The Real Akbar. - Page 12

I'll be back in a few days as well, THAK GAYI YAAR You take care!

@Suma, may I know your name if that's fine? See you later as well!

Originally posted by: IshqHaiWoEhsaas

I'll be back in a few days as well, THAK GAYI YAAR You take care!

@Suma, may I know your name if that's fine? See you later as well!

For earlier post ---- I’ll be MIA for about a year...my schedule is crazy

If you happen to have some spare time and feel like diving into those books I recommended, go for it. If not, no worries...just hang out and wait..because honestly I have no time to go through those volumes again. Woh sab lockdown ki meherbaani that I got to read. I was Akbar admirer too, once upon a time. I still am, but for selective reasons only.

Regarding Ain-i-akbari , gujarat and bengal claims are indirectly mentioned by abul fazl so read carefully if you plan to read it again. I mentioned it in my reply.

I'm not ignoring but the primary reason for which I visit IF is due to my commitments here. Otherwise, it's quite challenging for me to carve out time for myself, let alone revisit all the books and texts

For your earlier post again, no not trying to impress kids under 14 but I look at him as very powerful, clever or I would say cunning person. History is History. We can never be sure of what actually happened at that time. He maybe bad at politics but he was very very clever. Clever enough to make sure all good things were portrayed. Clever enough to pretend. Sirf kahaa jaata hai, about his interest in other religion. We haven't witnessed him in those sessions by ourselves, have we? Sahi bhi ho sakta hai aur galat bhi. You never know. And mughals were fool - to be very honest, they wanted to reign but they decided to do that by power and strength. By showing the world how ruthless they were. By mass killing and genocides. Akbar turned out to be the clever one amongst all of them, I think. If they actually wanted to rule over -- british wali technique apnani chahiye thi ... jyada din tik paate. without hate.

Anyways, please do send me the link to the FFs you were talking about. Btw, where are you from Shagun? (that is, if you don't mind)

Originally posted by: nushhkiee

For earlier post ---- I’ll be MIA for about a year...my schedule is crazy

If you happen to have some spare time and feel like diving into those books I recommended, go for it. If not, no worries...just hang out and wait..because honestly I have no time to go through those volumes again. Woh sab lockdown ki meherbaani that I got to read. I was Akbar admirer too, once upon a time. I still am, but for selective reasons only.

Regarding Ain-i-akbari , gujarat and bengal claims are indirectly mentioned by abul fazl so read carefully if you plan to read it again. I mentioned it in my reply.

I'm not ignoring but the primary reason for which I visit IF is due to my commitments here. Otherwise, it's quite challenging for me to carve out time for myself, let alone revisit all the books and texts

For your earlier post again, no not trying to impress kids under 14 but I look at him as very powerful, clever or I would say cunning person. History is History. We can never be sure of what actually happened at that time. He maybe bad at politics but he was very very clever. Clever enough to make sure all good things were portrayed. Clever enough to pretend. Sirf kahaa jaata hai, about his interest in other religion. We haven't witnessed him in those sessions by ourselves, have we? Sahi bhi ho sakta hai aur galat bhi. You never know. And mughals were fool - to be very honest, they wanted to reign but they decided to do that by power and strength. By showing the world how ruthless they were. By mass killing and genocides. Akbar turned out to be the clever one amongst all of them, I think. If they actually wanted to rule over -- british wali technique apnani chahiye thi ... jyada din tik paate. without hate.

Anyways, please do send me the link to the FFs you were talking about. Btw, where are you from Shagun? (that is, if you don't mind)

repiles in bold

The way you presented your arguments (this one and earlier ones) , I really had a tough time in understanding what do you really want to convey, I have myself given a thought to it, reason why could not reply to your post yesterday. Coming back to your viewpoint of historical inconsistency on Akbar,

What you have told here basically is not history debate, but sounds like some ‘pardeh ke pichhe’. So, basically according to you, whatever good Akbar did was because of show, propaganda.

Hmm, ok, fine, let’s say that for argument’s sake I will consider your statement. Then please tell me, if we can really view history in that way-

Why did Rana Pratap and his father Udai singh opt for war? He pushed his people in tototal war against an empire(bloodthirsty one according to you), even when giving some taxes and accepting suzerainty would have solved the matter?,Akbar sent many peace missions to chittor but Rana always opted war? Then maybe Pratap never cared about his people, he only wanted to build up an imagery of ideal hindu ruler resisting muslim turks?

Why did Shivaji opt to accept Aurangzeb’s suzerainty when he was his staunch opponent?So maybe that means that shivaji never cared about some maratha ideology. he just wanted to carve out kingdom for himself?

When Shivaji died, most of his maratha nobles treacherously started siding with Aurangzeb, and at one time, it was thought that the maratha kingdom of Shivaji was going to totally collapse, if Shivaji was so much respected by his comrades, why did they start betraying his kingdom and ideology just after his death? Maybe Shivaji was not respected as people think today.

It is important to judge rulers in modern lens, so, tell me, what do you think of Dhruvadeviand Chandragupta 2nd (vikramadutya) of guptas, when Vikaramaditya married his Dhruvadevi who in most contemporary sources is considered his sister in law and wife of Ramagupta? Vikramaditya was a person who has great contributions in culture of our country? How can a person who has such good qualities marry his sister in law and also have a son with her?

When shehzade Mustapha became extremely popular in sultan Suleiman’s reign, suleiman decided to execute his own son out of insecurity of a possible rebellion.Shehzade Bayezid following his brother’s fate. A father who can kill his own children, how can he be capable of any kind of love? Then again, suleiman loved hurrem sultana madly, so much so that he changed rules of the harem for her and never took any other concubine after Hurrem, also then, why is sultan suleiman called magnificent?

Cholas are considered one of the greatest conquerors in Indian history, but no conquest comes without violence. Some people nowadays think that chola wars only affect kings and not common people, but in the Karandai Tamil Sangam Plates verses53–54, Rajendra Chola I describes his burning of the city of Manyakheta (Rashtrakutacapital): “While that great city was burning amidst thousands of flames thrown by his army, the women, moving in the open spaces of high palatial residen cesinlaid with jewels, appeared, on account of the nets of smoke rising from the fire, like lightning moving amid clouds. The divine horde, abandoning even the celestial abode caught by the ever-consuming flames burning aloft from thatcity… fled away out of fear, suspecting it to be the fire of the apocalypse.”This shows the hidden violence that followed the chola conquests of Pallava kingdom. Does that mean that the rest of the violence that occurred in conquering south India and south east Asia are hidden?

Marathas are known for bringing back hindavi swarajya in India after Islamic rule. But if you study the maratha administration in detail, you will see that the marathas brought no change in Mughal administrative practices that they inherited from Mughals, taxes remained same or even increased in some cases, persian language was used as earlier, mode of administration (except the addition of ‘Kamvishdar’ revenue officer, nothing else changed) and feudal society remained same, there was hardly any changes except in their Marathi homeland. Then if this hindi swarajya never brought any changes, what is it other than a sham?

These are only 7 points for you, if you can explain each of these historical inconsistencies like you have explained Akbar, I will wholeheartedly accept your point on propaganda, manipulation etc.

I did not want to sound rude, but you have used historical inconsistency as good point in your debate, so please enlighten me on the aforementioned topics as well.

Thank you

Replies in dark blue

Originally posted by: Sumagggg

repiles in bold

The way you presented your arguments, I really had a tough time in understanding what do you really want to convey, I have myself given a thought to it, reason why could not reply to your post yesterday. Coming back to your viewpoint of historical inconsistency on Akbar,

@Red, I often find myself thinking about things half the time, and the other half, I write them down. I know it can be a bit of a bad habit and it might make it harder to follow my thoughts. I’m sorry about that. From now on I’ll try to be more careful and explain things better keeping in mind that I’m sharing them with others.

What you have told here basically is not history debate, but sounds like some ‘pardeh ke pichhe’. So, basically according to you, whatever good Akbar did was because of show, propaganda.

Hmm, ok, fine, let’s say that for argument’s sake I will consider your statement. Then please tell me, if we can really view history in that way-

Why did Rana Pratap and his father Udai singh opt for war? He pushed his people in tototal war against an empire(bloodthirsty one according to you), even when giving some taxes and accepting suzerainty would have solved the matter?,Akbar sent many peace missions to chittor but Rana always opted war? Then maybe Pratap never cared about his people, he only wanted to build up an imagery of ideal hindu ruler resisting muslim turks?

Rana Pratap and his father, Udai Singh, weren’t just fighting for the sake of building an image. They were defending their swatantrata and izzat. It's easy to say that giving taxes or accepting suzerainty would have solved the issue but for them it wasn’t just about a deal or power struggle. It was about maintaining their rajya their sanskriti and their identity. They had ruled Chittor for generations, and surrendering to Akbar even for peace would have meant losing all of that.

there was a deep misunderstanding etween the Rajputs and the Mughal Empire (acc to me) which had been expanding aggressively. Akbar might have been known for his tolerance, but the Rajputs didn’t see him just as a "tolerant" ruler they saw him as a foreign invader. To them, giving in would mean accepting domination which no ruler especially one like Rana Pratap, would allow.

Rana Pratap wasn’t just fighting for an image of a "Hindu ruler resisting Muslim Turks." His fight was personal and it was also for his people. He didn’t want his people to live under the rule of a foreign emperor, no matter how "great" people might consider Akbar. It was abt swabhimaan and rajneeti not about making a show of resistance. The warr was a painful but necessary choice for survival and self determination. Tell me Suma, what if someone invades your house and tells you to pay taxes or anything and expects you to let him live there. Will you not fight back?

History is complex and you can’t just reduce it to "Akbar was good" and "Rana Pratap was just resisting for an image." Both had their reasons and both were acting out of deep conviction for their beliefs and their ppl

Why did Shivaji opt to accept Aurangzeb’s suzerainty when he was his staunch opponent?So maybe that means that shivaji never cared about some maratha ideology. he just wanted to carve out kingdom for himself?

it's imp to understand the context behind Shivaji Maharaj's decision. When Shivaji accepted Aurangzeb's suzerainty in 1665, it wasn’t out of submission..it was a strategic move. At that time Shivaji Maharaj was still a relatively young and emerging leader while Aurangzeb was already a mighty emperor wid a massive empire. Shivaji wasn’t about to challenge Aurangzeb head-on in a direct confrontation especially with the Mughal forces overwhelming power at dat time.

This was more like buying time. After dis Shivaji bided his time... built his resources and gathered support for future campaigns. In 1670 he even escaped frm Aurangzeb’s custody n launched major successful raids against the Mughals. So it’s clear that Shivaji was playing the long game.

Dis doesn't mean Shivaji didnt care abt Maratha pride or ideology. In fact his entire life was dedicated to establishing a kingdom where the Marathas were free from Mughal oppression.

He understood dat sometimes you need to negotiate and make temporary compromises to gain strength. He didnt think of it as a surrender but as a temporary step to avoid a larger conflict that he wasn’t yet ready to win

His actions speak louder than the temporary acceptance of Mughal authority

Jai Bhavani, Jai shivaji 🌸

When Shivaji died, most of his maratha nobles treacherously started siding with Aurangzeb, and at one time, it was thought that the maratha kingdom of Shivaji was going to totally collapse, if Shivaji was so much respected by his comrades, why did they start betraying his kingdom and ideology just after his death? Maybe Shivaji was not respected as people think today.

decline after Shivaji’s death wasn’t immediate and it wasn't just about the nobles being traitors. There are several factors that led to this situation

After he died there was a huge power vacuum. His successors especially his son Sambhaji, faced a very different kind of challenge not only from the Mughals but also from internal divisions within the Maratha nobility

Shivaji Maharaj had strong relationships with some of his commanders but his empire was never fully centralized. Many of his nobles were powerful in their own right and had their own ambitions

The seeming "betrayals" after Shivaji Maharaj's death were more abt power struggles n survival in the face of external threats not a reflection of a lack of respect for Shivaji

Sorry to say but your last line is really offensive. I am from maharashtra and we idolize and worship Shivaji Maharaj 🙏

It is important to judge rulers in modern lens, so, tell me, what do you think of Dhruvadeviand Chandragupta 2nd (vikramadutya) of guptas, when Vikaramaditya married his Dhruvadevi who in most contemporary sources is considered his sister in law and wife of Ramagupta? Vikramaditya was a person who has great contributions in culture of our country? How can a person who has such good qualities marry his sister in law and also have a son with her?

I was not aware of this. Please excuse me. I will reply to this after I have done my research

When shehzade Mustapha became extremely popular in sultan Suleiman’s reign, suleiman decided to execute his own son out of insecurity of a possible rebellion.Shehzade Bayezid following his brother’s fate. A father who can kill his own children, how can he be capable of any kind of love? Then again, suleiman loved hurrem sultana madly, so much so that he changed rules of the harem for her and never took any other concubine after Hurrem, also then, why is sultan suleiman called magnificent?

Again, I have no idea about this. I will have to read and understand what actually happened only the. I can give u my answers

Cholas are considered one of the greatest conquerors in Indian history, but no conquest comes without violence. Some people nowadays think that chola wars only affect kings and not common people, but in the Karandai Tamil Sangam Plates verses53–54, Rajendra Chola I describes his burning of the city of Manyakheta (Rashtrakutacapital): “While that great city was burning amidst thousands of flames thrown by his army, the women, moving in the open spaces of high palatial residen cesinlaid with jewels, appeared, on account of the nets of smoke rising from the fire, like lightning moving amid clouds. The divine horde, abandoning even the celestial abode caught by the ever-consuming flames burning aloft from thatcity… fled away out of fear, suspecting it to be the fire of the apocalypse.”This shows the hidden violence that followed the chola conquests of Pallava kingdom. Does that mean that the rest of the violence that occurred in conquering south India and south east Asia are hidden?

Again, give me some time for this. I'm not a history student. So it will take time for me to get back. I have read a lot about akbar and few others. Not all. So apologies.

Marathas are known for bringing back hindavi swarajya in India after Islamic rule. But if you study the maratha administration in detail, you will see that the marathas brought no change in Mughal administrative practices that they inherited from Mughals, taxes remained same or even increased in some cases, persian language was used as earlier, mode of administration (except the addition of ‘Kamvishdar’ revenue officer, nothing else changed) and feudal society remained same, there was hardly any changes except in their Marathi homeland. Then if this hindi swarajya never brought any changes, what is it other than a sham?

The Marathas didnt need to completely overhaul d Mughal system to achieve Swarajya. Their focus was on self-rule n independence from Mughal control not creating a completely new administrative system. The use of Persian n some tax continuities doesn't mean they were just copying the Mughals

it shows they worked within the existing system to maintain order. They also decentralized power giving local leaders more autonomy. Different than mughal rule.

The real change was using Marathi for administration and building a regional power structure that prioritized local control over centralized Mughal authority. Yes taxes might hve increased but like any empire they needed funds to support military campaigns

So, it’s not a "sham"

it’s a practical approach to self-rule in a complex world

These are only 7 points for you, if you can explain each of these historical inconsistencies like you have explained Akbar, I will wholeheartedly accept your point on propaganda, manipulation etc.

I did not want to sound rude, but you have used historical inconsistency as good point in your debate, so please enlighten me on the aforementioned topics as well.

I should be the one telling this. Apologies if something offended u i didnt meant to get rude or offensive anywhere

Thank you

Also, sorry .. I might not be able to reply soon to the topics I left unanswered as I explained the reasons for that in my earlier post to Shagun.

Originally posted by: nushhkiee

Replies in dark blue

Also, sorry .. I might not be able to reply soon to the topics I left unanswered as I explained the reasons for that in my earlier post to Shagun.

Excellent answers!!!!!, I had expected that you won’t leave these questions unanswered. Guess what, you have answered them correctly!!!

Let us have one more look at these characters then

First there is Maharana Pratap. Some might say that he pushed his kingdom to war, but reality is that Rajputs, especially mewaris, took pride in resisting Turkish and afghan onslaught some decades ago. For them, it was not about peace, but about independence from what was a foreign power in their perspective. Also, maharana of mewar was always considered as the traditional head of Rajputs. If he bows down to Mughals, it would have been a direct disrespect of entire Rajput community. So, for the ranas of mewar it was more than a matter of taxes and suzerainty. It was also about Rajput spirit of independence connected intricately with their religion, age old traditions, military and legitimacy. Both personal and for the people. But in the face of such a blazing legacy, do we ever think about the common people who had to bear the brunt of war? No. Because every glory has its own sacrifice, it has both bright side and a darker one. But the question is which one do you consider? Ranas of Mewar dealt brutally with his own nobles just because some of them joined Mughal service. They, throughout their reign of centuries over Mewar, were embroiled in bloody conflicts with tribal bhil community, forcibly taking many of their forested lands. But should these things be considered when we read about Mewari glory? The better answer is - No, because legacies of reign are not built by inconsistencies.

Let’s seethe second person in question – Shivaji, anyone who has read about Shivaji knows that he was more than a king, he was a living embodiment of an ideology (very important one). there are two kinds of facts that can be considered here, on one side, the fact that he ruled over a very small piece land, or that his short reign was quite tumultuous, or that he accepted Mughal suzerainty for a short period of time, or that he was opposed by many powerful marathi nobles(even his own father) because his political and administrative actions brought/ tried to bring many changes to the already established feudal system of society that the marathas had. Shivaji fought against Aurangzeb, sometimes by allying with deccan sultanates, but logically he should be more antagonistic towards the latter for their ruthless exploitation of marathi lands and people for decades.

And on the other hand you have his great ideology, his countless reforms, his amazing sense of naval and military innovation, his dedication towards his people, family, his love towards his mother Jijabai, his wife Saibai, his children, his kingdom, made for the sake of his subjects, to create a state which looks after the welfare and independence of marathi manus. So when you look at Shivaji and his legacy, which facts come to mind? The inconsistencies of his rule? Or his reforms and overall actions?

Now comes the third- When Shivaji died, Aurangzeb quickly sprang to action, he started drawing out the nobles from Shivaji’s hold, by hook or crook, many responded well to him, subsequently betraying not just their leader, but the very core of the maratha ideology. Why? Reasons are many and certainly they are not simple. Some nobles betrayed because they were utterly selfish, some were pragmatic to think that it was all about power and who wields it becomes master, some were greedy, siding with Mughals because they gave them better prospects. Many more reasons may be present, but did these nobles ever think about the common people while deciding their loyalty? No, concern about common people was Shivaji’s nature of personality, but that does not nessesarily mean that all nobles cared about people, most of them were drawn to Shivaji either by his personal charisma, by force, diplomacy, again reasons can be many. But this shows that in any state, no ruler (does not matter how great or powerful he is), cannot totally control the loyalty of his nobles, or subsequently their actions. Some inconsistency (oh not again!!!!!) in actions between the various stratas of government are always present. But does this mean that shivaji’s legacy was a failure? No, I don’t think so.

Well, it seems, you have straight jumped to 7th point , ok, lets deal with this one as well,

Maratha administration, I often heard in media about how marathas brought back Hindavi Swarajya to India after Mughal rule. I got very interested as to what changes did the marathas bring over the the new government to implement their ideology. So I read a book on that matter.

Contrary to supposed popular beliefs, maratha rule over india did not bring any major change in administration or society except their own maharashtrian homeland. The only change worthy of mention was appointment of a special revenue officer ‘kamvisdar’ at pargana level, in order to increase the efficiency of revenue collection. Everything else remained same. The common people did not have any ease of burden under Maratha rule than they had under Mughal rule, instead, their taxes increased. If increasing taxes serve practical purpose for one empire, then they should also serve practical purposes for other empires as well. In any feudal society, much of land is governed by local landlords and they had their own rules to govern the land, central governments only cared about the taxes. In Mughal and Maratha times, atleast 35 percent of land was under local rulers, who followed their own policies within the boundaries of their land, central govt. policies can go to hell. So, whatever good policies Akbar or Shivaji or any other ruler for that matter took, they were seldom implemented in dominions of local landlords, does that mean all these kings were failures and their policies were only for show?

Marathas used marathi only for unofficial purposes and government at local levels. But of official and court purposes Persian was used. Marathas never had allies in north India, cause the burden of taxes made everyone wary, if that is not enough, the increasing conflicts between maratha soldiers and local people (Bengal genocide by Raghoji, Rajasthan, Varanasi, some other places) added fuel to the fire. when marathas were defeated by Abdali in 3rd battle of Panipat, the fleeing maratha camp followers were brutally looted and harassed by the local north Indian people. You won’t find any maratha defending Varanasi or Kashi when Abdali attacked it, it was the Jats who laid down their lives. But does this mean that marathas were total failure? No, I don’t think so (certainly not a failure when their reforms in Maharashtra come to mind).

Your answers are correct, Rana Pratap, Kingdom of mewar, Shivaji, Maratha empire, all of them (I still have not written about left out questions, I don't need them any more, the answered questions have already done the work) have various inconsistencies in their period of rule, many brutalities, many mistakes, diplomacy, strategic moves many sporadic events that testify against their general ideology of administration, their legacies.

But the truth is Inconsistencies do not create the general legacy of a ruler or the empire, his overall work, reforms, accounts - policies do. No ruler has a smooth rule, whether or not testified by accounts.

Just like you have inconsistencies, exceptions in these above cases, in the same way they exist in Mughal empire, in Akbar’s rule, Jahangir’s rule, Shah Jahan’s rule.

Sporadic events in history do not count for significance. When it comes to history, every inch of this subject is surrounded by inconsistencies, every character, every rule, religion, region, decision. If inconsistencies are taken into account, then even Hitler will be a good person because he personally intervened to save the life of a Jew named Eduard Bloch (who was his family doctor) awarding him special protection.

Take a look at Akbar- On one hand you have his countless amazing reforms (which I am not repeating because they have been repeated countless times), his visionary ideas and on the other hand you have his violent sporadic events (chittor, and according to you, 3-4 temples in Gujrat), which one defines his legacy?

Cherry-picking events to point fingers at people sounds good, until one’s favourite character is called to question. You have mentioned many events that talk against Akbar’s general policies (that show that his rule wasn’t smooth). I too thought that maybe I should pour in some inconsistencies too. By your response I don’t think you have enjoyed them. Here there are only 7, I had 20 more in mind when I was writing that post.

Among bengalis, there is a saying “chader gaye kolonko”, it signifies “moon is the so bright and beautiful, but it also has its own sins”, but when we look at moon, we look at the brightness not the sin. The sin is present, always, but it can’t stop the moon from being great. This applies to all people both in history and in present. Which one you consider worth seeing in moon? Which one do you think gives moon its worth? The brightness? or the sin?

Thank you

I’m sorry, but I don’t have the time or energy to continue this discussion. Ultimately, I’ve come to realize that my views won't change your opinion regarding him and vice-versa. You may see him as a progressive ruler but I continue to view the Mughals as invaders...foreign conquerors who wreaked havoc in my country.

While you may choose to view him as a visionary, I cannot reconcile that image with the brutality of the Mughal invasions that destroyed local kingdoms n caused widespread suffering. How the Mughal policy of imposing their religion and culture on the conquered regions resulted the communities to abandon their heritage, language, and customs

The imposition of a foreign religion and culture left deep scars creating divisions that persist even today. Anyway I won't touch that topic. That's really sensitive. I don't want to sound offensive.

I’ll continue to view Akbar and the Mughals through this lens as people who looted n displaced our ancestors n no amount of debate will change my perspective on that.

Originally posted by: nushhkiee

I’m sorry, but I don’t have the time or energy to continue this discussion. Ultimately, I’ve come to realize that my views won't change your opinion regarding him and vice-versa. You may see him as a progressive ruler but I continue to view the Mughals as invaders...foreign conquerors who wreaked havoc in my country.

While you may choose to view him as a visionary, I cannot reconcile that image with the brutality of the Mughal invasions that destroyed local kingdoms n caused widespread suffering. How the Mughal policy of imposing their religion and culture on the conquered regions resulted the communities to abandon their heritage, language, and customs

The imposition of a foreign religion and culture left deep scars creating divisions that persist even today. Anyway I won't touch that topic. That's really sensitive. I don't want to sound offensive.

I’ll continue to view Akbar and the Mughals through this lens as people who looted n displaced our ancestors n no amount of debate will change my perspective on that.

Thank you for sharing your views in this debate, yes it is true that clash btw cultures are very sensitive and large topic. And it is good not to touch it here.

Don't worry, You have not sounded rude anywhere, what you have written in response to my latest post is something I really wanted to hear from you. Debates are good but they might not sufficient to change opinions, and in the end personal opinion does matter.

You have complete freedom to view stuff your own way. Also, pardon me if I have sounded rude anywhere, I never intended to.

Regards,

Thank you

Hi Anushka,

Since you've made it clear you don't wish to engage in this discussion any longer, I will not bother you with any more replies there, even though I have tons to say. I believe there's no point in a debate when one is not open to the possibility of changing their viewpoints.

However, there are three things I would like to say. Just yesterday I asked you if you admired a historical figure, to which you had quite a cryptic answer, as if everyone's equal in your eyes. Today, seemingly the slightest appearance of disrespect to Shivaji offends you. Interesting, so you do have your biases! :) And you said you "idolize and worship" him.. wonder why you didn't take his name when I asked yesterday?

The other thing is that you've still not mentioned any sources for any of the wrongs you accused Akbar for. We do all have our biases, and really we can't help it much. Just like I have a positive bias for him, you seem to have a negative one for him. No big deal there, but I was hoping we could both attempt to reduce our biases and reach a common ground via a civil conversation based on historical facts, NOT religion. It saddens me that it didn't happen that way.

Lastly, I find it interesting that you consider Akbar an "invader". I hope you agree that the Marathas were invaders for the Bengalis, every bit as cruel. There existed no India, every kingdom survived on invading their neighbours.. interesting how the term has come to be associated with just a few. While you and I call Akbar an invader, Hindus of the time were literally addressing him as Chhatrapati (protector!). [Source being Banarasi Das's autobiography. Interesting that he had nothing to do with the royal court, didn't even live in Agra, so that adjective was not meant to be flattery at all!]

That is all, hope you have a great day ahead! Thank you for being really kind even though we rarely agreed on anything, it's easy to be rude in such a case, but you were so very polite! <3

@Suma, I adore that moon and sin analogy you used above. Just what I wanted to say in these 12 or so pages.. but so much more beautiful and apt! Thank you :D

Originally posted by: IshqHaiWoEhsaas

@Suma, I adore that moon and sin analogy you used above. Just what I wanted to say in these 12 or so pages.. but so much more beautiful and apt! Thank you :D

Thank you a lot @IshqHaiWoEhsaas !!!!!!!!, but you deserve the praise and credit more than me, I might have information, but I couldn't have managed to write them in so many posts as you have done ( replying to almost every post). Kudos to you!!!!