Originally posted by: history_geek
Preeti,
Thanks for sharing the details about Alan Savage. I did not know who this author was and the first thing which came to my mind was the 18th Century Danish botanist by the same name. Indeed, the nuggets shared from his book made a fine impression on our minds. The details were accurate to a lot of extent and the author, as you say, seems to have researched well before writing the book.
Interesting reference to Mr. Havell's book. He has written other books also. I have read 3 books by him, including the one you mentioned. He is not really a historian. He is a critic, basically an artist and an art educator, who comes from a family of artists. He writes mostly about architecture and has provided a lot of material to architects about the design of old buildings.
The book you mentioned is quite good but I took it lightly compared to other historical chronicles I have read so far. I acknowledge and appreciate the amount of hard work he must have done to write this book. But it is my belief that history is viewed differently by a sociologist, a political thinker, an economist, etc. Mr. Havell views history as an artist; he himself says in the book:
" After having served an apprenticeship as a writer of Indian history in the study and exegesis of Indian artistic records, I now venture to use them to explain and amplify the mass of such records".
He has written the present book from the perspective of British rule. In this book he has talked about the supremacy of the white race and how the "Musalmans and Hindoos" of "AryaVrata" have accepted their (the "whites") rule. He goes to the extent of saying : " British have the same love of justice and fair-play, the same high principles of conduct and respect for humanitarian laws, which guided the ancient Aryan statesmen and lawgivers in their relations with the Indian masses."
He calls the British rule as the same "just" rule of the ancient Aryans. {British = Aryans} The time when this book was written, around the same time, the West was exploring our Vedas. Indian renaissance was taking place, we were taking pride in our "ancient glory". Remember Vivekanand's call ? -> "Back to Vedas". Did you get the crux ? :)
It was the time when there was a creation of ideological differences in India to get very precise results. The noted historians of our day including Mr. Habib, have given a very, very critical review of such literature. Because these books were aimed at the division of Indian history into earlier Hindu India versus later Muslim India. The ideology of Hindu rule versus Muslim rule was strengthened by them (I agree problems existed earlier too, but the British gave an impetus to this policy). This was done to project themselves as "saviours" who would give "AryaVrata" the same just rule like the ancient Aryans.
Mr. Havell "pronounces" British rule to be as "glorious" as the "ancient Aryans' statesmanship". He is among those scholars who believed in the theory of white man's burden {Read Rudyard Kipling's poem for this}, and propagated the idea that their race is doing the noble task of educating the people of the East.
He says in his book - " India must wait patiently until the highly cultured political fruits of the West can be successfully grown in the virgin soil of India."
In this book on India's history, he starts from the Aryan times and ends with the death of Akbar. Because this was the objective. The starting and ending mattered here. The underlying theme is the Aryan rule in India throughout the book. The reasons for this were - to project the British as successors to the Aryans and to explore what made Akbar rule over the land and establish Mughals here.
The book is a very good summary of India's history. But, personally, i don't like any text which preaches about one POV only. At my level, I try to maintain a balance in my own writing. You might have seen how i praise as well as criticize Akbar, depending upon the context in which i am looking at him.
Those friends who want to read this book about India's history by Havell can find the PDF of the book on this link. Click Here
About the kids - already i have read, debated & discussed a lot with many scholars. After that only i made that post. Otherwise, i was no fool to challenge the view of the majority, when almost everyone was against my views. You are well aware of that. :-P
BTW, there are others too who opine that MUZ was Murad's mother. For instance, the IF member whom you have thanked/quoted in your comment holds the same opinion that MUZ was the mother of at least 6 kids of Akbar, including Danial and Murad. I remember the comments made on old IF threads in this regard.
One more thing i would like to mention, check if possible - the Persian Jahangirnama. It says the mother of Khurram was Nur Jahan. This i got to know while digging about Akbar-MUZ's kids only from one of the scholars who was into Mughal history for long. He told me that the word used was "Walida-e-Khud" in the Persian J.Nama. So, can we claim Nur Jahan was the mother of Shah Jahan instead of Jagat Gosain, as per our beloved Jahangirnama? :-P
Readers can check the English translation of Jahangirnama. The person who translated Jahangirnama into English was also stunned. He could not understand what was wrong with the "person who wrote" that J.Nama account, as according to that Jahangirnama - Nur Jahan was the mother of Shah Jahan. Reference: Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri, Vol-1, Pg-401, 1914, Ed. Rogers.
Just goes to show that the term mother was quite loosely used by the chroniclers of those times and it should not be taken very seriously every time a lady is referred to as the mother of some royal personality.
The thing is that certain things are not so easy to understand - i concluded this after passionately pursuing history for a long time. The only possible way to understand anything is to read as much as possible from as many places as possible.
Thanks for mentioning the Asiatic Society Paper in this regard. I am extremely thankful to Ms. Kamal and Lizzy who were instrumental in sharing their inputs, as mentioned in the blog post too. Without them, this post would not have been possible.
About Maham Anga's death
I checked my comment just now after reading your reply. :)
I made a silly typing error.
The diffrence is not 2 years, but of 1 year, when we compare the accounts of Tabaqat and Akbaranama.
Akbarnama gives the year as 1562.
Exact date is 26th June 1562.
Tabaqat-i-Akbari gives the year as 1563 (i mis-typed it as 1564).
The exact date is 15th June 1563.
But, i do not know how this discrepancy has come up.
Some friends of mine also told that Maham was banished to Delhi, and she died later.
I do not know much. I did not pursue about this incuident much. :)
About the theory of MUZ dying before Akbar.
This is a tale related to Rajasthan, to be precise, it is related to the Hada Rajputs, who had refused marital alliance with Akbar - this is talked about even to this day in the Ranthambore area. It has many versions.
One of them says that Akbar was so attached to his Rajputni wife that he could command a court mourning if she pre-deceased him. As the Hada Rajputs had refused marital alliance with Akbar, the bond between Akbar and his Rajput wife was of great interest to them. This tale was a sort of comparison drawn with the level of mourning at the time of Hamida Begum's death.
I know only this much about this notion. :)
BTW, Hadas were the descendents of Emperor Prithviraj Chauhan III of Ajmer and Delhi, and their status was very high in Rajputana. They were described as people who loved their ancient glory very much and were at loggerheads with the rulers of Delhi Sulatanate also. Like Mewar, they too were opposed to matrimonial alliances with the Mughals.
You may find this post interesting. I mentioned a brief history of wars in North-West India with Turkish invaders. This includes a very brief insight into the wars fought by Emperor Prithviraj Chauhan III and his ancestors. :)
https://mariam-uz-zamani.blogspot.com/2015/09/delhi-sultanate-struggle-intro-history-razia-sultan-pt1.html
But, Salim being assigned to the care of someone else after death of his own mother is a personal opinion of Mr. Havell. I have not heard about this anywhere till date. Mr. Havell seems to have taken artistic liberty at many places. For instance, he has called Akbar as a Chakravartin Samrat instead of Asoka Maurya - for he was mainly interested in the early Aryans and the end of Akbar's reign.
Sorry for the delayed response. Hope i covered almost all points. :)
Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi 2
Cricket
377