Akbar’s Siege of Chittorgarh and the Famine Within: A Forgotten Tragedy of Mughal Conquest
The world today watches in horror as famine grips Gaza—a humanitarian catastrophe born out of Hamas’s stubborn refusal to release hostages and Israel’s relentless military operations. The international community is appalled not only by the blockade-induced starvation but also by the sheer scale of civilian suffering, caught between ideological extremism and state aggression. Yet, this tragedy is not without historical echoes. In 1568, during the Siege of Chittorgarh, Mughal emperor Akbar deployed similar tactics—cutting off supplies, triggering famine-like conditions, and ultimately ordering a mass civilian massacre of nearly 30,000 people after the fort’s fall. While modern moral standards rightly condemn civilian targeting, it is essential to note that in pre-Islamic Indian warfare, such actions were exceptional and abhorrent. Indian rulers—be they Rajputs, Mauryas, or Cholas—traditionally observed ethical codes that spared women, children, and unarmed civilians, even in the heat of battle. It was only during the eras of the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire that civilian slaughter and starvation became normalized tools of conquest, marking a stark departure from the subcontinent’s earlier dharma-based conduct of war.
The Siege of Chittorgarh in 1567–1568, led by Mughal Emperor Akbar, remains one of the most iconic and tragic chapters in Indian history. Though often remembered for its military intensity and the heroic Rajput resistance, one aspect that often escapes mainstream discourse is the famine-like conditions created during and after the siege. Beyond the military victory and political symbolism, the siege led to immense human suffering, civilian starvation, and cultural trauma—especially among the people of Mewar. This article explores the broader consequences of the siege, focusing particularly on the humanitarian disaster it triggered within the fort and surrounding regions.
Historical Background
Akbar, the third Mughal emperor, ascended the throne in 1556 and spent the first decade of his reign consolidating Mughal control over north and central India. One of the biggest obstacles to this consolidation was the powerful Rajput kingdom of Mewar, ruled by Rana Udai Singh II of the Sisodia dynasty. Chittorgarh, the fortified capital of Mewar, symbolized Rajput defiance and pride. Akbar, aiming to bring the fiercely independent Rajputs under Mughal suzerainty, turned his attention toward this bastion.
In October 1567, Akbar marched toward Chittorgarh with a massive army. Anticipating the siege, Rana Udai Singh left the fort to preserve his lineage and regroup in the hills. He entrusted the fort’s defense to two heroic lieutenants—Jaimal Rathore and Patta Sisodia—who led a garrison and thousands of civilians in withstanding the Mughal assault.
The Siege and Encirclement
Akbar’s strategy was not based on direct assault alone. He opted for a complete blockade, surrounding the fort on all sides. His forces cut off all supply lines, preventing food, water, medicine, and reinforcements from reaching those inside. For over four months, the people of Chittorgarh endured this harsh and dehumanizing siege.
The situation inside the fort quickly deteriorated. Chittorgarh was home not just to soldiers but to thousands of non-combatant civilians—women, children, priests, traders, and commoners. With food stocks dwindling, starvation began to spread. Reports from local chronicles describe people boiling leather and eating roots, an unmistakable sign of famine-like conditions. The Mewar defenders and civilian population, once defiant, began to suffer the unbearable weight of hunger, thirst, and disease.
Famine as a Weapon of War
While famine was not an uncommon outcome of prolonged sieges in medieval warfare, Akbar’s deliberate use of starvation as a military tactic marked a turning point in his campaign. His forces destroyed nearby fields and villages, ensuring that no local support could reach the fort. The surrounding region of Mewar was thrown into chaos. Peasants fled, harvests were burned, and economic life came to a standstill.
This scorched earth policy did not just impact Chittorgarh but also laid the groundwork for longer-term economic disruption in the area. Families lost their livelihoods, agrarian cycles were broken, and entire communities were displaced. In effect, famine was not merely a side-effect of war—it was used as a tool of submission.
The Fall of Chittorgarh and the Massacre
By February 1568, Mughal artillery had breached parts of the fort wall, and Akbar ordered a final assault. Knowing that defeat was imminent, the Rajput women committed Jauhar, a mass self-immolation to avoid capture, enslavement, or dishonor. The men performed Saka, a ritual last stand, charging into battle to embrace death.
After taking the fort, Akbar, contrary to Kshatriya or even many Islamic norms of war, ordered the massacre of over 20,000 civilians, including monks, children, and unarmed men. His own court historian, Abul Fazl, recorded this event with chilling precision, noting it as a demonstration of imperial might.
While the military victory was celebrated in Mughal court circles, the brutality and scale of the massacre shocked many, even among contemporary observers. The famine within the fort, combined with the mass killings, resulted in one of the most horrific humanitarian crises of the 16th century in India.
Violation of Rajput and Ethical Norms
The siege and its aftermath starkly violated the traditional Rajput code of war, which upheld a martial dharma that forbade the killing of non-combatants. Historically, even enemies were respected for bravery, and temples, women, and children were considered off-limits during warfare.
Akbar’s actions at Chittorgarh were not just a military conquest; they were seen as a cultural and civilizational assault. The fort, a symbol of Hindu resistance, was desecrated, and its defenders given no honor in defeat. This event left a deep psychological scar among the Rajputs, leading to long-standing mistrust between them and the Mughal court—something that would later resurface in the resistance of Maharana Pratap.
Historical Whitewashing and Later Reforms
Ironically, Akbar would later go on to champion religious tolerance, abolish the jizya tax, promote inter-faith dialogue, and even forge alliances with Rajput clans. Historians often portray him as a visionary emperor who transcended religious orthodoxy. However, Chittorgarh remains a glaring contradiction in his legacy.
Some scholars argue that Akbar’s later reforms were, in part, a reaction to the horror he unleashed at Chittorgarh. It’s possible that the scale of civilian suffering made him rethink the nature of conquest and rulership. But for the people of Mewar, this introspection came too late.
Legacy and Memory
The siege of Chittorgarh and the famine it caused continue to be remembered in folk songs, ballads, and oral histories in Rajasthan. These narratives focus not just on the bravery of Jaimal and Patta but also on the endurance of ordinary civilians who perished in silence. The site of the Jauhar Kund (fire pit) is still visited today, not as a mark of defeat, but of supreme sacrifice.
Modern historical discourse often glosses over the famine and humanitarian crisis of Chittorgarh, preferring to emphasize the glory of Mughal architecture or administrative reforms. But the memory lives on at the ground level, especially among Rajput families and local communities whose ancestors lived through the siege or died in it.
Conclusion
Akbar’s siege of Chittorgarh was more than a military maneuver; it was a calculated act of political subjugation, executed through methods that triggered famine, psychological trauma, and cultural devastation. While Akbar’s later reign is remembered for its relative tolerance and inclusivity, Chittorgarh serves as a reminder of the human cost of imperial ambition.
By examining the famine and suffering caused by this siege, we move beyond the glorified narratives of conquests and court politics, and begin to acknowledge the lived experiences of common people—those who starved, burned, or bled during the making of empire.
Comments are closed.