What is the BASIS of GREATness ? - Page 4

Kaana,

Just to answer in short, your questionS as you pointed above.


1. Akbar did not repent Chittor's massacre.

2. On the other hand, he " celebrated " it.

3. In his Farman, issued after winning Chittor, he called the Rajputs of Mewar (Sisodias, Chauhans & Rathores) - a " community of cattle like people " . The defenders of Mewar were compared to " pigs " at one point in that farman..!

I will post his Farman on Blog, it will come in Chittor series posts only. It is not FIT to be posted here as it is " bitter beyond imagination " . Just reading that language i could understand, what would have the actual HORROR been like. Chittor was no mean war or massacre. Atrocities / War-crimes were blasphemous even by war standards of those times or even present times.!


Anyways, you continue your debate. :)

Remember that, still i say - Akbar is called "great", but that is for his "reforms" , as i said in the starting of this thread. We should take a careful measure of his other side also. Though, he ruled well BUT personally, i do not think that his reign was a RamRajya, about which i have enough reasons..

Originally posted by: history_geek

Kaana,

Just to answer in short, your questionS as you pointed above.


1. Akbar did not repent Chittor's massacre.

2. On the other hand, he " celebrated " it.

3. In his Farman, issued after winning Chittor, he called the Rajputs of Mewar (Sisodias, Chauhans & Rathores) - a " community of cattle like people " . The defenders of Mewar were compared to " pigs " at one point in that farman..!

I will post his Farman on Blog, it will come in Chittor series posts only. It is not FIT to be posted here as it is " bitter beyond imagination " . Just reading that language i could understand, what would have the actual HORROR been like. Chittor was no mean war or massacre. Atrocities / War-crimes were blasphemous even by war standards of those times or even present times.!


Anyways, you continue your debate. :)

Remember that, still i say - Akbar is called "great", but that is for his "reforms" , as i said in the starting of this thread. We should take a careful measure of his other side also. Though, he ruled well BUT personally, i do not think that his reign was a RamRajya, about which i have enough reasons..

Originally posted by: Sandhya.A

Thanks for the link Abhay. Great discussions going on. Here i am copy pasting what i posted in the other thread.

Thanks for sharing the articles. Such narrow minded thinking is pathetic.

Our country has given birth to many precious men and women, rulers who have exhibited heroism and exceptional achievements. Chandragupta Maurya , Harshavardhana, Maharana Pratap, Chand Bibi, Chatrapati Shivaji, Raja RajaChola,Vikramaditya, PrithviRaj Chauhan, Rana Sanga and many more. Each of them were special and heroic in their own way.

But Ashoka and Akbar are accorded the suffix 'Great' due to the scale of their achievements and due to their humility and humanity inspite of such huge achievements. And deservedly so.

The world has seen innumerable scientists whose contributions to science has been special and valuble. But why is Einstein considered the greatest of them all ?

What makes Tulsidas the greatest among Hindi poets? Aren't others' works valuble?

What makes Amitabh's voice the most sought after in India? Why is M.S. Subbulakshmi considered the best Carnatic Singer? Why is the Mona Lisa the most famous painting? Why is Don Bradman and Sachin's cricket hailed? Aren't other's cricket good enough? What makes Shakespeare's plays superior to the rest. What makes Mahatma Gandhi the Father of the nation? Aren't other's patriotism and sacrifice great?

Not that others are not good, but they are extra good, so good that they have beome symbolic and iconic.

Ashoka and Akbar are the greatest among great rulers and warriors of India. Two greatest kings who have ruled India and are called 'The Great'.

And my response to your response.

Completely agree that noone can be called greatest. But some stand out among the greats, stand taller because of the scale and magnitude of their achievements.

Rani Lakshmi Bai , Bhagat Singh and many other freedom fighters are great in their own ways. But what makes Gadhiji stand out among them all?

Gadhiji certaintly has his admirers and critics. He has his positives and many shortcomings and partialities too. But surely it is undeniable that he gave a proper direction to the freedom struggle without which not all the rebellions and sacrifices of all the fighters would have yielded the results.

He had the charisma to pull the common man and unite them in his efforts. He understood the reason why England wished to retain India as a colony. They found it profitable. It provided a big market for the British industries. By the Swadeshi movement he shattered the market. By his non cooperation movement he made India too expensive to handle. That is why the British left. NOT due to any act of bravery by anyone which they could have supressed easily with their supreme weaponry.

Whatever be his personal pluses and negatives, it is to his credit that he understood the core of the problem, the method to solve it, and mobilise the huge public to achieve his plan. That is why he is called the Father of the nation.

Again this is not a question of being greatest, but greater among the greats.

Sandhya,
I had replied to the part in blue color on previous page. Link : Click Here
Now, replying to the rest of your comment.

About Scientists:
Sure there have been many scientists, of the likes of Sir Issac Newton, Albert Einstein, Alexander Volta, James Clark Maxwell, so on and so forth. But, the mention of Albert Einstein as greatest is again your choice. As far as i know, i have mostly heard Sir Issac Newton's name in this list. Again an element of subjectivity.

Voice:
Fairly i will agree with you. Amit Ji's voice is sought after. M.S. Subbulakshmi is surely the Queen of Carnatic Music. But, so is Lata Mangeshkar's voice, which is still considered the "voice of the century". There is no criteria to suggest who was the BEST. Again a matter of opinion.

Cricket:
Along with Australian legend Sir Donald Bradman and our very own Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar, let us include the name of West Indian Cricketer Brian Charles Lara, who in my opinion was surely one of the best. This is a very famous debate among these 3 and who is greatest among them is still a matter of opinion among the people of sports fratenity. They are hailed but there is no unanimous opinion of being MORE Great or LESS Great.

About Mona Lisa and Shakespeare i agree, as i do not know much about any one else right now, other than these 2 in their respective fields.!


Mahatama Gandhi:
You would find it interesting to know that, even the Government of India does NOT know, "Why Mahatama Gandhi is called Father of Nation" ? There are "versions" but no such formal document conferring the "title" as such.! Read the article. There was an RTI filed and the government failed to tell the reason :
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/10-year-olds-rti-on-father-of-the-nation-title-for-gandhi-474827

Yes, his patriotism is "great". But we were debating the issue of being "more great" or "less great" . He can be great, but if someone calls him greatest i will have different opinions. The history taught to us in schools is very sugar-coated, to be true. We need to read it ourselves also.

For me Bhagat Singh was a very enlighted person. In our books, we read just in few lines, that he was a "revolutuonary" and he was hanged but we are not introduced to the ideas. He directly attacked the British for their communal politics. He was a VERY VERY ENLIGHTENED person. Not only he, but also the other revolutionaries.

In a freedom struggle, one needs to keep religion aside, but here is where Mahatama Gandhi is somewhat criticized. Of course in Indian books, we are taught that it was Muhammed Ali Jinnah who wanted Pakistan, but we are not told what lead them to go to this extent. I am not adding details because no one will understand what i mean. :)

Here is the list of some books. If anyone can read them, they will understand what flaw i am pointing to. Link :: Works of Mahatama Gandhi. 98 volumes, printed by Government of India. Contains over 50,000 pages. This is the original list of all the speeches and documents about Mahatama Gandhi over a period of 45 years i think. History has many shades.

It is my personal belief, had those revolutionaries of the likes of Bhagat Singh, Azad, Asfaqulla Khan, etc. been alive, there would have been no communal problem. They attacked the British where it hurt the most. They "exposed" the communal politics of British before the people. They were the ones who were very strong proponents of communal unity.

I regard all of them, whether it is Mahatama Gandhi or the revolutionaries. They have some flaws as per the opinions of different people, but i would like to add that, it was the miserable condition of British during the IInd World War which was also a reason we got independence. Britain was shattered in the war. And, United States of America was pressurizing Britain to "OPEN UP" economy of India, as USA also wanted to enter the Indian market for its own benefit. There are many unending reasons..

The thing is that, the question of greatest, more great, less great or greater among the greats as you said, is a matter of opinion and the topic is open to interpretation of different people. I am just being the devil's advocate and trying to present as many diverse points as possible for a good discussion.

Originally posted by: history_geek

<font face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif">Sandhya,
I had replied to the part in blue color on previous page. Link : Click Here
Now, replying to the rest of your comment.

About Scientists:
Sure there have been many scientists, of the likes of Sir Issac Newton, Albert Einstein, Alexander Volta, James Clark Maxwell, so on and so forth. But, the mention of Albert Einstein as greatest is again your choice. As far as i know, i have mostly heard Sir Issac Newton's name in this list. Again an element of subjectivity.

Voice:
Fairly i will agree with you. Amit Ji's voice is sought after. M.S. Subbulakshmi is surely the Queen of Carnatic Music. But, so is Lata Mangeshkar's voice, which is still considered the "voice of the century". There is no criteria to suggest who was the BEST. Again a matter of opinion.

Cricket:
Along with Australian legend Sir Donald Bradman and our very own Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar, let us include the name of West Indian Cricketer Brian Charles Lara, who in my opinion was surely one of the best. This is a very famous debate among these 3 and who is greatest among them is still a matter of opinion among the people of sports fratenity. They are hailed but there is no unanimous opinion of being MORE Great or LESS Great.

About Mona Lisa and Shakespeare i agree, as i do not know much about any one else right now, other than these 2 in their respective fields.!


Mahatama Gandhi:
You would find it interesting to know that, even the Government of India does NOT know, "Why Mahatama Gandhi is called Father of Nation" ? There are "versions" but no such formal document conferring the "title" as such.! Read the article. There was an RTI filed and the government failed to tell the reason :
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/10-year-olds-rti-on-father-of-the-nation-title-for-gandhi-474827

Yes, his patriotism is "great". But we were debating the issue of being "more great" or "less great" . He can be great, but if someone calls him greatest i will have different opinions. The history taught to us in schools is very sugar-coated, to be true. We need to read it ourselves also.

For me Bhagat Singh was a very enlighted person. In our books, we read just in few lines, that he was a "revolutuonary" and he was hanged but we are not introduced to the ideas. He directly attacked the British for their communal politics. He was a VERY VERY ENLIGHTENED person. Not only he, but also the other revolutionaries.

In a freedom struggle, one needs to keep religion aside, but here is where Mahatama Gandhi is somewhat criticized. Of course in Indian books, we are taught that it was Muhammed Ali Jinnah who wanted Pakistan, but we are not told what lead them to go to this extent. I am not adding details because no one will understand what i mean. :)

Here is the list of some books. If anyone can read them, they will understand what flaw i am pointing to. Link :: Works of Mahatama Gandhi. 98 volumes, printed by Government of India. Contains over 50,000 pages. This is the original list of all the speeches and documents about Mahatama Gandhi over a period of 45 years i think. History has many shades.

It is my personal
belief, had those revolutionaries of the likes of Bhagat Singh, Azad,
Asfaqulla Khan, etc. been alive, there would have been no communal
problem. They attacked the British where it hurt the most. They
"exposed" the communal politics of British before the people. They were
the ones who were very strong proponents of communal unity.

I regard all of them, whether it is Mahatama Gandhi or the revolutionaries. They have some flaws as per the opinions of different people, but i would like to add that, it was the miserable condition of British during the IInd World War which was also a reason we got independence. Britain was shattered in the war. And, United States of America was pressurizing Britain to "OPEN UP" economy of India, as USA also wanted to enter the Indian market for its own benefit. There are many unending reasons..

The thing is that, the question of greatest, more great, less great or greater among the greats as you said, is a matter of opinion and the topic is open to interpretation of different people. I am just being the devil's advocate and trying to present as many diverse points as possible for a good discussion.

</font>

Brilliant posts Abhay and Sands. Classic discussion with great valid points taken for discussion. Glad that the thread is going on profesdionally as a healthy debate instead of tearing each other. Thanks to all of you sharing your thoughts here.

As pointed by both of you end of the day it's one's own opinions, based on obe's own core values and beliefs in life, that makes one great, greater or less great.

and importantly the way history has dealt with a personality matters big time. It is the biggest influence for lack of any other info, rather want of some unearthing of information (which is what Abhay is doing for all of us here). For exxmple, work of the liked of Abul Fazl cannot be taken as the basis to conclude, to whom their emperor is God and hence can never wrong. Also accounts of by people are selective portraying the good and ignoring the unceremonious or even portray such as glories! a balanced view is what is required to assess the true merits.

Regarding Gandhiji and Bhagat Singh, well said. As rightly pointed by Anhay there is wealth of info of Gandhiji but lack of it in the case of later. I also feel the situation, the true need of the hour, the approach has a bearing too, not just the outcome.

And I would also like to draw the attention back to same old point that even in the examples discussed people are considered great for their contribution in an area, but because MS sings so well she is not declared point blank as great and put on a pedestal. For such a bold statement the entire personality needs to be considered than select aspects would be my view.

A BIG to all !! 😃

Hey abhay...I really love all your posts on the forum and your blogspot as well...it's really informative and makes us think...please try to update more such posts as the current track is really disappointing and it would be nice to learn some real history...please see if you can make new posts more often and keep us informed about all the things that took place in reality or what's going to come next
Thanks 😊

Originally posted by: rinall

A BIGtoall !!😃

Abhay, Kaana, Sandhya and everyone who's reading this😉😆

I have 2 questions which have been troubling me since long😕I'd really appreciate if someone answers them😳😊So here they are--

1) Why was Akbar called Shahenshah-e-Hind ??😕South India is and was always a part of Hindustan na...and Akbar didn't see much success in South India😕😕So why did he get that title ?

2)Why on earth was he called Akbar-The Great ??😲😲😲

Ok Ok, after reading the discussions here, I understand that he was accorded that title 'cause of his reforms... So my actual question is

<font size="5">"WHO gave him that title ?"</font>

I mean how could everyone forget the Chittore massacre so easily ??😭Akbar may have done wonderful things later in his life, but the brutal massacre can neither be forgotten nor forgiven, right😳

I'm also confused about your questions...the first one too!! South kingdoms weren't under him 😕
And people say that it was the citizens who gave him the title of great

Golden Age of India - we all have heard and read about it. Then why is not the king from this era, the Gupta dynasty, not given the epithet the great'. If the criterion is that who stands tall among the tall men, then they qualify much more. There have been numerous achievements and advancement be it science, astronomy, engineering, mathematics etc. etc. during this period. Military capabilities included naval force too. We have read that Samudra Gupta was a military genius. And I do not remember reading in history that they went on the invasion under the pretext of hunting!! They marched right ahead. And they had relations with the Roman empire to give a comparison. The Samudra gupta and the like had religious tolerance - they treated Buddhists and Jains with regard. We knew of many Indian empires which treated other religions than those practiced by the king with due respect. Be it the Gupta dynasty or the Mauryan dynasty or the Chola dynasty. Guptas had a clear administrative structure too like the mansabdar model - maybe Sher Shah Suri / Todarmal learnt from this. The navaratnas adorned the court of Chandragupta II and they were all past masters in their unique respective areas (to name a few Varahamihira - astronomer (even today he is referenced), Kalidasa - great poet of all times, Dhanvantri - medicine (surgery were all invented much during this time), Amara Sinha - author of the masterpiece Amarakosha which is a go to source even today. Their works are still held in high esteem, unsurpassed, and the pride of the nation till date. And there were more ratnas' than the navaratnas who have contributed so much in their specialized fields, which has got India its due credit and respect even today. Indeed the golden age of India!

Akbar is acclaimed for his accomplishments in the area of military, social reforms, administration, statesmanship etc. and above all religious tolerance. These could be mapped to the other era also and the other era had much more as well to credits. If we are going to talk about abolishing pilgrimage tax, this disgusting tax option was not even there in the Gupta period or any other empires that had other religions too. Child marriage and Sati - going by the same argument, that war crimes were common in those days and it cannot be judged based on the modern today, it holds good in the case of sati and child marriage too. These were accepted practices and norms of those days. (Though I am personally against child marriage, if analyzed it is not rid off merits totally - I am not talking about a 6 year old married to a 60 year old.) Because the modern India does not favor it today, it cannot be viewed in bias unlike in the case of war crime.

And Akbar was a great strategist, no doubt - he knew to rule a Hindu dominant country which the delhi sultanates failed. He got Hindus into the fold, gave them court positions, even removed the pilgrimage tax. Though the Muslim Ulmas, did not approve of his many acts, he knew he had to move on to keep such a vast country with a vast Hindu population in control. It was a brilliant strategy to retain the Hindu kings in their seats as the public good will is also obtained this way. To maintain peace in the kingdom, he had to win over the trust and loyalty of the natives, which he did. This could also be an argument that cannot be ruled out? Meaning, in the case of Akbar it was more of a necessity anyway with Hindus being the majority (which he accepted still - this is appreciable), while in the case of other kings, it was a choice still as the other religions were in minority and they could have been easily ignored.

So, why not the Guptas?

Is it because the Qutub Minar is more popularized than the Iron pillar (in memory of Chandragupta II, and which stands next to the Qutub Minar)???

(Abhay: I am yet to start playing devil's advocate for Ashoka!!! Akbar itself is taking long :) :) )

Originally posted by: Natasha_1234

I'm also confused about your questions...the first one too!! South kingdoms weren't under him 😕
And people say that it was the citizens who gave him the title of great

@Kaana---- thanks for all that info ! 🤗