The Real Akbar. - Page 9

Originally posted by: nushhkiee

On Akbar’s marriages and alliances - This is something that’s always bugged me.......why was it always Hindu princesses marrying into the Mughal family, and why were they expected to convert? There’s no significant example of a Mughal princess marrying a Hindu prince and keeping her religion. That’s a one-way street, and it just doesn’t seem fair. Akbar may have been a master at diplomacy, but he wasn’t willing to meet Hindus halfway in this respect. It feels like a double standard

The simplest reason for this anomaly is that it was, and still is, a patriarchal society. Women were considered property, and no smart person lets property go to a rival. :) This isn't just the case for Akbar, but every ruler, every family ever. You'll always find Kings with diverse Harems/Ranivaas, with women from far and wide, but the princesses are always married within the community. In rare cases when they marry outside, it is always by force and is considered a matter of great shame (take for example, Harka Bai's case). If Rajputs considered marrying their daughters to Mughals shameful, why wouldn't Mughals believe in the vice-versa?

Because in almost everything else, the Rajputs were fairly secular as well. They had Muslim commanders (famously, in Maharana Pratap's case), and were very respectful of places of worship (like the Ajmer Sharif Dargah), and also very helpful to other communities (again, famously, Akbar's birth at Umerkot). So, why were their daughters not married in other communities? Because that was 500 years ago, a different time entirely. Akbar was absolutely willing to meet the Hindus halfway, but he was still a 16th century man. Even to this day, women are burdened with being the 'honour' of the family which cannot be sent to the 'others'.

It is definitely a double standard, though, but Akbar is not the only one guilty of it. Of course it's still something you can hold against him, I just choose not to, given the era. :)

Replies in deep red.

Originally posted by: nushhkiee

Mariam-uz-Zamani identity - I totally agree with you on the issue of Mariam-uz-Zamani. Her name being erased is a big deal, and I can’t help but think there was some intention behind it. Her identity as a Hindu princess and her role in Akbar’s court should’ve been acknowledged. Erasing her name and minimizing her importance feels like an effort to hide parts of history that don’t fit the idealized image of Akbar. The fact that she was Hindu and rose to such a powerful position is a big deal, so why ignore it? It feels like an attempt to downplay the role of women in history, especially if their faith or identity didn’t align with the narrative that was being promoted at the time. Moreover what about those texts that say Jodha was not Akbar' wife but bahu?

First of all, Jodha Bai doesn't exist. Jodh Bai does, and she indeed was Akbar's daughter-in-law and Salim's wife. However, the show JA was about Harka Bai, and it clearly mentions that within the first 30 seconds of every episode.

Coming to the issue of MUZ's identity being erased, there was definitely an attempt to do so, but not by Akbar. Most likely by later historians, under the influence of orthodox elements like Aurangzeb. More on this, here: (My words are in Bold)

https://www.indiaforums.com/forum/post/165759371

https://www.indiaforums.com/forum/post/165759937 (esp this one)

Look, Akbar might have been a skilled leader, and I’ll give him credit for doing some things that were ahead of his time. He had the ability to create alliances and expand the empire, and he understood the value of diplomacy. But that doesn’t make him above criticism. His treatment of Hinduism, his policies, and the things he allowed to happen during his reign don’t add up to this glowing picture of a perfect ruler. Akbar’s actions weren’t all noble, and the show’s portrayal of him as a larger-than-life figure doesn’t really reflect the more problematic parts of his reign.

@Bold, absolutely agree! No one is above criticism, certainly not some 16th century ruler. We can and should criticize anything and anyone that bothers us, and I'm glad you did. Just that I think it's also our responsibility to make sure we indulge in 'fair' criticism.

Also, I think you must read up on the social reforms of Akbar, either here in this thread or elsewhere. To me, they are what truly make him a great man, more than any military accomplishments or expansion or diplomacy or grandeur ever could. In fact, I would say the show didn't even touch the truly brilliant aspects of the man.. like the banning of sati, for example, no idea why!

To wrap it up, while I absolutely loved Jodha Akbar for its entertainment value and the way Akbar was portrayed in the show, the real Akbar....his actions, his policies....are much more complicated. I’m not here to glorify him. He did some good things, but he also made decisions that, when you look at them through a modern lens, are tough to defend.

I'm not here to glorify him, either. Neither was the show, in my opinion. Show was here for drama and TRPs, I'm here to defend a man I admire while also acknowledging his flaws, and we're all here to simply have a good time.. hai na?

PS - Accha hua NCERT se nikal diya. It’s honestly frustrating how NCERT tries to paint Akbar as this perfect, "tolerant" ruler. They don’t exactly ignore his flaws, they just sweep them under the rug. Temple destruction, harsh campaigns, forced conversions? All conveniently downplayed. Why? To keep his image squeaky clean, of course. Sure, Akbar did some good, but he wasn’t a saint. Glorifying him like this completely ignores the messy reality of his reign. Let’s stop pretending he was all good ... history’s more complex than that.

a) NCERT does it for everyone, it's meant for kids. Can you think of a single ruler whose flaws are mentioned in NCERT, except perhaps Aurangzeb? Does that mean every single king we ever had was flawless?

b) NCERT tends to brush off his negative side because he himself did so. Even his worst academic critics (and I don't mean youtube historians) have always accepted that his later positive changes and good deeds FAR OUTWEIGH his faults of youth. Which is why they overshadow his legacy in NCERTs and everywhere else. For every destroyed temple (in Chittor, never heard of it happening anywhere else), he built several grand temples later on, some even surviving today. Contrary to the brutality of initial days, even the death penalty was waived off later on. Forced conversion was entirely banned, allowing those converted to return to original faiths, and slavery itself was abolished. All of these things were unheard of then, and even now are not practiced in certain orthodox nations. No wonder NCERT chose to glorify this stuff.

That said, all his cruelty is pretty well taught as part of History in higher education, and is also freely available online. I don't see an attempt to hide it, anywhere. The show itself spoke of the Chittorgarh Massacre, although in a very stupid manner that I hated. I believe that is the one thing for which Akbar deserves to be dragged, even now. It is an unforgivable sin, and must linger on, like a stain on his legacy, that never lets him be a truly good/great man.

However, this was a blot that he himself was quite ashamed of, as he later remarks in the Akbarnama. You can see in his later actions and words, what a tremendous change he underwent. While killing 30,000 innocents cannot be forgiven by any means, I believe such a remarkable change, in an era where it was unheard of, deserves some acknowledgement. That's all! :)

Originally posted by: IshqHaiWoEhsaas

Replies in deep red.

Continuing in separate posts below for better organization.

Note- I still haven't read the other half of this thread. I'm on a time crunch right now with all the contests and all I'm hosting on IF so excuse me Just replying to your points- (dark blue)

I'm going to sound like a complete nutter repeating the same things over and over again, but one has to do what has to be done, I guess?

Repetition is the mother of learning, right?

I don't know which paintings you saw or where, but all paintings of Akbar made during his lifetime show him as a typical Mongol, with very tiny eyes. He also very famously NEVER had a beard. And while paintings aren't always trustworthy, if several of them by different artists have a striking similarity, it logically means they contain some truth. And Akbar's paintings are far from idealized, he looks pretty average to me in the appearance department honestly :p Leaving some links to the paintings I've shared here, please check:

I mean, paintings aren't exactly "photo evidence" now, are they? Sure, several of them show Akbar as a Mongol with tiny eyes, but those tiny eyes could just be a style choice of the artists. Artists often exaggerate features to show "character," so let's not assume it’s a perfect likeness. I checked those links you’ve shared and I still agree with you/

On the issue of the name change, I agree that Akbar didn’t go around renaming major cities like Vrindavan, Mathura, or Varanasi. These were indeed places of deep religious significance, and Akbar, despite his policies, did demonstrate tolerance in many cases

naming the new city Allahabad was likely a move to establish his own legacy and connection to the region. It wasn’t about changing the old name, but rather about asserting his authority and influence in the area. Such actions, while not necessarily malevolent, were still part of how rulers of that era would cement their control and make their mark on the land

Originally posted by: IshqHaiWoEhsaas

Replies in deep red.

right that Jodha Bai doesn't exist in historical records.

But, the fact that the show chose to focus on Jodha Bai (for the sake of drama) ..It wasn’t just about the names....it was the expectations that came with these alliances that still seem unfair when viewed from a modern perspective. Thedouble standard still stands, even if we’re talking about different historical figures.

I completely respect your view on Akbar’s social reforms, like banning sati and abolishing slavery. Those are big, progressive changes, especially for that time, and they deserve recognition. It’s just that, while those reforms were significant, they don’t entirely erase the negative aspects of his rule. For instance,his military campaigns, like the destruction of temples and the massacre at Chittorgarh, are still part of his legacy. Sure, he might have had remorse later on, but that doesn’t change whathappened.

yes, it’s rare for any ruler’s flaws to be fully mentioned in early textbooks. But here’s the thing: even in higher education, while Akbar’s later reforms are often praised, his earlier actions (like the forced conversions, templedestructions, and the Chittorgarh massacre) are glossed over or minimized. I get it, they don’t want to overwhelm young students with all the complexities of history, but it does lead to a somewhat incomplete picture. If we’re being fair, then we also need to acknowledge that these “flaws of youth” weren’t just youthful mistakes....they had real consequences for many people at the time.

I’m not saying Akbar’s legacy is entirely negative; it’s just that thegood and the bad should be viewed together, not one at the expense of theother.

aboutchittorgarh -

Ah, yes, the Chittorgarh massacre. I completely agree with you...this is one of the darkest stains on Akbar’s legacy, and nothing can really excuse the killing of tens of thousands of innocents. Yes Akbar later reflected on it with remorse, and his actions in the latter half of his reign did show a remarkable shift in his views. Does that make up for what happened? No. But I think it’s worth noting that history is full of contradictions, and Akbar, like many rulers, evolved over time. His later reforms, as you pointed out, wereprogressive for the era, and maybe that’s part of the reason he’s remembered so highly today. But again, the massacre is a serious blot on his record, and it should never beforgotten.

In the end, I think we both agree that Akbar was a complex figure.

just a quick note - I didn’t mean to come off as rude in any of my posts, so please don’t assume so. Also, apologies if my responses seem a bit all over the place...I’m just a little too lazy to organize them like you didIF can be a space hog, so please ignore the weird spacing issues. wrote all this on word.

So, about the Akbarnama ... while it’s definitely a key source when it comes to Akbar’s reign, we should also take it with a grain of salt. I mean, think about it would any ruler ever write a book that points out all their mistakes? Akbarnama was written by Abul Fazl, who was Akbar’s close advisor and part of his inner circle. It's pretty much a glowing account of Akbar’s reign, and let's be honest, no one’s going to write about their flaws when they’re trying to build their legacy, right?

It’s like when today’s politicians write memoirs....do you think they’re going to talk about all their blunders? Of course not. They focus on the positive stuff. So, while Akbarnama is an amazing resource, it’s important to remember that it’s not an unbiased history book. It’s a royal account meant to highlight Akbar's greatness

Take the Kohinoor diamond as an example. The British love to say that they "received" the Kohinoor from Maharaja Duleep Singh as a “gift.” But we all know the truth wasn’t that simple. It was taken after the British defeated the Sikh Empire, and it’s not like Duleep Singh had much of a choice. History written by the victors doesn’t always give you the full picture, and that's something we see again and again

Akbar was definitely a powerful ruler, but if you only read Akbarnama, you’d think he was this saintly king who never made mistakes.

He may have later reformed and become more inclusive, but his earlier actions aren’t really mentioned in Akbarnama, because that’s not the image he wanted to leave behind.

No one wants to be remembered as the bad guy, right? So when rulers like Akbar or even more modern figures write history, it’s always a bit slanted. And that’s why it’s important to read between the lines and look at other perspectives. (This is what I feel.)

I think I’m going to take a break from all these royal debates for a couple of days. My brain is starting to feel like it’s on history overload mode History was never my subject Science is

I’m better at talking about atoms than emperors right now. Catch you later.

Alos, dear Shagun, are you by any chance planning to get back to writing anytime soon? Pretty please? Because honestly, the only thing that keeps me sane after my day is reading. I’ve officially read EVERY SINGLE STORY here. Yes, all of them. I’m now on a vicious loop of re-reading Pale Blue Dot, HBAS, and NJAPA. But… I’d love something new to dive into! (true nishaani of selfish reader)

Originally posted by: nushhkiee

Yes, Akbar did start promoting tolerance later on, but that doesn’t completely erase his earlier policies. It seems like those later moves were more about political pragmatism than a true commitment to religious harmony. His decisions often had more to do with consolidating power and strengthening his empire than any real desire to foster pluralism.

Historians like John F. Richards and Irfan Habib point out that Akbar's reign wasn’t as uniformly tolerant as it’s sometimes made out to be. In fact, his early actions often contradicted that image. Sure, he did things like build temples in certain areas later on, but a lot of it seems to have been motivated by political needs, not genuine religious tolerance.

At the end of the day, Akbar's reign was a mix of power plays and pragmatism.

My replies in bold-

I don’t think so, it would be injustice if you say that Akbar’s religious policies were only for the sake of his image building and expansion of power. Sure, these two intentions were present in him. But he was also genuinely interested in knowing about all religions. Because of which he created the Ibadat khana, where he actively arranged religious debates between people of different religions. Akbar may have had more than one reason for creating Ibadat khana, but trying to solve the conflict between religions was one of those major reasons. Accounts of priests who took part in debates in Ibadat khana describe Akbar to be curious and respecting their religion. Akbar was deeply interested in religious and philosophical matters. An orthodox radical Muslim at the beginning, he later came to be influenced by the sufi mysticism.

During the last 5-10 years of Akbar’s reign many of these priests viewed Akbar as a semidivine person, subsequently writing various hagiographic accounts about him. This much of difference wouldn’t have occurred if Akbar had only power and image building in mind. Existing religions, sects and denominations, as well as various religious figures who represented popular worship felt they had a claim to him. The diversity of these accounts is attributed to the fact that this reign resulted in the formation of a flexible centralised state accompanied by personal authority and cultural heterogeneity. Subjects of Akbar’s empire tremendously praise his policies in the form of hymns, legends during the later part of his reign.

Akbar gradually created a policy of religious fraternity. But it was not that he was alone in this. Akbar succeeded because he also had great and faithful officer sunder him, like Abul Fazl, who helped him in such missions. Akbar’s policy towards religions as a whole was tied to his religious-philosophical outlook, overall administrative machinery, and image and policy building for both himself and his empire.

Akbar’s religious policy is termed Sulh-i-kul (an Arabic term that means ‘peace among all’) by Abul Fazl. A religious policy that focuses and aims on peace, balance, harmony between religious communities.

Akbar created the Din-i-illahi, it was not a religion although, but a cult aiming to bridge the gaps between various religions and their practices, based on the aforementioned principles of sulh-i-kul. Yes, it is true that this initiative was a flop, but it was one of its kind.

However, one can’t expect religious pluralism/tolerance of 16th century to be the same as secularism in 21st century. Two things are different. In ancient India, state did not have any official religion, atleast we don’t find it in any sources of ancient times. The most probable cause of this is that in ancient world, the concept of integrated religions having well defined boundaries from each other had not been created. Rulers used to patronize more than one sect (this in no way means that ancient people were non-violent liberals). But, during the time of Mughal empire, the idea of well define religion is already concurrent. Akbar was the head of Mughal empire, which was an Islamic empire, atleast on pen and paper. A state having an official religion therefore, cannot treat all religions as equal. What Akbar did however was to ensure that religious tolerance, harmony and cordiality between various religious sects and their people, so that one religion does not cruelly and unjustly try to subjugate another religion and there exists peace, also that the hegemony of radical-Islamic domination is broken, balance between all religions is achieved.

Many kings(both hindu and muslim) before and after Akbar have demonstrated religious tolerance and pluralism. But none of them have been as successful as Akbar, because for those rulers, religious tolerance was only a personal outlook, but not part of empire’s overall policy. But Akbar succeeded in combining his religious pluralism with the empire’s overall policy and administration. His secret of success and speciality lies in the implementation of his policies throughout his empire with such success. No other tolerant ruler in India has been able to do this.