Historical Doubts and Discussions Thread #1

History is a vast ocean of events, mysteries, and interpretations. From ancient civilizations to modern revolutions, every era holds secrets, unanswered questions, and intriguing debates. If you've ever had a question about history or wanted to discuss an event, personality, or historical mystery, this is the perfect place for you!

Purpose of This Thread:

• To discuss historical events, figures, and places.
• To ask and answer questions related to history.
• To share and debate different perspectives on historical incidents.
• To clear doubts regarding historical authenticity, sources, and interpretations.

Rules & Guidelines:

• Maintain decorum and be respectful of all viewpoints.
• Back your claims with sources when possible.
• Avoid political or religious debates that may lead to conflicts.
• No spreading of misinformation or conspiracy theories without credible evidence.
• Keep discussions relevant to history.

Feel free to drop your questions, insights, and thoughts. Let’s uncover history together!

Happy discussing!

If you want to authenticate source, feel free to tag me.

"Akbar : The Great"

I wonder ... Was he really great?

I am posting my first question.

While we rightfully honor leaders like Shivaji Maharaj and Maharana Pratap for their exceptional bravery and contributions, why does Indian history continue to glorify Mughal rulers like Akbar and Aurangzeb, whose main aim was territorial expansion and dominance? Shouldn’t our historical narratives focus more on those who fought for sovereignty rather than those who sought to conquer?

P.S. I was actually very bad in history subject during my school days, but our history books and syllabus (I am talking till secondary exams only, where everyone has to study history and I did the same too) mostly focus on Mughal rulers, their achievements, policies etc.

Originally posted by: nushhkiee

"Akbar : The Great"

I wonder ... Was he really great?

Originally posted by: Quantum-Dot

I am posting my first question.

While we rightfully honor leaders like Shivaji Maharaj and Maharana Pratap for their exceptional bravery and contributions, why does Indian history continue to glorify Mughal rulers like Akbar and Aurangzeb, whose main aim was territorial expansion and dominance? Shouldn’t our historical narratives focus more on those who fought for sovereignty rather than those who sought to conquer?

P.S. I was actually very bad in history subject during my school days, but our history books and syllabus (I am talking till secondary exams only, where everyone has to study history and I did the same too) mostly focus on Mughal rulers, their achievements, policies etc.

Akbar did push for some reforms, but the way he expanded the empire? Kinda just adding to the whole “conquer everything” mentality, which doesn’t really align with the freedom fighters we admire like Shivaji Maharaj and Maharana Pratap

As for why they focus on Mughals in history books... probably because they were in power for so long and their empire was HUGE, so it’s hard to ignore them. But I totally agree, the narrative shud highlight the kings and leaders who actually fought for their sovereignty, like the ones who stood up against the Mughals. It’s definitely frustrating when the history books make it seem like the Mughals bohot acche the. Kuch accha kaam kiya hai woh bhi I guess only Akbar ne ... just little

almost like they want to paint this whole picture of unified India under the Mughals....

/our history is full of untold stories of real fighters who resisted these empires. Hopefully more people start focusing on those narratievs too

Originally posted by: Quantum-Dot

I am posting my first question.

While we rightfully honor leaders like Shivaji Maharaj and Maharana Pratap for their exceptional bravery and contributions, why does Indian history continue to glorify Mughal rulers like Akbar and Aurangzeb, whose main aim was territorial expansion and dominance? Shouldn’t our historical narratives focus more on those who fought for sovereignty rather than those who sought to conquer?

It has to do with how history was written (historiography) in the Colonial times. British essentially wanted to portray themselves as the replacement of Mughals.

When a colonialist is writing history, the aim is to show that you were colonised in the past and we are just doing the same thing. It ain't new and this is why we are superior.

That is the reason you'll see them using epithets like "Akbar:the Great" and Shivaji the "mountain rat" and "thief." The people who stood their ground, fought for their independence and rights (Swaraj) were seen as rebels who needed to be crushed because they were a threat to their authority. If you wanna rule over a country, you won't be keen on teaching them how bravely their advances were resisted, you'll show them see this is how easily you were crushed.

Ofc, 75+ years of independence, there should been a shift in narrative, the history has been written plenty about the regional rulers but it's not a part of mainstream until now. NEP-2020 is trying to change things. Let's see how that goes.

There's a lot more to history than what's taught in schools.

Aurangzeb was hardly glorified in history books. I remember hating him since I was a kid. I have always read about him torturing his subjects, forcing people to convert to his religion, destroy temples etc. There was nothing good mentioned about him atleast in the history books that I read in my school.

Akbar was glorified I guess because he was not as ruthless and cruel as Aurangzeb. He did conquer kingdoms but I have read about him being a good ruler who kept his subjects happy, who brought reforms in his kingdom.

I guess the reason Mughals and even Britishers occupy most of the syllabus of out history books because they ruled us for years and are an integral part of our Indian history. However, I do hope other Indian rulers are also covered as much as them.

I am posting my second question.

Was Emperor Ashoka’s transformation after the Kalinga War purely driven by guilt, or was it a strategic move to unify his vast and diverse empire under the principles of dharma and Buddhism? While his edicts express deep remorse, could his embrace of non-violence also reflect a pragmatic approach to governance? Additionally, was his adoption of Buddhism a profound spiritual awakening, or did it serve as a tool for political stability? Was Ashoka primarily a spiritual seeker, a pragmatic ruler, or a man seeking redemption for his past actions?

Originally posted by: Quantum-Dot

I am posting my second question.

Was Emperor Ashoka’s transformation after the Kalinga War purely driven by guilt, or was it a strategic move to unify his vast and diverse empire under the principles of dharma and Buddhism? While his edicts express deep remorse, could his embrace of non-violence also reflect a pragmatic approach to governance? Additionally, was his adoption of Buddhism a profound spiritual awakening, or did it serve as a tool for political stability? Was Ashoka primarily a spiritual seeker, a pragmatic ruler, or a man seeking redemption for his past actions?

Ashoka was a believer of Ajivaka sect which says everything that happens is according to the pre-written destiny. He justifies the Kalinga war as such too.

But he also knew that people wouldn't accept someone so cruel on the throne and at that point since there wasn't any opposition left, choosing the path of non-violence was a better option.

Although, always take things with a side of salt cuz history and historical figures are reconstructed on the basis of sources available. You can never form a 100% value judgement on what kind of person someone was. There's a whole lot of things we won't know.

Borderline being that it is important to look at the deeds objectively, deification and holie than thou approach doesn't help, everyone is a human, after all. Log toh Shri Krishna ko bhi mayavi/chhaliya bulate hai na.