why???? - Page 10

Originally posted by: soumyamurali

Hi Mandy nice thread again. Nice discussion going on. I just want to give my POV also. @Donjas, I agree with ur POV here as I also feel there is some political influencing is there behind the doors. If we remember, our great politicians said that they want to close this show. If we remember our ministers' tweets, they clearly r not even interested in naming the roads also after AKBAR. where as we have the statues n portraits of MP n Shivaji in parliament n other places n naming streets n airports after them. Here what I am feeling is they r imposing on public to like r love the persons of their choices not our personal choices. they r trying to impose their interests on the public it seems.

After all these happenings we'll definitely get doubts regarding their POV. Its quite natural to feel that they r biased.

Coming to the comparison between JA n MP shows, both r different. we agree. But in JA they never showed MP r his family in any bad light. They never butchered his character. But in MP they never followed any history except showing the chitter war. They started with MP-AK rivalry. They didn't spare a single character in AK's life including MS. I used to watch that show some times to c the diff. POV, but the amount of butchering Mughals have in it is I can't even find a word to describe it. They showed BK dying in the lap of MP n calling AK ungrateful, they showed Salima Begum in the worst possible way. I can't even mention that here as it boils my blood as that's the worst kind of an insult any respectful lady faces.😡 after that I left that show. I some times read wu s of the show. If u all remember, in the recent GOLD AWARDS Nominations, they nominated AKBAR of that show as villain n Zee people accepted that n showed that eliminating the Their own Nomination of AKBAR as a Hero. The recent development in it is the butchering of MS. He is instrumental in JA-JO marriage. If we start counting, then the list goes on... My POV is right from childhood AKBAR is wrong n MP is great. He always wanted to get MP's kingdom. He also wages so many wars with him n fails to defeat him in their NR where as they never fought face to face in real history. All the persons who r with AK r -ve n all allies of MP r noble n great.

@ Abhay, I am not agreeing to ur POV here. If AK used his religion in this war, the brave Rajaputs also used their religion to motivate n unite their army, how can we ignore their slogans, their saffron attire n all rituals? It is nothing but natural to follow ur faith n worship devine in ur religious way to any one unless n until u r a nasthik. Do we have any evidence that after this war AK made all the people to convert to ISLAM?

U know what Abhay, my first info reg. real AK is the fathehnama of chittor war. Actually I don't know any historical facts before as after 5th standard I never has social studies as a subject in my curriculum. I watched DD show Nurjahan. After that i wanted to know about him as he intrigued me n his relation with MUZ fascinated me. My uncle gave me some book at that time which is in Telugu[ it is my MT] I really don't remember the name of the writer clearly. But i still remember the writer wondering what really prompted AK to do the massacre in chittor. He went on to write about the influence of religious people in his court n all other things. I still remember the Fathehnama clearly. That writer went on to write that AK prayed The Almighty if he wins this war, he'll come to the Ajmer Dargah n he fulfilled his mannat after the war. Why I am mentioning this here is, real AKBAR never tried to hide these facts from public n he never gave any kind of explanation to this. People also know about these facts clearly as they r common knowledge for our previous generations. My Mom, my uncle they used to say so many historical incidents as stories to us when we r littlekids😃 those r the best days.

Here what i mean to say is we in our region r also aware of these horrible details of these wars, then its common knowledge in those areas where these actually happened.

The thing is people know about the violent nature of real AKBAR. But they accepted him with all the shades. Even in the early episodes of JA, they showed him as angry, violent n all grey. But people accepted that as they know that is the real thing as u cannot confine him to one single shade. The down fall of JA started when the CVs made him a marshmellow n buddhu who didn't even understand his own kids n regularly cheated by his own queen.

I some times feel our older generations r more forgiving n forgetting than us. We r not that generous n tolerant n we want to idolize some one who is not completely like us n even though we do things which we condemn n criticize the past generations for doing so.

If i hurt u Abhay in any way, am really sorry.

Originally posted by: RadhikaS0

Devki,

All rulers are not the same. One
cannot equate Shivaji with Akbar. Akbar went as a ghazi to Chittor. But Shivaji
has never been known to fight any war on the basis of religion. If he
"attacked" Surat, it must have been for a different reason.

I agree people across communities
may perceive the same person differently. That is not the point of discussion.
The point is only that just because a person fought for his own kingdom doesn't
limit his stature to that region alone. People like MP and Shivaji and Rani
Lakshmibai have risen beyond the barriers of their kingdoms and become OUR
national icons.

This point is in response to the
query whether MP was fighting for Mewar or India.

Coming to your point: "To think that
MP was all about just his land and morals and self respect and did not have any
negatives would be naive. But do we know anything else about him apart from his
upright moral nature?"

MP is respected for his HIGH moral
character. Even historical books which criticize his father and even his son,
cannot find a single fault with him. I think, to assume that there must be
something negative about a person, just because he is a human being, even
though we have no evidence of it, is doing that person a great disservice.

I agree that a single TV show CANNOT
show ALL aspects of a complex person like Akbar. I mentioned this in my reply
to Mandy also earlier.

But if a show has the scope to also
show the darker side of Akbar, then it should not shy away from this. In the
"other" show, Akbar is in a confrontation with MP. He cannot be shown like the
lovable Jalal of JA. He has to be shown to be a powerful and ruthless
adversary, otherwise who will believe that Akbar and MP were bitter rivals for
over a quarter of a century?

Like someone mentioned the other day
on another thread - we can always switch off the TV if we don't like a show.
People are free to choose whether they want to see the positive Jalal of JA or
the more ruthless empire-builder of the other show.

We cannot generalize and say that
some things should not be shown just because the audience is not "mature". Who
are we decide if the audience is ready or not?

I was also a part of the very same
audience and because the show touched upon Jalal's initial ruthlessness, I was
intrigued and decided to find out more about this side of Akbar which was
little known to me.

"People who are interested enough..."

Devki, people can get interested
ONLY if a show projects at least 1% of the reality. It is only when we see
things like Akbar abolishing child marriage that we get interested to find out
more about this. Otherwise, at least I had no idea that Akbar had prohibited
child marriages under 14.

I don't really have any complaints
against the show and I don't want to crib now that the show is over. Whatever I
had to criticize I did in the past when the tracks frustrated me. Overall, I
agree that the show was good to Akbar and showed him more as a real person than
a remote, powerful emperor or even the buffoon king from Akbar-Birbal stories.

I don't think it is fair to worry
that the other show may "brain-wash" kids into thinking Akbar was a villain
when we are ok with this show projecting him as a saint almost. Both versions
have their drawbacks. Anyway, as parents, it is upto us to guide how kids
perceive Akbar.

</p>
<p>

Originally posted by: ghalibmirza

abhay and radhika, i am enjoying reading you counter points as that is the beauty of discussions in a healthy and respectful way..i absolutely agree that one community suffers more than the others and they carry their own POV! having said that what was true 452 years ago is also true today! as basic human nature will never change, doesn't matter what time and age we merge into!... but the beauty of Akbar is that in spite of having done what he has done still he tried his level best to be accepted by giving equal respect to all religions and not only that, he tried to hire learned intelligent people for his court from other religions too and the example of 9 gems is known to all!..he also let the ladies worship their own religion in his harem even though butt pooja is against islam..now what message he was trying to give even if he was doing it for the political gain...i think he wanted to make hindustan one country and work in unison without any rebels..and that is why people who went against him had to face him in the battlefield..but here we cannot say the rebels were wrong, they had their own motives but akbar wanted to see one hindustan and not a divided hindustan that is why he never forced his own religion on any of them and never wanted to make it a islamic country and that quality of his makes him stand out!

i myself am a victim of minority community who left her own country to find peace at some other part of the world and how i wish we had more leaders like Akbar and not fanatics!

Originally posted by: devkidmd

Akbar was like any other ruler of his time who wanted as much land under his rule as possible. He was not some saint with altruistic motives of a united Hindustan without any returns. He never forced any religion on the natives because he was smart enough to know that would have never worked if he wanted to rule a big chunk of land where the majority is of another religion.

Devki

Originally posted by: smile.sara

Who tell u people ghazi means kafir slayer... Gazi and shaheed are two opposite terms ... Ghazi is the soldier who won the war and comes back alive ... The term ghazi is what was akbar till the end ... Undefeated and unharmed... Aap ko meri baat nahi manni na manain... But ghazi ka matlab is kay ilawa aur kuch nahi

Baki akbar kay saath aisa kiun hua aur kiun ho raha .l.dont want to dig ...but ek baat saaf ho gae ... No body owns akbar ... Na hi M na H na I na P... Akbar ki halat aaj aisi ... Na idhar kay rahe na udhar kay ham ... Insaan tau na kisi ka hua hae na hoga bas yahi dua hae ... Allah us kay gunha maaf kare aur us kay ache kaamo kay sadke jannat mae jagha de ... Ameen

Originally posted by: smile.sara

Who tell u people ghazi means kafir slayer... Gazi and shaheed are two opposite terms ... Ghazi is the soldier who won the war and comes back alive ... The term ghazi is what was akbar till the end ... Undefeated and unharmed... Aap ko meri baat nahi manni na manain... But ghazi ka matlab is kay ilawa aur kuch nahi

Baki akbar kay saath aisa kiun hua aur kiun ho raha .l.dont want to dig ...but ek baat saaf ho gae ... No body owns akbar ... Na hi M na H na I na P... Akbar ki halat aaj aisi ... Na idhar kay rahe na udhar kay ham ... Insaan tau na kisi ka hua hae na hoga bas yahi dua hae ... Allah us kay gunha maaf kare aur us kay ache kaamo kay sadke jannat mae jagha de ... Ameen

Originally posted by: ghalibmirza

Devkiji yes ofcourse he wanted to expand his boundaries like any other ruler but what made him different is that he did not loot and move away like his ancestors, he made hindustan his home..he did not make it an Islamic country like aurengzeb if he had the power then making the people of hindustan his slaves would have been easy for him instead he wanted to be part of the people instead he wanted people to accept him their own and when he died people from different religion thought that he was theirs and many hindus cried and if his sole purpose was to conquer then he would have just done that!