Post LINK - When Akbar Rode a Horse to Stop a Forced Sati Practice - Page 4

Originally posted by: history_geek

It was a very interesting extract and ofcourse, this is not total fiction. Found it really good. Thanks for sharing here. I have replied above - in blue color. Normally, i make replies a bit late. Sorry for delaying the response to remaining comments.

Originally posted by: Bindu_nhbr

Abhay,

I'm dumbstruck.Thanks a lot for this splendid post😊

He jumped on a horse and rode to the spot,unattended and unescorted by the royal guards.

Unbelievable fact,my respect for Akbar has increased tremendously.

Its surprising to know that inspectors were appointed to watch and prevent such acts of forced Sati.These things,exemplify that Akbar was an emperor ahead of his time.

Instead of sticking to illogical NR,why couldn't makers portray the real incidents that show Akbar's concern for women😡😡

Thanks Bindu.

One of the major reasons to make this post was to show the CV's that this event happened in history. From the post, it is clear that - it was written to make it a "complete package in itself" after reading which there was no need to find anything more. This was done for the CV's only.

One of Twitter trends also had tweets requesting #SatiTrack.

I had also posted this article to the writer and the Creatives on Twitter and Facebook ; and some other ardent fans too had posted the links to them so that they may show this on television as a separate track. But perhaps, by then they were too much into their own historical version and did not have time to show the real events.

Aunty,

Thank you for posting and sharing the inputs. It is good to read your comment here.

The title which came in my mind all of sudden was "Akbar rode a horse...to save a woman...stopped Sati..." ; my intention was to make it appear clearly that it was a personal effort of Akbar, and should not be mistaken with something else.

Otherwise, Akbar could have sent his officer / soldier to prevent this Sati. But, this was his personal effort and a quick decision. That time, no other title seemed better which could serve this purpose. Hence such a title.

Originally posted by: sashashyam

Now this book, Saraswathi Akka, sounds very tempting, so I will try and see if I can get hold of it online. Thank you for flagging it for us. I had read this fascinating post of Abhay's (though why the title of Akbar rode a horse? What else would he ride for a long distance journey?) earlier, and also some other references to this incident of Akbar saving a queen of Medtha from being forced to commit sati.

So I had mentioned it in one of my posts on the thread opened in tribute to Rajat's Jalal, the one started by Mandy (ghalibmirza).And I had lamented about this track not having been included in the script of Jodha Akbar. It would have been such a splendid subject!

I am sure Abhay will be answering your questions, but I can assure you of one thing straightaway: Jodha Begum lived for 18 years after the death of Akbar, and died only on May 19, 1623.

Shyamala

Originally posted by: karkuzhali

Abhay,

You are giving very beautiful accounts of the historical events in this forum and I thank you for all your tireless endeavours.

I am not a History student but love to learn about the Indian History, particularly The Moghul period.

While browsing in the Library, I came across a Book titled "Moghul" by Alan Salvage ( pseudonym of the author byname Christopher John). I presume that the book is a historical fiction as seen from the disclaimer it contains.It says that it is about a couple of Englishmen, "who set off in 1524 in search of a legendary kingdom of Prester John and reached India but they discovered an exotic and capricious land whose wealth far exceeded wildest dreams".This itself is enough for me to go through the book. The Book speaks from the point of view of Thomas and Richard Blunts, who landed at Goa in search of the fabled kingdom.The book narrates the events during the period from the mughal invasion to the last mughul emperor.

I was interested in the Chapters "Akbar" and "Shah of shah" which speak about the greatness of Akbar.

While mentioning about Humayun's accidental death, the author says:

"The whole of Agra had been shaken by a slight earth tremor,but little damage was done save inside the Royal palace.Years later it would be learned that on this same day had occured the greatest earth quake known to history in the province of Shensi in China, where the earth had convulsed for two hours and eight hundred and thirty thousand people were killed.Only one had died in Agra, so many thousands of miles away.But that one was the great Moghul.."

And that was Humayun, who while," engaged in indexing his beloved Library, fell from the top of the ladder and cracked his skull..."

After learning about Humayun's death, "the youthful Sultan had been more distressed by his father's premature death than he had allowed anyone to know.As soon as his grief had dwindled,his nature, naturally sensitive and curious and controlled by a deep intelligence, had begun to consider not only his present situation but what he would inherit, when he had dealt with Hemu, supposing he could.He was keenly aware of his neglected upbringing, when he compared himself with the intellectual brilliance of his father and grandfather.He understood that it was now too late to catch up as regard to literacy, but he still wanted to learn , and during this time of waiting he set aside severalhours a day for long discussions, and not only with his muslim favourites, chiefly the two brothers Sheik Feizi and Abul Fazl ... but also with certain Hindus and Parsees, Jains and Buddhists, seeking to understand why they were all so different."

If the above statement is true, did Akbar have Sheik Feizi and Abul Fazl, in his Dharbar even during his early days?

The author of the book also says that Akbar was advised by Fazal and Feizi to keep Mahamanga and Hamida Bhanu Begam(?) away from influencing him in his politcal affairs. " Hamida Banu Baygam and Maham Anga were to be confined in honourable imprisonment for the rest of their lives, In fact, they both died quickly, of shame it was said..."

Was it a fact that both the mothers died before Akbar married Jodha?

The authors narrates about the marriage of Akbar and Jodha as " for a man who had never truly loved,it turned out to be a love match."

It was after Salim Murad and Danial were born ( he says Murad and Daniyal are Jodha's sons), that "It was to Jodhpur that Akbar rode two hundred and twenty miles in two days to prevent the Rajah from forcing his son's widow to commit suttee- the ghastly Hindu practice by which a widow was burned alive on her husband's funeral pyre."

About his relationship with Jodha the author says,

..."...The mutual affection of Emperor and Empress was plain for all to see, and was enjoyed by all their people. Jodha Bai never sought to interfere in affairs of state;although that she did have opinions and was not afraid to air them in the privacy of their imperial bedroom was obvious from many of Akbar's decisions..."

According to the author, Jodha Bai pre-deceased Akbar.

On a special occasion when Akbar sat with his friends, Abul Fazl presented his long-time-laboured work Ain -i -Akbari, a record of the Moghul's Life. "...Akbar turned the pages. He still could not read with any ease,but the very size and volume was impressive.

He smiled at them."Have I then done so much?"

It was a rhetorical question."

That was AKBAR.

Ahay, I still am not able to believe it is a fiction.

Saraswathi.

Originally posted by: k294

Wow great post ,hope someone again makes a serial on JA where they can cover all this points,thnku for this wonderful post.

Thanks and welcome to the forum.
Have read your comment for the first time on the forum.
Do continue posting. :)

Originally posted by: Kalgi22

No wonder AKBAR THE GREAT by all dimensions 👍🏼

Thank you so much for sharing this information.

Thanks Kalgi,

You are correct.
He was a different person altogether. Can not be defined easily in few words. :)

Originally posted by: ayushimehra

i think this is old post, anways, i not read

after read, will comment.

tfs Abhay

You can read it at leisure, this was an old post Ayushi..

Originally posted by: karkuzhali

Abhay,

You are giving very beautiful accounts of the historical events in this forum and I thank you for all your tireless endeavours.

I am not a History student but love to learn about the Indian History, particularly The Moghul period.

While browsing in the Library, I came across a Book titled "Moghul" by Alan Salvage ( pseudonym of the author byname Christopher John). I presume that the book is a historical fiction as seen from the disclaimer it contains.It says that it is about a couple of Englishmen, "who set off in 1524 in search of a legendary kingdom of Prester John and reached India but they discovered an exotic and capricious land whose wealth far exceeded wildest dreams".This itself is enough for me to go through the book. The Book speaks from the point of view of Thomas and Richard Blunts, who landed at Goa in search of the fabled kingdom.The book narrates the events during the period from the mughal invasion to the last mughul emperor.

I was interested in the Chapters "Akbar" and "Shah of shah" which speak about the greatness of Akbar.

While mentioning about Humayun's accidental death, the author says:

"The whole of Agra had been shaken by a slight earth tremor,but little damage was done save inside the Royal palace.Years later it would be learned that on this same day had occured the greatest earth quake known to history in the province of Shensi in China, where the earth had convulsed for two hours and eight hundred and thirty thousand people were killed.Only one had died in Agra, so many thousands of miles away.But that one was the great Moghul.."

And that was Humayun, who while," engaged in indexing his beloved Library, fell from the top of the ladder and cracked his skull..."

After learning about Humayun's death, "the youthful Sultan had been more distressed by his father's premature death than he had allowed anyone to know.As soon as his grief had dwindled,his nature, naturally sensitive and curious and controlled by a deep intelligence, had begun to consider not only his present situation but what he would inherit, when he had dealt with Hemu, supposing he could.He was keenly aware of his neglected upbringing, when he compared himself with the intellectual brilliance of his father and grandfather.He understood that it was now too late to catch up as regard to literacy, but he still wanted to learn , and during this time of waiting he set aside severalhours a day for long discussions, and not only with his muslim favourites, chiefly the two brothers Sheik Feizi and Abul Fazl ... but also with certain Hindus and Parsees, Jains and Buddhists, seeking to understand why they were all so different."

If the above statement is true, did Akbar have Sheik Feizi and Abul Fazl, in his Dharbar even during his early days?

The author of the book also says that Akbar was advised by Fazal and Feizi to keep Mahamanga and Hamida Bhanu Begam(?) away from influencing him in his politcal affairs. " Hamida Banu Baygam and Maham Anga were to be confined in honourable imprisonment for the rest of their lives, In fact, they both died quickly, of shame it was said..."

Was it a fact that both the mothers died before Akbar married Jodha?

The authors narrates about the marriage of Akbar and Jodha as " for a man who had never truly loved,it turned out to be a love match."

It was after Salim Murad and Danial were born ( he says Murad and Daniyal are Jodha's sons), that "It was to Jodhpur that Akbar rode two hundred and twenty miles in two days to prevent the Rajah from forcing his son's widow to commit suttee- the ghastly Hindu practice by which a widow was burned alive on her husband's funeral pyre."

About his relationship with Jodha the author says,

..."...The mutual affection of Emperor and Empress was plain for all to see, and was enjoyed by all their people. Jodha Bai never sought to interfere in affairs of state;although that she did have opinions and was not afraid to air them in the privacy of their imperial bedroom was obvious from many of Akbar's decisions..."

According to the author, Jodha Bai pre-deceased Akbar.

On a special occasion when Akbar sat with his friends, Abul Fazl presented his long-time-laboured work Ain -i -Akbari, a record of the Moghul's Life. "...Akbar turned the pages. He still could not read with any ease,but the very size and volume was impressive.

He smiled at them."Have I then done so much?"

It was a rhetorical question."

That was AKBAR.

Ahay, I still am not able to believe it is a fiction.

Saraswathi.

very interesting post, thank you for sharing with us...Loved reading it...

@red:

Preeti,

Thanks for sharing the details about Alan Savage. I did not know who this author was and the first thing which came to my mind was the 18th Century Danish botanist by the same name. Indeed, the nuggets shared from his book made a fine impression on our minds. The details were accurate to a lot of extent and the author, as you say, seems to have researched well before writing the book.

Interesting reference to Mr. Havell's book. He has written other books also. I have read 3 books by him, including the one you mentioned. He is not really a historian. He is a critic, basically an artist and an art educator, who comes from a family of artists. He writes mostly about architecture and has provided a lot of material to architects about the design of old buildings.

The book you mentioned is quite good but I took it lightly compared to other historical chronicles I have read so far. I acknowledge and appreciate the amount of hard work he must have done to write this book. But it is my belief that history is viewed differently by a sociologist, a political thinker, an economist, etc. Mr. Havell views history as an artist; he himself says in the book:

" After having served an apprenticeship as a writer of Indian history in the study and exegesis of Indian artistic records, I now venture to use them to explain and amplify the mass of such records".

He has written the present book from the perspective of British rule. In this book he has talked about the supremacy of the white race and how the "Musalmans and Hindoos" of "AryaVrata" have accepted their (the "whites") rule. He goes to the extent of saying : " British have the same love of justice and fair-play, the same high principles of conduct and respect for humanitarian laws, which guided the ancient Aryan statesmen and lawgivers in their relations with the Indian masses."

He calls the British rule as the same "just" rule of the ancient Aryans. {British = Aryans} The time when this book was written, around the same time, the West was exploring our Vedas. Indian renaissance was taking place, we were taking pride in our "ancient glory". Remember Vivekanand's call ? -> "Back to Vedas". Did you get the crux ? :)

It was the time when there was a creation of ideological differences in India to get very precise results. The noted historians of our day including Mr. Habib, have given a very, very critical review of such literature. Because these books were aimed at the division of Indian history into earlier Hindu India versus later Muslim India. The ideology of Hindu rule versus Muslim rule was strengthened by them (I agree problems existed earlier too, but the British gave an impetus to this policy). This was done to project themselves as "saviours" who would give "AryaVrata" the same just rule like the ancient Aryans.

Mr. Havell "pronounces" British rule to be as "glorious" as the "ancient Aryans' statesmanship". He is among those scholars who believed in the theory of white man's burden {Read Rudyard Kipling's poem for this}, and propagated the idea that their race is doing the noble task of educating the people of the East.

He says in his book - " India must wait patiently until the highly cultured political fruits of the West can be successfully grown in the virgin soil of India."

In this book on India's history, he starts from the Aryan times and ends with the death of Akbar. Because this was the objective. The starting and ending mattered here. The underlying theme is the Aryan rule in India throughout the book. The reasons for this were - to project the British as successors to the Aryans and to explore what made Akbar rule over the land and establish Mughals here.

The book is a very good summary of India's history. But, personally, i don't like any text which preaches about one POV only. At my level, I try to maintain a balance in my own writing. You might have seen how i praise as well as criticize Akbar, depending upon the context in which i am looking at him.

Those friends who want to read this book about India's history by Havell can find the PDF of the book on this link. Click Here


About the kids - already i have read, debated & discussed a lot with many scholars. After that only i made that post. Otherwise, i was no fool to challenge the view of the majority, when almost everyone was against my views. You are well aware of that. :-P

BTW, there are others too who opine that MUZ was Murad's mother. For instance, the IF member whom you have thanked/quoted in your comment holds the same opinion that MUZ was the mother of at least 6 kids of Akbar, including Danial and Murad. I remember the comments made on old IF threads in this regard.

One more thing i would like to mention, check if possible - the Persian Jahangirnama. It says the mother of Khurram was Nur Jahan. This i got to know while digging about Akbar-MUZ's kids only from one of the scholars who was into Mughal history for long. He told me that the word used was "Walida-e-Khud" in the Persian J.Nama. So, can we claim Nur Jahan was the mother of Shah Jahan instead of Jagat Gosain, as per our beloved Jahangirnama? :-P

Readers can check the English translation of Jahangirnama. The person who translated Jahangirnama into English was also stunned. He could not understand what was wrong with the "person who wrote" that J.Nama account, as according to that Jahangirnama - Nur Jahan was the mother of Shah Jahan. Reference: Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri, Vol-1, Pg-401, 1914, Ed. Rogers.

Just goes to show that the term mother was quite loosely used by the chroniclers of those times and it should not be taken very seriously every time a lady is referred to as the mother of some royal personality.

The thing is that certain things are not so easy to understand - i concluded this after passionately pursuing history for a long time. The only possible way to understand anything is to read as much as possible from as many places as possible.

Thanks for mentioning the Asiatic Society Paper in this regard. I am extremely thankful to Ms. Kamal and Lizzy who were instrumental in sharing their inputs, as mentioned in the blog post too. Without them, this post would not have been possible.



About Maham Anga's death

I checked my comment just now after reading your reply. :)
I made a silly typing error.

The diffrence is not 2 years, but of 1 year, when we compare the accounts of Tabaqat and Akbaranama.

Akbarnama gives the year as 1562.
Exact date is 26th June 1562.

Tabaqat-i-Akbari gives the year as 1563 (i mis-typed it as 1564).
The exact date is 15th June 1563.

But, i do not know how this discrepancy has come up.
Some friends of mine also told that Maham was banished to Delhi, and she died later.
I do not know much. I did not pursue about this incuident much. :)



About the theory of MUZ dying before Akbar.

This is a tale related to Rajasthan, to be precise, it is related to the Hada Rajputs, who had refused marital alliance with Akbar - this is talked about even to this day in the Ranthambore area. It has many versions.

One of them says that Akbar was so attached to his Rajputni wife that he could command a court mourning if she pre-deceased him. As the Hada Rajputs had refused marital alliance with Akbar, the bond between Akbar and his Rajput wife was of great interest to them. This tale was a sort of comparison drawn with the level of mourning at the time of Hamida Begum's death.

I know only this much about this notion. :)

BTW, Hadas were the descendents of Emperor Prithviraj Chauhan III of Ajmer and Delhi, and their status was very high in Rajputana. They were described as people who loved their ancient glory very much and were at loggerheads with the rulers of Delhi Sulatanate also. Like Mewar, they too were opposed to matrimonial alliances with the Mughals.

You may find this post interesting. I mentioned a brief history of wars in North-West India with Turkish invaders. This includes a very brief insight into the wars fought by Emperor Prithviraj Chauhan III and his ancestors. :)

http://mariam-uz-zamani.blogspot.com/2015/09/delhi-sultanate-struggle-intro-history-razia-sultan-pt1.html

But, Salim being assigned to the care of someone else after death of his own mother is a personal opinion of Mr. Havell. I have not heard about this anywhere till date. Mr. Havell seems to have taken artistic liberty at many places. For instance, he has called Akbar as a Chakravartin Samrat instead of Asoka Maurya - for he was mainly interested in the early Aryans and the end of Akbar's reign.

Sorry for the delayed response. Hope i covered almost all points. :)