why???? - Page 11

Originally posted by: Coolpree

This is turning out to be a Great discussion.

Devki I have to agree with Mandy here. Especially her lines in bold. Whatever his reasons for accomodating other religions were, at the end of the day as a Hindu subject I would rather be born in Akbar's reign than in Khurram's or Aurangzeb's reign. These two monarchs ( especially Aurangzeb) systematically undid all the goodwill and good governance that Akbar had worked hard to establish.

No one can deny that Akbar was ruthless to his apponents be it Hindu or Muslim ( the Gujrat campaign against a Muslim Ruler was also very brutal although he did not fight on a religious platform). HOWEVER, in his own empire he genuinely strived to give EQUAL space to all his subjects Hindu, Muslim, jain, sikh and Parsi. "Suh i Kul or peace to all" is arguably Akbar's greatest legacy.

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: Sandhya.A

Devki

We cannot say that he was open to other religions because he wanted to avoid rebellions. in fact he had to face innumerable rebellions from his own ulemas and his own people for not being orthodox.

Aurangazeb too did rule the big chunk of land where the majority is of another religion with an iron fist of orthodoxy.

Had Akbar been open till he conquered and then reverted to being narrow then we can say he was manipulative. But he was most liberal AFTER he had most of Hindustan under him.

He might have used religion to motivate his army ( who didn't? Clan pride religious sentiments, race superiority were the many catalysts that were used to fuel the force of the armies those days...and unfortunately these days as well sometimes) But he never yhrust his religion AFTER he won. He never instituted or encouraged systematic conversions. Whatever be his reasons or methods of conquests he gave respect peace and prosperity AFTER he conquered them. There was no discrimination whatsoever on any grounds. And that is rare.

Originally posted by: RadhikaS0

Sandhya

How can Akbar be shown ruthless in a love story? You should not have expected this!

Originally posted by: myviewprem

Interesting debate mandy

I sometimes wonder who is a great man?

Is it someone who never killed anyone or harmed anyone was a good human from birth till death despite all pressures from society and all compulsions like a satya harischandra

OR

Is it someone like an Ashoka, Akbar etc who killed housands may be lakhs achieved whatever they wanted as big an empire they desired and then became benevolent and sober?

Why is it history and society romances a person who is bad but later on reforms(sometimes may be not completely like Akbar never stopped wars)

As far as I have read of Akbar, he adoped Sul I khul as a political tool to ensure that the huge non muslim population does not revolt and remain loyal to him but later on started liking that idea and founded Din e illahi. Look what happened when Aurangzeb revoked it the empire disintegrated. Ashoka was the one who reformed completely and did not do any war after kalinga. Anyways compared to the kings of those times we must appreciate the forward thinking of both these kings. But mind you they reformed after achieving whatever they set out to do there was nothing much else to achieve for them so its easy to say I am giving up war or give equal rights to all once you have conquered all of south asia is it not?