Mughals - JA(REAL) is not Fiction-Pt4 - Author/TM's note on Pg1 and 91 - Page 30

Originally posted by: tamy267

@Abhay🤣

arey I feel bad for Jalal also ! how he had to take long long bhaashans of Jodha !

at least Urdu is easy to understand..but sanskrit...😕..

its just that they r soul-mates ! and soul-mates don't need any language...their heart talks❤️.

Originally posted by: history_geek

Tamy,
You made me land in another trouble by mentioning this "bhaashan stuff of Jodha".😕
Bombarded with PM's overnight.
OK. Take this answer.

I am not saying anything from " ❤️ " point of view..
This one is a totally serious answer..!..

But, if you think "The Real Jodha" , did not give her "bhaashans and lectures to Jalal".
Then, have a thought. She did give.!.


"Lectures were there surely, But may be the way of delivery was bit different from what is shown...😊 But nonetheless, MUZ did have active participation in Akbar's decisions...The way a wife can influence her husband's decisions..."


(Do not talk about that movie. Real Jalal and Jodha were not that way. That question has been answered already.)
Link:
https://www.indiaforums.com/forum/post/98473841

I am explaining this because, when it will be shown on the show that Jodha giving MAJOR 'lectures' to Jalal even in "political and court matters", then the forum will soon erupt, with the usual dialogue ->"Real Jodha of 16th century would not have done so. She would be obedient mute spectator. And, this is harming Jalal's image..!.." ...And, then again Fan-Wars....


Do not understand, why MANY of us underestimate women of 16th century.😕.
Do not know about other women. But, she was different.
So, you remember her even now..!.. after 400-450 years.!.
And, that is the reason, MAXIMUM references are tampered which are associated with her. (see previous page for PROOF of tamperings.!.)...
Links::
https://www.indiaforums.com/forum/post/98184475

https://www.indiaforums.com/forum/post/98956120


More examples ::

1. 13th century (760 years back.!!.)
Even Raziya Sultan(1236-1240), daughter of Iltutmish ruled Delhi. A woman sat on throne of Delhi, against the wishes of Ulemas.!!..

2. 17th century (350 years back)
A daughter of Aurangzeb(or his brother) gave a speech to the army.
https://www.indiaforums.com/forum/post/98555146

3. 16th century (450 years back)
MUZ herself commanded a cavalry of 12,000..Link::
https://www.indiaforums.com/forum/post/97808719

4. 500 BC(2500 years back..!!..when women condition was not so good..)
Foster Mother of Gautam Buddha, Gautami, herself attended the Buddhist Sangha, even when women at that time were not allowed to attend. She made Buddha change his mind through a disciple Ananda. This is probably from Buddhist text - 'Vinaya-Pitaka'.

The reason i am giving these examples is only to TELL, DO NOT GENERALISE EVERYTHING. Few women were DIFFERENT and HENCE FAMOUS as well.!!.

(
As usual..!..
No one is ready to accept Jalal getting bhaashans from Jodha..!.As they feel it is being done to showcase Jodha as MAHAAN..!!!...😕 "phew"..If she was Mahaan, then what's the problem accepting her..?.."Jodha ke Mahan hone se Jalal ki Mahaanta kam ho jayegi kya.?.".😕.Nahi.!..

I do not want to enter this debate of Jalal-Jodha FAN war.!.
But, i am just writing what CHRONICLES have given us...!!..
For me it's no benefit to side with anyone.

I am answering coz i have facts IN-hand.
Don't like un-necessary "vad-vivaad" based on BASELESS assumptions.😕.

Just telling you since had this question..AND, many PM's to me and KDR81 earlier..
).

P.S. -> Lectures/Bhaashan's are true. Do not feel Akbar's prestige is getting down by this. If this happened why won't they show it.?.

Two links -->Comments by me and KDR81..Check them...

1. 2-3 comments by myself.
https://www.indiaforums.com/forum/jodha-akbar/3809107/akbar-ruqs-false-monogamy-pt2ja-not-fiction-upd-p10-16-18-ruqs34-35-36?pn=4

2. A comment by KDR81. (4th comment on this page.)
https://www.indiaforums.com/forum/jodha-akbar/3809107/akbar-ruqs-false-monogamy-pt2ja-not-fiction-upd-p10-16-18-ruqs34-35-36?pn=5

P.P.S. -> Please do NOT PM for knowing the details of theLectures/Bhaashan's to me or KDR81.😊. Will update soon. You may post here, till then. (a request..)

P.P.P.S -> Feel free to reject this answer as fiction, if some people do not believe. I am just answering few PM's and Tamy's query. But, reality says 'Lectures' are TRUE. (Some instances are very famous.).

Originally posted by: hewa2204

Hi Abhay, thanks for the 'PM. I loved reading this post. I have read so many posts where people having a go at Jodha because according to them a 16th century woman would not be behaving this way. This irks me to no end. How can anyone say every woman in that era behaved a particular way. Talk about generalising There are many instances through out the history as you also pointed out, where women though outside the box and did things that were not common for that period. I for am so glad Jodha is not shown as a door-mat who lets Jalal walk all over her.

I truly feel there must have been something different and unique about Jodha to grab Jalal's attention. After all Jalal did not lack other female attention and company. If Jodha acted like every other female in Jalal's harem what would have been so different about her?

If someone to look at 21st century women in another 500/600 years time and say all women in that period would have behaved this way particular way - we all know how utterly silly and inaccurate to make an assumption like that would be.

(In reference to real history)

Hewa,

Can't help it. But, i am in total agreement with your thoughts, especially the ones in bold.
No matter what anyone writes, "Truth will remain as it is".

Before generalising, it's better to look into the past, that whatever assumptions we make, if they are really valid/true. And, when we do have accounts proving her out of box actions, which were not in accordance with those days, itself says she was a different 'creation' altogether.

And, as for those other posts, i "normally" do not visit many posts here, but just a few which i have earmarked. For, i can not digest irritating & baseless assumptions. It's better to go by facts.


One correction: 😊
Throughout, she did not live in the Mughal Harem. Other wives stayed in the harem but she had her palaces in Agra, Fatehpur Sikri(not a single palace but a complex of palaces), Allahabad, Lahore. The ONLYwife of Akbar who had her palaces where-ever she went with him .


Concluding by a quote, i read in Mein Kampf -> "The victor will never be asked if he told the truth." ..
Same is the case with history of Jodha/MUZ. (She would never have been a centre of our attraction, if her history was not distorted. And, this reason makes one search hard.)

Had some questions in mind, so thought of asking. In JA they show Gulbadan begum, Hamida, Jiji Anga all staying the harem with Jodha. However I read somewhere that Jodha didn't stay in the harem but in exclusive palaces built for her. If that is the case, then I am not able to understand how Hamida and company were very friendly with her.

Originally posted by: Pals2411

Had some questions in mind, so thought of asking. In JA they show Gulbadan begum, Hamida, Jiji Anga all staying the harem with Jodha. However I read somewhere that Jodha didn't stay in the harem but in exclusive palaces built for her. If that is the case, then I am not able to understand how Hamida and company were very friendly with her.

Also while searching for Gulbadan begum's Humayan-nama online, I read a statement that Akbar's Hindu Rajput wives and Mughal ladies in the harem did not communicate much and hence were oblivious to the other. It was because of the difference in their language, customs and habits. The only thing common was their bent towards their religious beliefs and pilgrimages. When I read this statement, again the thought of little communication between Jodha and Hamida Bano and Company came to my mind, though Ekta's JA shows otherwise.

Though I have NOT READ Humayan nama in its entirety, I could find names of Ruqaiya and Salima in it. Not even a mention of Jodha/Hira/Harkha/Mariam uz Zamani.😭 I was a lot disappointed and also confused. So thought of clarifying it with you.

Pallavi,

The answer is subjective.
Before i answer you, read this comment first on page-33. And, try to infer. Earlier i told something to Syria.

https://www.indiaforums.com/forum/post/99078976

I ll answer this soon. BTW, do not tell me you read this somewhere on internet.😉.Coz i read that inspite having different languages they were able to communicate.!.

https://www.indiaforums.com/forum/post/98964824

See the comment above. Yes, she stayed in her palaces, but if you search carefully, Mughal Harem was close to her palaces, if you see the map locations. So, living in a different palace, does not means that no interaction would have taken place..

BTW, regarding relations in the family, will write a separate comment. There is no objective answer for this.😊

Originally posted by: history_geek

Pallavi,

The answer is subjective.
Before i answer you, read this comment first on page-33. And, try to infer. Earlier i told something to Syria.

https://www.indiaforums.com/forum/post/99078976

I ll answer this soon. BTW, do not tell me you read this somewhere on internet.😉.Coz i read that inspite having different languages they were able to communicate.!.

https://www.indiaforums.com/forum/post/98964824

See the comment above. Yes, she stayed in her palaces, but if you search carefully, Mughal Harem was close to her palaces, if you see the map locations. So, living in a different palace, does not means that no interaction would have taken place..

BTW, regarding relations in the family, will write a separate comment. There is no objective answer for this.😊

Thanks for the prompt reply. To be honest, the source was one of the sources given under wiki of Gulbadan Begum. I don't know if it would be appropriate to name it here and I don't know if it is authentic (it was translation of Humayan nama). The more I was reading, the more confused I was, specially after seeing no mention of MUZ. Maybe the missing pages hold the key?. Also eagerly waiting for BTW, regarding relations in the family, will write a separate comment.😊

Sorry for being late. I m busy with studies. But could not help but comment. As u guys r talking about dhakai moslin. And I m from bangladesh.
My mom's dadi had an moslin saree. It was so soft and silky that it can pass through a ring. Even us saree ko fold karke match box me bhi rakha ja sakta tha it was so soft and silky.
But they r not made anymore. They were speciality of Bangladesh. During british period the british cut hands of the moslin karigars so they can't made moslin anymore. In fear people stop making them so by time they completely forgot how to make. Now there in Dhakai Jamdani. They r very close to moslin. But not exact moslin. Moslin were more soft and silky. People can't make the actual, real moslin anymore.

Originally posted by: KDR81

Just for the Info, the Specialty of Dhaka Malmal or Musleen is that it is an almost transparent material and which in water becomes invisible ...(Also can pass through a ring).Also, the best quality of such musleen was procured when woven by adolescent girls of a particular age😊.
The serial NG cannot be Malmal/Sabnam in reality as it is quite opaque...😆

Originally posted by: Arieltabi

Sorry for being late. I m busy with studies. But could not help but comment. As u guys r talking about dhakai moslin. And I m from bangladesh.
My mom's dadi had an moslin saree. It was so soft and silky that it can pass through a ring. Even us saree ko fold karke match box me bhi rakha ja sakta tha it was so soft and silky.
But they r not made anymore. They were speciality of Bangladesh. During british period the british cut hands of the moslin karigars so they can't made moslin anymore. In fear people stop making them so by time they completely forgot how to make. Now there in Dhakai Jamdani. They r very close to moslin. But not exact moslin. Moslin were more soft and silky. People can't make the actual, real moslin anymore.

Hi Dear,
I don't want to brag but I too have an immensely strong connection with Bangladesh...@Abhay Knows that...😊 and am happy to get u with us here. U r right, Musleen of that actual kind is no more made... The original specimen can be seen only in European Museums...
U see,though it is a common belief that British rulers cut off the fingers of the Karigars...but that's not exactly the whole truth...The Art was already on fading side because of rare raw materials and extreme hard work that it required...
I have also gone through Muntasir Mamun's book on Musleen and D.B.Mitra's "Weavers of Bengal" etc...so this "wonder fabric" is also something which is close to my heart as it is Urs too...😊

Regards,
Kamal

Originally posted by: ann2012

wasn't Ahmed Sarhindi imprisoned by Jehangir in Gwalior??

Briefly imprisoned..

@KDR81 connection with Bangladesh.R u bangali? 😊
Thnks for the info. Yes it is common belief that the british had cut their hands that's why they can no longer made them. I always used to wonder why can't they again try and make now. I guess the raw materials r reason for this.There is a mousleen specimen in one of our museum. Though I haven't seen it .
Btw u and Abhay r doing an awesome job. 👍🏼 👏

Originally posted by: MaddyO

Is there any mention of 'Sari' in the costumes of those times?

I am wondering if we will ever get to see Jodha in a sari

Maddy, you always have questions ready.😆.

Are you asking history of "sari" .😕.?

But, i have read something that 'sari' was "invented" by the wife of Chandragupta Maurya named Helen. She was the daughter of Greek general Seleucus Nector, one of Alexander's generals. Alexander returned back from India around 325 B.C. , giving in charge of the territories of North-West India upto river Indus, provinces of Baluchistan, etc. to Seleucus. He married his daughter to Chandragupta.

Now, it is said that, she used to wear her Greek chiton/shiffon (?. i don't know more😕.?) around her waist and then took over around her shoulder. So, this style of 'sari' is much more matching to the present style of sari wearing. So, credit is given to her.

My personal thought.. (common sense.! )

Till now i have developed a very strong perception that, the Europeans and other historians, have tried to give more credit to themselves for ALMOST everything. Example: Take achievements of Aryabhatta in Maths, the invention of number system, the first surgery performed by Charaka.. Many examples are there from history. They are not credited or less acknowledged for these feats...

Regarding 'sari', i think before Helen also women must be wearing sari only. May be Helen's dressing style matched with modern dressing . So, she got the credit.! Also, we have some statues showing same dressing style, from the Gandhara School of Art, which developed later.

Another one-->, In Belan Valley, near Allahabad, U.P., India(Indus-Valley Civilization), evidences of earliest rice cultivation were found, dating back to 5500 B.C. . But, the historians did not agree to it.😆...And, hence, China holds the tag for earliest rice cultivation..!.. (if u want search yourself, u will understand i am saying truth only.😆.)

I think till now you must have got to know, atleast, what havoc has been wrecked on history on MUZ by some biased historians/fanatics (don't forget Aurangzeb). And, yes history is something not different from POLITICS.😉
I am just sharing mine, lizzy's and KDR81's experience with you. Coz we have read a lot. And, after reading only you will BELIEVE how easily facts can be twisted. Some examples are in this answer only..

As for Jodha/Hindu Begum, i feel i gave a very nice explanation on page-1 of this thread, about some 'ghagra' type of dress..!..You may read once more that post. You all have made me less of a science major, and more a history student.!..

BTW, handling this 'sari' department is not my domain.😉.😆. KDR81 will answer better..?.?