Akbar was a pragmatic visionary, my dears, and both halves of his personality supplemented and complemented each other. Neither would have succeeded without the other in making him what he became, one of the giants of history.
If he had not had the grand vision that I wrote about in my Gordian Knot post, he would never have risen above a standard issue conqueror, a great warrior.
"He sees the whole of the Hindustan that he wishes to unite under his rule, not by brute force,but thru willing acceptance. Na ki shamsheer ki dhar se, par rishton ke reshmi dhagon me piroke.To win the heart of this Hindustan, he knows now what he has to do. For them to accept him, he has first to accept them.
Jalal already has the breadth of spiritual vision, the inner clarity, that lets him see his Allah in the Devi. Not many even today, anywhere in the world, are able to do that, for all the current politically correct patter about accepting all religions. And in the 16th century, when Protestants and Catholics were massacring each other and burning each other at the stake all over Europe and in England, for the Emperor Jalaluddin Mohammed to demonstrate such purity of thought, such innate humanisn, was nothing short of a miracle."
But if he had not had the pragmatism to marry high principles and the right means for implementing them, like his Rajput marriages and high office for able Hindus, his grand vision would never have taken flight, and he would have spent half his time fighting off rebellions against Mughal rule.
He was truly a rara avis, a colossus among men, and though he did have faults, they at least did not include feet of clay. And we in India are blessed that we had so many of his ilk down the centuries.
Shyamala/Aunty
Originally posted by: Sandhya.A
I am not a crazy fan either. I very well know and accept that he had a whole bunch of shortcomings too. I cannot put him in the same league as the near perfect, extremely capable and handsome and intelligent and kind Raja Raja Chola who ruled over a greater part of South India and across seas 500 years before Akbar in whom there was hardly a grey shade. But he had everything almost perfect in life - very good parents, a very doting and very intelligent sister who with her husband spent her life for the welfare of his empire, a pleasant and respecting family and more importantly his loyal, obedient and very capable son.
But Akbar had none of these. A shattered childhood, selfish scheming family and a nafarmaan son. His mother and wives, his select courtiers and his awaam was all that he had. Yet he rose above petty differences.
Yes, he was a shrewd politician. His alliances with the Hindu Kings was as much for political benefit as much as it was for his acceptance of all religions. He could be ruthless if alliances and friendships didn't work out. Chittore is proof enough. But that too could be taken as for the greater good. Unless the whole country came under one leader, one flag, one nation, improvements in Arts, Literature. trade and commerce is impossible. The people cannot live in peace and prosper. All our Hindu Kings who ruled at that time placed their egos above the nation and its people. All resources were drained in wars among themselves. Akbar didn't. He didn't mind frienships with his enemies for peace. Here I can even cheer Bharmal. He placed his country above his ego and even his daughter. Bharmal may be a bad father but certainly a good king of Amer.
Ela, if Jo adjusted, she had to. Else she would have perished. There wasn't much of a choice. I certainly respect and admire her a lot for being a support and inspiration for Akbar, but Akbar was good and accommodating inspite of being at the helm. After having taken over Hindustan (okay, okay...most of it...may be not the South, but he had Afghanistan and Kabul and other northern provinces under him) he could have turned ruthless again. He could have become a Hitler. But he didn't. Nor did he loot India like Ghori or later the British. He made India his home and worked for its welfare with a rare far-sightedness and brotherhood. It was a choice that he made and that made him Great.
Originally posted by: elasingh
Sandhya first of all Akbar was not the emperor of whole of Hindustan and secondly He accepted all the religions as equal in his quest for truth and sprituality but I am sorry Sandhya I wont call him hundreds of times more remarkable then Jo...I respect him and admire him but unlike others I do so inspite of his faults...He was a shrewd leader and consolidated the thrown for his children...I am sorry but I am just not as crazy a fan of his ...