..::Doubts & Discussions about Historical facts::..

First Previous

Page

114

Next Last

Frequent Posters

amina1

@amina1

Dazzler

Posted: 10 years ago

#621

Poor husband ,wife was somdespreate for his attention so he forgive her,jalal felt guilty some where ,and the fact is she cannot be a mother again,that was a punishment enough and also jodha told him too

Quote

Ela Singh

@elasingh

Stunner

+ 2

Posted: 10 years ago

#622

Originally posted by: ---Khushi---

Exactly sun...what crap dialogues Jo was muttering...Ms is not doing any favours on his Fufa jaan. ...on the contrary, the Shehenshah has made his life... 😃

Did not want to comment on this thread but would like to point out that books after books of history are full of the benefits Jalal got from this marriage to Amerians...No marriage in history has proved so beneficial as this marriage proved to Jalal...Ameris gave their unflinching loyalty to Jalal and helped in all his major battles and fought for him..especially against MP...Never revolted against him like his own clan..and laid down their lives for him for many generations...Can anything Jalal did for them be ever bigger than this? ...Jalal did no favours to Maan by making him one among his navratnas...He earned it...Infact Jalal got more then he gave...

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

Ela Singh

@elasingh

Stunner

+ 2

Posted: 10 years ago

#623

Originally posted by: adiana12

That Ela is a matter of perspectives and opinion - to each there own - as I have always said History is open to interpretation and everyone can have their own - but this thread is not about history - and we would like to keep it that way

adi plz ...what rajputs did for Jalal is not open for interpretations ...books after books are there...this is real politic and many accounts of present day historians and historians of that time are avilable...If you think that Jalal did it all himself and won part of north India by himself taking sword in his hand then it is ur wishful thinking...No history book ever glorifies Jalal in this way the way u ppl do...

Remember no man is a product of himself...Society shapes him and he shapes society...but you think only he shaped society and society had no hand in his making...Sorry but that is a lie...

And history books also tell us how many hundreds of revolts by peasants Jalal faced...So much for his popularity...I am not degrading him and dont want to...but then I do not want others to be degraded and their achhievements to be belittled to raise Jalal's stature...

Quote

Sandhya.A

@Sandhya.A

Sparkler

Posted: 10 years ago

#624

Originally posted by: elasingh

adi plz ...what rajputs did for Jalal is not open for interpretations ...books after books are there...this is real politic and many accounts of present day historians and historians of that time are avilable...If you think that Jalal did it all himself and won part of north India by himself taking sword in his hand then it is ur wishful thinking...No history book ever glorifies Jalal in this way the way u ppl do...

Remember no man is a product of himself...Society shapes him and he shapes society...but you think only he shaped society and society had no hand in his making...Sorry but that is a lie...

And history books also tell us how many hundreds of revolts by peasants Jalal faced...So much for his popularity...I am not degrading him and dont want to...but then I do not want others to be degraded and their achhievements to be belittled to raise Jalal's stature...

Ela

Did Amerians not gain anything out of the alliance? Would they have ever forced their daughter to marry a foreigner if they didn't see a gain?

Loyalty is a very beautiful relationship. It talks as high of the loyal person as the ones who command it. What Jalal spotted and identified in Maan Singh, why is that none of the other Rajput kings did? They were not unaware of each other. The Amerians especially Maan Singh was extremely loyal to Jalal and surely Jalal behaved in a way that kept that loyalty intact. He treated them with affection and care. He didn't merely use them either. Their country too prospered due to Jallu.

Those years, there was no public media. No press. Even if the king was good, the middle men could have been bad. The peasants and aam janta could express their dissatisfaction only through representations, or in situations where even that was not possible revolts. But overall it is an open secret that Akbar's rule was considered RamRajya.

Lastly yes you are right, Remember no man is a product of himself...Society shapes him and he shapes society.

Mahatma Gandhi was shaped by the society and he shaped it. Independence was not his solo achievement. He was aided by many great leaders and my millions of aam janta. But you see, only he is called the Father of the Nation and given the first credits. Howmuchever was the contributions by the Amerians or the Navratnas, it is Jalal who deserves the chief credit.

Quote

Mallika-E-Bhais

@Mallika-E-Bhais

Trailblazer

+ 5

Posted: 10 years ago

#625

So apparently even RT & PS won't be in the show post the leap. I so wanted RT to play Salim.

Quote

Sandhya.A

@Sandhya.A

Sparkler

Posted: 10 years ago

#626

Originally posted by: Mallika-E-Bhais
So apparently even RT & PS won't be in the show post the leap. I so wanted RT to play Salim.

Yeh comment historical thread mein kyun?😆

Me too. I wanted RT to don the roles played by Prithviraj Kapoor and Dhilip Kumar 2 in 1. But seems dono gaye haath se.... Now keeping my fingers crossed that he plays Ashoka.😔

Quote

myviewprem

@myviewprem

Sparkler

+ 3

Posted: 10 years ago

#627

I disagree that Akbar reign was Ram Rajya. Women were most unsafe during his reign and Akbar married many young woman(mostly princess and nobels daughters) in his late 50s in muta marriages.

Akbar may have brought about reforms like abolishing jaziya (twice), widow remarriage(this existed before his reign too as woman in those times could not live alone in society and hence widows would either burn themselves in husband pyre or marry a man or stay in ashrams), banned sati(humayun also banned sati), child minimum age for marriage etc

But along with these reforms one must remember that Akbar was a conqueror who went on expanding his kingdom at cost of other smaller kingdoms, woman were sent to Akbar to save kingdoms by fathers and brothers, these woman died a nameless death within 4 walls of harem, no one ever bothered if they died when they died or how they died, no one knows where their graves are except for a Jodha, salim and ruqaiah etc. Women lived in fear in that regime scared to move around freely even after marriage because if Akbar or his nobels eyes fell on them they would be forced in their services against their, their family or even husband wishes. If anyone read in detail what happened in Akbar's regime in the harems and with women especially it will be considered dark ages for woman. An Jodha got prominence for giving an heir and being his first hindu wife does not mean same happened to all wives/women in Akbar regime.

Gandhi cannot be compared to Akbar because he preached and followed non violence with even enemies. Gandhi was respected by even those against whom he fought. While Akbar was feared and hence listened to by other kings. If Akbar did not have such a big army and not feared that he can defeat them neither amer would have married their daughter to him or anyone else. Akbar did change to become a better king after mid 30s but not in all aspects. He did not become an Ashoka who changed completely and did not go to wars after kalinga or preach and follow non violence.

Loyalty is out of two things one for benefit one out of gratitude. Amer loyalty and many other kings loyalty to Akbar was for benefit. If they did not stay loyal Akbar would destroy their kingdom and they all lose not only their kingdoms but life too. So majority kings wanted to retain their luxurious life style and throne for their sons and hence felt supporting Akbar and becoming mansabdar is only way to retain their kingdom and luxury. Hence they became mansabdar to Akbar. Akbar wanted to conquer entire subcontinent and hence he found this easy way of expanding kingdom. So it was mutual benefit to Akbar and mansabdars. Later on when British became powerful many kings joined and supported British too to retain these same benefits.

Edited by myviewprem - 10 years ago

Quote

Khushi_love

@Khushi_love

Rocker

Posted: 10 years ago

#628

Originally posted by: Mallika-E-Bhais
So apparently even RT & PS won't be in the show post the leap. I so wanted RT to play Salim.

Who said about PS?...is there any news?

Quote

anshita priyadarshni

@marshi

Voyager

+ 2

Posted: 10 years ago

#629

Rukaiya maybe padsha begum as I have never read it but Joja relationship was true she was not only respected for only giving a heir becoz before being muz she held three more titles only wife who used to accompany akbar in wars so it is not true the information we can get easily about ruku and salima but not abt muz bcoz aurangzeb destroyed everything related to her.

Quote

RadhikaS0

@RadhikaS0

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 10 years ago

#630

Originally posted by: marshi
Rukaiya maybe padsha begum as I have never read it but Joja relationship was true she was not only respected for only giving a heir becoz before being muz she held three more titles only wife who used to accompany akbar in wars so it is not true the information we can get easily about ruku and salima but not abt muz bcoz aurangzeb destroyed everything related to her.

Marshi

Ruqaiyya was never a padshah begum. This title was not given to anyone in Akbar's time. See this link.

Link