The Real Akbar. - Page 10

Originally posted by: Sumagggg

My replies in bold-

I don’t think so, it would be injustice if you say that Akbar’s religious policies were only for the sake of his image building and expansion of power. Sure, these two intentions were present in him. But he was also genuinely interested in knowing about all religions. Because of which he created the Ibadat khana, where he actively arranged religious debates between people of different religions. Akbar may have had more than one reason for creating Ibadat khana, but trying to solve the conflict between religions was one of those major reasons. Accounts of priests who took part in debates in Ibadat khana describe Akbar to be curious and respecting their religion. Akbar was deeply interested in religious and philosophical matters. An orthodox radical Muslim at the beginning, he later came to be influenced by the sufi mysticism.

During the last 5-10 years of Akbar’s reign many of these priests viewed Akbar as a semidivine person, subsequently writing various hagiographic accounts about him. This much of difference wouldn’t have occurred if Akbar had only power and image building in mind. Existing religions, sects and denominations, as well as various religious figures who represented popular worship felt they had a claim to him. The diversity of these accounts is attributed to the fact that this reign resulted in the formation of a flexible centralised state accompanied by personal authority and cultural heterogeneity. Subjects of Akbar’s empire tremendously praise his policies in the form of hymns, legends during the later part of his reign.

Akbar gradually created a policy of religious fraternity. But it was not that he was alone in this. Akbar succeeded because he also had great and faithful officer sunder him, like Abul Fazl, who helped him in such missions. Akbar’s policy towards religions as a whole was tied to his religious-philosophical outlook, overall administrative machinery, and image and policy building for both himself and his empire.

Akbar’s religious policy is termed Sulh-i-kul (an Arabic term that means ‘peace among all’) by Abul Fazl. A religious policy that focuses and aims on peace, balance, harmony between religious communities.

Akbar created the Din-i-illahi, it was not a religion although, but a cult aiming to bridge the gaps between various religions and their practices, based on the aforementioned principles of sulh-i-kul. Yes, it is true that this initiative was a flop, but it was one of its kind.

However, one can’t expect religious pluralism/tolerance of 16th century to be the same as secularism in 21st century. Two things are different. In ancient India, state did not have any official religion, atleast we don’t find it in any sources of ancient times. The most probable cause of this is that in ancient world, the concept of integrated religions having well defined boundaries from each other had not been created. Rulers used to patronize more than one sect (this in no way means that ancient people were non-violent liberals). But, during the time of Mughal empire, the idea of well define religion is already concurrent. Akbar was the head of Mughal empire, which was an Islamic empire, atleast on pen and paper. A state having an official religion therefore, cannot treat all religions as equal. What Akbar did however was to ensure that religious tolerance, harmony and cordiality between various religious sects and their people, so that one religion does not cruelly and unjustly try to subjugate another religion and there exists peace, also that the hegemony of radical-Islamic domination is broken, balance between all religions is achieved.

Many kings(both hindu and muslim) before and after Akbar have demonstrated religious tolerance and pluralism. But none of them have been as successful as Akbar, because for those rulers, religious tolerance was only a personal outlook, but not part of empire’s overall policy. But Akbar succeeded in combining his religious pluralism with the empire’s overall policy and administration. His secret of success and speciality lies in the implementation of his policies throughout his empire with such success. No other tolerant ruler in India has been able to do this.

Please read,

this post (click)

Thanks,

Anushka

Originally posted by: Sumagggg

One of the most common questions asked is why only Rajput princesses married Mughal princes and not the other way round. This question is one of those cases, where there is more than one answer- The first answer is very general In those times, all societies, all religions were patriarchial (male dominated). So, when a royal marriage occured, the party that was less powerful always gave their daughters in marriage to the male member of more powerful party. Mughals, in their ambition of conquering all India would seldom be interested to give their daughters in marriage to hindu kings. Since, in those times giving daughters in marriage was seen as a way of complete surrender, an utmost show of loyalty to the male party from the side of female party. The Second answer is little complicated to understand It was the 'Policy of Paramountcy'(POP) . Policy of Paramountry if explained simply, was a strategy where the central government/power is successfully considered the most important force in governing a country. In feudal soceities of medieval times, successfully exstablishing POP was extremely hard (almost impossible task) for many strong dynasties, let alone weaker ones. Mughals are successfully able to enforce this policy of paramountcy during Akbar's reign, where local rulers would have to take his permission/firman to rule over their small kingdoms. This system worked in the following manner- 1) The emperor was highest authority in land 2) Local rulers need his explicit permission to rule these landholdings 3) In reality, the local rulers are not kings/sovereigns, but, they have got the right to rule over their piece of land through a firman of emperor which has granted them the right to rule and collect taxes from the land 4) The local ruler must pay a part the taxes to the central government and use the rest taxes for maintaining soldiers and his own lifestyle and must be at his service at times of call along with his soldiers 5) The position of land holders/jamindars were not hereditary. If a jamindar dies, his sons must again obtain a firman from emperor to become his father's successor. 6) The emperor can withdraw the firman at will, take the land away from the jamindar and give it to someone else, then jamindar/raja will become landless. 7) Through this method, the Mughal central government used to decide who would succeed the father in royal succession dispute. They would give the firman to that son who is more loyal to them, that son in turn would marry his daughter to a mughal prince as a token of loyalty. The title used by local rulers like Maharaja, Raja etc. were given through imperial sanads by central government. These titles did not have any actual meaning and were only for show. Not only rajputs, but all other local rulers were under the jurisdiction of policy of paramountcy, so they used to marry their daughters and sisters to mughal princes, and show their loyalty, in return the mughals protect them and let them rule over their land. However, it's not true that mughals never married their daughters outside, Akbar married his niece to Man singh, Jahangir married his daughter to Roz Afzun. When the mughal became weak puppets after Muhammad shah, Ahmed shah Abdali had attacked delhi (sometime after Nader shah), mughals had married Muhammad shah's daughter to Ahmed shah to buy out peace(same way as rajputs did to them earlier). I don't think more discussion on policy of paramountcy is needed in this regard. It's a very large topic and has lots of branches of discussion, here, I think only this much is needed. This same policy of paramountcy was followed by British with some modifications.

Hi, first of all I apologise for not replying to your earlier post on the Rajput ballad tradition and how it exaggerates things. That was really insightful, and so is this one. Interesting, I haven't heard of the policy you mentioned, but it does make sense in context. Also, would you mind sharing a source that can verify Man Singh's marriage to Akbar's niece? I've heard that said, but never been able to find a proper source.

Thank you for being here, by the way, it's an absolute joy to hear your very nuanced thoughts!

Replies in deep red.

Originally posted by: nushhkiee

Note- I still haven't read the other half of this thread. I'm on a time crunch right now with all the contests and all I'm hosting on IF so excuse me Just replying to your points- (dark blue)

You don't need to, if you don't want to. I'll probably repeat or link most of it again anyway

I'm going to sound like a complete nutter repeating the same things over and over again, but one has to do what has to be done, I guess?

Repetition is the mother of learning, right?

I should be learning better stuff then :p

I don't know which paintings you saw or where, but all paintings of Akbar made during his lifetime show him as a typical Mongol, with very tiny eyes. He also very famously NEVER had a beard. And while paintings aren't always trustworthy, if several of them by different artists have a striking similarity, it logically means they contain some truth. And Akbar's paintings are far from idealized, he looks pretty average to me in the appearance department honestly :p Leaving some links to the paintings I've shared here, please check:

I mean, paintings aren't exactly "photo evidence" now, are they? Sure, several of them show Akbar as a Mongol with tiny eyes, but those tiny eyes could just be a style choice of the artists. Artists often exaggerate features to show "character," so let's not assume it’s a perfect likeness. I checked those links you’ve shared and I still agree with you/

How do tiny eyes or large eyes or medium eyes show character? Sure it could've been a style choice, but like they're all paintings of a very average-looking person. If it was a stylistic choice, I'm sure he would've looked better. What is the point of a style choice that makes you look so ordinary? I couldn't find any exaggeration in any of the paintings I've shared.. if you felt something like that, please point it out.

On the issue of the name change, I agree that Akbar didn’t go around renaming major cities like Vrindavan, Mathura, or Varanasi. These were indeed places of deep religious significance, and Akbar, despite his policies, did demonstrate tolerance in many cases

naming the new city Allahabad was likely a move to establish his own legacy and connection to the region. It wasn’t about changing the old name, but rather about asserting his authority and influence in the area. Such actions, while not necessarily malevolent, were still part of how rulers of that era would cement their control and make their mark on the land

So, how is that a bad thing? A new city everywhere has a new name only. If I built a city somewhere, I'm sure I'll want it to have my influence on its name. And I'm not even a King. Kingship literally survives on authority.

Replies in deep red.

Originally posted by: nushhkiee

I'm sorry, but this sounds like chatgpt to me. Nothing wrong with using it, just that AI can be very inaccurate when it comes to historical facts and biases... I would suggest you don't rely on it for either information or opinion.

I agree with you that Akbar’s reign is often celebrated for its religious tolerance in later years. However, if we look at the historical context more closely, especially in the earlier part of his rule, there are reports that suggest Akbar did, in fact, partake in temple destruction in certain instances, which are often overlooked in more idealized accounts of his reign.

Sources please? Never heard of it, except in Chittor's case, which I've already mentioned.

For instance, during his military campaigns, particularly in regions like Gujarat and Bengal, temples were destroyed as part of his strategy to suppress rebellions and consolidate power. This wasn’t just incidental damage but a deliberate action linked to his military objectives. These actions, while perhaps common in the context of medieval warfare, raise questions about his supposed "tolerance."

Source for the Gujarat and Bengal claim?

Yes, Akbar did start promoting tolerance later on, but that doesn’t completely erase his earlier policies. It seems like those later moves were more about political pragmatism than a true commitment to religious harmony. His decisions often had more to do with consolidating power and strengthening his empire than any real desire to foster pluralism.

I completely disagree, and I've mentioned why, over here:

https://www.indiaforums.com/forum/post/165759973

Historians like John F. Richards and Irfan Habib point out that Akbar's reign wasn’t as uniformly tolerant as it’s sometimes made out to be. In fact, his early actions often contradicted that image. Sure, he did things like build temples in certain areas later on, but a lot of it seems to have been motivated by political needs, not genuine religious tolerance.

Please quote what they say about him, and where. It's easy to randomly scatter names of historians anywhere on the internet, these days.

Also, yes, early days mein he was exactly like you say he was. We're talking about his later-day changes here. No one becomes a sun-worshipper or stops eating meat just for politics. Besides, do read the link I've shared above. Hinduism was not the only religion he was interested in. Jains/Parsis/Christians, despite being miniscule minorities, were really well-treated by him.. so what politics was he playing there?

At the end of the day, Akbar's reign was a mix of power plays and pragmatism.

Originally posted by: IshqHaiWoEhsaas

Replies in deep red.

I'm sorry, but this sounds like chatgpt to me. Nothing wrong with using it, just that AI can be very inaccurate when it comes to historical facts and biases... I would suggest you don't rely on it for either information or opinion.

Oh, no, I don’t use never really felt the need ... very much against all the AI platforms ... so much so I have numerous debates on this very topic where I speak about the "Cons" of it. I know it that's what matters. Not here to prove anything to anyone but agreeing, there are few excerpts from few articles which I have used. It slipped my mind to bold it .. I'll reply to you about other points later

Moreover I know how it works. Try asking for replies and see the mess. Chatgpt is truly a fool (Sorry chatgpt)

Replies in deep red.

Originally posted by: nushhkiee

I see what you’re saying. But I think the issue goes a bit deeper than just societal norms or "property" dynamics. Sure, women in those times were seen more as assets to be traded in alliances, but the bigger picture here is the one-sidedness of it all.

It’s true that many royal families, including the Rajputs, had their share of complex alliances, and the dynamics were often shaped by politics and honor. But that doesn’t change the fact that Akbar, a ruler known for his supposed progressive views on religious tolerance and dialogue, didn’t apply the same principles when it came to his own family. While Hindu princesses were expected to marry into the Mughal family and often convert, you didn’t see Mughal princesses being married into Hindu royal families on similar terms. That double standard stands out.

Yep, the double-standard remains. But I still believe it is more a consequence of patriarchy than of religious intolerance. @Sumagggg has also written an excellent reply to this, on how this is a more complex issue than simply a double standard. However, I have nothing more to add to it, we can agree to disagree on it. :)

I agree that judging historical figures by today’s standards is tricky and unfair, I still think it's important to acknowledge the inconsistencies in their actions, especially when they are held up as models of tolerance. Akbar’s willingness to meet Hindus halfway in terms of policies like the abolition of jizya is often praised, but his approach to marriages and alliances doesn’t quite match the same spirit of inclusivity.

Every serious student of history acknowledges his inconsistencies. The marriage thing can be a double standard, but it was the norm of the age. In no way can it balance out things like the ban on jaziya/forced conversion, or open promotion of other religions etc, because they were a HUGE deal in those days.

So yes, while the whole thing can certainly be understood in the context of the time, it's still hard not to see the imbalance and, frankly, the double standard when it comes to how Hindu and Mughal royal families were treated differently in these matters.

Why would the two royal families be treated similarly? Akbar was the Emperor, most Rajputs paid tributes to him, in administrative hierarchy they remained inferior. This is not about religion at all. The Muslim rulers of Gujarat were treated the same way. We can debate greatness and goodness all we want, but let's not forget Akbar was a ruler with an empire to run, not a saint sent to spread the message of equality. Within the limits of his work however, he did achieve remarkable equality in his kingdom and life.

Originally posted by: nushhkiee

I'm sorry, but this sounds like chatgpt to me. Nothing wrong with using it, just that AI can be very inaccurate when it comes to historical facts and biases... I would suggest you don't rely on it for either information or opinion.

Oh, no, I don’t use never really felt the need ... very much against all the AI platforms ... so much so I have numerous debates on this very topic where I speak about the "Cons" of it. I know it that's what matters. Not here to prove anything to anyone but agreeing, there are few excerpts from few articles which I have used. It slipped my mind to bold it .. I'll reply to you about other points later

Oh, I'm sorry for implying that was AI. I'm also very much against it in certain areas, so just had to say it. Apologies!

However, this is a debate going on here, so "knowing" isn't enough. If you say something, please be ready to prove it via proper sources. Warna point hi kya hua of this entire conversation?

The same applies to me as well, please feel free to ask for sources of anything and everything I say.

replies in bold

Hi, first of all I apologise for not replying to your earlier post on the Rajput ballad tradition and how it exaggerates things.

Don't worry ,it's fine, I never did mind on that

That was really insightful, and so is this one. Interesting, I haven't heard of the policy you mentioned, but it does make sense in context. Also, would you mind sharing a source that can verify Man Singh's marriage to Akbar's niece? I've heard that said, but never been able to find a proper source.

Oh, if you are talking about policy of paramountcy, it was most famously used by britishers in India to deal with local zamindars/rulers. But , what most people don't know is that Mughals were the first people to use this system successfully(mind this word, others tried before, but failed) in India. The term "Policy of Paramountcy" with regards to mughal administration is coined in Satish Chandra's book.

As far as Man Singh's marriage with Mubarak begum (Adham Khan's daughter, Akbar's niece) is concerned, unfortunately, Idon't know of any direct source, I had first read it on wikipedia, and subsequently some other sources, but I don't know of any direct source. Also, Hindu man marrying Muslim woman was considered extremely unconventional in those days, no wonder people were not interested in describing it (neither Mughal nor Rajput).

Thank you for being here, by the way, it's an absolute joy to hear your very nuanced thoughts!

Thank a lot to you too!!!!

Originally posted by: IshqHaiWoEhsaas

Replies in deep red.

completely agree with you @IshqHaiWoEhsaas !!!

Replies in deep red.

Originally posted by: nushhkiee

right that Jodha Bai doesn't exist in historical records.

But, the fact that the show chose to focus on Jodha Bai (for the sake of drama) ..It wasn’t just about the names....it was the expectations that came with these alliances that still seem unfair when viewed from a modern perspective. Thedouble standard still stands, even if we’re talking about different historical figures.

Sorry I don't understand what you mean here. What expectations?

And I'm very curious about your insistence on "double standards" and "modern perspectives". Like Suma said before me, we will never find a great human if we keep viewing them via a modern lens. A hundred years later people will call us the most inhuman people ever. Morality is subjective and keeps changing. Genuine question, since you prefer the modern viewpoint, is there any historical figure, Indian or otherwise, that you admire?

I completely respect your view on Akbar’s social reforms, like banning sati and abolishing slavery. Those are big, progressive changes, especially for that time, and they deserve recognition. It’s just that, while those reforms were significant, they don’t entirely erase the negative aspects of his rule. For instance,his military campaigns, like the destruction of temples and the massacre at Chittorgarh, are still part of his legacy. Sure, he might have had remorse later on, but that doesn’t change whathappened.

I never said it changes anything. In fact, I said he deserves to be forever dragged for that heinous crime.

I'm glad you think he deserves recognition, but a few posts before you seemed upset by the praise he receives in books/culture? Like his reforms don't erase Chittor, Chittor also does not erase his good deeds. In fact, it makes the contrast even greater. It makes him even more remarkable.. that a man as cruel as the one who destroyed Chittor could on his own turn into the man who couldn't even let animals be killed.

No one has ever tried to deny Chittor. Schoolbooks tend to whitewash everyone, but proper historians have always acknowledged the initial cruelty of Akbar. I don't understand why you think his negative side is brushed off. To me, it seems like the positives are mentioned even less. For example, before JA, I never knew Akbar had banned child marriage! That was an insane step back then, the Brits did it only about 350 years later. And yet, we were never taught so. NCERTs tend to summarize everything and skip the details, especially the gory/boring ones.

yes, it’s rare for any ruler’s flaws to be fully mentioned in early textbooks. But here’s the thing: even in higher education, while Akbar’s later reforms are often praised, his earlier actions (like the forced conversions, templedestructions, and the Chittorgarh massacre) are glossed over or minimized. I get it, they don’t want to overwhelm young students with all the complexities of history, but it does lead to a somewhat incomplete picture. If we’re being fair, then we also need to acknowledge that these “flaws of youth” weren’t just youthful mistakes....they had real consequences for many people at the time.

I've not studied History as part of higher education, so I'm not sure what to say to this. However, I have read the primary texts and flipped through a few by Historians, and everywhere things have been properly mentioned. Were you a history student, or is there some source for your claim of these things being glossed over?

And yes, absolutely, they were not "mistakes", I never called them so. They was brutal displays of cruelty, aimed at displaying power and inducing fear. That's what they were.

I’m not saying Akbar’s legacy is entirely negative; it’s just that thegood and the bad should be viewed together, not one at the expense of theother.

And you're right! Even JA started off showing his bad side, so except textbooks, where do you think the imbalance lies?

aboutchittorgarh -

Ah, yes, the Chittorgarh massacre. I completely agree with you...this is one of the darkest stains on Akbar’s legacy, and nothing can really excuse the killing of tens of thousands of innocents. Yes Akbar later reflected on it with remorse, and his actions in the latter half of his reign did show a remarkable shift in his views. Does that make up for what happened? No. But I think it’s worth noting that history is full of contradictions, and Akbar, like many rulers, evolved over time. His later reforms, as you pointed out, wereprogressive for the era, and maybe that’s part of the reason he’s remembered so highly today. But again, the massacre is a serious blot on his record, and it should never beforgotten.

@Bold, no, it doesn't. But does that mean he remained a cruel psychopath all his life? No. Should every single action of his be concluded with the question - "But what about Chittor?" No, I don't think so.

In the end, I think we both agree that Akbar was a complex figure.

Yes, we do. Especially on the fact that some things should never be forgotten or forgiven. It's just that in Akbar's case, people seem to be making twice the effort. I rarely hear of others - like Ashoka, for example - being talked about this way on the internet, even though like everyone else he had his fair share of cruelty.

It is my belief - and it may be wrong - that if Akbar hadn't belong to the religion that he did, he would've quite literally been worshipped in India, even with the same actions. I find it ironical that he's hated by both sides of the religion spectrum for entirely different reasons.

just a quick note - I didn’t mean to come off as rude in any of my posts, so please don’t assume so. Also, apologies if my responses seem a bit all over the place...I’m just a little too lazy to organize them like you didIF can be a space hog, so please ignore the weird spacing issues. wrote all this on word.

Awww I love the effort yaar No, no, don't worry, you're not rude at all.. in fact I should be the one saying so. :p You're being very kind and I appreciate every bit of that <3