Originally posted by: IshqHaiWoEhsaas
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
Yes, I do have biases .... just like everyone does... BTW I never said "I" idolize him or "I" worship him. Sorry if it came out that way. I'm from maharashtra but I'm not a maharashtrian ... people worship him here so it's about sangati ka asar. But yes, I do admire him with all his flaws.
For me, the “ideal ruler” is someone who doesn’t just balance power but actively tries to be just across all dimensions, n Akbar’s history doesn’t seem fully “just” in this regard. You expected a civil convo? My dear, sorry I can't be more civil than this. n I don't understand where I have sounded uncivilized tbh. I agreed with you on Akbar's good doings. n trust me, I do acknowledge that in REAL as well. But, there are some facts , there are some ideologies of mine alone which makes me hesitant to accept his as great. there’s a positive bias towards him because of his reign but the scars he left behind, even though he was remorseful for dat doesn't make me admire him to that level.
And while you mentioned that Hindus referred to Akbar as “Chhatrapati” at some points, we should remember that titles and local perceptions often get shaped by politics of the time. In the same way that leaders today might be called "saviors" despite their flaws, it doesn't mean they were seen as flawless by everyone in their time.
But when I look at Akbar, I can’t just ignore the darker side of his empire-building, even if he did some good things. I don’t want to be one-sided, but it’s tough to ignore the facts as they are, not just how they get painted over time.
@B, but I have to say reducing biases is easier said than done especially when it comes to something as complex as history. You’re right that we should be focusing on facts but the truth is history is never just a set of neutral facts...it’s always filtered through the lens of those telling it. N unfortunately those lenses often include personal, cultural, n yes, even religious biases. It’s nearly impossible to completely separate them because religion, especially in the case of Akbar n his time, was such a significant force shaping policies n decisions.
So while I agree we should focus on facts I don’t think we can completely remove the influence of religion or culture from how we interpret those facts. I feel like that’s what makes it hard to have a truly unbiased conversation especially when figures like Akbar r involved who were so central to the religious n political dynamics of their time.
If we try to ignore that context, I think we risk oversimplifying the picture and losing the real complexities of the past. I wish to say more on religious aspects but it's against the COC of IF so I'll stop here.
PS- I don't remember being polite anywhere. Kind of you to think so. You still haven't forwarded me those links to FFs :P
Cricket
364