicators of Hemu's brief but assertive Hindu-led revival in northern India during 1556. -era sources, such as Abul Fazl's , portrayed Hemu derogatorily as a low-born usurper despite acknowledging his administrative acumen and spirited resistance, a perspective echoed in colonial interpretations that relied heavily on chronicles and marginalized Hindu . This selective emphasis persists in post-independence textbooks influenced by a secular , where Hemu's victories—documented in and Suri records—are subordinated to the broader arc of consolidation, obscuring causal links between his campaigns and potential disruptions to Turko-Mongol expansion. Twentieth-century nationalist , drawing on primary accounts and administrative evidence, reframed Hemu as the final Hindu to claim Delhi's , emphasizing his self-adopted Vikramaditya and reforms as emblematic of merit-based resurgence against alien rule rather than mere inter-dynastic rivalry. Historians in this vein critiqued earlier Mughal-centric biases for undervaluing Hemu's strategic disruptions, such as his recapture of and in October 1556, which briefly halted Babur's lineage and restored temple-based governance patterns observed in contemporary reports. This reassessment privileges verifiable military outcomes over hagiographic imperial narratives, positioning Hemu's tenure as a factual to claims of inevitable . Contemporary regional studies, particularly from and , alongside digital platforms, have amplified Hemu's legacy as a paradigm of anti-invasion tenacity, citing his unbroken string of 22 engagements from 1553 to 1556 as grounded proof of indigenous capability independent of caste or elite origins. These interpretations counter institutional historiographical tendencies—often shaped by academia's preferential sourcing of courtly Persian texts—by cross-referencing chronicles like the Tarikh-i Salatini Afghana to underscore Hemu's role in galvanizing Hindu forces prior to the Second Battle of Panipat on November 5, 1556. Such views, while sometimes charged with ideological fervor, align with causal analyses of how Hemu's defeat enabled entrenchment, prompting calls for balanced empirical reevaluation over narrative conformity.

Debates on Identity and Significance

Historians debate Hemu's caste origins, with primary accounts identifying him as a Vaishya from a merchant family in Rewari, involved in saltpeter trade, though some later traditions link him to Banjara nomadic groups or even Gaur Brahmin lineages; his self-adoption of the Kshatriya-evoking title Vikramaditya upon coronation in October 1556 reflected aspirational symbolism rather than verified genealogy. Such disputes, often amplified in modern caste-conscious narratives, fail to explain his empirical successes, as Hemu's command of 22 consecutive victories stemmed from tactical acumen and administrative merit under the Suri regime, where fluid alliances prioritized competence over birth—evidencing a meritocratic dynamic that transcended varna rigidities in 16th-century northern India. Hemu's Hindu identity, rooted in Vedic cultural practices, coexisted with pragmatic service to Muslim rulers like , whom he advised as from circa 1553; this duality underscores causal realism in pre-modern politics, where loyalty aligned with patronage rather than sectarian purity, yet his 1556 Delhi conquest prompted immediate revival of Hindu kingship motifs, including the epithet and Purana Qila enthronement, positioning him as a restorer of indigenous rule after over three centuries of Turkic-Afghan dominance. The significance of Hemu's brief reign divides scholars: Mughal-centric chronicles, such as those compiled under , minimize him as an ephemeral usurper whose fall in November reaffirmed imperial destiny, but empirical analysis reveals a deeper causal imprint, as his and captures in imperiled the 14-year-old Akbar's fledgling empire, forcing resource-strapped Mughals into a high-stakes pivot that tested and tempered their resilience; far from a mere "," Hemu thus archetypes proto-national resistance to foreign conquest, seeding historiographic motifs of merit-driven Hindu agency against expansionist dynasties in later discourses.

References

  1. [1]
    Hemchandra Vikramaditya: Life and Times Overview - SRIRAM's IAS
    Apr 22, 2024 · Born in 1501 in Machri village in Rajasthan's Alwar district, Hemu rose from modest beginnings to achieve remarkable feats in the turbulent period.
  2. [2]
    Samrat Hem Chandra Vikramaditya: A military genius who won 22 ...
    Nov 5, 2020 · Hemu was a ruler who won twenty-two battles in barbaric medieval times, ruled Delhi and was the chief character of Second Battle of Panipat.
  3. [3]
    Hemu: A National Freedom Fighter & the Hero of 2nd battle of Panipat
    Hemu was one of the greatest freedom fighters in the annals of Indian history, who struggled hard against the foreign rulers. In short, Hemu was a man of ideas ...
  4. [4]
    1556: Hemu | Executed Today
    Nov 5, 2013 · Hemu was the first Hindu emperor in 350 years, but he only held the position for a month. The new emperor again met Akbar (and Akbar's regent ...<|separator|>
  5. [5]
    Hemu Vikramaditya: Hindu Emperor Who Ruled Delhi During ...
    Jun 3, 2019 · After his 22nd victory on 7th October, 1556, in which he defeated Tardi Beg Khan of Humayun's army, he crowned himself as the emperor of Delhi ...
  6. [6]
    Hemu Facts for Kids
    Oct 17, 2025 · He won 22 battles against Afghan rebels and Mughal forces. He even defeated Akbar's army in the Battle of Delhi on October 7, 1556. After this ...
  7. [7]
    Hemu, the Ephemeral Sultan of Medieval India - Ithihas
    Apr 22, 2021 · Hence Hemu had to sell salt in the streets of Rewari to support his family. Later he went to Delhi and became a weighman and in due course a ...
  8. [8]
    Who was Samrat Hem Chandra Vikramaditya? Why did he ... - Quora
    Apr 29, 2023 · The son of a food seller, and himself a vendor of saltpetre at Rewari in his youth, he rose to become Chief of Army and Prime Minister, under ...<|separator|>
  9. [9]
    https://www.anahada.com/blog/2016/10/29/hemu-bania-last-native-emperor-of-india/
  10. [10]
    [PDF] Hemu-The Indian Meteor - ijrpr
    ABSTRACT: Hemu, or Hem Chandra Vikramaditya, remains one of the most enigmatic and compelling figures in 16th-century Indian history. Rising from humble origins ...
  11. [11]
    [PDF] Warf are in Pre-British India - 1500 BCE to 17 40 CE - Apna.org
    After 1526, Hemu's family migrated from Narnaul to Rewari. Hemu was introduced to the Afghan. Sultan Islam Shah Suri by a modi at Delhi. Islam Shah appointed ...
  12. [12]
    The Sur Empire: Sher Shah's administration- Part II - self study history
    Jan 28, 2015 · Opportunities for the Hindus broadened till under Adali, a successors of Islam Shah, Hemu, who had started official life as a shuhna of the ...<|separator|>
  13. [13]
    Sur dynasty | Biography, History, & Facts - Britannica
    Oct 2, 2025 · Sūr dynasty, Afghan family that ruled in northern India from 1540 to 1556. Its founder, Shēr Shah of Sūr, was descended from an Afghan adventurer.Missing: management | Show results with:management
  14. [14]
    Sher Shah Suri and His Contributions: Architect of an Empire
    May 29, 2025 · His administration increasingly employed Hindus in revenue roles, broadening the state's social base—a trend that culminated in Hemu's rise to ...
  15. [15]
    [PDF] a short history of - muslim rule in india - Mchistelibrary
    powerful officials so that they may try their best to. Irefrain from cruelty and oppression in their jurisdiction. -SHER SHAH. PUBLISHED BY. THE INDIAN PRESS ...
  16. [16]
    Second Battle of Panipat (1556) | Panipat, Haryana | India
    Samrat Hem Chandra Vikramaditya or Hemu was a Hindu emperor in Delhi by virtue of defeating Akbar/Humanyun's army in Battle for Delhi. Hemu belonged to Rewari ...
  17. [17]
    Tomb Of Islam Shah Suri - Indian Vagabond
    Oct 18, 2023 · With the sudden tragic death of Sher Shah Suri on 22nd May 1545 the Suri empire saw a sudden void of any true leader. During his death, none of ...
  18. [18]
    Successors of Sher Shah | Mughul Dynasty | India - History Discussion
    Feroz Shah and Muhammad Adil Shah—The Fall of the Sur-Empire: The unity of the Sur-empire was destroyed just after the death of Islam Shah and that paved the ...Missing: instability | Show results with:instability<|separator|>
  19. [19]
    Last Rulers of Suri Dynasty - Notes on Indian History
    Jul 1, 2019 · Adali was a king who indulged in pleasure, neglecting state affairs. Shortly after his reign began, rebellions erupted throughout the kingdom.
  20. [20]
    Disintegration of the Sur Empire - ASHA: Blast From The Past
    Apr 24, 2021 · On 30th October 1553, Islam Shah died and the battle of Panipat in which the Afghans were decisively defeated was fought on 5th November ...
  21. [21]
    Life and achievements of Hemu, the Hindu general of Adil Shah Sur
    Mar 29, 2014 · At the time of conflict between Humayun and Sikandar Sur, Hemu had cleaned the eastern territories of the Afghan nobles, hostile to Adil Shah ...Missing: management | Show results with:management<|control11|><|separator|>
  22. [22]
    Hemus Samadhi Sthal - Haryana Tourism
    He had his formal Coronation or 'Rajyabhishake' at Purana Quila in Delhi on 7th Oct. 1556. ... Thereafter, Hemu's head was sent to Kabul for display at Delhi ...
  23. [23]
    [PDF] Medieval-History-Satish-Chandra-1526-1748-Part-2.pdf
    Abbas Sarwani goes on to say, " No one dared to levy other customs, either ... However, the assumption of the title of " Vikramjit" does not imply that Hemu.<|separator|>
  24. [24]
    [PDF] "Popular Jokes and Political History: The Case of Akbar, Birbal, and ...
    16 Hemu, after conquering Delhi and Agra, ascended the throne "with ... and assumed the historic name Vikramaditya or Raja Bikramajit.” R C Majumdar ...
  25. [25]
    Hemu | Military Wiki - Fandom
    Born in a humble family, Hemu rose to become Chief of the Army and Prime Minister to Adil Shah Suri of the Suri Dynasty. He fought Afghan rebels across North ...
  26. [26]
    Hemu - Dharmapedia Wiki
    He fought Afghan rebels across North India from the Punjab to Bengal and the Mughal forces of Humayun and Akbar in Agra and Delhi, winning 22 battles for Adil ...Missing: primary | Show results with:primary
  27. [27]
    Elephants In Battlefields - Swarajya
    Aug 9, 2015 · Hemu, titled Vikramaditya, had lost his artillery before the battle but had an army with fifteen hundred elephants! Vincent Smith gives the ...
  28. [28]
    Samrat Hem Chandra Vikramaditya (Hemu) – One Of The Greatest ...
    Dec 26, 2014 · Where Hemu was brought up and got educated. After leaving Maccheri, Hemu's father started trading in salt in Qutabpur for their livelihood ...
  29. [29]
    Second Battle of Panipat|1556 - Background, Events & Aftermath
    Battle of Tughlaqabad. Hemu proceeded to Delhi in 1556 and positioned his army at Tughlaqabad, outside the city. The Mughal emperor Akbar's soldiers, led by ...
  30. [30]
    Second Battle of Panipat - Curious Indian - Everything About India
    Aug 5, 2025 · The victory at Panipat allowed Akbar and his generals to retake Delhi and Agra, decisively ending the short-lived Hindu revival under Hemu ...
  31. [31]
    Who killed Hemu? Multiple narratives. - Indian Art and Architecture
    Jul 23, 2020 · Abul Fazl's narrative : According to Akbarnama, Hemu was brought to Emperor Akbar by Shah Quli Khan almost immediately after the battle was ...
  32. [32]
    Panipat: The Mughals Strike Twice - History Today
    Apr 4, 2012 · At the second Battle of Panipat the Mughal army defeated its much larger foe without the use of tabur cengi tactics or, apparently, artillery.Missing: remnants | Show results with:remnants
  33. [33]
    https://www.studyiq.com/articles/second-battle-of-panipat
  34. [34]
    Hemu's Victories like Napoleon - Organiser
    Oct 11, 2014 · Hemu fought, in all, twenty two battles from Punjab to Bengal, wining all of them. At the battle of Chhapparghatta in December 1555, Hemu routed ...
  35. [35]
    [PDF] akbarnama.
    ... Hemu, in whose brain the ambition of sover- eignty was stirring, and of whom ... Ferishta adds that he set- tled matters with Kamal Ghakkar^. Page 157 ...
  36. [36]
    Was there a Mughal bias in Indian history textbooks? Yes, but not a ...
    Jun 9, 2022 · Was there a Mughal bias in Indian history textbooks? Yes, but not a Muslim one. In most standard textbooks, the story of the Delhi Sultanate is ...
  37. [37]
    India - Akbar, Mughal, Empire | Britannica
    Akbar (ruled 1556–1605) was proclaimed emperor amid gloomy circumstances. Delhi and Agra were threatened by Hemu—the Hindu general of the Sūr ruler, ʿĀdil Shah ...The Early Years · Conquest Of Gujarat And... · Akbar In Historical...
  38. [38]
    (PDF) Akbar (1556-1605) and India unification under the mughals
    Aug 9, 2025 · In fact, he was regarded as the definitive founder of the Mughal Empire after his victory over an army led by Hemuin the Second Battle of ...