Jodha Akbar 11-12: Siyaasat ki jung - Page 10

Originally posted by: ---Khushi---

How I wish EK had shown this in JA...what humungous chest beating sessions we would have had on IF 😆 😆

Originally posted by: Autumn_Rose

@ khushi 🤣

@prem I remember you posted akbars list of wives once.. From Jahangir nama and other sources. I would have hated him if I knew him. He even got some one divorced to marry his wife. I remember you mentioning once that this could have been the reason for the assassination attempt on him.

Originally posted by: myviewprem

Every marriage and cocubbine of his was justified on forum saying political reason but that is not the case actually- sometimes it was attraction some times lust sometimes just need to have that pretty girl in his harem sometimes a gift from other kings and nobels

Ok fine royal princesses marrying Akbar may be for political reason or keep those kingdoms in check

But what about the girls of mughal empire who landed in harem, what about the girls gifted to emperor- why would anyone(outside country) gift girls to an emperor if he was not interested?

In those times dancing girls etc were gifted to emperor and even Akbar by other kings.

Originally posted by: myviewprem

Jalal-Maham Anga 1:

Maham anga this lady was more of a lady macbeth or even worst. I cannot think of another women a motherly figure that did as many evil things to retain her hold on power and Akbar. Maham anga is like the chess player a world champion at that who slowly strategises before her every move. Her every gesture has an hidden meaning for those who are careful enough to observe.

Lady Macbeth committed or instigated only 3 murders, and she was haunted for all the rest of her life by the memory of that blood .. "Will not all the perfumes of Araby scent this little hand?". Mahaam would never have been haunted in like fashion by any of the umpteen murders she committed or ordered. She is far more like the monstrous women of the Italian Renaissance , Catherine de Medicis - who also had a penchant for carrying poison in her rings - or Lucrezia de Borgia.

The tears that well up in her eyes on seeing jalal i wonder if they are genuine tears of longing of a mother meeting her son or is that a careful enacted play to enhance her standing in eyes of the emperor. Would jalal have bestowed her so much respect and grace in front of others if she had not manipulated those expressions of longing and pain on her face at seeing him, may be in private but never in public. But she did that to show all the soldiers, maids and commanders there what was her importance in eyes of Akbar.

The message is clear - So if Akbar the emperor bows to her in front of his servants, the servants should crawl at her command and sight (simple message loud and clear)

I would say that the tears are all sham. But how beautifully she puts up that show, with the muscles in her face moving by infinitesimal degrees to produce that effect! As for the public impression she seeks to create of how close she is to Jalal, that is what I had noted here:

The smile that lights up Jalal's face when he spots her, the first time I have seen him smile with genuine pleasure, and the gentle, affectionate homage he pays her, kissing her hands and then carrying them to his eyes, must have strongly boosted Mahaam Anga's standing in the minds of the onlookers, that is to say the whole camp.

Then inside Khema too she does not sit till Akbar gets up and makes her sit next to him- she is again sending a message to servants. But now this scenes she creates is to test how much control and affect she has on jalal. Does he still get disturbed like a son should or child should at his mother standing while he is sitting comfortably? Does she still have that emotional vice like grip on him or not?

She applies lep on his wound - that is another indication to him other than your bai ammi no one bothers about your wounds or apply maram on it.

The same way she trickly makes him no of zaheer condition- that is jalla must not think later she was complaining of BK. She trickly sends all out before saying this was BK who ordered his eyes out.

She is a master of the game, but she gets a lucky break with the hakim coming in just then, when she is wondering how to get the facts about Zaheer across to Jalal without her fingerprints on it.

You know many times in family/friends people act so concerned for simple things like a small cut etc but when you have big trouble those people are rarely around. Maham is one such lady - she is ready to put maram on jalal's small cut which bairam khan or hamida or ruqaiah or jodha may not care to attend too(as they know jalla can treat himself) but its maham herself who shall give him biggest wounds in life - be it killing his unborn babies in womb, be it getting jalal's khan baba out of the way, killing peer mohammed his trusted general, creating misunderstanding bet jodha and jalal, making jalal believe that his innocent mother never cared for him making her a villan in his eyes etc

Watching all this sometimes arises one question in mind - these emperors, great warriors great startegists how they could be easily fooled by outward appearance of their own own family and close friends etc. This is not one off case i have read some chinese emperors who were also manipulated, roman emperors whose wives etc had controlled their brains etc i mean a man no matter how powerful how great in outside world inside his inner circle they tend to trust and believe over exclusively on their wives, mothers, mid wives, maids mostly its women they tend to be manipulated by

Jalal-Bairam Khan: The scene that follows, between Jalal and his Khan Baba, is a remarkable display of rigidly controlled but still barely suppressed fury on Jalal's side - Main aaj aapse ek sawaal poochunga, Wazir-e-Aala (not Khan Baba), aapne Zaheer ki aankhen kyon cheen lin? He cuts off Bairam Khan's explanation about a galti by Zaheer in mid-sentence. His voice cracks like a whip: Kaunsi galti? ..And then :Wo hamara sabse wafaadaar yeh baat jaante the aap. Aapko intezaar karna chahiye tha.. Yeh galat kiya aapne..

There is a desperate rearguard action by a shell-shocked Bairam Khan, ending in a last ditch attempt to to salvage the situation as he kneels at Jalal's feet and offers an eye for an eye as retribution. Jalal refuses to punish him, but is unyielding in his condemnation of what was done to Zaheer, and as he turns away from his mentor of many years, one can practically hear the door closing in Bairam Khan's face.

He pays the price for imagining that his pupil could be forever controlled and manipulated, like a puppet on a string, even after he had grown in years, stature and wisdom. It was brought home to him, suddenly and without warning, that power by proxy is fundamentally unstable. And that it never pays to take an emperor, even one so young, for granted.

It was striking that it was only today, confronted by a stony-faced, ice cold Jalal, that it occurred to Bairam Khan that the Shahenshah should be addressed as Aap. It was, unfortunately for him, too little too late. The downward slide has begun, and the bell is tolling for Bairam Khan. Mahaam Anga, against whom he rages impotently, is only an instrument in his fall; he has dug his grave with his own hands.

A father and son or teacher and pupil relation is not complex like a mother son or dai ma- son. So its easy for an Akbar to ask him questions, stare in his father figure eyes and show his displeasure. Regarding BK addressing jalal as aap, for BK jalal is still a kid still a child who played in his lap, whom he protected in childhood. He does not really care for external or outward pretence. BK is a man brought up in war fields, in harsh world, for him there is one rule you do not obey general you will be punished it is what you call military style upbringing no place for emotions only reach target at any cost. He shall not change that attitude that upbringing of 55 years because one of his pupil his foster son Jalal does not like it. Look at past generations for them love marriage is blasphemy, inter caste marriage is blasphemy etc because for 50-60 years they are brought up like that.

I would grant you all this. But what BK forgets in all this is that the supreme authority is that of the Shahenshah. He might have been a father figure for Jalal all his life, but he is NOT his father. So many kings had devoted followers who saved them from danger and raised them facing great risks. Charles II during the reign of Cromwell, when he was always on the run and in fear of his life, is a case in point. But those very followers cannot claim the right to rule in the name of the King forever. The realm in question, even though BK was the main instrument of its creation, was in the final analysis, not his. It was Jalal's. But BK behaves as if the empire was really his, and the power by proxy that he wields would be his permanently.

Just observe a father at home, if you are wrong he shall say he shall punish no mincing of words. He is not there to get into good books of his son or children. He says or does what is best for his children. BK is the traditional father who does not mince words or goes by pretence. The same with teachers. BK may have some external motives that is the power that comes with being ataliq and foster father of Akbar, but that does not mean he sugar quotes his thoughts to stay in the good books of Akbar. For the world Akbar is Akbar the great emperor for BK he is jalal his foster son and pupil more than an emperor. That is why fathers have a tension filled relation with sons as they do not change with time.

Again, BK is not his father. Moreover, his loyalty is to the Mughal Sultanat, not to Jalal except insofar as Jalal is the sartaj of the sultanate (at the moment). I am not sure he really loves Jalal, he only cares for him and protects and guides him because he knows that Jalal is the best bet for the Mughal empire to expand. If he is truly interested in grooming him, why does he not teach him how and when to take strategic decisions? Or how to handle the selection of mansabdars?

Now look at the mother she knows when to scold, when to get angry, when to love when to care etc. Mothers are rarely confrontational and love to stay in good books of children especially sons because they think of the long term inter-relation. I am not saying all mothers but majority mothers are non confrontational and try to stay in good books of children especially a son. That is why as boys grow up they tend to get closer to moms compared to father as father will ask all the questions while mothers tend to hide and sort of protect sons from fathers.

In patriarchal society asian/indian families that tends to be the trend even in 21st century. I was reading a few articles on criminal psychology and psycho paths etc the common trend is the dysfunctional family, the father being an feared figure who may have vices like drinking, gambling, hitting wife and kids or the second type are kids especially sons whose mothers would protect all the bad things that a son/child does from father.

A fathers role is very important in life of a son, how the son shapes up and behaves in later life is determined by his relation with his father in childhood. Children without father usually tend to grow into anti socials or timid individuals.

This, I am afraid, is far too generalised and sweeping. How can one assert that fatherless boys grown into anti-socials or are weak and timid? Any number of fatherless boys have grown up to be very strong and capable leaders of great integrity. Shivaji Maharaj is a classic case in point, but very many more examples can be cited.

With my above paragraph lets take a look at Akbar- he lost his father at 13 years, had BK as father till 17 years. He never had a father all life in reality first as hostage, may be the period of 7 years to 17 he had BK. A son learns from father about his relation with outside world to treat women etc. So in house if a mother, sister is treated like second class citizen or their existence does not matter sons tend to learn that and implement it in outside world. They learn its Okkk to misbehave and treat women as commodity. Akbar's Casanova ways, his marrying many girls etc all this is rooted in his initial upbringing. I believe that Akbar did not marry or keep cocubbines only for political reasons and expasion but he was a casanova at large in the first place. What else shall indicate him marrying in his 50s to princess young enough to be his grand daughters. The root of this lies in his childhood his role models be it Humayun or BK or other fatherly figures. Its the same with other mughal emperors and princes.

Is it your argument that Humayun and Bairam Khan were contemptuous of women and ill-treated them? I had not heard any such thing of Humayun, and as forBK, his attitude towards his wives, especially Salima, does not seem to indicate that.

As for treating women as commodities, that was the standard practice in that period. And in many others as well!

Lastly, I feel that a man is a Casanova by personal inclination more than by watching his seniors. If Akbar was uxorious and married very young girls when he was in his 50s, so do many rich old men these days when they want a trophy wives. It is just that Akbar had the advantage of not being restricted to one wife at a time!!

Jalal-Maham Anga 2: It was fascinating to watch her, a master at the game and in the art of dissimulation, play Jalal like a violin. As he watches her, his eyes narrowed in confusion and emotional strain, she lays out for him the principles of statecraft for him with a succinctness and confidence that would have pleased Chanakya.

Ek salah dena chahenge, yaad rakhiyega. Mohabbat insaan ko kamzor kar deti hai ( she is herself a standing example of this, wrt her son Adham) aur rishtey dam ghot dete hain.. Hands grasping his shoulders, she goes on Yeh Mughaliya sultanat sirf aur sirf aapse aur aapki ragon mein daudti shahi khoon ki wajah se kayam hai..

When he protests that Bairam Khan has been his ustad all his life and is like his walid, she instantly presses on a raw wound when she tells him to then forget the atrocity done to his sabse bharosemand Zaheer. As Jalal , racked by indecision, looks away, Maham assesses the situation, her eyes wary and calculating. Then, her mind made up, she moves.

Kaum aap par bharosa karti hai Jalal! Chahti hai aapko. Apne Zill-e-Ilahi ke faisle par unhein yakeen hai.. Kisi din, kisi ki ki huyi gustakhi ki wajah se yeh yakeen toota, to wo din Mughaliya sultanat ke liye sab se bura din hoga.

She withdraws a bit to assess the impact of what she has said so far. Then she delivers her parting coup, clearly aimed at Bairam Khan, though it is innocuous enough on the surface. Itihaas gawah hai Jalal, zulm ki hukumat kabhi aabaad nahin rahi hai. Aage aap khud samajhdaar hain..

Thru this silken monologue that ranges from Panchatantra-style parables to the need for the Emperor to retain the trust of the awaam, Maham Anga smoothly undermines, indeed almost cripples Bairam Khan's standing with the Shahenshah. Her parting shot, that regimes based on oppression do not last, tolls like a warning bell, all the louder, metaphorically, against the sounds of Zaheer's agony.

It is a bravura performance, all the more effective for being so low key.

Maham anga was right here a regime requires both force and care to last. An emperor has to be ruthless with enemies sometimes to send a message, forgive once in a while so that history and people do not consider him tyrant, punish the wrong doers in kingdom with iron fist so that crimes reduce and care for common people who are the real back bone of an empire because they pay taxes and slog to produce goods and services. So how can an king survive if commoners are not cared for, because they fill his coffers, they pay for his army, for the salaries of empires servants etc.

But here again her motive was not to convert Akbar from jallad to the great Akbar. It was more to secure her position against BK. The intention matters a lot in world not the deed itself. Maham only saving Jalal from BKs policy to kill him herself when time comes.

Agree in toto. But I have a feeling that Mahaam really loved Jalal in one part of her zehen. It was a schizophrenic set up, with Adham being No.1 and Jalal No.2,which is why, in all her plots to seize the throne, she never contemplates killing Jalal.

Here of course we are talking it the serial Mahaam, not the real one. I would not take any of the contemporary accounts of any period as the gospel truth. They are all coloured by the biases and the personal agendas of the authors. A lot of cross-checking is needed.

Originally posted by: sashashyam

My dear Prem,

These are very interesting comments, but then you always make them so! My supplementary remarks are in blue.

Shyamala

Originally posted by: myviewprem

Originally posted by: sashashyam

What a delightful exchange!

One thing, I never could understand HOW Maham expected the rest of the Mughal power structure to accept Adham, a dayimaa's son with not the least link to the aristocracy,not to speak of royalty, as the Shahenshah once Jalal was got rid of. It is a non-starter.

With no clear bloodline for the succession bar Mirza Hakim, who would at once descend on Agra, there would have been civil war with multiple claimants to the throne, and many vassal kingdoms availing of this opportunity to free themselves.

I think Maham might have told Adham, at some point to quieten him down, that she was working to get him the throne and then this became an idee fixe for both of them.

As for Bairam Khan, he was, if I am not mistaken, a Shia. That would have made it tough for him to stake his claim to the throne, plus he too had no link even by marriage to the Mughal imperial family. He was best off as the power behind the throne, like Cardinal Richelieu with Kind Louis XIII in France.

Shyamala