The Real Akbar. - Page 2

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.

Hey, no, not at all! Please don't embarrass me by apologizing - I'll say it again, I adore your politeness and you're being as respectful as is humanly possible, really! I understand any anger that you have, esp for MUZ, because I share it with you! She's my favorite historical personality and the injustice meted out to her boils my blood as it does yours.

I'm saying MUZ's name not being there in Akbarnama is not an act of religious bigotry, because it was done to the Muslim royal females as well. Her erasure from history entirely, esp after Akbar, is VERY MUCH an act of religious bigotry. It could be Aurangzeb, or it could be the orthodox chroniclers, the ulema, anyone at all - there's no dearth of bigots anywhere. It wasn't Akbar, is my point.

"Or was it some Hindu scribe unwilling to ever show the world that a Hindu Princess could ever become what MUZ became?" - Do you mean a Muslim scribe here? Because in my opinion, a Muslim would be more averse to the view that a non-Muslim could've had such influence over the Empire... isn't it?

Who else holds a vested interest in removing the name of a mere woman? - Yep, the fact itself shows she wasn't a 'mere woman'. The other 'mere' Hindu women, like Man Bai, Jagat Gosain etc, have all had their names written down. But MUZ was a force to reckon with, in her time and even later through her legacy. Lots of people would not want the world to know that the Mighty Mughal Empire once bowed to a Hindu Queen, a practicing idolater at that! My guess is, it was later Islamic scholars who compiled Mughal History who did so - as also mentioned by Professor Ellison Banks in her research paper on MUZ.

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.

Yup, it has been hidden, just not by Akbar, was my point. Akbarnama clearly states her Hindu background and connection. Only the name is not mentioned in it, which is the case with all royal females. Systematic erasure of identity etc happen later on. Come to think of it, why would Akbar even want to hide her identity? It would only add to his good image if everyone knew how much power Hindus had in his Court.

And no, not just minarets. All of Harka Bai's palaces - Fatehpur Sikri, Mandu, Allahabad - have proper temples for her to use. They're testaments to Akbar's regard for her, and they are declarations of her identity that cannot be erased by the ravages of time itself. In a way, by building these, Akbar himself made sure her identity wouldn't ever be erased. Did you know that Fatehpur Sikri is called "a moment frozen in history", because it depicts in stone an entire era of syncretism, a monument that stands as testimony of better times, a testimony that couldn't be erased by either time or bigotry? Also called "romance in stone"!

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).

Disagree. The Hindus would've been happy even with the removal of jaziya, pilgrimage tax, freedom of religion, no cow slaughter, zero forced conversions, freedom to build temples, and royal patronage to temples and saints - all of which is radical in itself and was way ahead of the times. There was zero need for Akbar to go out of his way for the well-being of his non-Muslim subjects. No one would've expected or asked him to build temples, to participate in poojas, havans, customs like Vedic astrology and tuladan, and festivals like Holi/Diwali, to translate and richly illustrate their epics like Ramayana and Mahabharata, to issue coins with SiyaRam's images, to discuss Hindu philosophy with saints, or to change his entire lifestyle including clothes and accessories. Forget others, he himself became a vegetarian and a sun-worshipper. Can all this be simply appeasement? Nope, it indicates a deeper change of beliefs. Nobody sits up late at nights discussing religions with different people simple to put up a good image. In fact, Jahangir and Shah Jahan were nowhere close to this, and yet, Hindus seem to have given them no trouble at all.

In fact, his benevolence was not limited to the Hindu majority at all. Jesuits were given a place at court, Church for them built at Agra. Armenian Christians given shelter against their persecution by the Ottomans. Sikhs were given land for the Golden Temple, Akbar himself sat among the commoners to have langar, when meeting Guru Amar Das Ji. In respect of Jain beliefs, animal slaughter was banned for a few months each year (including Akbar's birth and coronation months). All of these took part in the religious debates of Ibadat Khana, and none of these had any real majority in India.

Also, let's not forget that a lot of his decisions also offended Hindus. The ban on child-marriage, sati, legalization of widow-remarriage were all seen as interference in local customs by the Rajputs (and Hindus, in general). There were laws against circumcision of kids, and polygamy for subjects.. certainly must've been vehemently opposed. None of these decisions makes any sense if appeasement was his goal.

It would've literally been way easier for Akbar to have been exactly like every other king - much worse kings than him have received zero opposition from Hindus. There's a reason why Father Monserrate said he was surprised how this man had not yet been killed!

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.

Not subjugating is literally the bare minimum and gets you zero points. He would've been a nobody in India's history if that had been his only contribution. Nope, he integrated himself entirely into the culture of his subjects, and actively worked towards their betterment. Diplomatic and cunning he was from day one, he became something more with time - benevolent, liberal, and a visionary.

You do him injustice by comparing him only with Islamic Kings. I see no Hindu kings of the time even taking note of the issues their subjects suffered - slavery, casteism, sati, child-marriage, heavy taxation, treatment of widows, polygamy etc. Why is that so? If for nothing else, for his social reforms, he deserves to be called the one of the greatest among all, and not just Muslims.

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.

Absolutely, you can choose to not forgive him for everything. That's a fair and valid choice to make, and I cannot and would not argue over it!

Regarding the Chatrapati thing, so many people call so many politicians 'Gods/messengers of God' today...does that mean much? Perhaps, perhaps not.

No, but it does mean they perceive that politician to be on their side, don't they? Some good deed that they've experienced or heard of is the reason of such a sentiment, isn't it? The choice of word intrigues me.. "Chhatrapati" is not your everyday adjective for a king, esp not one from a different religion. It is symbolic of the sense of peace/stability that even non-Muslims felt under Akbar's later rule. This same man, Banarsi Das, writes of the insane panic that spread through the Kingdom on Akbar's death - he says people felt "orphaned". His autobiography extends to Jahangir's rule also, yet no such sentiment is expressed at his death. Curious, isn't it?

No relation to the court .ie. no relation to politics and people disconnected from politics are further from reality than they think they are.

Maybe. Maybe it was not real. But in case of leaders, perception matters, right? Why did these far away people perceive him as a protector? Hadn't they heard of Chittor? Or the Harem? Something must've triggered that perception, right. And so much so, that this man chose to mention it in his autobiography, that otherwise has nothing to do with Akbar at all. There's a reason why Shivaji Maharaj is worshipped in Maharashtra even today, even though none of those people ever met him. Same reason why Aurangzeb is hated by the general populace. Most people have nothing to do with historic realities, but perceptions are based on some version of reality only, right?

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!

Nope. This autobiography was published much after Jalal's rule, in Shah Jahan's reign. Even if it had been published during Jalal's, there's no way he was going about reading every book out there. In fact, he won't even have heard of it - there was no printing press and a lone random man's autobiography would never have been popular enough to reach the court. Fun fact, Badauni was a courtier of Akbar himself, writing the worst criticism of the Emperor right under his nose. It was published in Jahangir's reign, with zero consequences for the author, unlikely that he even read it.

Even funnier fact - Akbar definitely knew of Badauni's hate for his religious liberalism. And guess what? He asked Badauni to translate the Mahabharat and Ramayan for him 😂 Having some fun outta the poor old B! (One of my personal favorite stories, that in my opinion say a lot about the man )

So no, you can be sure that there was no sword hanging over independent authors. It was literally an open secret for Akbar that half his court wanted to kill him. He would've known several people were writing things about him. Impractical for him to check each one out and ask them to insert good things about him (for this he had his very own Abul Fazl Ji, praising him to the heavens and back! )

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 read a shore of my choice.

I see, from your original posts back there I thought you hated him with a passion. Anyways, glad to see you trying to look for varied opinions instead of blindly believing any one that suits you. A word of caution is to try and verify everything you read online, esp those making tall claims - in the current political scene, almost everything you find easily on the internet will portray Akbar negatively only. Remember, he's neither a saint nor a demon - be vary of any article that tries to portray him as either.

In fact, do share any and all articles you find interesting with me as well, on PMs. I will do the same, given that we're both in the same rabbit hole, even if at the opposite sides of it.

I am writing Fitoori which obviously means that I love Akbar from the show... I just wish that he matched the reality more.

Yayy, ME TOO! Rajat's Jalal is my love. But he's too 21st century for literally any man from the 16th century to match! :(

Yaar, I've literally left you with a week's worth of replies to read! 😂😭

Please read and respond aaraam se only, no hurries at all. Also, I hope you don't mind me dividing it into parts - I felt segregating them issue-wise would help in discussing each properly. You can reply all at once as well, if that suits you!

Just came across another 17th century painting of Akbar. Compare it with the other two I posted on the previous page - exactly the same man!

Indian Government site states this-

"The city of Prayagraj is among the largest cities of Uttar Pradesh and situated at the confluence of three rivers- Ganga, Yamuna and the invisible Saraswati. The meeting point is known as Triveni and is especially sacred to Hindus. The earlier settlements of the Aryans were established in this city, then known as Prayag.

Lord Brahma said,
“Prayagasya Praveshshu Papam Nashwati Tatkshanam”
All sins are cleaned with entry in Prayag.

The Chinese traveler Huan Tsang in 643 AD found Prayag inhabited by many Hindus who regarded the place very Holy.

• 1575 AD — Emperor Akbar founded the city in by the name of “ILLAHABAS” which later became ALLAHABAD meant “The City of Allaha” impressed with the strategic importance of the SANGAM. In medieval India the city enjoyed the honour of being the religio-cultural center of India. For a long time it was Provincial capital of the Mughals. Later it was captured by Marathas.
  
  
  On another page of the same search, the BBC (I tend to lean away from whatever the BBC says as it usually is very demeaning to anything that India does and it perpetrates a colonial mindset still eg. Chandrayaan 3) But yes, it tends to provide a different perspective. has this written on its site.
  
  
  
  

"Prayag, also mentioned as Jhunsi Prayag in some books, was a well-known pilgrimage destination. The place has been mentioned in several Hindu scriptures as well. But it was never a city," he says.

Bear in mind that all ancient Indian Cities surrounded a big temple. The temple then acted not just as a place of prayer but as an economic, cultural and social nucleus to the entire city. We still get to see such cities in the south.
But BBC says that Prayag was not a city, despite being a major religious hub. ??
Again, it depends on your definition of 'City', right?

He adds that Akbar laid the foundation of a new city in 1574 and named it Ilahabas. He built a massive fort and used it as an administrative and military centre to rule northern India.
Akbar was not just a sign of a Kingdom, at that point in time, he was a sign of Islam in India. If Akbar built a fort in 'Illahabad' surely he must have built a masjid too? Again, I am not against the building of mosques. Would it be allowed the OTHER way around?

Another page has this-

"In conclusion, Akbar did not change the name of Prayag, he founded a new city for administrative ease. It was later changed to Ilahabad in Shah Jahan’s reign, and Allahabad under the colonial rule for ease of pronunciation."

So, Prayag was never a city? How do we know this?! From the times when Humans were hunting and gathering, they have settled near rivers. The entire Harappan civilization was built on the tributaries of the River Indus. Prayag was sitting on Three Rivers...you really think there was No City?
History has been manipulated and mutilated but some things...you know are hard to swallow no matter how much they are greased.

Give me some time, I promise to reply and question and discuss everything you've sent me...life is just dogging my steps at the moment. 😹😹

Indian Government site states this-

"The city of Prayagraj is among the largest cities of Uttar Pradesh and situated at the confluence of three rivers- Ganga, Yamuna and the invisible Saraswati. The meeting point is known as Triveni and is especially sacred to Hindus. The earlier settlements of the Aryans were established in this city, then known as Prayag.

Lord Brahma said,
“Prayagasya Praveshshu Papam Nashwati Tatkshanam”
All sins are cleaned with entry in Prayag.

The Chinese traveler Huan Tsang in 643 AD found Prayag inhabited by many Hindus who regarded the place very Holy.

I never said it was not a settlement, I said it was a "town", not a planned and fortified city - which was what Akbar founded there. Aryans had were not urban settlers at all, they were a pastoral civilization, cities come up only in the Mahajanapada period later (even then, Prayag was never a proper city by itself, like Varanasi, Mathura, Patna etc).

It was a holy place, yes, the sangam itself was known as Prayag and was holy to the Hindus. The fortified settlement that Akbar built there (the fort, the dam etc) were called Illahabas, and this became the modern city of Allahabad. The sangam region, even after Akbar, was called Prayag only, as it continues to this day.

Basically, Illahabas the city and the subah continued to have a region called Prayag. Like I've already mentioned above, you can ask why Akbar didn't name the entire city/subah as Prayag? It's a valid question, but perhaps he thought "residence of Gods" (Illahabas) was more fitting than "place of sacrifice" (Prayag) for a beautiful city like that.

The choice of name itself shows it came from a place of reverence and not mockery. There were no Islamic Gods (or any Islamic significance at all) in Illahabas, the term clearly refers to the Hindu Gods being worshipped there. There's a reason why it's Illaha and not Allah, which would've been specifically the Islamic idea of God. Illaha is simply God, or more correctly, Gods. "Baas" itself is Hindi, changed by SJ because sounded "too Hindu". Why did it sound so Hindu to Shah Jahan if it was an attempt at Islamification by Akbar?

I think it was a very meaningful name, and a great attempt at syncretism of the two faiths - something that also made the name immortal and free from attacks of the orthodox Islamists. If SJ found Baas so Hindu, imagine an entire Hindi name! Akbar would've known how the majority of his own people would react to an entirely Hindu name for a new Imperial city, hence his solution of mixing it up seems fair enough. And it's not new at all, his Deen-i-Illahi itself was a mixing up kinda solution that wouldn't offend either side, fairly consistent he's that way.

(It's another matter that none of the mixtures worked - SJ + British changed it to Allahabad, and today ofc it's back to Prayag. The new religion also was a complete failure.)

1575 AD — Emperor Akbar founded the city in by the name of “ILLAHABAS” which later became ALLAHABAD meant “The City of Allaha” impressed with the strategic importance of the SANGAM. In medieval India the city enjoyed the honour of being the religio-cultural center of India. For a long time it was Provincial capital of the Mughals. Later it was captured by Marathas.

Yeah, true. That's what I said, right?

On another page of the same search, the BBC (I tend to lean away from whatever the BBC says as it usually is very demeaning to anything that India does and it perpetrates a colonial mindset still eg. Chandrayaan 3) But yes, it tends to provide a different perspective. has this written on its site.

"Prayag, also mentioned as Jhunsi Prayag in some books, was a well-known pilgrimage destination. The place has been mentioned in several Hindu scriptures as well. But it was never a city," he says.

Bear in mind that all ancient Indian Cities surrounded a big temple. The temple then acted not just as a place of prayer but as an economic, cultural and social nucleus to the entire city. We still get to see such cities in the south.
But BBC says that Prayag was not a city, despite being a major religious hub. ??
Again, it depends on your definition of 'City', right?

Which major temple was in Prayag? Sangam is not equivalent to a temple, although it may have been a religious site. Hinduism is a nature-worshipping faith, so rivers are temples in their own right - but a city? In fact, it's said that before Akbar's Dam that was built there, the region was not safe enough to be a proper city (due to the rivers, and their constant flooding risk).

He adds that Akbar laid the foundation of a new city in 1574 and named it Ilahabas. He built a massive fort and used it as an administrative and military centre to rule northern India.
Akbar was not just a sign of a Kingdom, at that point in time, he was spearheading Islam in India. If Akbar built a fort in 'Illahabad' surely he must have built a masjid too? Again, I am not against the building of mosques. Would it be allowed the OTHER way around?

Absolutely, I've already mentioned in my previous posts that temples/churches/mosques were all allowed. Both Badauni and Father Monserrate mention this fact specifically. I will quote if you want me to.

In fact, I also mentioned that there exists a TEMPLE INSIDE the Allahabad Fort, along with the Akshayavat. No mosque, as far as I know. So, no he didn't have any Islamic agenda there.

Another page has this-

"In conclusion, Akbar did not change the name of Prayag, he founded a new city for administrative ease. It was later changed to Ilahabad in Shah Jahan’s reign, and Allahabad under the colonial rule for ease of pronunciation."

So, Prayag was never a city? How do we know this?! From the times when Humans were hunting and gathering, they have settled near rivers. The entire Harappan civilization was built on the tributaries of the River Indus. Prayag was sitting on Three Rivers...you really think there was No City?
History has been manipulated and mutilated but some things...you know are hard to swallow no matter how much they are greased.

We know this because archaeological excavations say so. You can't automatically assume every point alongside a river will be a city. The Ganga runs through pretty much whole of North India... how many big cities exist along its banks? Many do, but the rest of it? They're just plain rural settlements, right? Prayag was inhabited as well, like all fertile places, but there's no sign of it being a city. And there's a clear definition of a city in archaeology - a fortified, urban settlement, with a considerable population and trade - only religion cannot comprise a city.

Also, I agree History has been mutilated. But, don't you think it too far-fetched that someone took the effort of erasing all proofs of the city of Prayag just to prove that Akbar's intention in naming wasn't bad? That's honestly funny, like no one put in that much effort in erasing either Chittor or Harka Bai, which would've been more fruitful.

Give me some time, I promise to reply and question and discuss everything you've sent me...life is just dogging my steps at the moment. 😹😹

Take your time, please!

In fact, I should also be taking my time and focusing on exams and real-world things... aur main yahaan atki padi hun!

Aapse seekhne ke bajaaye, I'm here only increasing your workload. Hadd hai!

The great algorithm has sensed my interest and now I find these paintings everywhere I go. Sharing these here because why not? :D

See the similarity in these, and with the ones shared earlier, the Mongolian features and the age differences.