Y Pratap resisted Akbar? | Record of 'Divine Intervention(!)' - Page 2

Originally posted by: RadhikaS0

Abhay

Awesome post!

I admire both Akbar and Pratap - both as warriors and as strong personalities who were like giants among the other rulers of that time. The struggle between them for a quarter of a century is the stuff legends are made of and i have often wondered what could have sustained Pratap over all those years to continue to resist the Mughal advance into Mewar. It is no mean feat to keep one's people happy and loyal when the threat of war is constantly looming overhead. He brought in relative stability and security to their lives and had their unquestioned allegiance which helped him to face off Akbar.

Pratap's strategy of guerilla warfare has been adopted and adapted by several others over the years when they have been fighting more powerful adversaries.

I had mentioned the following reasons in the blog post (Link: Peace Efforts by Akbar Before the Haldighati Battle)

An interesting question comes up now. So just why were the Rajputs so against submitting themselves in front of the Mughal emperor if it ensured safety for their kingdom and its people? Was it a case of their personal ego overriding the interests of the public, or were there some issues which require a deep insight ?

Let us look at the scenario when a Rajput king accepted Akbar as his sovereign, to understand the answer to this question.

-> Any Rajput king who submitted to Akbar had to surrender his possessions to the emperor and receive them back as a jagir for the Mansab to which he was appointed.

-> His land was in reality an imperial jagir and the Rajput king could be sent anywhere in the Mughal empire by imperial orders. Readers would be aware, for instance, how Raja Man Singh served Akbar in various places across the Mughal empire.

-> The Rajput king's army was at the command of the emperor and the emperor could even change the line of succession in the Rajput kingdom.

-> Besides rendering a personal homage to the Mughal Emperor, it was essential for the Rajput king either to be present at the imperial court himself or to keep his eldest son in attendance on the emperor.

-> Along with all these statutes came another unwritten injunction. Almost every Rajput king who submitted to Akbar had to enter into a matrimonial alliance with Akbar - this was a policy. For instance, Jaisalmer, Bikaner and, of course, Amer, established such matrimonial alliances with Akbar. {There were rare exceptions to this custom, such as the Hada (Chauhans) Rajputs of Ranthambore.}

-> There were also other minor indignities like mounting guard on the imperial camp and to keep standing when in court. {The Hadas were granted exemption from such practices too and were even allowed to carry their weapons in the Mughal court, an act that was forbidden for most nobles.}

The incident mentioned in the article about Akbar's treatment of a Rajput noble and a young boy is in line with the reasons stated above. Akbar believed a lot in his own divinity or at least in his own absolute supremacy over the people of Hindustan. We need to look beyond Persian histories to know about the other side of his personality. Let's leave that discussion for another day. :)

Right now, the discussion is about Pratap's antagonism towards Akbar - and I completely support Pratap's stand here. He did everything in his power to retain the independence of his motherland without compromising on ethics. Akbar's treatment of Rajputs only served to strengthen his belief that Mewar should never come under Mughal rule.

PS: Shared more views on page 2: Link

Thank you for this recap Radhika.

I remember reading that OLD post of yours. The reasons are enough for any man who prefers ideals over anything to be the reasons for not accepting any other mortal as his master.

As much as Akbar wanted to rule entire Hindustan, MP also wanted to remain un-subjugated. The present post is simply a question regarding the struggle / rivalry of these 2 historical legends. And, when we try to explain the "reason" of why one was against another, then for sure, the "reasons" could be many.

As far as the question of supremacy / divinity is concerned, there are authorities who contest this claim of Abu'l Fazl, especially. The present account was one such reference, and makes this event of Akbar's life more interesting to discuss.

I strongly believe in taking in as many accounts as possible into the write ups. It is now that i have actively began using the accounts other then the easily available Persian histories, and we can understand certain events in a more better manner. One should strive to keep on expanding the arena of reading to get new insights.

Originally posted by: devkidmd

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.

Devki,

Loved your precise and excellent views 👍🏼 and I completely and totally agree with them.

Originally posted by: RadhikaS0

Donjas

Are your comments about the article or Abhay? Your moral policing of Abhay's posts over the past few months is bewildering. Because i do not see such reactions from you about a person's religious / political leanings or the person's sense of social responsibility or respect for his / her subject for any one else's posts.

I fully endorse yours or anyone else's right to disagree with the article, but the disagreement should be with the article's content. It should not take on the hues of a personal attack on the writer or question the writer's ethics. Yes, there are times when the writer's purpose may be suspect but this present article is NOT such a serious post that we have to go to those levels of questioning the objective behind writing the post.

Here i completely support Devki's views. No historical figure is a holy cow that he / she cannot be criticised. What is history or literature for that matter if there is no critical analysis of important figures / characters / books?

No one is naive enough to believe that Akbar was saintliness personified just because the appellate of Great is suffixed to his name. He was a ghazi when he started out and his strong sentiments about Hindus before he started the meetings in the Ibadat Khana are known and documented.

If you accept that Akbar had a short temper and he may have whipped the boy, what stops you from believing that his language / reactions in moments of rage may not have been as refined as we would like to believe? The Rajput record was commissioned by the house of Bikaner. Yet it records episodes of rage exhibited by the ruler of Bikaner. Does that mean the writer was displaying his hatred of the ruler of Bikaner?

Historians view this record as something of a rarity because it does not criticise a ruler's display of rage in public, but simply records it in a matter of fact manner - as though it accepted that a ruler had the right to get angry publicly.

Read the record to understand that the writer is not passing any judgement about Akbar's behaviour but simply narrating what happened. While Persian chronicles are often a good bet to learn about the Mughals, they don't meet the standard every time because in such episodes where Akbar's behaviour was not befitting the stature of the Mughal emperor and could not be included in court histories, we simply cannot expect any real details or explanations from Fazl or Badayuni.

Even in many other instances, we have to rely on alternative sources whether they be Rajputs or Marathas or Europeans because the Mughal chronicles are NOT exhaustive. Besides their content was dictated by Akbar himself.

While you say on the one hand that no one historian or historical source can be treated as the source of truth, you yourself seem to imply that something about Akbar can be considered factual if it has been endorsed by Badayuni. Others on the forum swear by Eraly or V Smith or even Indu Sundaresan sometimes.

Badayuni respected Akbar only as long as Akbar supported the cause of Islam. When Akbar took away the power of qazis and started following Hindu customs such as sun worship, Badayuni could no longer be said to respect Akbar because he became highly critical of him.

Yet if Badayuni could criticise Akbar and still be said to have respect for Akbar, then the same yardstick applies to others too, doesn't it?

Very often, in history, there are hardly multiple eye-witness who can present different perspectives of what happened. Even the Mahabharat was seen through the eyes of Sanjay for the most part.

But this is where the skill of a historian comes into play. It is their arduous task to separate bias from what could have happened. There have been other historians who have referred to the Rajput record and accepted it. They do not view it as biased just because it is written by a Rajput.

It surprises me that this forum is ready to believe Persian and European accounts without any counter balance viewpoints but has trouble accepting Indian accounts - whether from the past or from modern Indian historians.

If you do not wish to believe in the event, it is a purely personal choice. But to label the event "inflammatory" is quite an exaggeration in my view. I went back and re-read the article many times but could not find anything in it that may incite passions or cause unrest, as we like to say about actual inflammatory events. In the recent months, there was a lot of debate about Akbar (vis-a-vis MP) but even that debate was never called inflammatory even by the liberal intellectuals.

To admire Akbar is one thing - we all admire him for many reasons, chiefly because he was able to overcome ALL personal failings such as the one documented in this article and his illiteracy to become one of the greatest rulers of all time. But that is no reason to get defensive about his shortcomings or be vindictive with someone who writes about these.

Very well said Radhika.👏 👏 👏 👏

Originally posted by: history_geek

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.

Abhay,

Your last sentence is profound and true.

I am repeating the words that I've shared on your blog. Never once while reading your brilliant historical posts have I sensed you holding feelings of bias towards any religion or community.

You have only stated truthful facts from a source hitherto unknown, that was recorded several years ago, with complete proof of its authenticity. These revelations, though stunning to read and digest, do not make you a person with any hidden religious or political agenda.

If we stop looking at Akbar as a superhero and start seeing him like a regular human being, albeit an extraordinary one who was thrust with the responsibilities of a king as a teenager, who was super ambitious in wanting to achieve complete supremacy over Hindustan, uncaring of the kind of tactics he adopted, wanting to usurp the Rajputs in their own territory with his autocratic attitude, then maybe we can also visualize and accept his flaws, that were also out of the ordinary, like him.

If we can balance both the positive and negative aspects about Akbar, in our minds, then we will be able to accept the negative facts about him easily because to err is human and every human has both a good and a bad side to him. A perfect human is unheard of, leave alone a perfect emperor.

Originally posted by: Suganya.S

Res 😊
Will comment after reading the post completely 😳

Sure.
Take your time Suganya.

Will look forward. :)

Originally posted by: devkidmd

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.

This is a comment which explains a lot of things in an easy language. As i replied on blog, here also i want to say, what problem do Rajput records create ? If we do not know about something, we should FIRST try to check the details, before dismissing.

Lastly, the categorization of people into different "camps" based on ones likes or dislikes is something i do not understand.

Praise and appreciation of a character is done in context of topic. In the present topic, say, for example, how could this post be one in favor / praise of Akbar, as it was revealing a weak moment / side of his personality.

BTW, i have arranged for some MORE details on life of MP from Jodhpur. Hopefully, we may get something new to read.

Thanks for posting, Devki!