The Real Akbar.

Hello! This is a continuation of our discussion on just who the real Akbar was. Anyone is free to give their opinion and if all you guys wish to do is read the discussion, then it started somewhere here-
https://www.indiaforums.com/forum/post/165755809

And this particular message is a reply to this message,
https://www.indiaforums.com/forum/post/165756280

Hey!

Thanks for the reply and it was very informative reading it. I seriously am overjoyed that I get to learn something new every day because before today I was unaware that Akbar even had a beard, to go beardless and with a tilak on his forehead. After all, all his paintings show him being smooth-faced with only an artistic moustache in all his paintings.
(But it's known not to trust these paintings because in them he also has a wide, deep set of eyes, which, considering his Mongol ancestry... oh man, I dunno.)

Originally posted by: lkdaswani

And reading these books I find that Akbar wasn't a nice man...

Yes, he did do some good things, things that at that time would have seemed HUGE for an Emperor to do but with the present viewpoint, he really wasn't a good person.

Yes, I judge Akbar strictly through the present viewpoint and perhaps that is why I am so disappointed. The shows, the movies and even the NCERT can be blamed for this disappointment because when I was faced with the dark-grey reality of this historical figure, I was more than taken aback.

Regarding the citation, its saying this-

All I see is that the designation was changed from 'Slaves' to 'Chelas' or attendants. Whether they were paid, allowed to leave or allowed to refuse advances from men higher up still remains a mystery.

"What's in a name? That which we call rose by any other name will smell just as sweet."

But this saying of Shakespeare doesn't quite sit right when applied to history.

Calling the Hindu Princess turned Queen- Marium Uz Zamani does not hold the same cultural significance as her real name would have held.

The city of Prayag, now called Allahabad does NOT smell just as sweet... Prayag was the city sitting atop the confluence of the three most sacred rivers in the Hindu Religion, what is then Ilahibad or Allahabad (a gift of renaming given by the Mughals).
How would one feel if Mecca were renamed Krishna Nagar? Wars have been fought for less...even today, wars are being fought for much much less.
The Britishers too renamed many states in India, it's something we all still debate over. Act of renaming, then in the language of invaders, perhaps means Act of re-claiming that which is already claimed.

So the question arises and remains, Would renaming the slaves as attendants have been enough? If that was the minimum that was done.

And Where did these women even live? What was the ground reality of that palace? Even the show managed to show us the bitter truth of Badalgarh's harem (sanitised as they made it), ill, ailing or old- slaves were made to work from dawn to midnight.

Again, I would re-iterate that I am judging History from the present viewpoint all this was probably ok back then, but then...so was Sati Pratha. So was Jauhar.

Many would say that those two ways of dying have Different concepts-- one is forced on the woman while the other is Volutary and for honour but the end result is the same, a life taken away brutally.
Do those roses smell the same even with different names?

Temples? Dear, entire sacred Cities have been attacked and destroyed under Akbar. But perhaps even that would have been fine but to then plant Islamic shrines in place of Hindu gods?
Maybe this was before Akbar's complete change of heart happened but the fact remains that it happened and the King may have passed away but his actions effect us and history till today.
""It is also argued that he permitted the construction and repair of Hindu temples. But the fact that the holy cities of Prayag and Banaras, writes Vincent Smith (p 58), were plundered and destroyed by Akbar was conveniently underplayed. Monserrate, a contemporary of Akbar, writes (p 27), "The religious zeal of the Musalmans has destroyed all the idol temples which used to be numerous. In place of Hindu temples, countless tombs and little shrines have been erected.” Akbar destroyed several temples in the Indian subcontinent, but because he destroyed fewer temples than his successor Aurangzeb, he was ‘the Great’?""

Agreed 100% that Akbar stepped out of his comfort zone of being a Muslim King and did do things that set him apart from many kings before and after him but- that's what Kings are supposed to do.
That's literally the definition of leadership.
He was a good king, agreed, but he is not above reproach.

I also read in the same article that even the cancellation of Jaziya was temporary...i don't know how true that is, I await your reply about this.
""As a matter of fact, Jazia was withdrawn temporarily and this withdrawal was also not executed properly.""

And there are some opinions I have formed simply because they are there-- please feel free to correct me if I am wrong in any of these beliefs.
Were any of his children given a Hindu name or even a middle name? Did any of Akbar's daughters or sisters ever marry a Hindu Prince? Why was marital alliance considered only one way- Hindu Princesses marrying Akbar and converting? Why not the other way around?
(If such a thing happened then I am unaware of it and willing to change my opinion.)
I always say that the day Indians start marrying irrespective of caste is the day the caste system will end...Akbar knew the power of marriage, why not use it in this way as well?

And you said that removing the real name of MUZ from history was not an act of religious bigotry...if not then what was it? And who did it? Was it Aurangzeb or some random Mughal?
Or was it some Hindu scribe unwilling to ever show the world that a Hindu Princess could ever become what MUZ became?
Who else holds a vested interest in removing the name of a mere woman? Again, a genuine question-- I know my tone can often be confront-tary but trust me, I am just as shocked about all this as the day I read it and my passion is still strong hence I might be coming a bit strong. Pardon me if any of my words are hurtful or offensive.

No, I don't think I can call it misogyny because MUZ's achievements have not been hidden, had it been misogyny then MUZ would have been shown like any other silent broodmare, thankfully that is not the case but...
Her name has been hidden. Her identity has also and her religion was a big part of her identity. Stating that Fatehpur Sikri has Hindu Gods etched onto its minarets is one point but completely obfuscating this particular woman's history is another.

Lol yeah, wasn't this James Todd the guy who gave the misnomer Jodha Bai to MUZ? Haha, we've been stuck on it ever since. To be fair to this historian, it's quite catchy.

So if the bully came to you and apologized, would it heal the past trauma automatically? Forgiveness is something I have trouble with, personally but I can acknowledge that yes, to go against your people to the extent of being called 'kaafir' and having to fight back assassination attempts would have been nigh difficult but it would have been easier than offending all the Hindus in India back them (In quite a bit of majority even back then).

So the situation is such, three people are tied to the train track, a train coming at full speed- derail it, all the people in the train die. Don't derail it, the people on the track die. The three is the strength of Muslims back then, the full train is of Hindus.
Akbar... chose the middle route which would have been invisible to many and for that he has my respect.
He was highly diplomatic and cunning when he decided NOT to subjugate Hindus in their own country as other Islamic invaders had done- perhaps he believed in the saying,
"Insanity- doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Akbar, by taking the road less travelled, became one of the greatest Islamic Kings the world has ever seen.

NCERT's...man. Lets not start.

Yes, as they say- "Every sinner has a future and every saint a past" ill deeds definitely can be atoned, but forgiveness is a choice, not a reward.

Regarding the Chatrapati thing, so many people call so many politicians 'Gods/messengers of God' today...does that mean much? Perhaps, perhaps not.
No relation to the court .ie. no relation to politics and people disconnected from politics are further from reality than they think they are.
And again, Jaunpur may not have been Agra but it WAS under Jalal's rule, to speak against him could have been catastrophic for both the man and his family- conjecture!

Again, to conclude. I don't hate Akbar and I don't love Akbar. I am neither indifferent nor neutral. I am swimming in a sea of opinions, trying to reach a shore of my choice.
I am writing Fitoori which obviously means that I love Akbar from the show... I just wish that he matched the reality more.

Thank you for the thread! I'm loving this discussion as well, for I rarely find people to talk about it. And it has been ages since I posted on this forum, it's a treat to talk to fellow JA Fans always! ❤️ Replies in bold.

Hey!

Thanks for the reply and it was very informative reading it. I seriously am overjoyed that I get to learn something new every day because before today I was unaware that Akbar even had a beard, to go beardless and with a tilak on his forehead. After all, all his paintings show him being smooth-faced with only an artistic moustache in all his paintings.

Yes, he never had a beard, as in never kept it despite that being an Islamic tradition, at least here in India. Badauni attributes it to his Rajput wives' influence, and it is generally accepted to be his attempt to 'Indianise' himself. Several courtiers also stopped keeping a beard in response to this, as noted by Badauni. Clothing, footwear, accessories etc were also inspired by Indian culture under him - the famous jama that he dons in the show as well was more Indian than Persian/Turkic - hence the similarity in the Mughal-Rajput attires of the time.

Refer to this page for more info and some very interesting details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_clothing#Mugal_Emperor's_Costumes

Here's a miniature of him in proper Rajputani attire, now in Allahabad museum:

(But it's known not to trust these paintings because in them he also has a wide, deep set of eyes, which, considering his Mongol ancestry... oh man, I dunno.)

Why so? I think you can totally trust paintings made in his era. If you compare them closely, he looks pretty much the same in all of them, which also reinforces the idea that they are successful in capturing reality. Let me share few, so that you can see the similarity:

Compare the two, it is exactly the same person. And quite Mongolian as well.

Regarding the citation, its saying this-

All I see is that the designation was changed from 'Slaves' to 'Chelas' or attendants. Whether they were paid, allowed to leave or allowed to refuse advances from men higher up still remains a mystery.

Absolutely, but the same is the case with male slaves as well. This same author writes that they (male slaves) were now called attendants instead of slaves. I merely pointed out that the same was done for women as well, there's no reason to believe they weren't freed as well. Let me quote Akbarnama here:

"he set free many thousands of slaves" - Nowhere does it say that female slaves weren't freed. The author has not provided any other source either. Without any proof of there being a gender-based segregation, how and why are we to believe it?

Calling the Hindu Princess turned Queen- Marium Uz Zamani does not hold the same cultural significance as her real name would have held.

Absolutely, but that is not just the case with her. It's true for all women. Hamida Banu Begum was always called Mariam Makani in all official records/documents of Akbar's time. It was seen as a matter of privacy/honour that the birth names of royal females not be available to the general populace, and titles be used as a mark of respect. It's a regressive practice, yes, but not a case of religious bigotry.

And her title was definitely a mark of respect, as were the multitude of other titles she received - Wali Nimat (Blessing of God), Mallika-e-Muezzema (the Precious one), Shahi Begum, Mallika-e-Hind etc.

The city of Prayag, now called Allahabad does NOT smell just as sweet... Prayag was the city sitting atop the confluence of the three most sacred rivers in the Hindu Religion, what is then Ilahibad or Allahabad (a gift of renaming given by the Mughals). How would one feel if Mecca were renamed Krishna Nagar? Wars have been fought for less...even today, wars are being fought for much much less. The Britishers too renamed many states in India, it's something we all still debate over. Act of renaming, then in the language of invaders, perhaps means Act of re-claiming that which is already claimed.

The renaming of Allahabad is a common misconception, and unfortunately so. First, Akbar did NOT rename Prayag. Prayag was the name of the town, or the area surrounding the confluence. Akbar laid the foundation of an entirely new city (or fortress) along the river, which he called Illahabas. The region of the confluence continued to be called Prayag.

It was the newly planned city which was called Illahabas. Could it have been called Prayag? Yes. But perhaps it was too grand to be called simply a confluence. It's said that Akbar was so impressed by the location that he called it "Illahabaas" - the vaas/residence of Gods. (Despite the fact that it's blasphemy in Islam to even entertain the idea of plural "Gods".) The temple and the sacred Akshayvat inside the fort were left untouched as well (and exist even today).

The new name was clearly syncretic, and an ode to the Hindu belief of the place being sacred. In fact, Shah Jahan later changed Illahabaas to baad, because he thought "baas" was too "Hindu". That itself shows that the original intention had not been destructive, although the syncretism might be seen as cultural appropriation today.

If renaming was the issue, why not rename more flourishing centres of Hindu culture like Vrindavan, Varanasi etc? In contrast, Vrindavan as we know it today was built by Akbar himself - land grants and funds for major temples there were given by him, after he saw its deteriorating state and met with the Bhakti saints there. Same was the case with Banaras, as I mentioned in my previous post.

So the question arises and remains, Would renaming the slaves as attendants have been enough? If that was the minimum that was done.

And Where did these women even live? What was the ground reality of that palace? Even the show managed to show us the bitter truth of Badalgarh's harem (sanitised as they made it), ill, ailing or old- slaves were made to work from dawn to midnight.

Absolutely, slaves lived in pathetic condition. That is precisely why slavery was banned, literally within the first six years of Akbar's reign (1562). I don't know how this can be used against him.

Also, slavery was commonplace in India much before the arrival of the Mughals. Yet, I hear no one else even opposing it (except Shivaji Maharaj, later on).

The 5000 women, as mentioned above, is a hyperbole, so is the claim of 300 wives. Refer to this: http://mariam-uz-zamani.blogspot.com/2014/11/myth-of-5000-women-in-akbars-harem.html

I was suddenly doubtful about the paintings because you mentioned him having removed his beard and I was like-- wait. He had a beard?! None of the paintings show his bearded look.
And then there exists paintings/pictures like these-

And they both claim to be Akbar's...these are two completely different men!😹
Thanks for sharing his image in a complete Rajput get-up, I had never seen that one before.

I hope for all our sakes that Akbar freed all these people- both men and women and did not just change their designation. That if they chose to stay, they were well compensated.
I hope this because I still need to finish my story and I cannot do that if I have an irrevocably bad view of my main guy.
+ I am not saying that Akbar stance on slavery was wrong, I was just taken aback that only male slaves were released- Perhaps that's not the case because you're right, the Author has not clarified her source of knowledge and nowhere else on the net does it support this gender-biased view.

Temples? Dear, entire sacred Cities have been attacked and destroyed under Akbar. But perhaps even that would have been fine but to then plant Islamic shrines in place of Hindu gods?

Maybe this was before Akbar's complete change of heart happened but the fact remains that it happened and the King may have passed away but his actions effect us and history till today.

""It is also argued that he permitted the construction and repair of Hindu temples. But the fact that the holy cities of Prayag and Banaras, writes Vincent Smith (p 58), were plundered and destroyed by Akbar was conveniently underplayed. Monserrate, a contemporary of Akbar, writes (p 27), "The religious zeal of the Musalmans has destroyed all the idol temples which used to be numerous. In place of Hindu temples, countless tombs and little shrines have been erected.” Akbar destroyed several temples in the Indian subcontinent, but because he destroyed fewer temples than his successor Aurangzeb, he was ‘the Great’?""

I don't know where this is from, but it is a major misrepresentation of facts.

A single sentence from Vincent Smith's book is taken, twisted and presented out of context. I link here the page from Vincent Smith's book that talks about this plunder, please read that bit and see for yourself:

https://archive.org/details/cu31924024056503/page/80/mode/2up?q=Benares

Same event described in Akbarnama: https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.55649/page/n403/mode/2up?q=Benares

If you read these two, you'll see that cities or their temples were not plundered at all. It was the rebels that were pursued and punished. Smith makes no mention of any temples, or any religious persecution at all, in fact his title is "Suppression of Khan Zaman (a rebel)", and his conclusion is that Akbar showed no mercy to rebels. Just because those two were holy cities, doesn't mean every war there was religious. Khan Zaman had been hiding in Benares, hence the war there.

Coming to Father Monserrate's description, this is what he writes:

However, in the footnotes of the same page, this is what he mentions:

So, the destruction is not under Akbar at all, but by those before him. In fact, the same Father Monserrate credits Akbar with allowing free building of temples and churches:

If the quote is from the newspaper article, clearly they had an agenda to forward by cherry-picking statements. There are 0 records of Akbar plundering any sacred sites (except the Chittor siege), while there are several of his farmans that grant lands/protection to temples... including the ones I listed above, all of which exist even today.

I was suddenly doubtful about the paintings because you mentioned him having removed his beard and I was like-- wait. He had a beard?! None of the paintings show his bearded look.

By his going beardless I meant he refused to keep one, going against custom. Having a beard was an expectation from him (look at Babur and Humayun), which he chose not to follow. If he did have a beard in his early days, none of those paintings survive (or more likely, Akbar did not have any paintings made or kept with that look, because going beardless definitely was a political statement that he wanted to send out. Why would he allow images of those early days to circulate?)

And then there exists paintings/pictures like these-

And they both claim to be Akbar's...these are two completely different men!😹
Thanks for sharing his image in a complete Rajput get-up, I had never seen that one before.

None of these are contemporary ones, they were both made much later. You can clearly differentiate contemporary and later ones by their techniques and overall look. The ones I used were all made under Akbar's rule (or Jahangir's).. and you can look for other Mughal-era portraits yourself, and will easily see the marked difference from later day styles.

Also, that Rajput image is also from the blog (which I can't stress enough for you to read!) It was painstakingly compiled by one of this forum's members only, and is a treasure in the memory of Harka Bai Sahiba and the Emperor! <3

I hope for all our sakes that Akbar freed all these people- both men and women and did not just change their designation. That if they chose to stay, they were well compensated.

I hope this because I still need to finish my story and I cannot do that if I have an irrevocably bad view of my main guy.

😂 I understand, let's give him the benefit of doubt on this one, if only for our sanity. And like I said, there seems to be no reason to believe otherwise!

I think this main guy has a really complex personality, and the more you read about him, the more surprised you will be. (And that is only going to enrich your story, I hope! 😄) To say it better, let me quote someone:

Indologist Richard M. Eaton writes that from Akbar's time to today, he has attracted conflicting labels, "from a strict Muslim to an apostate, from a free-thinker to a crypto-Hindu, from a Zoroastrian to a proto-Christian, from an atheist to a radical innovator".

+ I am not saying that Akbar stance on slavery was wrong, I was just taken aback that only male slaves were released- Perhaps that's not the case because you're right, the Author has not clarified her source of knowledge and nowhere else on the net does it support this gender-biased view.

Okay, got you, and it's understandable why you would be so enraged by it.

Agreed 100% that Akbar stepped out of his comfort zone of being a Muslim King and did do things that set him apart from many kings before and after him but- that's what Kings are supposed to do.

That's literally the definition of leadership.

He was a good king, agreed, but he is not above reproach.

Absolutely, reproach him all you like, no mortal (and in my opinion, even God) should be above reproach. My only concern is that reproach must be valid, and not borne out of any prejudice (not you, but the general political scenario today tends to highlight his faults only because of his religion).

I also read in the same article that even the cancellation of Jaziya was temporary...i don't know how true that is, I await your reply about this.

""As a matter of fact, Jazia was withdrawn temporarily and this withdrawal was also not executed properly.""

Yes, Jaziya was abolished only temporarily in 1564, likely as a political move to appease Hindus. However, in 1579 it was permanently and completely abolished, as was the pilgrimage tax. It was reinstated only in Aurangzeb's reign, a hundred years later. Again, a clear case of cherry-picking of facts by the author.

And there are some opinions I have formed simply because they are there-- please feel free to correct me if I am wrong in any of these beliefs.

I adore your curiosity man! I've come across so many people unwilling to listen or discuss anything except their set-in-stone views, that it's refreshing to hear you being so polite and interested in the other side.

And, I'm just a learner myself, you also please free to correct or counter me on anything you like! We live, we discuss, and we learn!

Were any of his children given a Hindu name or even a middle name? Did any of Akbar's daughters or sisters ever marry a Hindu Prince? Why was marital alliance considered only one way- Hindu Princesses marrying Akbar and converting? Why not the other way around?
(If such a thing happened then I am unaware of it and willing to change my opinion.)
I always say that the day Indians start marrying irrespective of caste is the day the caste system will end...Akbar knew the power of marriage, why not use it in this way as well?

Valid questions. None of his children had Hindu names, but Daniyal had a Hindu upbringing by Raja Bharmal's wife herself. Murad was schooled by the Christian Missionaries. Salim was well-versed in Hindu theology, as evident in his autobiography. It was, after all, a patriarchal culture.. we don't have our mothers' surnames even today, it is a bit much to expect anything of that sort back then.

On marital alliances, first is that Hindu princesses did NOT convert on marrying Akbar. They were free to practice their faith, and visit their family (which had never been the case before Akbar), keep their culture. MUZ's temples exist, her trips to Amer (with/without Akbar) are well-recorded in Akbarnama, and she remained a staunch Krishna bhakt and disciple of Sant Vithal Rai all her life.

I'm not sure if any Rajput married a Mughal princess (It is said that Man Singh married Bibi Mubarak, niece of Akbar, but I've only read it on wiki and have no other source). Tansen is also said to have married one of Akbar's daughters, but again, no source I know of.

100% agreed on the caste issue! Why Akbar didn't choose marriage as a unifying factor has a simple answer - patriarchy. Women are by default property, and can't be given away to other communities, lest they spoil "honour". Same way that the Rajputs considered these marriages a great breach of honour, and did it only out of extreme compulsion. However, I believe he was the kind of person who could definitely do something like this - in case the Man Singh story is true, or in any case he did give Daniyal in the Hindus' care.