why???? - Page 7

Originally posted by: ghalibmirza

do not watch it! only watch ruqlal scene for rajat's mind blowing expressions! and the soul talk for rajat's soulful voice, the rest was like whatever!

Originally posted by: jalalak

Yes go n watch it how akbar became akbar the great by giving head foot n hand massages😆

🤣

I don't know whether I should laugh or be angry.

Anyway, that's obvious. After give someone a bath, should be massaged. 😆

Thanks God there will be no more torture of watching crap.

Originally posted by: fatma201

🤣

I don't know whether I should laugh or be angry.

Anyway, that's obvious. After give someone a bath, should be massaged. 😆

Thanks God there will be no more torture of watching crap.

Historical show ko spa bana ke rakh diya 😆

Originally posted by: devkidmd

"Bharat" has existed since ancient times. "Hindustan" started later with the Islamic excursions into India.

Son of the soil vs ruthless foreigner. What is wrong with that more realistic depiction?

MP was a native son of the soil and Akbar was just a first generation "Indian" if you will, whose father and grandfather and other outsiders (whether we like to admit or not they were outsiders at that point) waged wars against native kings for land and loot. We are looking at Akbar in retrospect, weighing his good against the not so good and coming to the conclusion that yes, he was an "outsider" but he made this land and people his own and does deserve the epithet of Great.

For people like you, me and most Indians Akbar never was and never will be an outsider but the people who lived at the same time as he did with the memories of previous lootings and plunderings by countless outsiders still fresh in their minds? Yes they would definitely consider young Akbar as a ruthless foreigner.

The thing is, it is difficult to see people we idolize in a negative light and that is why I (like you if I am not mistaken) like Ekta's Akbar. For all his "weakness" he is still very likable IMO. I agree with some of the others that there was room for improvement in the way he was portrayed but I'd rather have it this way than try to show him as a grey shaded multifaceted personality that he was and make him come out looking black instead. Sometimes it is better to let sleeping dogs lie. She decided to focus on Akbar's softer more lovable side and it worked for many of us.

There are certain things that should not have been shown at all like Abul Mali tying Akbar up and the ape man stupidity but I guess there is only so much imagination and creativity we can expect from the CVs.

Devki

Originally posted by: RadhikaS0

Devki

I like the Jalal in JA, despite the many frustrating sub-plots. But I liked the Akbar in the "other" show too, in the Chittor track.

I do not understand hero-worship. Can we selectively like some aspects of a person and decide he is our hero, and so we will close our senses to anything that goes against the image we have of him?

I respect and admire Akbar. I think most people in India do. We have all grown up reading only about the positive impact Akbar had on India, his "golden rule", his navratnas etc.

But now I am mature enough to read the darker side of Akbar too. Heroes do have feet of clay.

If we adopt an ostrich-like attitude and always let sleeping dogs lie peacefully, we would never learn about a lot of our past and why some communities feel / think the way they do. Which can seriously hamper our understanding of present issues and ways to address them.

Chittor happened and it is painful to go through the Fathnama-i-Chittor.

I believe I still have a lot to read before I can understand the puzzle called Akbar. He was much too complex a man to be classified in simplistic terms like white, black or even grey.

I felt sick to the core when i read the accounts of the Chittor war and what has been shown in the other show is barely a patch on what happened then.

It is unbelievable what those people in Chittor went through, each and every one of them. Yes, you are right. For them, Akbar was nothing short of an outsider, at least in Rajputana. Though he is very much Indian for us in the modern context.

Their history has to be told too. Not for political or religious reasons, but for historical reasons. We need to remember that here was a brave warrior class that was ready to fight till death for its homeland against one of the mightiest empires in the world.

Was MP fighting for Mewar or India? Well, don't we call 1857 the first war of independence (for india)? This war can be questioned too. Were those people fighting for India or their own respective kingdoms? Most of our historical legends have been associated with their own dynasties / empires. Yet we don't hesitate to call them India's heroes / heroines and our icons. So just as Shivaji is a national icon for some, so is MP for some others. (The other show is from his perspective and how HE saw Akbar. )

Some say Akbar was trying to establish an integrated India. Was he? Wasn't he also fighting for his own kingdom?

I respect MP for his commitment to his ideals and his desire for self-respect and independence.

And I respect Akbar for his stupendous journey from Chittor to become Akbar the Great. It takes a rare man to overcome his nature, the values indoctrinated in him and stiff opposition from the religious orthodoxy of his time to preach sul-i-kul and embrace din-i-ilahi.

Not everyone who supports Akbar is a pseudo-secular person nor everyone who criticises him a bigot. I think we need to look beyond labels and try to understand and accept differing viewpoints.

Well said Radhika! My point to Donjas was exactly that. Showing Akbar as ruthless doesn't always become bigotry

Dear friends, it is wonderful to notice once again how deeply this show touched us, how passionately we are capable of arguing and re-arguing these points.

hi

radhika, i know that akbar has his gray shades as well before he became akbar and honestly i would rather see the truth and if he was ruthless and if chittor was just a war of egos and powers and to prove who is right then i would like to watch that side too!..but i cannot accept the NR shown in the show that Akbar ever needed a woman to protect him at battlefield! i am willing to see his gray side and then his white once he realized how he can be accepted by the people of hindustan..his reforms, policies, his navratans was something i feel proud of being his fan!..and he was a complex personality and that is what makes him interesting and people like me are eager to know more about this extraordinary man who had an extraordinary memory power and who was so fearless that men watching him do some stunts would pee in their pants and admire his courage and bravery!...yes! i wanted to know more about his various shades than just one!

Originally posted by: AKT.JA

Dear friends, it is wonderful to notice once again how deeply this show touched us, how passionately we are capable of arguing and re-arguing these points.

In the middle of this debate, which I am thoroughly enjoying reading, I do have an ignorant question...

I haven't watched JA for a long time, more or less since "Laboni" came to Agra. I just watched the last episode for "old time's sake". How far do I have to go back to watch this last "war", to understand what this fuss at the forum is about all over again? 😊

my suggestion is if you are akabr's fan do not watch it you will regret!

hi MANDY