The Real Akbar. - Page 11

Originally posted by: nushhkiee

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."

I have read a lot on Akbar, ranging from Rightist, Leftist and Nationalist historians. There was not even one place where Akbar is associated with breaking temples in Bengal, Gujrat.

The only mention is that of Chittor

Originally posted by: IshqHaiWoEhsaas

Replies in deep red.

>>> okay I'm back. sorry I was in the train an mumbai locals are nightmare.

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

>>>I have read Akbar and His India, and I recall that this particular point is mentioned in the book. I have the PDF version available, but due to my hectic schedule I unfortunately don't have the time to search through the entire book right now. I hope you understand. Please excuse me.

And hell this is mentioned in the ain-i-akbari as well It ofcourse, talks about the grants he did for hindu temples. But the demolition of 3-4 temples by Akbar is also stated.

Also I've read about the same in JSTOR (I guess it's some journal publishing org .. not sure)

Source for the Gujarat and Bengal claim?

The Mughal Empire by J Sarkar. Have a look if time permits. Again, in akbrnama Abul Fazl does not mention temple destruction directly but it tells us about Akbar’s military activities. there are indirect references to temple damage during the Gujarat campaign.

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

I happen to find the excerpts from online pdf , here they are:

John F. Richards (in "The Mughal Empire")

Irfan Habib (in "Akbar and His India")

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?

Legitimacy.Consolidation.Manipulation.Image

Originally posted by: Sumagggg

I have read a lot on Akbar, ranging from Rightist, Leftist and Nationalist historians. There was not even one place where Akbar is associated with breaking temples in Bengal, Gujrat.

The only mention is that of Chittor

Hi again,

Read this please

click

Thanks again ;)

Originally posted by: nushhkiee

So, about the Akbarnama ... while it’s definitely a key source when it comes to Akbar’s reign, we should also take it with a grain of salt. I mean, think about it would any ruler ever write a book that points out all their mistakes? Akbarnama was written by Abul Fazl, who was Akbar’s close advisor and part of his inner circle. It's pretty much a glowing account of Akbar’s reign, and let's be honest, no one’s going to write about their flaws when they’re trying to build their legacy, right?

It’s like when today’s politicians write memoirs....do you think they’re going to talk about all their blunders? Of course not. They focus on the positive stuff. So, while Akbarnama is an amazing resource, it’s important to remember that it’s not an unbiased history book. It’s a royal account meant to highlight Akbar's greatness

Take the Kohinoor diamond as an example. The British love to say that they "received" the Kohinoor from Maharaja Duleep Singh as a “gift.” But we all know the truth wasn’t that simple. It was taken after the British defeated the Sikh Empire, and it’s not like Duleep Singh had much of a choice. History written by the victors doesn’t always give you the full picture, and that's something we see again and again

Akbar was definitely a powerful ruler, but if you only read Akbarnama, you’d think he was this saintly king who never made mistakes.

He may have later reformed and become more inclusive, but his earlier actions aren’t really mentioned in Akbarnama, because that’s not the image he wanted to leave behind.

No one wants to be remembered as the bad guy, right? So when rulers like Akbar or even more modern figures write history, it’s always a bit slanted. And that’s why it’s important to read between the lines and look at other perspectives. (This is what I feel.)

I think I’m going to take a break from all these royal debates for a couple of days. My brain is starting to feel like it’s on history overload mode History was never my subject Science is

I’m better at talking about atoms than emperors right now. Catch you later.

Alos, dear Shagun, are you by any chance planning to get back to writing anytime soon? Pretty please? Because honestly, the only thing that keeps me sane after my day is reading. I’ve officially read EVERY SINGLE STORY here. Yes, all of them. I’m now on a vicious loop of re-reading Pale Blue Dot, HBAS, and NJAPA. But… I’d love something new to dive into! (true nishaani of selfish reader)

This is one of my all-time favorite questions to answer on Akbar, thank you for asking it! Yes, I absolutely agree, Akbarnama is biased as hell.. it paints Akbar in the best light possible, like some sort of saint-philosopher who could do nothing bad.

But lucky for us, our primary sources for Akbar are quite diverse. Most of what I've said about him is taken from my favorite source of his reign: the Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh by Badauni. And guess what? Badauni was a fierce critic of Akbar, painting him as the very doom of the country and Islam. This book was so critical of Akbar, that it was written in secret, and published only after his death.

So, this is like reading a politician's story written by the opposition party. Fun, isn't it? :)

(And yes, it confirms all the good and bad deeds of his. In fact, it mentions the social reforms in great detail, because Badauni was quite pissed off at them.Truly my favorite piece of historic writing ever! )

Also, I get your need for a break. I myself am back on this thread after like three months, because damn was it exhausting!

And wow, are you a Chemistry student?

I was a writer a decade ago, but ab that insaan is quite lost, sorry. I had a few favorite stories (by other people) back then.. link du kya? Perhaps you might've missed unmein se koi! :D

Originally posted by: Sumagggg

I have read a lot on Akbar, ranging from Rightist, Leftist and Nationalist historians. There was not even one place where Akbar is associated with breaking temples in Bengal, Gujrat.

The only mention is that of Chittor

Dear Suma,

Once upon a time I was a Akbar fangirl too, but a conversation with someone provided me with more insightful reviews on Akbar's reign. He made sure to list his good as well as bad deeds.

Replies in deep red.

Originally posted by: Sumagggg

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

>>> Seems like you made an account specially for this thread here, that makes me so very happy :D

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.

Interesting. I find Akbar's hold over the nitty-gritties of administration so very fascinating.. and all of it while being illiterate himself! Truly an empire-builder of the highest order.

You also seem very well-read on the topic, would you recommend some book/paper for me to read?

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).

Makes sense. If you ever come across a mention of it somewhere, please do let me know! I tend to ask people for sources all the time, it would be unfair of me to not keep mine handy. :))

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!!!!

I hope I'll see you around more often, even though this forum is not what it once used to be!

Originally posted by: IshqHaiWoEhsaas

Replies in deep red.

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 admire all and none. @B, can I reply to this tmrw? Since you asked for proofs and all I'll need to sit down, go through research papers I've read - again. And provide you with screenshots. I have read them years ago so it becomes little difficult to remember , search and paste the texts.

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 am not a history student. see the post above. the one where I have replied to @sumaggg ... I'm trying to remember the conversation I had with prof. and I think I will be able to provide you with more by tomorrow.

And no you were not rude. I never assume things. especially online when you don't know in what tone the other person is saying

Originally posted by: IshqHaiWoEhsaas

Also, I get your need for a break. I myself am back on this thread after like three months, because damn was it exhausting!

And wow, are you a Chemistry student?

I was a writer a decade ago, but ab that insaan is quite lost, sorry. I had a few favorite stories (by other people) back then.. link du kya? Perhaps you might've missed unmein se koi! :D

No. not chemistry particularly. science in general.

yes pls send. waise toh i have read all of them but dekhte hai ..kuch naya mil jaaye shayad. PBD is being updated by Jahnavi Dii but one chapter in a year.

I hope I haven't missed quoting any of the posts. Please remind me if so. Too many notification and fast replies - could have missed out

Replies in whatever this shade is.

Originally posted by: nushhkiee

>>> okay I'm back. sorry I was in the train an mumbai locals are nightmare.

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

>>>I have read Akbar and His India, and I recall that this particular point is mentioned in the book. I have the PDF version available, but due to my hectic schedule I unfortunately don't have the time to search through the entire book right now. I hope you understand. Please excuse me.

Absolutely, I understand. Can you perhaps share the pdf somewhere, or point me to a link, so that I can see for myself?

And hell this is mentioned in the ain-i-akbari as well It ofcourse, talks about the grants he did for hindu temples. But the demolition of 3-4 temples by Akbar is also stated.

I've read it entirely, and don't remember any destructions except Chittor.

Also I've read about the same in JSTOR (I guess it's some journal publishing org .. not sure)

Link, whenever time permits you!

Source for the Gujarat and Bengal claim?

The Mughal Empire by J Sarkar. Have a look if time permits. Again, in akbrnama Abul Fazl does not mention temple destruction directly but it tells us about Akbar’s military activities. there are indirect references to temple damage during the Gujarat campaign.

You mean "Fall of the Mughal Empire"? That's a 4-volume series.. if you could be a little more specific?

Besides, Gujarat itself was under a Muslim dynasty.. I don't see how temple-destruction even works or makes sense there. Akbarnama is easily available online and searchable.. please do so when time permits and then mention the chapter/page.

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

I happen to find the excerpts from online pdf , here they are:

John F. Richards (in "The Mughal Empire")

Irfan Habib (in "Akbar and His India")

Absolutely. Both of them say what I've been saying since page one, he EVOLVED and quite remarkably so.

Also, no mention of Bengal/Gujarat here either, so we still only have Chittor.

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?

Legitimacy.Consolidation.Manipulation.Image

Yaar, seriously? I understand why legitimacy consolidation etc etc was required for the Hindu population... they were the majority and a very powerful one (like the Rajputs). Without their support, no successful Empire could flourish in India. Akbar understood that early on, and his initial leniency was driven by this political desire only. Fine.

However, later on, he became interested in religions - including Jainism, Christianity and Zoroastrianism. My question is, how on earth can this be politics? Jains Christians and Parsis barely even existed in India, what would he gain by impressing them? He could offend them and they would still barely make a dent on his huge empire. Yet, he went on to ban animal slaughter three days a week, and for three months an year, in respect of Jain beliefs. If this looks like politics to you, I wish politicians today could go to such great lengths to respect their citizens

Besides, really, what kind of political strategy is discussing all sorts of religious questions in the Ibadat Khana at odd hours of the night? One would be bored as hell if they weren't genuinely interested :)

And most importantly, if this was politics, he was a bad politician. His reforms, like sati, child marriage, property rights to women etc.. were hated and protested against by BOTH Hindus and Muslims. Who was he really impressing then? Kids under 14?