"Smith, who names Hemu the third claimant to the sovereignty of Hindustan at the time (the other two being the Suris and Akbar), asserts that Hemu after his occupation of Delhi came to the conclusion that he had a better claim to the throne for himself rather than on behalf of Adil Shah and ventured to assume the royal state under the style of Raja Vikramaditya or Vikramaditya, a title borne by several renowned Hindu Kings in ancient times. Hemu assumed the royal robes and declared himself the Emperor of India under the title of Vikramaditya".
Hemu was just an usurper, a rebel and a traitor to his masters Adil Shah and Sikandar Shah. When he was trusted by the Sur family and was promoted to the post of PM, he took advantage of the defeat of his master to declare himself something he was not entitled to. He was the son of a low born Mudi Dokandar and he is regarded so by the Historians. How can he be regraded as a Samrat? Read the comments by Historian Smith and many others. No old History gives any importance to an usurper whose sitting on a throne lasted for less than 30 days.
Better respect Rajput Emperors like Prithvi Raj. Although defeated, he is an all time hero. There are Rajput Rana Sangram Singh, Rana Pratap Singh. There was also Rajput Raja Poru who was defeated by Alexander, but was a great fighter. You have shamed yourself with identifying yourself with a pretender low born Hemu.
Bangali Mongoloid South east Asian Wanna bes 
? Or having comprehension problems
where did i mention Pakistan as an Arab country?
