Jodha Akbar discussion corner!

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

Alakh

@Autumn_Rose

Stunner

+ 4

Posted: 10 years ago

#251

Does anyone remember Adham khan's malwa conquest?

Maham Anga had killed 3 women to save Adham? It turns out that incident is true. I was watching some show on Epic channel.. And one of the historians actually narrated the very same incident..

Quote

Alakh

@Autumn_Rose

Stunner

+ 4

Posted: 10 years ago

#252

Originally posted by: Sandhya.A
Ashoka was special in his own way.
Ashoka was Great not just for giving up wars. ( Anyway he had consolidated and strengthened his Empire too well by then that it didn't make a big difference😉) His rule was examplary too. And the first of its kind. He had dug wells, built roads and rest houses, planted trees, founded hospitals for men and animals, banned hunting, encouraged education, propogated religious tolerance ( though he did a lot to spread Buddhism he never forced conversions), introduced discipline and moral rules in the army. He promoted the ethical treatment of animals and the distribution of medicine to all of his subjects He appointed a special class of officers, dharma mahamatras, to propagate morality. He asked them to be teachers first, magistrates afterward. Declaring all his subjects to be his children, he considered himself to be the trustee of their welfare rather than a ruler. He exhorted his subjects to meditate; to practice nonviolence and noninjury toward fellowmen and animals; to revere parents, teachers, mendicants, and elders; to be kind to inferiors such as servants, serfs, and beasts of burden; to be truthful; and to respect the beliefs of fellowmen. (In his edicts and boards)He did not seek to establish a sectarian creed and lavishly gave to all religious sects.

He ruled by moral example what may be called the first welfare state in the world. And not over any teeny weeny tinpot principality but over akhand Bharat established by his grand dad. It was certainly no mean task a 2000 yrs ago.

Education is the panacea of all social evils.. But instilling values are so important.. And Ashoka did that.

It sonmehow amazes me that how can someone supposedly so evil evolve like that.. Somewhere Deep inside he ought to have some values and samskars in him.

I know he was an emperor not a saint but still.. People don't generally change themselves.. And I have always believed people who are inherently evil are always evil.

Edited by Autumn_Rose - 10 years ago

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

sashashyam

@sashashyam

Sparkler

+ 3

Posted: 10 years ago

#253

My dear Alakh,

That scene only shows the depth of Jalal's bitterness of over a decade at what he sees as his having been abandoned by his mother and left to the care of Maham Anga and Bairam Khan. That she had no choice is not an argument that a child will accept. And a grievance that is so deep-rooted in childhood takes a long time to be erased, and sometimes it can never be erased .

Remember Amitabh's younger version in Shakti? What he infers from the telephone call his father makes is mistaken, but he understands it as abandoment of him by his father for the sake of official duty. Now some children might be proud of such a father, but not this one. The grudge is never erased and his relationship with his father is soured for life.

Also, just as Dilip Kumar's character in Shakti never tries to explain to his son exactly what he was trying to do, similarly here too, Hamida Banu does not seem to be explaining how hard it was for her to give up her son even for temporarily, and how she was forced to do it.

So I do not think the scene was OTT. It was a mindblowing bit of acting by Rajat, and in fact it was this scene and the one with Abdul in Episode 4 that made me decide to stay on!

Shyamala Aunty

Originally posted by: Autumn_Rose

Isn't jalal too rude and bitter towards his mother the first time he meets her in the show.

And that too when she had no choice..

Quote

sashashyam

@sashashyam

Sparkler

+ 3

Posted: 10 years ago

#254

He was not evil, Alakh, he was very harsh. Many kings those days were like that. He said so himself in his edicts ,and also the Buddhists exaggerated the extent and nature of his harshness so as to exaggerate the extent of the change in him after he adopted Buddhism. It is always like that!

You have to remember that the drastic change in Ashoka was not by evolution, thru education or otherwise. It was an epiphany on the battlefield at Kalinga. It was like the epiphany that Ratnakar the dacoit underwent before he became Valmiki. As for the Buddhists chroniclers of Ashoka's transformation, they probably wanted to make out that he was another Angulimaal!

Morever, the argument that education is the panacea of all social evils is a dicey one. The Nazis were mostly highly educated and aficionados of high culture; but after bayoneting Jewish infants during the day, they used to be in tears while listening to Wagner.

Preeti, there is a lot of information about Ashoka by way of his very many rock cut edicts, the Ashokan pillar in Delhi, and about times a bit earlier than his, the Arthashastra, which is still studied seriously by stategists. I expect that there would be other books of that period, especially Buddhist one, still extant, but not being a historian, I do not know.

Shyamala/Aunty

Originally posted by: Autumn_Rose

Education is the panacea of all social evils.. But instilling values are so important.. And Ashoka did that.

It sonmehow amazes me that how can someone supposedly so evil evolve like that.. Somewhere Deep inside he ought to have some values and samskars in him.

I know he was an emperor not a saint but still.. People don't generally change themselves.. And I have always believed people who are inherently evil are always evil.

Originally posted by: Sandhya.A
Ashoka was special in his own way.
Ashoka was Great not just for giving up wars. ( Anyway he had consolidated and strengthened his Empire too well by then that it didn't make a big difference😉) His rule was examplary too. And the first of its kind. He had dug wells, built roads and rest houses, planted trees, founded hospitals for men and animals, banned hunting, encouraged education, propogated religious tolerance ( though he did a lot to spread Buddhism he never forced conversions), introduced discipline and moral rules in the army. He promoted the ethical treatment of animals and the distribution of medicine to all of his subjects He appointed a special class of officers, dharma mahamatras, to propagate morality. He asked them to be teachers first, magistrates afterward. Declaring all his subjects to be his children, he considered himself to be the trustee of their welfare rather than a ruler. He exhorted his subjects to meditate; to practice nonviolence and noninjury toward fellowmen and animals; to revere parents, teachers, mendicants, and elders; to be kind to inferiors such as servants, serfs, and beasts of burden; to be truthful; and to respect the beliefs of fellowmen. (In his edicts and boards)He did not seek to establish a sectarian creed and lavishly gave to all religious sects.

He ruled by moral example what may be called the first welfare state in the world. And not over any teeny weeny tinpot principality but over akhand Bharat established by his grand dad. It was certainly no mean task a 2000 yrs ago.

Edited by sashashyam - 10 years ago

Quote

sashashyam

@sashashyam

Sparkler

+ 3

Posted: 10 years ago

#255

I agree with you, Mandy my dear. I do not want it moved. When I wrote my Parts about Rajat in the JA forum, I did not get even 30 Likes, for no one there was interested in the re-runs, they were all busy with their FFs! At least here a small core group is interested in pretty lively discussions!

And since I give the live co-ordinates of my posts in my PMs, one can go directly there anyway, with no searching and no hassles.

Shyamala

Originally posted by: ghalibmirza

you are most welcome my dear🤗..i find it more convenient here as the thread is easy to find, in the main forum i had to dig our thread through several pages and here everytime i come its position never changes😊!

Originally posted by: vinitaj27
Hey mandy
Its great to once again read the thoughts of our old friends on our fav show. Thanx for this thread. Just one request. Is it possible for u to post this on the main JA forum. Its much more convenient.

Quote

jayaks02

@jayaks02

Dazzler

Posted: 10 years ago

#256

Originally posted by: Autumn_Rose

Does anyone remember Adham khan's malwa conquest?

Maham Anga had killed 3 women to save Adham? It turns out that incident is true. I was watching some show on Epic channel.. And one of the historians actually narrated the very same incident..

It is true - Historians have made a reference to Adham's excesses and Maham's killing of girls.

Infact the other general who is shown as some kind of Saint was also equally bad as Adham Khan

In JA, Adham Khan kills him in a river later.

Quote

jayaks02

@jayaks02

Dazzler

Posted: 10 years ago

#257

There is a lot of discussion on Jalal - Married woman encounter. Nice reading.

I have a simple take. This is some kind of forced screenplay or snippet introduced so that contrast between Jalal(Post Jodha, reformed one 😆) and this one can be recalled by everyone.

Just like Kali matta looting, this is more of a blopper kind of scene, to pave the pedestal for Jodha Mahanta as how she transformed a king who was harassing women to an emperor who started respecting women and did women centric reforms later.

Just my view. Otherwise, the scene does not gel with narrative - It looks forced to me.

Quote

Sabdabhala

@Sabdabhala

Dazzler

Posted: 10 years ago

#258

Originally posted by: jayaks02
It is true - Historians have made a reference to Adham's excesses and Maham's killing of girls.

Infact the other general who is shown as some kind of Saint was also equally bad as Adham Khan

In JA, Adham Khan kills him in a river later.

I THINK YOU ARE REFERING TO PEER MOHAMMAD. IN JA JALAL IS ACTUALLY SHOWN SAD AFTER NEWS OF HIS DEATH

I WAS ALSO SEEING A PROG ON EPIC WHICH WAS TALKING ABOUT THE RAMPANT PRACTICE OF THWARTING PREGNANCIES AND KILLING UNBORN CHILDREN DURING AKBAR'S REIGN. MOST OF THE CREDIT FOR THIS WAS GIVEN TO MAHAM ANGA, BUT THERE WAS ALSO A HINT THAT MANY BEGUMS ENCOURAGED THIS PRACTICE IN THE RACE FOR BECOMINGTHE ONE TO PROVIDE THE MUCH SOUGH HEIR TO THE THRONE

Quote

myviewprem

@myviewprem

Sparkler

+ 3

Posted: 10 years ago

#259

Originally posted by: Coolpree

Shyamala and Mandy, I agree absolutely Manjhi ...no doubt. Isn't it ironical that Manji built that road so the villagers can seek medical help faster but his own daughter in Law Basanti Devi died in 2014 because she could not afford medical care???? .. such is the wretched poverty in India's Heartland ...What a shame Shame!!😭

i think a person like manjhi should get an award like bharat ratna or nobel prize

Quote

myviewprem

@myviewprem

Sparkler

+ 3

Posted: 10 years ago

#260

Originally posted by: smartfotografi

Jodha Akbar Episode 3 and 4

Purity of companionship

My question is, is Sujamal the real person in Indian History (in Mughal period)? or a fiction character. When Jodha came to Amer court in a messy condition, Sujamal is the first person who's so angry when he looks Jodha in that condition. This is so ironic, the purity of Jodha-Sujamal relationship always make me gloomy overwhelm. They can't support each other all the time, but they bound in depth. But, they must detached, and kind of support and bound did not receive from her own brothers. Sujamal figure for Jodha its not only cousin, friend, guard, and teacher also. Clearly, without Sujamal, Jodha is LONELY.

Yes sujamal is a real person, his name was surajmal not sujamal

He was son of puranmal the eldest step brother of bharamal. Bharamal was never in race of kingship as he was fourth brother but puranmal died young in battle. So his brothers became king but they were cruel to the people. So the people threw them out and made bharamal caretaker till surajmal is big. surajmal was a baby when his dad died. But bharamal upsured the throne for himself and his sons. Surajmal and his mother were prisoners in palace and their life was in grave danger so at age of 12 he and she went to her brothers house. She died there only and surajmal returned to get back his right but bharamal refused to make his king although he was eldest heir to throne. Indeed purnamal was son of main queen and bharamal was son of a secondary queen not chief queen.

When bharamal refused to give surajmal the throne, he went and started taking help of other rajputh kings to favour him for throne instead of bhagwan das and many supported too. He even decided to go and ask shahenshah akbar his rights in case that did not work. At that time sharifuddin had already attacked amer a few years back and captured a brother of bharamal and his nephew and two sons. Bharamal was in trouble one side surajmal threatened his and his sons throne(along with few rajputh kings on his side) and second side sharifuddin had captured his sons(i doubt he cared for his younger brother and nephews sons) and forced him to pay large sums every year. And if suramal met akbar first akbar would support him because his father puranmal and humayun fought together in wars against bahadur shah. And most probabbly hamida and maham had knowledge of this and even akbar's old commanders knew puranmal well and would have adviced him to help surajmal.

So Bharamal decided to meet akbar and a commander of akbar(i forgot his name) took bharamal to meet akbar. That time bharamal came up with a brillaint plan to save his kingdom for himself and his sons, he proposed marriage of jodha to akbar. Akbar discussed with his senior commanders and foster fathers and agreed and told marriage should be arranged on his way back from ajmer.

So as per history akbar never asked for jodha's hand in marriage, it was a proposal from bharamal which akbar discussed and then decided as he wanted friendship with rajpuths and be accepted as a local person in hindustan. Bharamal was safe from surajmal threat and his sons would be free. This was like throwing one stone and killing two birds idea by bharamal. Now even if surajmal met akbar and asked him justice akbar had was tied as he was married to bharamal daughter and bhagwan das was his brother in law. If akbar knew about surajmal before only may be he would have helped him and not bharamal? and may be history would be different then.

But bharamal played a brillaint game and won and secured future of his and his sons to throne.

Edited by myviewprem - 10 years ago