Posted:
Abhay
I know we cannot compare Maharana Pratap and Akbar. But some points came to my mind.
If we talk of principles then MP inherited Rajput principles of independence and honor above everything. No doubt he was liberal and tolerant but he ruled over a majorly single culture. His people shared his principles because that was in their blood. So it might have been easier for MP to rally his people around to his cause.
Akbar developed his principles of liberalism and tolerance over many years, out of necessity, to rule an empire that was a melting pot of many cultures. He faced revolts and rebellions from within his own empire and family and had a tougher time trying to marshall everyone to his way.
I do not accept the view that Akbar was powerful and could therefore make people bend to his ideas. Even the most powerful empire in the world cannot stand the fury of its people unless it keeps its people happy. We have numerous examples of the fall of mighty empires when people revolted in our times only.
Also, Akbar's army was a coming together of various units, each of which was loyal only to its own unit commander. There was no discipline nor common fighting technique nor even a common loyalty to the empire. Most soldiers fought for the pay and not the empire. Even the commanders had rivalries and could hardly be credited with looking beyond their own promotions.
This seems to contrast with the army of Mewar which was disciplined and extremely loyal to the kingdom till death. Where a Mughal soldier would have run when his commander fell in battle, a Rajput soldier would fight on till death under similar conditions.
So controlling the army and using it to win a war was that much more difficult for Akbar than it might have been for MP.
So while MP had fewer resources, those few men were more loyal to him than the huge army of Akbar. I would say that MP had an advantage here. Since he spent many years fighting from forests, hills and caves, it was really a boon for him to have small units that could attack and disappear suddenly.
The size of an army is hardly a precondition to success. In fact Humayun lost against Sher Shah Sur though he had a bigger army. And then won back his kingdom with a smaller army. The larger the army, the more difficult it becomes to control it and keep it motivated.
Comparing on these 2 counts, we can see MP's struggle was different and Akbar's different. While MP's struggle for independence from a mightier empire is clearly visible, we have to look and identify Akbar's struggle to deal with a multi-cultural society and its associated problems. The size of the empire only added to Akbar's woes because some far-flung corner of the empire was always burning.
Where Akbar is known widely for his contribution to art, architecture, culture, and literature, thanks to widely available English translations of the history of his times, we know very little about the times of MP, due to lack of English literature on his reign.
MP was born great, Akbar achieved greatness. This perhaps sums it. Both of them had their share of odds to overcome, which they did in their own ways.
While it is easy for us to accept that MP was great because there is no blot on his character, it would be a great injustice to Akbar's greatness if it is attributed to his power and might. Chittor is a blight on Akbar's political graph. So is Ranthambor too and many other battles, including the one against Hemu.
Regarding his dithering stand on Jiziya, some say he reimposed it to pressure the people of Rajputana, while some say that the initial abolition was for 10 years only after which it came into force again.
If we want to, we can put a question mark on every act of Akbar's. His trips to Ajmer, his support for Haj initially and later withdrawal of the support, his changing views on religion, his turning from being a gazi to being almost termed a kafir. Almost every act of Akbar can be viewed as being politically-driven.
Or we can view Akbar's transformation to be genuine and meant for the welfare of his subjects. It is a matter of perspective.
In short, I view both as being great for different reasons. Here there is no need to decide who is greater among the two, just as we don't look at the stars in the night sky with the desire to find out which shines brighter. Just as there is enough space in the firmament for each star to shine to its full glory, so is the case with history.
Abhay, I have only one complaint with this thread. It is assumed that greatness is associated with only Men. What about Great Women in History? Anyone wants to start with this?
Udne Ki Aasha
CID
Web Series
