Posted:
Originally posted by: RadhikaS0
Hi AnuReading about the Chittor massacre is truly horrifying.I just want to say that NOT ALL women died in jauhar. Those who were related to the royal family, the chieftains, the generals, the important soldiers, the samants etc were the ones who committed jauhar. I think this figure was officially around 300, though it may have been in thousands in reality. The fires that occurred were in the Rana's palace, Patta's house, Isar Das' house etc NOT in every house.There were still common women, part of the civilian population, who were abused and taken as slaves.Not everything Akbar did later was a sham. As much as it is difficult to accept Chittor, we have to give credit where credit is due. Akbar did introduce many secular ideas later, after evolving to a stage where he was no longer an extremist but a moderate thinker.Fatehpur Sikri was very much the capital for quite a few years and it was inhabited by the royalty and others. Only later when there was water scarcity did Akbar abandon FS and move to Lahore. There were some political compulsions also for this move.
Heya Radhika !
It was the chieftains who held the keys to the fort, who were responsible for the protection of civilians in the fort, and had ordered for jauhar to be conducted, does that mean the civilian women had not followed the orders ?? I mean, logically put, they were bound to go by orders and follow the footsteps of the wives of the chieftains, queens etc. Is there any real account, which specifically states that the women were taken as slaves?
In the previous post, it was mentioned that women had no time to prepare for a large jauhar kund, and hence they lit fire from whatever they could get near to their homes, and it was all chaotic.
Still, what u are saying can also be true. Its just my assumption.
Whatever Akbar did with Chittor, and whatever he did later on in life, for any layman, it will only look like an appeasement. Ok, sham may not be the right word though. I admire him for his shrewdness, as an astute politician, and also as an able administrator, but thats about it. I definitely cannot call him as a benevolent king. True, he brought some changes, but none lasted after him.
FS - I read that it was the irresponsible construction of drainage systems, coupled with climate issues that resulted in them vacating the place in some years. Also, there is some legend too that goes with it, if I m not wrong. I m just trying to equate both of them. Both Udaipur and FS were built in the aftermath of Chittor (though the Udaipur's construction was started early on), and only one is surviving. It is only an irony, that I m stating.
