( Facts Kept Hidden from Us… From the Pages of History )
History, as we’ve known it, is often curated. Certain chapters are highlighted, while others are muted or erased. A glaring example lies in the way our ancient Indian civilisation—from the Vedic period to the Guptas, Palas, Cholas, and Pallavas—has been understated or misrepresented, especially when compared to the glorification of the Islamic periods. Much of the brutality faced by Hindus under Islamic rulers has been quietly removed from mainstream history textbooks.
In this article, I won’t delve into every facet of those turbulent times. Instead, I want to focus on one disturbing yet consistently ignored aspect—the concept and reality of Harems, where Hindu princesses and young girls were forcefully taken and kept as spoils of war by Islamic invaders after defeating Hindu kingdoms.
A Stark Contrast in Cultural Values
Yes, it is true that polygamy existed among Hindu kings. However, there was a stark difference in intent and practice. In ancient India, marriages—though sometimes political—were mostly based on mutual respect, cultural consent, and dignity. Wives were given proper status, care, and affection.
Even during warfare, Hindu rulers had codes of conduct. Defeated kings were often given the chance to surrender, and their families were spared humiliation. Take the example of Chandragupta Maurya, who, after defeating Dhanananda, did not harm his opponent’s wives or children. Similarly, Samudragupta, Harshavardhana, Lalitaditya Muktapida, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, and Maharaja Ranjit Singh were known for their chivalry and respect towards women, even in times of conflict.
On the other hand, Islamic invaders from Muhammad Ghori to Alaudin Khilji and others, from Babur to Aurangzeb, frequently disregarded such values. Captured women and young girls were often subjected to inhuman treatment. Beautiful women were dragged into Harems—not by choice, but by force—to serve as concubines or sex slaves. Older women and children, if deemed unworthy, were often killed.
To name a few, Princesses, those were dragged into Harems –
Surya Devi and Parimal Devi (Sindh, 711 CE)
After Raja Dahir of Sindh was defeated by Muhammad bin Qasim, his two unmarried daughters—Surya Devi and Parimal Devi—were taken captive. They were sent to Caliph Sulayman ibn Abd al-Malik in Damascus as part of the Caliphate’s harem. According to the Chach Nama, they were raped by Muhammad bin Qasim before being sent. Surya Devi later informed the Caliph, saying they were no longer virgins; the Caliph ordered Muhammad bin Qasim’s execution in retaliation. Ultimately, the princesses took their own lives to avoid further dishonour.
Deval Devi (Gujarat, early 14th century)
The daughter of Karan Deva II, defeated by Alauddin Khalji’s forces, Deval Devi was forcibly taken from Devagiri and brought to Delhi. First married to Khizr Khan, later taken into the harem of Qutb‑ud‑din Mubarak Shah, and afterwards to Khusrau Khan, she was treated as a transferable possession among power players. Her story is emblematic of how royal Hindu women were objectified.
Apart from these, there were numerous poor souls whose names were not recorded in history. They include many daughters, princesses and queens of smaller kingdoms, zamindars, and upper-caste Hindu families. In order to protect their own dignity, Hindu women began sacrificing their lives through Jauhar.
Why Aren’t These Stories in Our Textbooks?
Despite the repeated occurrence of such practices, mainstream history often omits these events. Most of our textbooks rarely mention the darker aspects of invasions and conquests—especially the sexual exploitation and systemic humiliation of Hindu women and children. It’s as if these horrors never occurred. But truth has a habit of resurfacing. With open access to global databases, research papers, oral traditions, and online archives, suppressed histories are now being revealed.
The Forgotten Victims: Boys in the Shadows
Less discussed, but equally disturbing, is the sexual exploitation of young boys by some Islamic rulers. History suggests that good-looking boys, as young as seven or eight, were abducted or purchased, often treated as gifts for royalty or wealthy nobles. These children were either forced into servitude or into fulfilling the personal pleasures of their captors.
This was not a practice native to India. It originated in ancient Greece and Rome, where young boys, if considered physically attractive, were separated from their families and trained to serve elite men, often as sexual partners. Once they aged or lost their charm, they were discarded.
The Ottoman Empire later institutionalised this concept, where boys and young men from captured regions were enslaved. Boys with desirable physical traits were reserved for the Sultan, while others were sent into domestic slavery or pleasure service.
A Stark Deviation: The Islamic Period and the Objectification of Boys
In chilling contrast, Islamic invasions brought with them foreign customs that clashed violently with India’s spiritual heritage. Among these was the systematic abduction and sexual exploitation of young Hindu boys. Many Islamic rulers and generals viewed these boys not as children with futures, but as physical commodities—prized possessions based on their appearance.
Accounts from various historical sources and travelogues reveal the deeply disturbing reality: boys aged seven to twelve—particularly those who were fair-skinned, slim, or with ‘pleasing features’—were abducted from villages, bought from poor parents, or taken as war booty. These boys were often sent as gifts to sultans, nawabs, or high-ranking officials. Stripped of identity and autonomy, they were trained to obey, entertain, and serve—not in education, but in submission.
They were dressed in fine clothes, perfumed, and presented in harems or private quarters to be used for the pleasure of their ‘masters.’ Some were subjected to repeated abuse, while others were eventually discarded once they lost their youthful charm. Their voices were silenced, and their pain was never written in the official annals.
Young Boys as Commodities, as described in the history
Court Slavery and Eunuchs
Historical sources cite that Alauddin Khilji maintained 50,000 young slave‑boys in his personal service; Mahmud Tughluq had 20,000; and Firoz Tughluq had 40,000, with an estimated 180,000 total slaves under his reign. Many were castrated eunuchs, selected for their youth and appearance.
Eunuchs in Akbar and Aurangzeb’s Time
During Akbar’s reign, nobles like Said Khan Chaghtai owned 1,200 eunuchs.
In 1659 at Golkonda (Hyderabad), under Aurangzeb, a staggering 22,000 boys were emasculated in that single year, destined for harems or government service.
Ongoing Mass Kidnapping and Export
Accounts from Dutch chronicler Francisco Pelsaert describe over 200,000 Hindu captives—including women and children—shipped to Iran in 1619–20 by Mughal officials to meet fiscal demands.
Further, Jahangir’s memoirs mention parents surrendering their children for enslavement under extreme hardship, a practice widespread in Bengal and beyond.
Unlike the equal brotherhood of Gurukul, here the relationship was of enslaver and enslaved. There was no affection, no mentorship, no spiritual guidance—only lust, control, and dehumanisation.
India’s Own Tradition: A Different Approach
While ancient India did have slavery, sexual exploitation was not culturally sanctioned. Homosexuality existed and was neither criminalised nor stigmatised as in later eras. Indian mythology even celebrates transgenders and same-sex relationships, portraying them with reverence, not as objects of lust or force.
Our ancient Gurukul system taught discipline, self-respect, values, and knowledge. Boys went there to study and evolve into wise individuals—not to be objectified. In contrast, the concept of Harems and male concubinage emerged from foreign invaders and empires that thrived on conquest, plunder, and systemic control of both wealth and women.
The Vedic and Post-Vedic Ethos: Nurturing Through Knowledge and Dignity
The Vedic and post-Vedic periods of Indian history were founded on spiritual, intellectual, and moral traditions. The Gurukul system—India’s ancient educational model—treated every student as a sacred flame to be nurtured. Regardless of caste or creed, boys were sent by their families to Gurukuls not only to gain knowledge of scriptures, philosophy, and science, but also to build character, discipline, empathy, and self-restraint.
A child in ancient Bharat was not an object to be possessed or traded. He was a torchbearer of dharma (righteousness) and was lovingly raised by his teacher (Acharya) and peers in a familial atmosphere. The bond between teacher and student was sacred and free of exploitation. Even royal princes were sent to the forests to live and study as equals among commoners.
The Mahabharata mentions Lord Krishna and Sudama—two friends from different economic backgrounds studying together in a Gurukul, treated with equal love and respect. Vedic society idealised the development of mind, body, and soul, not the commodification of physical beauty.
Conclusion
History should be told in its entirety—not just through glorified chapters but also with the courage to acknowledge painful truths. Not to instil hate or division, but to understand what our ancestors endured and to honour their resilience. Let us continue to explore hidden narratives, question selective retellings, and reclaim stories that were silenced.
In a nutshell, we can conclude that –
- Ancient Gurukul System: Young boys and girls were nurtured with a focus on education, virtues, and individuality—not objectified.
- Medieval Period under Islamic Rule: They were seen as commodities, selected, castrated, and groomed exclusively for servitude or sexual function—stripped of autonomy and dignity.
Disclaimer:The above article is based on information collected from various internet sources, including historical websites, research blogs, and YouTube channels. While efforts have been made to cross-reference and maintain factual accuracy, readers are encouraged to explore further and form their own informed opinions.