Akbar the "Great"

The recently released fictional fairy tale movie, "Jodha Akbar" has stirred the hornet's nest by depicting a period in Indian History when Mughals ruled India. It has started many debates, and has led to many protests across India. The debates and protests pertained to the supposedly misrepresented history, as one cannot tell for sure whether Akbar did or did not marry a rajput princess named Jodhabai. But these protests and debates missed another important point, perhaps which is more important than any other debatable issues about this movie, the portrayal of Akbar as India's emporer and for that matter the mughal rule itself.

The following paragraph appears in the Indian History article on wikipedia.

" Liberal Muslim kings are also a part of Indian pride. Akbar was a powerful Mughal emperor who admired Hinduism, forged familial and political bonds with Hindu Rajput kings, and developed for the first time in medieval India an environment of religious freedom. Akbar undid most forms of religious discrimination, and invited the participation of wise Hindu ministers and kings, and even religious scholars in his court. In his reign, India was politically powerful, prosperous and its common people secure."

Akbar was not just an Indian Muslim King. In fact, he was not Indian at all. I do not understand why our history books eulogize him as a great Indian ruler.In the movie Jodha akbar(which is a mediocre movie, to say the least),the director Ashutosh Gowarikar has made miserable attempts to show him as an "Indian" and in the process has twisted history.

Akbar's grandfather, Babur, a ruler of a small central asian state, brought the Mughal tribe to India as a mercenary army. His father, Humayun, hardly stayed in India, as he was exiled initially, and died shortly after he finally managed to recapture power.Akbar, who was incidently born on Indian soil, was brought up in Afghanistan.It is very difficult to comprehend how he can be described as an Indian.

By that standard, even Rudyard Kipling would be a better Indian than Akbar, or for that matter any british who was born and brought up India at the fag end of the British Raj, with 3-4 generations of his family living in India, taking 150 years of British presence in India into account. There could be many examples of such British families.

I am not sure how Akbar could have developed love and affection for India as his motherland. His feelings at the best can be described as being similar to that of an owner towards his/her property, which should not be mistaken with feelings of genuine affection.

His grandfather, Babur, has written the following in Baburnama,

"Hindustan is a place of little charm. There is no beauty in its people, no graceful social intercourse, no poetic talent or understanding, no etiquette, nobility or manliness. The arts and crafts have no harmony or symmetry. There are no good horses, meat, grapes, melons or other fruit. There is no ice, cold water, good food or bread in the markets. There are no baths and no madrasas. There are no candles, torches or candlesticks."

While , the following inscription has been carved on his tomb in Kabul,

"If there is a paradise on earth, it is this, it is this, it is this!"

One cannot blame him for this, as India was not his motherland, central asia was. How can we expect a dramatic transition in just two generations? Babur, Akbar and all the mughals were foreign aggressors who conquered and ruled our land, but they never belonged here.
It would be like calling Mountbatten, a great "Indian" governer general.

The myths of the benevolence of Akbar as a ruler, or how great ruler he proved to be, and how liberal he was with hindus or other Indian communal denominations need to be analysed in historical context. True, he had abolished jiziya, and had hindu ministers and generals in his court.

Even Aurangzeb had Hindu generals like Mirza Raja Jaisingh, who commanded mighty armies. (Mirza Raje Jaisingh was dispatched to eliminate Shivaji maharaj and swarajya in Maharashtra. He was killed by aurangzeb by treachery.)
But that doesn't make him a tolerant ruler, does it?(Assuming all agree that he was not. One must not wonder, if tommorrow some movie or book glorifies him as a tolerant and great "Indian" ruler.)

Lord Bentinck abolished the Sati by law and introduced reform.Queen Victoria's proclamation, after the 1857 uprising, promised all goodies to Indians like non-interference in religious matters, no further usurption of princely states, and lots more. And there was no violation of Queen Victoria's proclamation by the british, in subsequent years.

But that doesn't translate into " Queen Victoria and the British Raj: The tolerant, just, great "Indian" empress and her Indian empire". Does it?

Akbar did try very much to destroy all native opposition the Mughals, notably from the rajputs. Some wavered, and sided with him, and they managed to survive, which is no glory. Many great fighters like Rana Pratap refused to surrender their independance and honour to foriegners and fought to martrydom. Akbar, after many conquests had ordered mass executions, a fact little represented.

So how do we describe Akbar? May be a shade better that despots like Aurangzeb. But Great Indian Emporer, never.

Alternative analysis of his so called tolerant and liberal nature can be had as follows. Humayun had just managed to wrest back the control of Delhi, when he died. Mughal power in India at that point of time was new, weak and vulnerable. Continuation of the agenda of his holy fighter or Ghazi(fighters of Islam, and destroyers of pagan idol worshippers) lineage of Chengiz khan and Taimurlang was not going to be easy. It is reasonable to beleive that he was proud of his ancestry, beleived to be of Chengiz khan and Taimur lang, all of whom were champions of militant Islam and destroyers of non-believers, and aspired to as "great" as all of them.

But Mughal rule in India was in no shape to allow that. Hence , clever and cunning as he was,Akbar managed to sow divide between the Indian ranks, mainly composed of rajput princes, converted some of them to his side. Those who didn't join him, were brutally destroyed. To keep those Rajput pillars of the Mughal establishment intact, he had to be seen as a liberal. The rest is history. In case of aurangzeb, he had no need to be liberal, as he had inherited a strong and well entrenched Mughal empire.

So Akbar, portrayed as a great and liberal emporer, has been acting as a counterweight to other fanatics like Babur, Jehangir and Aurangzeb , so as to manage a "balanced" picture of the Mughal era. This plain and simple twisting and manipulation of history. But it has been done so for years together in this regard, and now we tend to take these things as granted.

In fact it was no better than the British rule, in fact far worse.

So now, the important question remains, what was the motive behind such tampering with history, negationism and concealment?

May be some elements in India still identify themselves with the Mughal rulers. They have a subconscious conviction that they are the rightful owners of the subcontinent and they captured it in the form of Mughal empire.

Pakistan is the manifestation of the extremist fringe of these elements.

Just have a look at the website of pakistan government. We all wondered what history is taught in pakistani schools, since it did not exist before 1947. They teach the history of Mughal rule in India. And of Mahmud of Ghazani, mahamud ghori and all those foreign aggressors. They tell their children that their forefathers won India in war. The british took it away, and then Quaid-e- Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah restored some of the glory by creation of pakistan. They teach the philosophy of "Hak se liya pakistan, cheen ke lenge hindustan"( pakistan was earned by right, hindustan would be earned by might) which was their war cry at the time of partition.

We all would agree that these elements exist in some form or the other, in varying concentration and ideological fervour, in present day India.

And to appease them, it is imperative that the history of Mughals be presented in positive light, that they be shown as rightful rulers of India. This perverse logic has led to blatant twisting and misrepresentation of history.

But we nationalists have to stand by Indian honour and treat aggressors as they were. Any glorification of an aggressor would be direct insult to our national honour.

Vande Mataram!!