why???? - Page 9

Originally posted by: AKT.JA

I appreciate that. However, I would still be grateful if somebody could tell me how far back do I have to go in order to watch and decide for myself.

hi DEVKI

Originally posted by: Donjas

This is one of those rare times when I totally disagree with you. Chittor is a blot on Akbar's record but that does not mean you show every thing black. Yes, the Chittor incident was terrible but that happened not because of religious bigotry but because he lost his temper. The Mughals had lost thousands of men to brave Rajput marksmen, so the desire for revenge was strong.When some of these tried to disguise themselves as ordinary civilians to escape the Mughal barricade, Akbar lost all control and did the worst deed of his life.

But even then he was not all black. It was he who refused to slay the unconscious Hemu. Around the period of the Chiitor war, Akbar visited Guru Amardas and had that famous langar. It was also the time when he abolished the hated Jazia on Hindus. His religious views were not fully developed but Akbar was on that path.

What is being shown on that other channel has nothing to do with history, it has to do religious chauvinism and jingoism. Akbar becomes the target.

Donjas,

I had put forth my views in my first comment itself. I had no intentions to continue this discussion. In fact, I stopped participating in historical debates on the forum since more than last one year. But, I strongly disagree with your comment - especially the last line, for the reasons stated in this comment.

My comment was NOT at all ONLY about the Chittor War or the "other" show. It was about many other things also. But, as you chose to talk about only Chittor, i will reply only about that.

I refuse to accept Akbar's loss of temper as the reason behind the Chittor massacre, as mentioned by you. Akbar proceeded towards Chittor with the intention of waging a Holy War. I am sure you must have read his Farman.

In my Chittor blog posts, i have already written the following ::

1. This war should NOT be seen as a war between 2 religious communities. This is what you also replied to me and i fully agree.

2. Akbar USED religion to motivate his army in the Chittor war - this is a "known secret" . Religion was a motivating factor in those times as much as it is now. Religion was used to PUMP up sentiments in the soldiers that they had to "defend" it , and leave NO STONE unturned to decimate the enemies.

Religion is NEVER bad, it always fosters HUMANITY. But, people manipulate it for their own benefit. This is what Akbar did by turning Chittor into a " Holy War / Jehad ", and following his win by ordering a "general massacre".

The effects of that war and its aftermath are STILL FRESH in the minds of the people of Rajputana and CANNOT be forgotten easily...

I also mentioned 4 interesting points about how i "see" history, in a post. Those 4 points are present in the starting of this post. Here is the link : Click Here to Read

What you called "chauvinism and jingoism of Rajputs" in that "other show" is NOTHING compared to what the REALITY was. Those people fought for their (mother)land and their deeds are recorded in AWE even by Mughal chroniclers in Mughal accounts.

Just think in a contemporary sense.

If that is "chauvinism" according to you, then what would be the correct adjective to describe Akbar's conduct there ?

In order to achieve his objective - empire expansion and subjugation of the Mewar Ranas, Akbar did not hesitate to USE his religion. Rajput records also mention that Akbar used " religious zeal " to prevail over Pratap.

Was Akbar's secularism conditional, at least when he was young ? What an irony!!! I am not contesting his greatness, but simply saying that greatness is not absolute.


I have knowingly used 6 to 8 Mughal accounts and later Rajput accounts also in my 6 blog posts on the Chittor war, to maintain a balance of perspective from both the sides / versions.

Anyway, disagreements and agreements are a part of discussion and i enjoy them. I am putting forward some counterpoints to the points mentioned by you in your reply::


1.
IMO, Akbar simply went to take the blessings of the revered saint Guru Amar Das Ji. I have many Sikh friends who admire Akbar because he respected their saints.

But, just because he respected the guru of one faith, how can another community that suffered because of him, value him for his "secularism"? Just think.!


Immediately after the Chittor massacre, Akbar went to the Dargah of the revered saint Muin-ud-din Chisti in Ajmer. In short , what he was doing was ::

Day - 1 : He was supervising a massacre.
Day - 2 : He was in a place of worship.

Just because he was a religious person who visited many holy places of worship and sought the blessings of many saints, can he be condoned for what he did in Chittor? For me, this visit to the dargah was simply Akbar's way of offering THANKS, after winning the war in Chittor.

There are all kinds of texts on Akbar, and to get a complete picture about him, we need to dig all of them. Those who opposed him suffered the worst battering even on religious lines, and those who did NOT oppose him, he was fine with them.

I want to clear here that i have utmost belief and respect for Sufi and other saints and Gurus. But, i HAD to write these lines because i want to say that what MAY BE GOOD for one person MAY NOT be good for someone else who suffered. And we need to see their view also.!

My comment may appear to be critical of Akbar but i only want to bring out the viewpoint of the vanquished side.

2.

As you said, Akbar refused to kill Hemu when he was 13. But...I feel he was a Kid, and so he refused. And i do not give this point any significant weightage. Though some people say that Hemu was killed because he refused to convert.


Now, a few more points, which highlight his contradictory behavior and show that Akbar did not hesitate to USE religion for his benefit ::


a.
Around the same time when Akbar met Guru Amar Das, there are instances of Akbar executing many famous and noted Shia saints. Utter religious intolerance to opposing views are chronicled. I can quote references as well. Badayuni praises Akbar for doing all this.

The father of Abul Fazl - Sheikh Mubarak - was on the run from Agra to Delhi to Rajputana to save his life because his "liberal views" were not suited to the taste of the Mughal court. He was refused shelter even by his closest friends because they were afraid of invoking Mughal wrath. This continued till he "won" Akbar over to his side.


b.
To strengthen your clause, and to counter my own view , i would mention that at the same time, he was ALSO following Hindu practices in his harem. Badayuni attributed all this to the daughter of Raja Bharmal. This is the ONLY point where he criticized Akbar because here Badayuni found orthodoxy on Akbar - missing.


c.
The same tax on Hindus, which he removed in 1564, as you mentioned, he re-imposed again in 1575. And the reason ? -> To pressurize Pratap to surrender. Was prevailing over Maharana Pratap so important for him, that he was ready to go back on his own reforms ??



@Bold underlined

As i already said, you can disagree with what they are showing. It is a part of discussion, which i enjoy. But, I have a certain opinion to which i will stick, until i find evidence that proves me wrong.

I have not seen any "religious chauvinism" shown in the other show, at least during the time i watched. They have NOWHERE invoked the religious angle. The best possible chance to project this was the Chittor war track, But even there, they DID NOT TOUCH it, for which i am thankful to the makers of that show.


In conclusion::

My motive in reading more and more about Akbar is only to understand what he was really like. I repeat, i am ready to accept BOTH sides of Akbar.

All the questions which i have posted here are a result of my curiosity. I'll keep asking them until i get my answers.

Akbar was neither a saint as projected nor a devil. He was very much a human being like us - With good as well as bad - for some people he was very bad, for some he was very good. He learnt from that and the journey he went through in his life LATER is remarkable and for that i admire him.

Unfortunately, showing that journey is NOT the cup of tea of the BEST OF THE BEST production houses of the world.

Originally posted by: ghalibmirza

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: Sandhya.A

Wish Akbar WAS shown ruthless. Yes. He was ruthless in Chittor like Ashoka was in Kalinga.Nobody says these men were doodh se dhule perfection personified personalities. But what made these kings great is their journey post their worst.

Let Akbar's worst be shown in Chittor. But that would have been better than show him a spineless fool who needs his begum to save him from every tight spot. Showing him like the king of Dolakpur turning to Chotta Bheem for every little problem he faces is abominable.🤢

Originally posted by: RadhikaS0

Mandy

Let's face it. Akbar is too complex for one TV show to show ALL aspects of him. Just not possible!!

JA showed the "good" side of him, as many members here have already mentioned. The "other" show (poor show has become nameless!) has shown a more ruthless side. May be some other show may come up with another facet of his personality.

I do agree with you that the NR in JA has been unacceptable at times, not just from the POV of Akbar/Jalal but even Jodha, not to speak of the lesser characters.

The only saving grace of JA has been that it has brought a lot of positive attention to Akbar and shown a more personal side to him, going beyond the dull descriptions in history books. It has made him into a character many of us want to know more about. And are willing to dig for info. So let's thank the show for this :)

radhika, for me jodha was akbar's shadow and not the other way round, if jodha was insulted in khyber track and then dancing in front of the Britishers then this is directly akabr's insult and when i talk about akbar's insult, ruk's behooda portrayal and jodha being touched by other men is an insult to akbar, therefore when i refer to akbar i refer to all inclusive!...i agree that this show was mainly dealing with his love life then why all the reforms were indirectly credited to jodha, they made it sound more like jodha the great than akbar the great and we all know that akbar was an alpha male and was an intelligent man..he was ahead of his times and far sighted! his religious reforms, though jodha might have been a catalyst, still they were to embrace the hindus or as a matter of fact all religions as he knew that this was the only way to make himself accepted! he was a man of vision! a vision of having a vast empire and then wanted the people to be happy with the way the govt is running that is why he used to go out disguised and get feedback from people themselves but his this quality too was credited to jodha and that is why the frustration against the serial..jodha might have influenced him in a positive way esp showing him how he can make people happy by letting them believe and respect their religion..but then why cvz had to make him dull..mazloom..and brain freeze? they could have shown all this in a beautiful way where akbar lovers like me would not feel defeated and cheated at the end!

Originally posted by: devkidmd

Radhika,

I agree that we cannot decide who our heroes are by just taking some aspects of the person.

I come from the land of Shivaji Maharaj, I am a Pune girl (born and raised). Shivaji is not just a national icon for us, he is our identity. Diwali for us as kids was about sweets and firecrackers like anybody else but more than that it was about building mud forts and placing figurines of Shivaji and his Mavlas fighting the Mughals.(oh, how I miss those days). You would be hard pressed to find anything negative about Shivaji in Maharashtra and especially Pune, where he was raised.

A few months ago I was talking to friends of mine from Gujarat who told me that he was not popular in the Surat area😲 and people there called him a not so pleasant name. THis was due to the fact that he and his men had looted and plundered in the region. Now this info you will not find in our history books. Did my respect and love for Shivaji Maharaj go down? No. I am now mature enough to understand that that was the way back then and people in general and rulers more than ordinary people have different sides to them.

What I am trying to say is that Akbar is not the only ruler/leader that is shown in the positive light, most other rulers are unless they were really unpopular like Aurungzeb(where the reverse is true).

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?

I do not think that we should look for a daily soap which is meant for all ages, some viewers not mature enough(in age or otherwise) to understand certain things, to shed light on each and every aspect of an iconic personality like Akbar. People who are interested enough(like many of us here) can do so on their own.

The serial did show quite a few things about Akbar. His bravery, fairness, ruthlessness(to some extent), his interests, were all touched upon one time or the other. Importance was given to his family life and especially to his relationship with Jodha which I guess what the show was supposed to be about to begin with.

I am glad that the other show touches upon the more ambitious, aggressive side of Akbar. As long as it is shown in a way that does not brainwash young kids into believing that Akbar was only that and nothing else. My friend who watches that show with her kids calls Akbar a "villian" in the show.

@bold: agree. And that goes for all national icons.

Devki

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

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!