Y Pratap resisted Akbar? | Record of 'Divine Intervention(!)'

Here is a new post that is a pre-cursor to the Battle of Haldighati series.

The show has ended and the forum is almost silent, but since i continue to write, hence, sharing my post link here, for those who wish to read.

The topic is :
Why Maharana Pratap Chose to Resist Akbar || With Rajput & Mughal Accounts of "Divine Intervention" of Akbar in 1578

Click here to READ

Sometime back, there was a debate relating to Mughal Emperor Akbar and Mewar King MahaRana Pratap. Articles of differing viewpoints were posted passionately. But they all missed the crucial point - " Why there was a struggle between them" ?

After all, fighting persistently with a very powerful enemy over a long duration is not what anyone with a reasonable amount of sense would choose to do.

In this post, I have presented my views on the possible reasons why MahaRana Pratap resisted the suzerainty of Mughal Emperor Akbar. Understanding the relations between the two and the reasons why the MahaRana continued his life-long struggle against Akbar in spite of acute hardships to his people and family, is essential to understanding why the Battle of Haldighati was fought and what its aftermath was.

While i was puzzling over this, i came across a research paper by the noted historian and former President of Indian History Congress, whose major area of interest was the history of Rajasthan. In his research paper, he presented strong reasons for MahaRana Pratap's aversion to the idea of submitting to Akbar and not wishing to become his vassal. Obviously, we all love our independence and so did the MahaRana. But this was not the only factor. The paper by him raises some other pertinent points.

Among other reasons, he mentioned how a Rajput noble was treated (read "punished") by Akbar. A little known fact about Akbar is that he was prone to lose his temper suddenly over small things. And there are many instances, such as the one covered in this post, when nobles suffered great humiliation due to his erratic mood swings. The paper also revealed some interesting conclusions.

Don't miss this post, especially for those who are admirers of either Akbar or Maharana Pratap or both.

Click here to READ

Abhay

Well, since you posted here, just like on your blog I will post my response here too.

Thanks for your response Donjas! I saw what you posted on my blog.
I was about to reply you there, hence i would like to reply here before i make a reply on the blog.

Your reply confirms my assessment of your views, which i have developed over a long time. The moment you see something uncomfortable about Akbar, you tend to make knee-jerk responses such as the ones on this article, especially your second comment on my blog where you have made some serious accusations AGAIN , and have re-iterated the same stand in your comment on this thread.

I would suggest that if you have the slightest of courtesy in debating and accepting opposing views, then please shed this ostrich-like attitude and do more research / reading before questioning the posts and bringing politics in every matter.

On what basis are you questioning this article, when the entire set of references along with relevant scans and their English translations are present in the article? The same was done earlier also as we saw on sticky few days back.

The title of the post indicates clearly what the post is about. The historian whose paper of 1969 has been included in this article was "an authority in himself", esp in the field of Rajasthani history, and served as the President of the Indian History Congress twice. Yet you question him without any hesitation, only because he appears critical of Akbar to you. This simply reveals your hesitation / narrow mindedness in such matters related to Akbar.

Incidentally, Dr Sharma is not the only one who has referred to this Rajasthani record in his research. Here are just a few examples of other historians who have used this Rajput record in their research and accepted it as a valid contemporary record :

1. The Senior Professor of History from Jamia Milia Islamia University at Delhi - Dr. Sunita Zaidi, has written a review of this Rajput record in the Indian Historical review, Indian Council of Historical Research, Volume - VII, No: 1-2, July 1980, Jan - 1981.

2. The same Rajput record has been used by American historian and professor of south Asian history at an American university, Ms. Cynthia Talbot, in her research paper, where she has ALSO said the same thing.

She said - "In contrast to the Persian histories produced in the imperial context, which describe Akbar as having a mystical experience on this occasion, this record casts it as an episode of rage."

Ms. Talbot presented her paper on Saturday, January 3, 2015 at Clinton Suite (New York Hilton) at the 70th Session of the American Historical Association. The conference was chaired by Ms. Samira Sheikh, from Vanderbilt University.

You can read the extract here:
https://aha.confex.com/aha/2015/webprogram/Paper16632.html

This paper is not available on the Net. But, in case, anyone wants to read it, they have following subscription options. The quality of research is amazing and the content is mind boggling, but, so are the subscription costs:

https://secure.historians.org/members/services/cgi-bin/memberdll.dll/info?wrp=membershipapp.htm

http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/ahr/access_purchase/price_list.html


In case, you doubt Prof. Talbot's scholarship, here are a few more lines about her :

- She is the Associate Professor of South Asian History, Departments of History & Asian Studies, University of Texas at Austin, since 2001 ( Assistant Professor, 1995-2001)

- Before that, she was the Assistant Professor of Asian History, Department of History, Northern Arizona University, 1989-95.

- Before that, she was the Assistant Professor of South Asian & World History, Department of History, Shippensburg University (PA), 1987-89.

- She was with the following historical societies :

American Historical Association:
Committee on the John F. Richards Prize in South Asian History, 2012-14

American Institute of Indian Studies:
Selection Committee, 1994-96
Board of Trustees, 1996-97 & 2004-11
Nominating Committee -- member, 1998-2000; chair 2000-1

Association for Asian Studies:
Annual Meeting Program Committee -- vice-chair, 2007-8; chair, 2008-9
Board of Directors, 2008-9
South Asia Council, 1997-2000

Society for Advancing the History of South Asia (AHA affiliate):
John F. Richards Memorial Prize Campaign Committee, 2009-10

Western Conference of the Association for Asian Studies:
Executive Board, 1990-93
President, 1993

- You can read more about her, here -
http://www.utexas.edu/cola/files/5077840

I considered that a Indian historian, who had served as the President of the Indian History Congress, would be a good authority on the subject. But alas! I was wrong. It seems that we are still under a colonial hangover and our historians are not "good enough". Only a westerner is accepted as a neutral and learned authority on the history of OUR country.

I hope, being a "foreigner", Prof. Talbot would be acceptable to you.


I remember, you had posted an article on the forum a few months back about Akbar and Sanskrit. You had simply posted some part of that article and mentioned the name of the author (again a foreigner). Do you know that the references for that article were Rajput records? The praise for Akbar in that article was from Rajput records. I read those sources while digging about the Chittor War.

If you knew that that article was sourced from Rajput records, then it would appear to me that as long as a Rajput record praises Akbar, you are fine with it; otherwise, that record and the historian referring to it both become biased, lacking in respect for Akbar and displaying their hatred for him.



Coming back to the present discussion ::

Have you read what Badayuni wrote about this incident?

I doubt it because you don't seem to be aware that Badayuni's description of the incident matched this Rajput record.

These Rajput records do not show either hatred or disregard for Akbar. They address him with complete courtesy, calling him "Badshah Ji" , which means, "His Highness, the Emperor" . Yes, they do not "polish" the event or clothe it in hyperbole, as done by the Persian court historians. The person who wrote about this incident was an eye-witness, and was the court historian of Bikaner. He also mentioned many lesser- known things about Akbar in his account, many of which throw a pleasant light upon Akbar's character. No one who has read the account would dismiss it as being biased against Akbar.

The only reason You are not able to digest this article (without reading either the complete account or Badayuni) is because it questions your beliefs about Akbar with hard-to-ignore evidence.

I do not need to tell you or anyone else that i have the utmost respect for MY subject, not just the "tiniest", and before posting anything, i verify the information from my sources to the maximum extent. I expect you do the same.

Donjas,

This is part-2 of my reply. It is more about the political stand which is the pre-dominant theme in your reply.

Thank you for your kind assessment of my writings! It is more old wine in new bottles. It has become a cycle now, it seems, with you first accusing me of many things in public and then apologizing for your reactions later.

Here are my observations about the present case.

Your ignorance is revealed in your comments here and on the blog. You do not even know what this record is and have not even heard about it, forget reading about it, as it is in pure Rajasthani language, yet you make lame allegations, this time crossing the line of cordial discussion and labelling me on the basis of your narrow-minded thinking.

It would be helpful to me if you could tell me what kind of supporting evidence would be acceptable to you for such "inflammatory historical aspects", as you mentioned on the blog.

To remove your (mis)judgement about this record, i can tell you that - Contrary to your PERSONAL view, this account throws good light too on Akbar and gives conclusive evidence of some of the most "inflammatory historical aspects" regarding him.

The Senior Professor of History from Jamia Milia Islamia University at Delhi - Dr. Sunita Zaidi, has written a review of this Rajput record in the Indian Historical review, Indian Council of Historical Research, Vol - VII, No: 1-2, July 1980, Jan - 1981. Please read that before accusing me of being a Hindutva element. Or does she (a Muslim) also appear to be an Hindutva element to you?

You proclaimed me as a "secularist turned Hindutva element" on the blog and even here, you are accusing me of "making irresponsible political statements". Do you even understand the meaning of secularism and Hindutva?

As far as i know, secularism holds different connotations in the West and in India. The Western notion of secularism implies a complete separation between the religion(church) and the state(politics). This is not applicable in the Indian context, as the society is multi-religious. Hence, the Indian concept of secularism says - "Giving equal respect to all religions or protecting all religions equally."

Hindutva SIMPLY means the way of life of the "Indian people". It is not confined to those people who practice the Hindu religion as a faith. This has been clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in their judgment in December 1995. Also, i hope you know that originally the word 'Hindu' arose from the river Indus (Sindhu) and the residents around the river were called Hindus.

Secularism and Hindutva are the 2 most abused terms in today's times, by vested elements, which include people from "both camps", who are often politically motivated. History is NOT black and white. Hence, I cannot and do not restrict myself to any category.

If calling a spade a spade is a CRIME, i will commit this crime again and again, no matter what you call me.

This comment you made also shows that you have not understood why i write these articles. I do not write for any "particular section", as i told you the last time you made an accusation against me. I write these articles purely for discussion and deliberation. I don't write these articles to earn money or to sell any books or get popular, like most historians do.

I don't give proof to "prove anything". I give proofs only to pre-empt such pointless accusations and lame views, so that i can save time to discuss history fruitfully with others and pick up some learning insights. Yet, you turn history on its head time and again through your illogical "Arguments" and make the entire exercise of tabulating proofs in the posts meaningless by simply overlooking them.

I do not agree with the so-called liberals, of whom you are a great admirer, who want to prove that our past was "clean" and we lived peacefully. BTW, one of the historians belonging to this camp is releasing a book to prove the "secular" nature of Aurangzeb. I wonder how the Marathas and Sikhs will react to that and what they will they will be called for their reactions. Let us see.

I don't agree with that class either which wants to prove that the past was a period of continuous communal conflict. My articles do NOT appeal to either class since I do not agree with their EXTREME positions. Hence i receive battering from both sides. This makes no difference to me.

Someone recently called me "sickular" because according to them, i "hide" the "true character" of some historical figures, the way "secular historians" do by "whitewashing their deeds". There are comments on my blog, where many "hardliners" often "tell me" what to write and what not to write.

Similarly, since you cannot digest anything contrary about Akbar, you call me a Hindutva element. Surprising - because this post is not related to religion or politics in any manner, but is only an analysis of a personal event from Akbar's life.

This tendency on your part to constantly categorize my writings is inexplicable. If i write something not so good about Akbar, then i am a Hindutva element and an irresponsible narrator, and, if i praise Akbar, then i am a secularist and upholding the responsibility of being an apolitical commentator.

Isn't it time you moved beyond such "labels" and engaged in constructive debate instead?

Like in Aesop's fable, I cannot make people from "BOTH" the camps happy all the time. It seems that there is NO place left in today's academic space where a person can simply discuss something without getting classified in one category or the other. However, If anyone who has read ALL my posts from a neutral perspective will definitely understand where i come from.

**************************

Before i end, i have another point to make. You are continuously harping on the same point about Badayuni, which you stated during the discussion on the Chittor posts, even though it was answered in detail then too.

First of all, i ask you the same question which i had asked you that time also when you questioned my Chittor posts on the sticky thread.

-> Have you EVEN READ Badayuni's account?

Quoting your comment :
" The situation presented above would have been believable if Badauni supported it too in any way in his accounts. "

This means that you are confident of your OPINION when you accuse me of being a Hindutva agent. Ironically, it is me who can CONFIDENTLY call your bluff this time - you have not read Badayuni at all.

Had you read his account, you would not have asked me this question nor made this point. FYI, Badayuni has corroborated this incident in his account:: Volume-2, Page Number 261 in the English translation.

Badayuni mentions - "suddenly all at once a strange state and strong frenzy came upon the Emperor, and an extraordinary change was manifested in his manner, to such an extent as cannot be accounted for. And every one attributed it to some cause or other."

I hope you understand the meaning of "frenzy" here. If not, let me make it clear. Frenzy means - "a state or period of uncontrolled excitement or wild behaviour" or "hysteria, madness, mania, insanity, etc".

Badayuni also mentions that Akbar cut off his own hair. I am ready to give you a scan of the relevant page from Badayuni's account, in case you want to have a look.

The Rajput record was more explicit, as it ALSO explained "what that frenzy / madness was", and also mentions that hair-cutting incident, which was sheer madness, as mentioned by Badayuni.

You appear to be a staunch apologist for all the uncomfortable acts credited to Akbar. The funny thing being that you NEVER TRY to dig the sources and proclaim your judgments in a knee-jerk manner. I would like to tell you that you lose credibility after every such comment you make, which reveal both your ignorance and your arrogance.

Instead of indulging in politically motivated jargon, it would be better if you expand your horizons by reading and strive to gracefully debate things centred around evidence and arguments.


Lastly, try to see things in a simpler manner. The world is beautiful, and some (if not all) people DO live and think beyond religion and politics.

Donjas,

This is my 3rd reply.

History is debated using references and i have given you quite a few references in the article and the above comments. I fully expect you to nullify all these references, as usual, because they are not in accordance with your views.

This is another observation which i want to share here in this regard.

Commenting on a historical post should also not take on the hue of a persistent witch hunt, as seems to be the case with you while commenting on my posts in the recent months.

According to you, different versions should be referred to while writing a historical post. This implies different versions in totality, not just Persian or court histories. Abu'l Fazl and Badayuni, for all their differences, were both careful not to tarnish the Mughal name while writing about events.

Badayuni criticised Akbar only when he felt that Akbar was tarnishing his religion or the Mughal prestige. He did not hate or criticise Akbar just for the sake of it and the respect he had for Akbar was because Akbar was a Mughal emperor and it was also respect born out of fear because he could not write totally against Akbar. Everyone knows what happened to Abu'l Fazl's father when he wrote his mind.




Setting out political agenda / making a political point:

Were not the Mughal court historians making political statements through their narratives? Wasn't their work controlled by the emperor? All court history has a political agenda at the end of the day.

Res 😊
Will comment after reading the post completely 😳

Thanks for this article Abhay. I have already posted on your blog so will only say this...Rajput sources are an integral part of Mughal history. And the thing is there is no hatred or adulation in the way the event was narrated.
The "Divine intervention" was obviously an unusual and a significant event and not just a "story" because it has been mentioned in so many places. For me it was not just something that happened due to uncontrolled rage.
The problem with Indians is that we idolize our heroes to an extent that we refuse to see anything remotely negative and understand it in a matter of fact manner. Why should something like this be labelled as "hindutva"? Is everything that does not fit in with our view of things to be considered"propaganda"? Just because Akbar was a muslim ruler he should not be criticized?
He was a human being first with all the follies and weaknesses of one.
I am sure even MP and Shivaji were not as pure as driven snow, even though many would like to believe that. We just may not have things documented.
We need to get out of this mindset that anything negative about our heroes is blasphemy. They were humans not god.
This article about Akbar in no way undermines his stature for me. It just makes the man more interesting.
And i am really not surprised. High achievers are many times difficult people to deal with and calling Akbar a high achiever is an understatement.

Donjas

Abhay and Radhika,