The Real Akbar. - Page 5

Originally posted by: AninditaB

It amuses me that Shri RamcharitaManas was written during the reign of Akbar.

And also that the epics were so gorgeously illustrated!

I've shared a painting from Harivamsa on the Forum today, let me share some others here. This is from the Ramayana of Hamida Banu Begum, gifted to her by Akbar:

^Luv-Kush reciting Ramayana in Ram's court.

Here are two from the Mahabharat of Akbar, not available publicly but locked up in the Jaipur city palace:

^Arjun hits the target.

^Hindu and Muslim scholars discuss the Mahabharat.

Little bonus because I adore these, the Ram-Siya coins of Akbar:

Notice the "राम सिया" written in Devanagari also!

Originally posted by: So-So

I'm very interested in this subject 😊 and you're right! Invador is the wrong term. It was late yesterday 😂😂. His father took over the kingdom from his father and Akbar was born in Umarkot in the palace of Rana Prasad, who had given shelter to Humayund and Hamida Begum.

I agree with you. This line is very telling and shows how he changed over the years and gradually adopted Hindu customs. He must have grieved a lot over the death of his mother. She always supported him and surprised him on some of his campaigns or hunts. After her death, he shaved off his hair and moustache for the second time. The first time he did this was on the death of Maham Anga. As you wrote, so many of his 9 Navratnas have already died. He took his mother's body on his shoulders and accompanied him a distance to Delhi. Salim appeared before his father to offer his condolences. Akbar imprisoned him for a few days. And forgave him. But the murder of Abul Fazl still lay between them. The behaviour of his rebellious son, the long-awaited heir, must have hit him hard. Maybe his grief over all this caused him to die.

I'm absolutely thrilled that we share similar interests, may I also know your name if you don't mind?

Actually no, he didn't shave his hair and moustache for Maham Anga. The only people he did it for were Hamida Banu, and Jiji Anga. He was very close to both of them, and also to Gulbadan Begum and Bega Begum (chief wife of Humayun, step-mother of Akbar). Quite a lot of mother figures he had, apparently!

Also, I loved the Dussehra line for reasons beyond secularism. One, I think it was remarkable of him to have controlled his emotions and be all dignified in front of his soldiers. Two, the fact that even in all that grief, he could care about his subjects and their religious sentiments! To have thought of another community's well-being, in the face of such tremendous personal loss, and to have made sure that his own grief does not become a barrier to their celebrations - the mark of a true leader and Shehenshah!

(Also shows how this 'another community' was not 'another' for him, this community was his own, he considered them all his very own people and cared like a King should!)

Perhaps Jalal-ud-din wasn't an invader himself for the sole reason that he was born on Indian Soil but many children of Britishers- who were born in India, for eg, General Dyer himself, responsible for the Jallianwala Bagh was born and brought up in India itself- took up posts in India and went onto continue the British Empire's hold over it.

Birth on Indian soil perhaps might be the last reason for considering Jalal Indian. Nope, he would've been called an Indian Emperor even he was born somewhere in Central Asia or whatever. In his case, his actions speak louder than his ancestry. By now, I think I've listed pages worth of his deeds for Hindustan - you tell me why he shouldn't be considered Indian?

There is no doubt about this--
Britishers were invaders.
Mughals were invaders.

Britishers were colonizers. Mughals were invaders who settled down and became rulers. Why do you think Bahadur Shah Zafar was chosen as the symbolic head of the First War of Independence?

The Mughal Empire/Rule was forced upon India through conquests and wars and Akbar chose to carry it on, perhaps more kindly than his ancestors and much better than his successors but the fact remains that it was the Mughal Empire.

I'm sorry, what do you think Akbar should've done? Left his kingdom and went back to some Central Asian desert that he had never seen in his life and become a saint? Every kingdom was created through conquests, by your logic none of the successors should've carried on their fathers' conquests and simply sat at home?

Which Empire was not forced on the people? Do you think the common people loved their Indian Kings? Every monarchy is forced, there's a reason why democracy is what it is. Didn't the Marathas force themselves on North India and Bengal? Didn't Ashoka force himself on Orissa and pretty much all of the North?

'India' was not a border-bound nation then. Each Kingdom existed independently, and pounced upon opportunities of forcing themselves on neighbouring Kingdoms. That's how Kingdoms work, irrespective of religion.

Just because the Mughals settled in India while the Britishers returned, does not change the core of the fact that India was invaded by both these forces and many others as well.

No, it does change that fact. Different terms exist due to that change only. Invaders were Ghazni, Ghori, Timur, Nadir Shah, their purpose being loot as much as you can, wreak maximum havoc, and go back. Mughals, like ALL powers in India, began as invaders but assimilated with Indian culture and polity. Britishers were colonizers through and through, started off as traders rather than invaders.

Many writers of History also claim that the Rajputs too were at one point in time not of India, that they are the descendants of the Huns belonging to some area in China/above the Himalayas.

Yep. Any way, at some point we were all the early humans of Africa and India was an empty land. Who decides how far back one can go to label natives?

But the difference is this- the Mughals chose to remain in their religion and spread it whereas the Huns assimilated themselves into the then Caste system, re-forming the Kshatriya caste after it had almost been annihilated by Parshurama.

As far as I know, the story of Kshatriya annihilation by Lord Parshuram is a myth. Can you cite a source that could verify its authenticity? I searched but couldn't find anything.

The Huns assimilated for two reasons - 1) Their own religion was animism and animal worship, which was largely similar to Hinduism so easily got blended. 2) Hinduism has a tendency to adapt different sects within itself, with time, hence why it is so diverse.

Why couldn't the Mughals integrate in a similar fashion? Theirs was already a very rigid faith called Islam, literally the polar opposite of Hinduism, philosophy-wise. Despite that rigidity, Akbar did try to blend it famously (Din-i-Illahi), and had his successors been even a small fraction of what he was, that would've worked as well. Also, Hinduism itself tried to make Akbar a part of itself, you must've heard of the Bhavishya Puran calling him an avatar of Vishnu. So, assimilation was 100% there under Akbar, and I see no reason to call him an invader.

The other Mughals you can call whatever you fancy, I couldn't care less honestly.

Could the Huns be seen as Invaders? I don't think so...or at least not more than the Mughals.

Agreed, neither more nor less.

Is religion then, the determinant of what is a Invasion and what is not?
Not really, there is also the economic prospect. The changes brought in cultural prospects. The destruction of architecture prospect...all of this has been ticked by the Mughals (Not as much as other invaders perhaps but it's been done).

Again, I neither have the will nor the knowledge to comment upon other Mughals. If you can mention incidents that prove Akbar hurt the culture or economy of this country, I'll gladly call him an invader myself. On the contrary, he took India to the greatest heights in both these fields... all you've got to do is see the awe with which foreign travelers, even foreign Kings/Queens were looking at Akbar's India. Queen Elizabeth literally begged him to let the British trade with this land!

Agreed, we cannot deny that Akbar's rule was 100% better than many kings but we also cannot forget that Akbar was the exception, not the rule. He was more tolerant than any ruler of the Mughal Dynasty--

Yes, he was the exception, which is why I'm here defending him like I've never defended anyone else. I'm NOT defending his ancestors, dynasty, religion, or even his own early life!

And anyway, what even is the definition of Tolerance? Why is this word even used in this context?

Let's see it this way,
A rich family comes and invades a peasant's farmland. Is the rich family tolerant of the peasant or is the Peasant Tolerant of the rich family?

False equivalence. Wasn't the peasant already under slavery of another rich family, in this case the Delhi Sultanate? Isn't this peasant doomed to slavery whether or not this particular rich family (Mughals) invades him?

I've said it before, I'll say it again - ALL Monarchy is forced. The peasant has tolerated the rulers since the beginning of time, till perhaps 1947.

It is in this existing context of monarchy that Akbar is called Great. Of course from a peasant's point of view, the only way he would've been great is if he had abolished monarchy and established democracy.

The peasant doesn't have a choice in tolerating, the rich families have a choice to be tolerant, and yet I see none of them even making an effort.

It was NEVER Akbar's job to be 'tolerant', what he did was return some which belonged to the people back to them.

Maybe, but he did it when NO ONE ELSE even believed that their subjects deserved something in return. Returning as a concept didn't even exist back then, yet this man thought of it and implemented it. Why weren't any of the Hindu Kings worried that women were being burnt alive? Or that kids were getting married? Or that taxation was a burden to the peasantry? Or that women lacked property rights?

It was the people of Hindustan forced to 'Tolerate' the Mughals and their torture for so long until Akbar came along and they were forced to endure it again once he passed away.

If this notebook definition of 'Tolerance' is the one we are flying with then weren't the Britishers not more 'tolerant' of Indians?

100% not. They literally thought of us insects who knew only breeding (Churchill's words). Crores of people died in famines alone, famines created by deliberate withholding of food, and I'm not counting their actual massacres and the world wars we were forced to fight in. 1 crore was the death toll of 1897 famine alone, don't know how many such occurred. Can't believe people would even compare Britishers with anyone before or after them... simply because of the SCALE of atrocity.

Does your blood not boil to hear the Britishers being called 'Tolerant'? The thing is, The rule of the Brits is fairly recent whereas the Mughal Era came and went long ago and memory (history) is a curious thing.

Agreed. But I still don't know why you assumed I was defending the Mughals here, when I have zero knowledge about anyone but Akbar. I've never once mentioned that the Mughals as a whole were worthy of any praise.

Bear in mind, the Britishers too did many good things for India. Abolition of Sati pratha, sati remarriage, railway, Education (debatable but okay), they built many ports, many cities were fortified further under them, archaeological excavations were done that showed the greatness of India- Harappa was found in one of these excavations...but we do not forgive the Brits for all the bad they have done, we downright disregard the good that they did.

Any social reforms, like sati/widow remarriage were not done by British, but by Indian reformers like Raja Rammohan Roy and Pandit Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar. The Brits were in fact reluctant to even consider these things, but were forced to do so by these skilled lawyers and activists.

The roads, railways, education, ports, cities, were all designed for their own good. You can say the same thing for a lot of Akbar's actions as well, but for every such unintentionally good action, I can list several genuine reforms with zero hidden agenda.

The only real contribution of the British is the preservation of monuments and manuscripts, for which I personally am quite grateful. Even then, it was because of the effort of a few individuals interested in History, and not some Company or Empire policy. As a whole, they looted more artefacts and destroyed way more monuments/manuscripts than they ever bothered to preserve. The tomb of Jagat Gosain, Hindu mother of Shah Jahan, was blown up by gunpowder because they wanted the land and the material. Akbar's library had 24,000 volumes in Persian, Sanskrit and other languages. Barely 1% of that huge treasure exists today - even that because some individual British citizen decided to donate a tattered old manuscript they found in their grandparents' house.

(I know the first thing you'll say is that the Mughals did so too. Did they break temples? Yes. Did they destroy libraries? Never heard of that. The scale is way too tilted to compare, but chalo for arguments' sake, even if they did... that doesn't say a single thing about Akbar. If anything, he made sure all this knowledge is preserved for eternity and distributed as far as possible. His own biography, the Akbarnama has the complete details of Hindu philosophy - all six schools - and it even defends the practice of idolatry as a symbol of people's devotion. The paintings of the epics, the translations, the poetry at court, the protection and patronage to temples and saints, the coins... is not all this preservation of culture?)

So, no, the Brits did nothing good at all. And even I do believe that they something right, a simple answer exists. They're not forgiven because their horrendous negatives far, far outweigh their few positives. I don't think their negative impact on India can even be measured enough to compare with anything else. Did you know that Indians today are genetically predisposed to diabetes because of the frequent famines of the British Raj?

In comparison to that, even the worst critics of Akbar, will agree that his positives far outshine his early life negatives. To be very honest, even the Right Wing's favorite historians like RC Majumdar, Sir Jadunath Sarkar, AL Srivastava etc have nothing but praise for him. Yet to come across a single historian, across ideologies, who doesn't agree with Akbar's deserved greatness.

Then why is it so different for the Mughals?
I think I have a reason...the brits never married Indian Hindu women. Marital alliances played a huge role in making Indians think that the Mughals were Indian too and perhaps at one point they did become Indian but they started out as Invaders and THAT is a fact.

No one's denying that fact, yaar. I mentioned in the very first comment that Babur was indeed an invader. If it pleases you, call every other Mughal an invader as well. Akbar was not one, and I'm prepared to defend that stand of mine.

PS. FUN FACT---

If Akbar were born today to a Persian (Iranian) mother and an Afghanistani father, on Indian Soil, he would NOT be considered an Indian Citizen. Actually, he and his parents- all three would be considered Illegal Immigrants if they entered India without a passport (without permission.)

Yes, but they would have a passport (which was military might, in those days ). And I'm 100% sure Akbar would've charmed (not fooled, or coerced) the Indians into considering him one of themselves, no matter what era. He knew exactly how to do that!

Also, I'm sorry but I think we should limit our discussion to Akbar, and not extend it to the Mughals in general. I mean, we all know how unlike them he was.. it's but obvious that anyone who truly admires him would have no love for the other Mughals, otherwise it would be sheer contradiction! I admire him as an individual, and it doesn't matter to me what dynasty/religion he belonged to. In all honesty, it didn't matter to him as well, tabhi toh no one has been able to rightly label him even now.. 500 years later.

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".

One of the most remarkable things about Akbar is that you can't accurately fit him into one single box. For some he's the devil himself, for some next to God, for some a Jihadi, for some a kaafir.. what he thought of himself, only he knows. While I would love to know as well, don't think there's a chance.

There's this letter to Salim, wherein he seems quite proud (or at least happy/content? I couldn't even decipher his tone ) of the fact that no one, not even his closest friends truly know him. Fascinating, like we all agree! :)

Replies in bold.

Nah, I don't hate Akbar.

I have only respect for him (If you were to ever ask my mom, she'd say that I am obsessed with him because ever since I watched the show, I have drooled over this man - Rajat Tokas's Akbar)

Aww, I love this little tidbit you added. Rajat's Jalal is just... something else entirely. Let me make a thread someday so that we can all drool over him there, sukoon se. Yahaan pe the real Akbar is interfering and destroying all the fun!

The real Akbar may have been an OK person but he does seem to have done his duty as King thrice over.
Moreover, not many historical figures are as prominent as Akbar is, even today.
So, only respect.

I am trying to form an opinion on a historical figure and for that, I believe I am in the right place because not everyone is as lucky as I am to have so many brilliant people willing to discuss thoughts without judgement.

You're really kind to have said that. I'm sorry if I do appear harsh somewhere.. it's not at all my intention. All in good faith, here!

Indeed! 'Fascinating' is truly the best word for Akbar as this man is a riddle wrapped in mystery- the more I know the less I seem to figure him out.

That makes two of us, sis. 🫱🏼‍🫲🏼

Also, great job on the paintings you've found and you're 100% right, this man is very much the same in all these paintings. Very much Mongolian-looking and there is this dagger of his too which is repeated several times, along with a ring of his on the thumb which shows recurring patters, giving credence to both the artist and the muse's truthfulness.

Yesss I'm surprised you noticed them, those two were the exact things I noticed as well. I remember going back and forth among different paintings after discovering that some things were indeed repeated! It was so nice to know, that there's perhaps a favorite dagger/ring/necklace/bracelet that he owned and wore on a frequent basis and it's there for us to see, the actual thing! Makes the man and the times feel so real. It is little, everyday things like these that make distant, grand people feel so close, real, and relatable.. it's little findings like these that make history such a lovely subject to get into! There is also a pearl necklace and a bracelet that's often repeated.. can't find right now but I'll share once I do!

Originally posted by: So-So

As far as I know, there's no historical evidence or record that Akbar imprisoned Tulsidas. There's no evidence of any conflict or interaction between Akbar and Tulsidas. Some believe Tulsidas wrote to Abdur Rahim Khan I Khanan about his behaviour while giving alms to the poor.

Yeah, that Rahim one is such a sweet story and reminded me of our show's chhotu Rahim, definitely something I could see him doing. He's such a legendary character, should've been explored in the show much better than just being JJ's cupid kid. And his love for Krishna would've fit the storyline of the show perfectly, with his Chhoti Ammijaan being such a staunch devotee. It would've been the perfect way of showing Jodha's influence on those around her... wonder why they didn't show all this REAL interesting stuff and resorted to third grade saas-bahu drama?

Story from wikipedia, in case anyone wants to know:

Abdul Rahim was known for his strange manner when giving alms to the poor. He never looked at the person he was giving alms to, keeping his gaze downwards in all humility. When Tulsidas heard about Rahim's behaviour when giving alms, he promptly wrote a couplet and sent it to Rahim:-

"ऐसी देनी देंन ज्यूँ, कित सीखे हो सैन
ज्यों ज्यों कर ऊंच्यो करो, त्यों त्यों निचे नैन"

"Why give alms like this? Where did you learn that? Your hands are as high as your eyes are low"

Realising that Tulsidas was well aware of the reasons behind his actions, and was merely giving him an opportunity to say a few lines in reply, he wrote to Tulsidas saying:-

"देनहार कोई और है, भेजत जो दिन रैन
लोग भरम हम पर करे, तासो निचे नैन"

"The Giver is someone else, giving day and night. But the world gives me the credit, so I lower my eyes."

Is...Tulsidas ji teasing Rahim here? I don't know if I am translating the emotion right here but I think Tulsidas ji is pulling Rahim's proverbial leg in the most poetic way possible.

I completely agree, they should have shown more of Rahim in the show, he was cute when he was young but stories of him online showcase him to be a brilliant individual and I would have definitely preferred seeing him like that.

His open-mindedness also hints just how strong a character MUZ had been to be able to influence people around her so profoundly and I smile when I think of such a woman existing because here we have a woman who is truly a Beauty with brains- intelligent enough to manage a massive spice business by herself and beautiful enough to be the most powerful Shahenshah's favourite.
She is Powerful and spiritually strong. And she passed away at the comfortable age of 80, so she also seems to be a physically healthy woman.

On this Janmashtami, I would also like to point out that Krishna seems to awaken a singular sort of strength in the women who love him.
We have Radha and Meera Bai. Draupadi, who loved him like a brother. MUZ. (I also love Jaya Kishori and she too is a Krishna bhakt.)
(I am of course not associating or awarding their success to him but just pointing out something that I've noticed and that is that while following Ram brings out the best qualities in a man, following Krishna seems to bring the best out of a Woman.)

Man, I am soo up for a Rajat Tokas appreciation thread!! That man is SO FINE 🌟!
The changes he made in his real voice for this role, the way he walked, his hands, his eyes...that man acted with his body so much so that even if dialogues were muted us viewers would understand his intent.

YES! I loved studying the images that you provided and spent a few minutes on each trying to find similarities once Akbar was confirmed legit.
I would love to see the necklaces and bracelet that you mentioned but yes I agree, these quirks do make him seem more human. More relatable.
There's another thing that I found common in two paintings and it might seem a bit strange but these two paintings seem to have a Dog in them- is there some meaning behind them or did the artist just randomly added a dog to prevent vacant space? I know the bird is often there to signify Akbar's artistic side but the dog?
(The first dog is just below the post with the stunted kid and another is in your janmashtami post picture.)

I actually believe that if you're passionate about something, it shows and you clearly are passionate about standing up for Akbar- which is brilliant and I promise, I didn't mind. ❤️
Infact, I've had a good chance of forming an opinion or coming as close to a conclusion as I possibly can on a person like Akbar.
...Also one another thing- I love debating/discussing/arguing simply for the thrill that they give me - there's absolutely nothing personal involved.
(I was 'that child' in school who took part in every debate where topics ranged from Hand Sanitisers to the State of the World and would argue till time-up whether or not I believed in it.) So don't hate me when you realise that I am against you here on this page just for the sake of it because at this point you've already cleared some misconceptions I had been forming from my sojourn down the net.
(Please feel free to clear some more misconceptions of mine if you see them.)

And perhaps you put it best when you said that I cannot put Akbar in a box.
He had been cruel in his youth but perhaps became unfailingly kind and wise as experience aged him.
He was human and as such is allowed his mistakes.
But I too am human and have flaws and shan't forget what he did in his youth but I respect him for the fact that he managed to change himself so drastically...for a human, to change themselves and their own character is perhaps the hardest task of all.

He also comes off as a cynic of hindu religion in a few instances (Jwalamukhi devi mandir) but later his heart changes when he sees/experiences something and becomes a believer. (The story goes that he tried to douse the flame but when he could not, he gifted a gold chattri to the temple)..it shows that he was a man of rational thinking and for that, again, I respect him.

I am...still of unmade mind regarding Akbar's stance towards Women in general.
Again, mostly based on stories that made me feel disappointed and chief among them is the story of Kiran Devi- niece of Maharana Pratap. The amount of marriages in his ledger - yes other kings did it too, Hindu kings as well but like we said, we are discussing Akbar.

Regarding calling someone Indian...it's the same things that determines it today.
Shared Language, or shared culture, definitely shared history- the pain and the pride that it brings, sometimes same Religion, stories/vedas/puranas...all of this makes one an Indian.

Let's think of the shallowest definition when describing a Local of medieval times when Kingdoms were small and bifurcated-- They speak my language, look like me, they eat my sort of food, worship the same gods, celebrate my festivals and have the same family values, the same sort of funeral rites, clothing, marriage. (They only feel tragic horror when Nalanda is mentioned- shared history.)

If Akbar's actions make him an Indian then I suppose that would feel something like Mother Teresa being an Indian? She did a lot of good and she had the Indian Nationality too and she too is god to some while villain to some others.

If we were to follow Blood specifically then the first Indian Mughal would then be Salim?
But then again, Aurangzeb's actions did not stop him from being an Indian, did they? I am not deviating into Aurangzeb, I promise, just drawing a parallel. That if Akbar's actions made him an Indian then did Aurangzeb's actions make him a foreigner?

The words Colonization and Invasion have lots of overlapping ideas, both use force, both happens on foreign land (ie. which is not their own), both subjugate the native population, both have an economic prospect attached to them. Regarding drawing parallels between The Mughals and the Brits- the Mughals could very well have been colonisers as well if Babur had been able to retain his home in Ferghana-- Kubul was not earning much, they needed to expand and India was right there along with an Invite. We sort of invited the Brits too...or the Mughals did (Jahangir gave them space to prosper somewhat by allowing them to establish factories.)
This parallel is quite amusing-- Rana Sanga invited Babur to fight Ibrahim Lodhi in the delusion that Babur, perhaps like Timur would loot and return while Jahangir allowed the Brits to get a hold on India in the delusion that it was just trade. Both Rana Sanga and Jahangir were wrong. History does repeat itself...you just need to look close enough.

I always thought that Bahadur Shah Zafar was chosen (mostly as a puppet of the sepoys) as the face of the revolution for the lack of better alternative.

Ofcourse I don't think Akbar should have given up on his Inherited Kingdom-- I was never crowing for him to give it all up or to become a monk or anything like that...My point was that every legacy comes with its own baggage. The moment Akbar chose to wear that Crown, that baggage became his own.
The tattered Kingdom that Akbar inherited was more than just land.

We know that the GDP is not really the true mirror of a country's growth- India is the fifth economy in the world but poverty still exists, illiteracy exists...the gap between the rich and poor is widening each and every day. Similarly, the GDP of India during the Mughals is quite high but was that money being used properly? Or was it used for the luxurious living of the few? (Asking not stating.)
Indians were made to feel second class citizens- both under the British and under the Mughals.
The poor and weak were subjugated under both.

Reagarding Parshuram and Kshatriya, I heard it a few years ago through word of mouth but found something on the net that sounds similar.
https://medium.com/@hrising19/why-did-parashuram-kill-the-kshatriyas-from-the-earth-for-21-times-2e6a6d048db4

Again, like everything revolving around Mahabharat and Ramayana/ Puranas in general- it is extremely hard to differentiate history from myth.

Is...Tulsidas ji teasing Rahim here? I don't know if I am translating the emotion right here but I think Tulsidas ji is pulling Rahim's proverbial leg in the most poetic way possible.

Maybe, I didn't think of it that way. I thought he recognized the symbolism of Rahim's looking down, and perhaps just wanted to hear it in his own words? Teasing in a way, yeah.. but either ways, quite a lovely interaction!

His open-mindedness also hints just how strong a character MUZ had been to be able to influence people around her so profoundly and I smile when I think of such a woman existing because here we have a woman who is truly a Beauty with brains- intelligent enough to manage a massive spice business by herself and beautiful enough to be the most powerful Shahenshah's favourite.
She is Powerful and spiritually strong. And she passed away at the comfortable age of 80, so she also seems to be a physically healthy woman.

I know this isn't visible here since my discussion focusses primarily on Akbar, but man the way I've been obsessed with this woman! She's an inspiration through and through, and I wish more and more people know and admire her. The way I've been dying to get all and any information about her, kya hi kahun!

I don't even think her beauty matters or anything, she must've been a force to reckon with for her to have been Akbar's favourite. He was known to have been a sound judge of character, of placing the best people around himself (Man Singh, Todarmal, Birbal, Rahim and so on). He would've seen in her a true equal, and that's saying something!

I remember reading how Akbar and MUZ used to have long talks over matters of her trade. It was some author who had mentioned it in one of his speeches, and he was absolutely surprised that this fact had been preserved over the ages, because rarely are the private conversations of the King and the Queen important enough to be recorded. The fact that such discussions existed itself tell of us the intellectual compatibility they must've shared. Not to sound too cheesy, but I admit I was reminded of the angoori-baag talk night of our JJ.. how I wish they had shown more of political talks between the two, because clearly they had been more a team at work than romantics in love! I would've loved to see that team in action.

On this Janmashtami, I would also like to point out that Krishna seems to awaken a singular sort of strength in the women who love him.
We have Radha and Meera Bai. Draupadi, who loved him like a brother. MUZ. (I also love Jaya Kishori and she too is a Krishna bhakt.)
(I am of course not associating or awarding their success to him but just pointing out something that I've noticed and that is that while following Ram brings out the best qualities in a man, following Krishna seems to bring the best out of a Woman.)

God, I'm so continually surprised by the coincidences happening over here! 😭 Yes absolutely, 100% agreed. I'm just very pleasantly surprised that you brought up Krishna and these women here, because I've been absolutely in love with Krishna, Radha, and most importantly, Meera Bai. She fascinates me like no one else does, I wish I could've met and talked to her once. (There's this excellent documentary of Meera I watched ages ago, I'll share if you would like it, it was lovely!) Quite off-topic here, but I've also written loads of stuff on Krishna, I was that crazy.. stories and poetry and analysis of his life and what not. Those were the days!

I hadn't ever thought about it that way, the Ram/Krishna and man/woman analogy is beautiful and brilliant! Perhaps as a woman, but I'm really partial towards Krishna being the best there ever was and will be. No wonder Harka Bai loved him, and no wonder she was what she was!

YES! I loved studying the images that you provided and spent a few minutes on each trying to find similarities once Akbar was confirmed legit.

This sounds so funny

I would love to see the necklaces and bracelet that you mentioned but yes I agree, these quirks do make him seem more human. More relatable.
There's another thing that I found common in two paintings and it might seem a bit strange but these two paintings seem to have a Dog in them- is there some meaning behind them or did the artist just randomly added a dog to prevent vacant space? I know the bird is often there to signify Akbar's artistic side but the dog?
(The first dog is just below the post with the stunted kid and another is in your janmashtami post picture.)

It is Akbar's pet dog. The painting after the kids one is actually Akbar's last portrait, painted just before his death. The scene itself is of an ill, melancholy Akbar discussing his health with his physician. The painting also has inscriptions (not visible in the one I shared) which clearly depict his despair and poor mental state. The dog lies down like that, sensing his master's troubles, upset that he won't be taken out for a walk today, and yet loyal enough to stay beside the dying man.

More details and inscriptions of the painting here: https://mariam-uz-zamani.blogspot.com/2016/09/akbar-last-portrait-persian-inscriptions-english-translation-akbar-death-part1.html

...Also one another thing- I love debating/discussing/arguing simply for the thrill that they give me - there's absolutely nothing personal involved.

That makes two of us again, I'm a sucker for healthy debates that are almost non-existent now. Forget social media, these days I can't trust even friends to not be offended over mere impersonal debates. Sad state of things, really!

(I was 'that child' in school who took part in every debate where topics ranged from Hand Sanitisers to the State of the World and would argue till time-up whether or not I believed in it.) So don't hate me when you realise that I am against you here on this page just for the sake of it because at this point you've already cleared some misconceptions I had been forming from my sojourn down the net.

"Hand-sanitisers" Awww Love the passion, girl, WAY TO GO!

And perhaps you put it best when you said that I cannot put Akbar in a box.
He had been cruel in his youth but perhaps became unfailingly kind and wise as experience aged him.
He was human and as such is allowed his mistakes.
But I too am human and have flaws and shan't forget what he did in his youth but I respect him for the fact that he managed to change himself so drastically...for a human, to change themselves and their own character is perhaps the hardest task of all.

So well said, I couldn't have put it better! For us, normal people, growing up in a democratic state, how hard it is to look at our own faults? For a Monarch of the 16th century, constantly being called and compared to God, being praised left right and center, having absolute power that makes no questioning possible.. for such a person to not only question himself, but to find answers and work upon them, is a feat beyond remarkable.

He also comes off as a cynic of hindu religion in a few instances (Jwalamukhi devi mandir) but later his heart changes when he sees/experiences something and becomes a believer. (The story goes that he tried to douse the flame but when he could not, he gifted a gold chattri to the temple)..it shows that he was a man of rational thinking and for that, again, I respect him.

A rational man, absolutely, and a cynic of religion itself, not just Hindu religion. You would be surprised at the kind of things he said about his own religion at times, and was willing to hear such things from others as well. When one of the Jesuits in Ibadat Khana hesitated in criticizing Islam in front of Akbar, his reaction was a laugh, followed by - "It takes much more than that to ruffle my feathers, you can speak freely!"

The Jwala Devi story is simply a legend, with no historical basis as of yet. But even if it were to be true, it hardly shows his hate for Hindus. The method is wrong obviously, but the action seems more out of curiosity than malice. No wonder he immediately accepted his defeat and respectfully gifted the chhatri to the temple. However, since no contemporary record of such a miraculous event exists, I consider it false.

I am...still of unmade mind regarding Akbar's stance towards Women in general.
Again, mostly based on stories that made me feel disappointed and chief among them is the story of Kiran Devi- niece of Maharana Pratap. The amount of marriages in his ledger - yes other kings did it too, Hindu kings as well but like we said, we are discussing Akbar.

The Kiran Devi story is 100% false. Zero proof of it exists except a random painting in a Museum, which itself was made in the 1800s, 300 years after Akbar's death. You can look at it and clearly see that the style is of much later. I can make a painting today and claim any legend to be true, that's not how it works. The story itself only circulates on Whatsapp or random articles online, no serious historian has ever given two hoots about it.

Forget Mughals, even Rajput chronicles say nothing about this supposedly brave incident. Several Right-Wing pages themselves have debunked it, look here: https://myvoice.opindia.com/2021/09/the-hindus-must-stop-inventing-fiction-and-celebrate-real-heroes/

It is part of the current socio-political smear campaign going on against Mughals/Muslims in general. I wish Akbar was left out of it, but unfortunately, no matter what he did, it is his religion that would be seen first. I'm 100% sure if he had been a Hindu King, with the exact same life story, he would've been worshipped in India today.

His stance towards women perhaps underwent the biggest change. I don't consider the number of wives as a yardstick at all, because marriages were nothing more than political alliances. Maharana Pratap is known to have had great respect for women, yet he did marry several women. That absolutely changes nothing. However, in Akbar's case, there are f***ed up things when it comes to women - him marrying an already married woman forcibly, taking up Rani Durgavati's sister in his Harem etc. It's only later, that he introduces several reforms for women as I've listed before, and to me they are insanely progressive for the times! I remember reading an author, who said a part of it can be attributed to him being sensitive towards his daughters' sufferings which made him truly realize what women in general go through. He's anyway known to have loved his daughters very much, so seems quite plausible.

Regarding calling someone Indian...it's the same things that determines it today.
Shared Language, or shared culture, definitely shared history- the pain and the pride that it brings, sometimes same Religion, stories/vedas/puranas...all of this makes one an Indian.

So going by that, Akbar is an Indian, right? Or at least the middle-aged Akbar is.

Let's think of the shallowest definition when describing a Local of medieval times when Kingdoms were small and bifurcated-- They speak my language, look like me, they eat my sort of food, worship the same gods, celebrate my festivals and have the same family values, the same sort of funeral rites, clothing, marriage. (They only feel tragic horror when Nalanda is mentioned- shared history.)

This would be true for people only from the same region. Someone from Delhi would not speak the same language, or eat the same food, or even celebrate the same festivals, have similar family values, same rituals, clothing etc as say Shivaji Maharaj, or the Ahom Kings, or the Cholas, or anyone apart from North India. In those days, no one would've even cared about Nalanda, forget being horrified over it.. it was for them a separate Kingdom of zero value. It is only now in a modern, united India that we do have a shared history and feel for it.

And I'm 100% sure Akbar would've felt the same, perhaps even greater horror at Nalanda.. given that he was such a lover and a meticulous collector of books. His entire library of 24,000 was personally arranged and catalogued by him. I remember him being horrified at the cruelty Salim inflicted on the rebels, and he was quite ashamed of even his own cruelty of the early days.

If Akbar's actions make him an Indian then I suppose that would feel something like Mother Teresa being an Indian? She did a lot of good and she had the Indian Nationality too and she too is god to some while villain to some others.

Good point, agreed.

If we were to follow Blood specifically then the first Indian Mughal would then be Salim?
But then again, Aurangzeb's actions did not stop him from being an Indian, did they? I am not deviating into Aurangzeb, I promise, just drawing a parallel. That if Akbar's actions made him an Indian then did Aurangzeb's actions make him a foreigner?

Absolutely. Aurangzeb's actions 100% make a tyrant and a foreigner. Who are we to call him Indian when he had such disdain for the culture?

I do not care about anyone's ancestry at all, every single persons who respects and betters India can as well be called an Indian, in my opinion. Even today, how many living in India are truly Indians? I see so many citizens having 0 regard for their own people/country/culture.. are they Indians or are they not?

The words Colonization and Invasion have lots of overlapping ideas, both use force, both happens on foreign land (ie. which is not their own), both subjugate the native population, both have an economic prospect attached to them. Regarding drawing parallels between The Mughals and the Brits- the Mughals could very well have been colonisers as well if Babur had been able to retain his home in Ferghana-- Kubul was not earning much, they needed to expand and India was right there along with an Invite. We sort of invited the Brits too...or the Mughals did (Jahangir gave them space to prosper somewhat by allowing them to establish factories.)

Could've been, but were not. Babur is well-known to have been homesick all the time. I don't know if Akbar was planning to win Ferghana or not, but I'm certain he wouldn't have gone there - Agra was his home and it shows in how he beautified it. Ferghana or whatever would've been just another territory to him. Salim and SJ are both known to have been very fond of India, its land, climate, flora, fauna, fruits, and so on... if not people (as some believe).

This parallel is quite amusing-- Rana Sanga invited Babur to fight Ibrahim Lodhi in the delusion that Babur, perhaps like Timur would loot and return while Jahangir allowed the Brits to get a hold on India in the delusion that it was just trade. Both Rana Sanga and Jahangir were wrong. History does repeat itself...you just need to look close enough.

True that! Jahangir disappoints me so much.. kuchh toh seekh leta apne Abba Huzoor se? I remember reading Akbar had the foresight to not allow raw spices being sold to Europeans, since that would've been much more profitable to them. He insisted that all spices will be processed in India itself, and only then sold to the outsiders.

I always thought that Bahadur Shah Zafar was chosen (mostly as a puppet of the sepoys) as the face of the revolution for the lack of better alternative.

Yes, but a 'foreigner' remains the last of the last alternative, right? There were several rulers available, including Rani Lakshmi Bai to lead the revolt. I'm sure people would've gladly chosen her instead of an invader, if they believed so.

Ofcourse I don't think Akbar should have given up on his Inherited Kingdom-- I was never crowing for him to give it all up or to become a monk or anything like that...My point was that every legacy comes with its own baggage. The moment Akbar chose to wear that Crown, that baggage became his own.
The tattered Kingdom that Akbar inherited was more than just land.

True, and I think he took that legacy to the greatest heights possible.

We know that the GDP is not really the true mirror of a country's growth- India is the fifth economy in the world but poverty still exists, illiteracy exists...the gap between the rich and poor is widening each and every day. Similarly, the GDP of India during the Mughals is quite high but was that money being used properly? Or was it used for the luxurious living of the few? (Asking not stating.)

Inequality must've been quite high even then. Monarchy means lavish living of the few at the expense of back-breaking labour of the many. But I don't know how that can be called as Akbar hurting the economy of India.. this inequality was the characteristic of all monarchies, everywhere. If anything, the taxation reforms of Akbar, brought about by Raja Todarmal are known to have been a major relief to the poor peasants.

Indians were made to feel second class citizens- both under the British and under the Mughals. The poor and weak were subjugated under both.

Agreed, but some correction here: The common Indian (irrespective of religion) was a fourth grade citizen under ALL rulers. The poor and the weak were subjugated throughout human history, by all models of power.

Did the Mughals specifically target Hindus? Yes. Did Akbar specifically target Hindus? No.

Reagarding Parshuram and Kshatriya, I heard it a few years ago through word of mouth but found something on the net that sounds similar.
https://medium.com/@hrising19/why-did-parashuram-kill-the-kshatriyas-from-the-earth-for-21-times-2e6a6d048db4

Again, like everything revolving around Mahabharat and Ramayana/ Puranas in general- it is extremely hard to differentiate history from myth.

The article you linked also calls it mythology only, and I feel the killing of an entire caste-group is too unrealistic to have occurred in reality. However, that is your belief and I do not wish to counter it. In any case, I don't think it being myth or history matters to our discussion in anyway.

Gurrrrrl, naeki aur puch puch- send over all the links. The Meera Bai documentary along with the links of all the stuff you've written about Krishna.
I don't blame you for having a bias towards Kanha, how can I when he has half my heart while the other half belongs to Shiv- so anything you have on them would be heartily welcomed.

I agree! Meera Bai is extremely fascinating, she's going to pop up for a scene in Fitoori so anything you can give me on her, Akbar, MUZ and even Maharana Pratap would be very helpful- I heard this story once of Akbar meeting Meera bai, is that true? He heard her sing in a temple. A necklace was involved.
I remember listening to a story of Meera Bai in the voice of this man, if you have time, give this a listen...it's lovely.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxQLAVvdroA

and if you like that give this a listen too-- it's a story on Krishna and Sudama's friendship.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85tD5hazQRg

Harka/Jodha Bai (I know Jodha is not factually correct but in my heart she is Jodha) is such a marvel of a woman. 🙌🏽🙌🏽🙌🏽
The feminist in me jumps with joy every time her thought comes to my mind- which is often.
This observation that you made that he- Akbar- must have seen MUZ as a true equal has my heart shouting Rajat's name so hard...God, I miss this show so much. I really wanted to thank you, you did not let the world dampen my view of Akbar though it tried hard to do so...I do believe I will be able to finish writing my fictional work without much guilt of misrepresentation.

Hahah, you were not the only one whose mind skipped over to JoJa having discussions in Angoori Bagh-- man, you're right, the coincidences are starting to pile up and it's a novel experience as it's been a while since I had such an immersive discussion with someone.

Can I read these discussions between MUZ and Akbar somewhere? I am really interested in seeing what was spoken, the undertone, the words said and unsaid may give us an insight into the relationship.

Akbar had a PET DOG? Do we know what he named him?
Girl, I'm finding out so many new things about this man...even the instance that you mentioned, about spice only being sold after being grounded is new to me and it's so simple yet genius move of him. Very forward thinking as well.
The dialogue 'It takes much more than that to ruffle my feathers, you can speak freely!"
I can so picture Rajat saying these words...
Do you have any more such instances? Any more scenes where his intelligence shines through or even his kindness? Or any dialogues?

I read the link you posted and it's so sad- especially the part where Akbar tried to remain cheerful despite knowing that perhaps he was nearing his end.

Really?! No one would have cared about Nalanda-- what-- but the entire world cared about Nalanda! Students came from far away to study here and I am sure many Indian students wished to go there as well! They would have cared yar...I hope.
This library of Akbar's...has it survived?

Regarding the Kiran Devi fiasco-
https://medium.com/@profspkaushik/the-magnanimity-of-akbar-f7da5fb1cfcf

Nah, that's almost like saying that people who don't observe Fundamental Duties are not to be given Fundamental rights but that's not the case. Unfortunately. But perhaps it should be.