What is the BASIS of GREATness ? - Page 5

Originally posted by: rinall

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

@Kaana and Natasha--

You know what, I think, and I hope nobody takes offence to this, that the "great" title was accorded to Akbar by his sycophants😕

I would not write off Akbar's accomplishments. He definitely has credits. But I cannot over glorify him either.

Originally posted by: Kaana

I suppose for both the Qs, thanks to Abul Fazl ;-)

If I am right, Akbar's reign did not even include the Deccan and Orissa also. But a point to be noted is that India as we see today and then are different. Agreed Chanakya and Chandragupta united it to a comparitivey larger single India then, but it was again gone right? If you had seen Abhay's post in the other thread, he has explained it beautifully in the context of why Rajputs did not unite to stand against Akbar. Also, the northern - noth western part were refered as Hindustan in general. If am right India as Hindustan is only from this reference.

maybe to Abul Fazl or Akbar himself, whoever gave him the title, the land mass under them was Hindustan as such, the land around the Hinmalyan range there or on the other side of the Sindhu.

Thinking about your Q, this is my wild shot as an answer. Abhay or any others here would be a better person to answer.

Originally posted by: Sandhya.A

Abhay

Yes, Chittor was Brutal in every possible ways. The Buland Darwaza was erected in 'celebration' and chopped heads used to 'decorate'.

But repentance need not come in words actually or in scriptures. I have often heard you say that 'Actions speak louder than words.' Akbar's rule and reforms and his administration and fairness and justice during that time was the best repentance one could have.

As for the Ramrajya tag, Civilization and its definition varies with times. What was acceptable then is looked at with horror now. While a king could sentence anyone at will 500 years ago, even a terrorist cannot be sentenced without a trial now. So we cannot judge by present standards.

Considering the instability and religious fanaticism of that age I will not pause a sec to say that Akbar was very broadminded, progressive thinking, shrewd and steely, and a rare king who gave stability, prosperity, equality, liberty, fraternity and justice to his people beyond his times.

Sandhya,
I will add my views on the Ram Rajya bit after a while. But, before that, i would like to hear your views on what you think is a Ram Rajya ? So that, i'll be able to give my views in a better manner..

Originally posted by: history_geek

Sandhya,
I will add my views on the Ram Rajya bit after a while. But, before that, i would like to hear your views on what you think is a Ram Rajya ? So that, i'll be able to give my views in a better manner..

Originally posted by: rinall

A BIG to all !! 😃

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

"WHO gave him that title ?"

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 😳

Rinal,

a. Akbar was his name only. It was not a title. He was called Akbar since his birth. Read this post : http://mariam-uz-zamani.blogspot.in/2014/09/real-date-of-birth-of-akbar-was-akbar-a-title.html

b. He was hailed as a great by British historians who came to India after Mughals and ruled us. They were in awe of AKbar as they felt he was a Muslim ruler who went on going against his religion and did not follow the conventions. These things are called as his "reforms" , as we know.

Another thing was that, British used his administrative measures in India. So, they studied Akbar and wrote about him. If you want to get a glimpse of what and why they wrote about Akbar as great, then read this post...

Though i made this post for some other reason, but this gives a glimpse of why they thought Akbar as great..It contains his reforms..

http://mariam-uz-zamani.blogspot.in/2014/09/akbar-and-his-favorite-rajput-wife.html

After reading this post, ^^^ you will see that, they did not focus on his "other" side, as you are asking about Chittor etc... They studied his reforms and other measures and called him great.

I am just explaining what they thought. They had interest only in knowing about his reforms and hence they studied them only.. That is the reason, NOW, a lot of "debate and articles" have been coming about this issue, as people want to discuss his other side as well..

Will add more points as and when they come in my mind.

Originally posted by: Natasha_1234

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 😊

Thanks Natasha,
I am posting links of my posts in the forum, when ever i make them. I Hope you are catching up with them. Will be surely updating more on whatever i read.. :)

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

Shahenshah-e-Hind was a title, they used to take it, it does not depends on the extent of their kingdom. It is upto them what title they take themselves. :)

And, Akbar was the name since birth.
I mentioned this in the reply i posted above, with the link of a post. :)