Swara Bhaskar's insensitive remarks on Jauhar scene from Padmavat- Page 13

Akbar possessed a inordinate lust for women, just like his ancestors and predecessors. One of Akbar's motives during his wars of aggression against various rulers was to appropriate their women, daughters and sisters. The Rajput women of Chittor preferred "Jauhar" (immolation) than to be captured and disrespectfully treated as servants and prostitutes in Akbar's harem. On his licentious relations with women, Smith refers to a contemporary Jesuits testimony (p.81) thus, "... Akbar habitually drank hard. The good father had boldly dared to reprove the emperor sharply for his licentous relations with women. Akbar instead of resenting the priests audacity, blushingly excused himself." Both drinking and engaging in debauched sexual activities was inherited by Akbar from his ancestors.

That Akbar remained monogamous throughout his life is indeed history falsified myth. Again quoting V.Smith (pp.47),".. Akbar, throughout his life, allowed himself ample latitude in the matter of wives and concubines!" and further, " Akbar had introduced a whole host of Hindu the daughters of eminent Hindu Rajah's into his harem." (pp.212). An account of how the Jaipur rulers were coerced into sending their daughters to the Mogul harem is found in Dr. Srivastava's book Akbar - The Mogul (Vol.1). Shelat notes (p.90)," (after the "Jauhar" that followed the killing of Rani Durgawati) the two women left alive, Kamalavati (sister of Rani Durgawati) and the daughter of the Raja of Purangad (daughter-in-law of the deceased queen) were sent to Agra to enter Akbar's harem." It should also be observed that admittance into Akbar's harem was available mainly to virgins and others' were "disqualified". In spite of such disgusting and lewd personal affairs, inducting women of abducted or killed Hindu warriors into his harem as slaves and prostitutes, it is bewildering that Akbar is hailed as a righteous and noble emperor.

The personality and nature of Akbar has been nicely summed up by the Editor of Father Monserrate's Commentarius. The editor's introduction states, "In the long line of Indian sovereigns, the towering personalities of Ashoka and Akbar (because of his dread) stand high above the rest... Akbar's greed for conquest and glory and his lack of sincerity form a marked contrast to Ashoka's paternal rule, genuine self-control and spiritual ambition. Akbar's wars were those of a true descendant of Timur, and had all the gruesome associations which this fact implies."

"The old notion that Akbar's was a near approximation to Plato's philosopher king has been dissipated by modern researches. His character with its mixture of ambition and cunning has now been laid bare. He has been rightly compared to a pike in a pond preying upon his weaker neighbours .. Akbar was unable to give up his polygamous habits, for no importance needs to be attached to the bazaar gossip of the time that he once intended to distribute his wives among his grandees."

Whole of India was reduced to a brothel during the Moghal rule and Akbar, one of the Emperors, is being glorified as one of the patrons of the vast brothel. The above instances may suffice to convince the impartial reader that Akbar's whole career was a saga of uninhibited licentiousness backed by the royal brute.

There is a lot more to learn about "the greatness" of mulla akbar but I guess this should be suffice for now..

All the information is just a click away in this age of internet....no deep research needed...anyone claiming to know history more than the other is as stupid as them claiming to be white Europeans despite being from surrounding country.

Don't have to be on internet 24/7 either to show off your knowledge...even a 5 yr would know how to copy paste from Google.

Anyone wanting to teach indian history to indians..plz make sure your sources are not as dubious as you yourself are!!

Originally posted by: Ranbhoomi

Stop lying..you have clearly blamed hindu male society for women committing jauhar as well...

Again... in your first line I see the bias against me... I blamed patriarchy... and t h a t clearly isn't a Hindu 'thing' if one contemplates the beginning of Hinduism... it's a men-made thing done in almost all religions... (rest I didn't read)

Thank you for the pushback, as it allows to look closer at the specific historical sources rather than staying on the surface. Regarding the Rajatarangini, the text actually explicitly documents women committing self-immolation to escape rival domestic factions; for example, in Book VII (Taranga 7) of Kalhana's chronicle, during the internal rebellion against the Hindu King Harsha of Kashmir, his queens and concubines chose to burn themselves alive inside the palace specifically to avoid capture, abuse, and humiliation by the rival Hindu Damara rebels, proving that the threat of being treated as war booty was an institutionalized reality of medieval warfare regardless of the enemy's faith.

Similarly, regarding Akbar the Great, pointing out his later social reforms does not mean erasing his early military brutality, such as the horrific massacre of 30,000 civilians after the fall of Chittorgarh in 1568. However, medieval history is full of these contradictions, and it is a well-documented fact (in the Ain-i-Akbari) that in his later years, Akbar officially banned forced Sati, legalized widow remarriage, and appointed imperial officers with the specific duty to physically step in and stop women from being coerced onto funeral pyres.

Bringing up these nuances is not about rewriting history or minimizing the immense suffering caused by invaders; it is about showing that (while individual rulers and invasions created the immediate, terrifying dangers) it was the overarching patriarchal mindset (the societal rule that a woman's life belongs to her clan's collective honor and is better destroyed than "soiled") that built the pyres in the first place, and that is the exact patriarchal mindset that we still see echoing in modern prejudices today - independent of the religion.

I strictly refuse to give in to the Hindu vs Muslim mindset, some members propagate here (and in other places of the forum). None of the big religious systems should get glorified when acting against humanity and human rights... although the Middle Ages (also named dark age) hadn't yet what we call 'the Human Rights', people very well knew about morally right or wrong... and patriarchy far too often made the wrong a right and rule...

Edit: Dr. Ashirbadi Lal Srivastava was a recognized academic historian of the 20th century, and his foundational work Akbar the Great is a well-sourced scholarly study rather than an ideologically driven rewriting of history. Although Srivastava meticulously documented the military conflicts and harshness of Akbar's campaigns rather than idealizing him, he simultaneously acknowledged the emperor's progressive social reforms and religious tolerance policies. (just adding as I read his name mentioned here)

Originally posted by: Clochette

Again... in your first line I see the bias against me... I blamed patriarchy... and t h a t clearly isn't a Hindu 'thing' if one contemplates the beginning of Hinduism... it's a men-made thing done in almost all religions... (rest I didn't read)

Page 6

But my question would always be: Was it Really the Women's idea? (there are two distinct views about the agency of the women - in general - about the performance of Jauhar)...

A more critical view argues that "choice" cannot exist in a deeply patriarchal society where a woman's entire value was tied to her chastity and her husband's honor. The intense societal conditioning, paired with the horrifying reality of wartime enslavement, effectively forced women and children into the fire under extreme psychological coercion.

.......

^^

Which patriarchal society you are talking about here if not hindus which coerced women to jump into the pyre?

Page 6

Maybe you ignore how social conditioning works. If a society conditions you from birth to believe that your only value is your purity and your husband, and that surviving him makes you a cursed outcast, you will "choose" the fire. ... Indoctrination is not the same as free will. The fact that victims are brainwashed into accepting their own destruction does not mean the system isn't oppressive.

In my opinion, in the case of Jauhar, the primary fear was not what enemies would do to dead bodies; the fear was that the enemy would capture, enslave, and rape living women. It is the patriarchal view that a woman is better off dead than "soiled" by another man. the fire is the 'logical' consequence of an accepted tradition relative to dead bodies.

.......

^^

Again talking about societal pressure and patriarchy clearly by hindus only which made women think they are soiled hence should jump into fire..

Page 7

While the external danger in the past was undeniably real and horrific, the institutionalized method of dealing with that danger - mass self-immolation of women and children - reflects a societal framework where women were treated as symbols of a clan's honor rather than individuals with an independent right to survival. By recognizing that a woman's worth was so deeply tied to her physical purity and her family's lineage that death was treated as the only honorable path, we can better understand how these very same concepts of "honor" and control over female autonomy continue to influence modern social norms and prejudices today

.....

^^

Again blaming patriarchy by hindus being obvious reason for the mass suicide

...

Your intent is very clear....

Blame hindu patriarchy and society for jauhar without using word hindu...shift the blame from Islamic terrorism to Hindus blaming them for treating women as soiled after rape and forcing them to committ jauhar

Despite repeatedly blaming hindus you are now pretending you did no such thing and only blamed patriarchy....?? Patriarchy of whom?? Which society ???

So much dishonesty and blatant lies in an open forum.

A classic case of using al taquiya!!!

Originally posted by: Clochette

Thank you for the pushback, as it allows to look closer at the specific historical sources rather than staying on the surface. Regarding the Rajatarangini, the text actually explicitly documents women committing self-immolation to escape rival domestic factions; for example, in Book VII (Taranga 7) of Kalhana's chronicle, during the internal rebellion against the Hindu King Harsha of Kashmir, his queens and concubines chose to burn themselves alive inside the palace specifically to avoid capture, abuse, and humiliation by the rival Hindu Damara rebels, proving that the threat of being treated as war booty was an institutionalized reality of medieval warfare regardless of the enemy's faith.

Similarly, regarding Akbar the Great, pointing out his later social reforms does not mean erasing his early military brutality, such as the horrific massacre of 30,000 civilians after the fall of Chittorgarh in 1568. However, medieval history is full of these contradictions, and it is a well-documented fact (in the Ain-i-Akbari) that in his later years, Akbar officially banned forced Sati, legalized widow remarriage, and appointed imperial officers with the specific duty to physically step in and stop women from being coerced onto funeral pyres.

Bringing up these nuances is not about rewriting history or minimizing the immense suffering caused by invaders; it is about showing that (while individual rulers and invasions created the immediate, terrifying dangers) it was the overarching patriarchal mindset (the societal rule that a woman's life belongs to her clan's collective honor and is better destroyed than "soiled") that built the pyres in the first place, and that is the exact patriarchal mindset that we still see echoing in modern prejudices today - independent of the religion.

I strictly refuse to give in to the Hindu vs Muslim mindset, some members propagate here (and in other places of the forum). None of the big religious systems should get glorified when acting against humanity and human rights... although the Middle Ages (also named dark age) hadn't yet what we call 'the Human Rights', people very well knew about morally right or wrong... and patriarchy far too often made the wrong a right and rule...

Ofcorse you dont want hindu vs muslims because you only want to shiit on hindus...

Banning sati practice after Killing of 30000 and making 5000 hindu women as his concubine....

Yes akbar the great, indeed !!!!

What a great PR tactic!!!

Look at the defence of atrocious mughals by this so called foreigner..the one who cant tolerate someone like modi for 2002 riots is so aggressively defending a bigot like akbar despite killing 30000....

Truly applaudworthy your love for islam ,pakistan and mughals is !!!

A white European who is so much in love with Islamic history, culture, religion, people and even with their invaders for killing kaffirs...

You deserce an award from those Swedish institutes along with your standard daily 2rs per post wages for running a jehad so bravely on kafirs on india forums!!!!

You've really gone out of your way in this thread to defend moguls without caring about the mask you have been wearing as a white European. Although there was nothing much to expose about your being as it has been known to pretty much everyone by now.

What can one say about a (not new) member which can't distinguish an analytical text from hate speech against Hindus... and also - without a shred of any proof - is adamant to put me in a box that suits him/her... just shrug it away?

Originally posted by: Clochette

What can one say about a (not new) member which can't distinguish an analytical text from hate speech against Hindus... and also - without a shred of any proof - is adamant to put me in a box that suits him/her... just shrug it away?

Ofcorse you want an easy escape when you cant defend your bigotry agaisnt hindus and calling members newbie in order to discredit their valid counter arguments...

So typical of you when you get caught lying red handed...in this very thread I provided proofs of all your lies...which you couldnt counter..

You are someone who isn't bothered by akbar killing 30000 hindu women forcing them into pure but day in day out you abuse modi for a handful of Muslims being killed during his reign in gujarat.

So much hatred for hindus and yet you call yourself liberal and progressive....forget about being a white European which Noone even believes

I haven't seen even pakistanis defend and glorigy mughals to the level you have been doing here...despite claiming no roots in the subcontinent

I guess your whole persona is all about lying and faking....

I only pointed out what all you did in this thread alo e and yet you have the audacity to deny it all with a straight face.

Like I said it is in taught in your religion lying and fooling kaffirs will get you to jannat and you have been trying really hard to reach there...good luck with that! I hope you become one of those 72 and serve kaffir killers till eternity...you deserve the spot there

It seems that the member Ranbboomi has resorted to creating a completely fictional identity for me, making bizarre assumptions about my race, religion, and personal life, and tossing out wild accusations that were never even part of this thread. It is truly fascinating to watch him/her project own frustrations onto a stranger online simply because he/she lacks a certain understanding. Honestly, trying to turn a sociological discussion into a toxic personal soap opera is a textbook example of a deflection and the desperate attempt to label me as someone I'm not tells everyone in this forum far more about this person's logic than it could ever say about me.

But hey, as the picture says, without this level of dedication to absurd assumptions, internet discussions would be far less entertaining, so thanks for the service...

No one is saying that there were no incidents of women humiliation by opposing parties in ancient India at all. Even Mahabharata and Lanka war of Ramayana were fought over women respect. Even Bali had forcefully kept Sugreeva's wife. Harsha-Damara episode from Rajatarangini chapter 7, that you mentioned, is one such instance where queens self immolated to escape humiliation. But to compare those isolated incidents of women committing self immolation for the fear of humiliation, which (woman humiliation) was classified adharm (sin) in the light of Hindu religion with the religiously approved - organized, systematic & ideological post victory loot and en masse sexual violence & sexual slavery practised by Islamic invaders is quite a stretch.

However, You are not just comparing but equating the two. When in reality their holy book has a precise term for war booty (maal e ghanimat) and a religious sanction for sex slaving of captured kafir women (those whom your right hands possess). That's a far cry from these isolated incidents which had no religious book sanctioned ideology to do so, except the universal human nature of greed, lust & power.

About Akbar, i agree with the arguments of Ranbhoomi. I've read multiple accounts of Akbar's so called 'greatness' that i want to puke on that. Being a fake newbie doesn't discredit his/her/their arguments.

Akbar was anything but great. If i get time I'll write a separate post on that but whatever Ranbhoomi has written is already more than enough to prove Akbar was anything but great. But you have always been sympathetic towards the Islamic ideology and in every instance try to equate even their extreme ideology & practices as something common in other religions too, under one label or another. So it's actually a waste of time and mental peace to argue with you over that.