Jodha Akbar 21-23: The heart prevails - Page 6

Originally posted by: devkidmd

This is like Burger king's double whopper for me. First, Aunty's excellent analysis on this group of episodes followed by Ashwinee's(Ash67) superb take.

Ashwinee has managed to say everything I wanted to in a very eloquent and concise manner.

Devki

Originally posted by: Coolpree

This is a wonderful response Ash! Your take on the " old shoe love is absolutely brilliant"👏

You have summed up how I feel about the Ruk/Jalal relationship perfectly

Originally posted by: Donjas

This is such a stimulating piece, because it opened up several lines of thought which I had not considered. One of these is so important I will devote a lot of time to it.

So here goes-

Thought 1- Ruqaiya must have felt a lot of resentment at Hamida for what she said at the prison. That resentment would have borrowed into her mind and surfaced, whenever Jalal gave her the chance. The problem here is that no open action against the Quuen Mother is feasible, only slight disagreements, nothing which has the possibility of angering Jalal. But as you rightly pointed out resentments such as these hardly ever die out.

Thought 2- It was essential for Jalal to take action against Bairam Khan in the Takhatmal case, not only for reasons mentioned , but because he had given his word to a Hindu King. That trust had been betrayed, now he had to redress the situation if he wanted the support of the Rajput kings. How could anyone trust his word, especially a promise given to a fellow Hindu King, if no action is taken against those who caused the promise to be broken.

Thought 3 War or Negotiations- The Hamida Banu of this serial has been shown as wooly headed, but on reflection it is possible that the real Hamida Banu may also have wanted negotiations, whatever concession Jalal had to make, rather than war.

It is assumed by many that Jalal would crush the rebellion of Bairam Khan but why do we assume it. On one side we have a inexperienced youth of 19, who has hardly ever done anything by himself, on the other side the fearsome General Bairam Khan, a man who has made most of the official appointments of the Empire.

On this last point let me illustrate by an example. In Russian history, Trotsky and Stalin were rivals, but after the death of Lenin, most assumed that Trotsky would succeed him. Trotsky was the well spoken leader of the revolution, who had participated in many great agitations, who was a passionate writer with a capability of presenting complex socialist arguments. Stalin was a country bumpkin, a Georgian who could not even speak proper Russian, not a good writer, did not participate in anything important, he was considered unimportant enough to be given the job of Secretary General of the Communist Party. This was a nuts and bolts job, too below the status of someone like Trotsky.

At the time of succession, it was this job that gave Stalin the decisive edge. While on this job he had made most of the political appointments, they returned the favor by supporting him in the battle for succession, country bumpkin and all.

In a similar fashion, Bairam Khan had made most of the official appointments. Where did their loyalty lie, was a question that very few knew the answer to. Hamida being Queen Mother must have known how precarious Jalal's position, and she still hoped for some influence with Bairam Khan, unlike Maham who had burned her bridges with Bairam.

Ash67, I have thoroughly enjoyed reading your post. I eagerly look forward to your next post.

Originally posted by: alffim

Dear Donjas!
I am very pleased that you are interested in our history and me very interesting to know how you see our history . Thank you for the link to Bullock. I will try to find and read, it will be interesting to compare with our sources.
But Bullock is mistaken when he says that Stalin was a foreigner. He was a citizen of the Russian empire. But the empire was very multinational. In society, the second language after the Russian was the French. And the common people did not care this, for them and the Queen was a foreigner. Among the Bolsheviks were Latvians, Estonians, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Jews , Belarusians, Armenians, etc. People with the accent was very much... 😊
But Trotsky was a great speaker and knew how to act. I read that he once recruited by enemy soldiers, who were going to shoot him.
Stalin preferred not to seem, and to be in power.
Once a brother told me that the most intelligent, and therefore - the best of "The Three Musketeers" - is Aramis. When I did not agree, he said that staying behind the scenes, Aramis has achieved the highest power.
Stalin also remaining behind the scenes achieved everything.
In the times when were Lenin and Trotsky, no had position "Secretary General". It was just an ordinary post of party secretary. Normal office. But the fact that he became the chief - the merit of Stalin.
Churchill about Stalin: "He was the person who destroyed his enemies by the hands of his enemies."
(And also Stalin was a big fan of opera ... 😛)
During the events in Petrograd Lenin and Stalin were together and they together pushed decisions. According to modern sources of Trotsky's role in those events it was exaggerated.
And, unfortunately, there were not angels. And Lenin and Trotsky and Stalin - all have blood on their hands. All signed a huge firing list.

Originally posted by: Ash67

Dear Donjas,

Thank you for your very kind and warm appreciation!

I am not too fond of or knowledgeable about politics and I only remotely enjoy it in the form of history. I prefer when it is about as distant as Jodha-Akbar because then it can be looked at in terms of human relationships! But, through your take on my post you have proved that it is the reader who maketh the text!

I did enjoy this and the subsequent posts of yours ( as I have many of your other earlier posts on other threads during my silent presence on the forum). With my limited knowledge of history, I had thought Bairam khan reminded me of Churchill - extremely effective and powerful during WWII and appreciated for that but not so in the post-war period and moved aside! Would that impression be right?

Warm Regards

Ashwinee

Originally posted by: alffim

Dear Donjas!
I am very pleased that you are interested in our history, especially the history of 2 World War . Our family has lost relatives and participants in the battles of 2 World War. Now there was a lot of books, which are trying to prove that there is no difference between Stalin and Hitler. But despite the monstrous Stalinist repression, there is no equality between them. It is a desecration of the memory of the dead and it is not true!
I am very interested in the story of Akbar.
Akbar was a unique personality, not only for his time, but also for the 21st century, too. I read somewhere that when he learned that where a woman is trying to hold the rite of sati, he started rescuing. His tolerance for different religions causes huge respect! ... In Europe, in while burning fires of the Inquisition.
When I started to learn of his personality, of course, I tried to draw a parallel with our rulers. Perhaps the only person - Peter I, he may meet those conditions.
I think they are both equally able to appreciate people not on the basis of caste, they had a huge thirst for knowledge and both made themselves and built their empires.
I am very glad that JA repeated again and I can read a very interesting, deep and thorough analysis Shyamala Di and all your opinions.