Originally posted by: AninditaB
Hello. An interesting thread for sure!!! I wouldn't also like to chip in for discussions but again I am not an history student or have that taste to read books related to it 
. Still I would like to provide my two cents for sure.
Glad to see you here! 
1. For me of all the conquests, Chittor siege has to be the biggest blot in Akbar's life and for Maharana Pratap too. Akbar was cruel, imagine killing someone with slow poison, so that the person doesn't die immediately but with each every passing second. That's what he did. Killed the people slowly for 4 months, stopping their rations and food, so that the royals became desperate at least for their citizens. And after that killing everyone possible, women, children, old aged, handicapped. It was an unbecoming of a person who went to preach religious unity. Moreover, he considered the win as some regilious win, calling it as Jihad!!! I can't ever forget this even if he mended his ways. I guess after that he rarely went for annexations and fights.
Absolutely, I shudder to think of the barbarity that was unleashed on the innocents of Chittor. And I struggle to reconcile that image of Akbar with the one that we see on the show and have grown to love. It is truly the single largest blot on his legacy, and absolutely un-erasable no matter what.
Two things that I would like to correct, though: 1) It was unbecoming for someone who preached unity, yes. But the Akbar of 1568 (the year of Chittor) was not yet preaching religious unity or peace or anything. All that comes later, then he was just another ruler looking to expand his territory by hook or by crook. 2) The Fatehnama-i-Chittor is a tough read indeed.. I couldn't believe it when I first came across it. However, the reason why he called it jihad/religious win was more to use religion as a motivating force for his soldiers than it was a reflection of his own beliefs. Politicians then and now are smart people who use religion to let the common man fight their battles - religion is a great force, people are ready to die and kill for it. If you remember, it's exactly like Khilji uses the flag falling to motivate his despairing soldiers in Padmaavat. It is not a justification of the barbarity by any means, just an argument for Akbar's religious views. He was a cruel barbarian indeed, but never a religious bigot. Chittor was fought solely for political purposes, but given the colour of religion because that works better on the ground. He had been as cruel in his treatment of the Muslim rebellions against him, or in his siege of the Muslim kingdoms of Gujarat. Basically, he wasn't there to kill Hindus, but literally everyone who opposed him. That doesn't make him any better, but it helps one understand the continuity in his religious views at least - they do not change overnight.
I know you're not interested in the reading of History specifically, but I highly recommend reading this old post by a fellow Forum member, it clearly mentions the atrocities of Chittor and Akbar's motivations behind it: https://mariam-uz-zamani.blogspot.com/2015/08/fatehnama-i-chittor-mughal-rajput-war-last-pt7.html
2. He seemed to have a heavy reliance on Ameris. I have read somewhere that when he used to go to wars, Ameris used to protect the Haram and Palace. It shows that he used to believe them more than his own relatives. And Man Singh was considered as his Farzand (son), Daniyal was given to Ameris for raising, Bhagwant Das was given important responsibilities.
Yup, all of this is mentioned in the Akbarnama itself. When he went on his Gujarat campaign, he left Raja Bharmal in charge of his Harem and palace, which was the biggest deal possible and one can't find such a parallel of absolute trust anywhere else in my opinion! The other things are true as well. Ameris were definitely more family to him than his own family... somewhere in 1603/1604, when one by one all his loved one are dying and he's increasingly alone, he calls Man Singh back from Bengal and asks him to stay with him. Speaks volumes about the emotional support he would've been to Akbar!
3. I also find very sad that Mariam Uz Zamani's bane isn't mentioned anywhere in the texts. Her whole family was important for Akbar and yet her name is missing. She seemed to be an influential woman, who used to trade. Even Jahangir also helped her but her real name isn't mentioned. Even Mariam Makani Hamida Banu or Shah Begum's Man Bai name is present but not any solid proof of name of Mariam Uz Zamani.
It is sad, indeed. But also, the fact that despite such obviously malicious effort to erase her name, not only is she still known but also highly admired. Her name might not have been mentioned, or deliberately suppressed later, but her amazing personal achievements and Akbar's high regard for her have definitely immortalized her.
Yes, her whole family and she herself was VERY important for Akbar, but none of the royal females are mentioned by name in the Akbarnama. No one, including Ruqaiya, Salima, Hamida Banu, Man Bai, Bakshi etc. By her title, Mariam-uz-Zamani is mentioned literally everywhere - Akbarnama, Jahangirnama, Khulasat-ut-Tawarikh, and her own farmaans which call her "Wali Nimat Mariam-uz-Zamani Begum Sahiba". The monuments built by her - the Shahi Mosque of Lahore and the Baoli at Bayana, both have her title inscribed on them also.
I hope everyone's having a nice day aaj! 
comment:
p_commentcount