Akbar the Great!

History does not speak truth always, it is the perception of writer and his/her inclination to political thoughts that affects history writing.

It is not true. The Title "Great" was not a self conferred title. It was conferred by the English and Indian Historians . The Great Title on Akbar is well justified.

Akbar was a mughal emperor but being a mughal emperor he did a lot for Hindus too in his rule. May be that's the reason he was tittled with ''great''. There is nothing wrong in it in my opinion.

Sanjeev Gupta wrote:

Akbar was a mughal emperor but being a mughal emperor he did a lot for Hindus too in his rule. May be that's the reason he was tittled with ''great''. There is nothing wrong in it in my opinion.

 

I'm also of the same opinion. His welfare activities are not just restricted to Muslims. He has seen that all his welfare activities are applicable to all communities and religions.

There could be different views. Many may not like to accept Akbar as 'Great'  but they have no option. Akbar is 'Great'  according to historians world wide. Nobody can now change. This is just like that many don't like the title 'father of nation'  for Mahatma Gandhi. But this does not affect gandhi. He will always be known as 'father of the nation'. 

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:

There could be different views. Many may not like to accept Akbar as 'Great'  but they have no option. Akbar is 'Great'  according to historians world wide. Nobody can now change. This is just like that many don't like the title 'father of nation'  for Mahatma Gandhi. But this does not affect gandhi. He will always be known as 'father of the nation'. 

 

History can neither be distorted nor changed. Yes, I agree with you. There are many still, Hitler.is being appreciated. History depicted him as a cruel Nazi who massacred lakhs of people in his infamous concentration camps. Hitler remains as a war criminal and was tried. Because, there are Hitler lovers still, can Hitler become a Gentleman? Similarly Gaddafi and Saddam Hussain .

 

It was confronted by British and Indian historians of left and center thoughts, no one is denying his greatness but should other prominent persons not be given the status which might have deliberately omitted by such partisan historians.

That will be decided by the eminent Historians. If there is a need to add to the list of Prominent people, they will take a decision.

Prominent and neutral historians would be taking decisions, so that true picture of history comes to light.

Yes you are right. The Historians should be impartial

rambabu wrote:

That will be decided by the eminent Historians. If there is a need to add to the list of Prominent people, they will take a decision.

 

Once a person is decided great by historians then it should be changed as then question arises why they decided to give him the title before.

Does any of you know the meaning of what is written in the below mentioned statement?

Khabardar sahiban nazren neechee - Jille Elahi, Shan-e-Hind, Azeem-O-Shaan- Shahenshahon ke Shahenshah Jalaluddin Mohammed Akbar Darbar me Tashreef la rahe hain!

The above bold lettered title was not conferred on Akbar by the historians but his own servants and courtiers so he was bound to be great. Now decide for yourself the chobdars who used to announce Akbars' arrival in the court were really able to see in the future who knew at that time itself that he will become GREAT one day.

Besides we were never short of traitors (we still are not) especially Hindus who would do anything in their self interest to support them for self gain or to show their secularism which has left this country in the stage that it is in today.

''Which has left this country in the stage that it is in today''. I couldn't get it. It's written in history books that Akbar never differentiate Hindus being a mughal. He treated Hinduism equally. I would call him great because I never heard any Muslim king doing the same. 

Sanjeev Gupta wrote:

''Which has left this country in the stage that it is in today''. I couldn't get it. It's written in history books that Akbar never differentiate Hindus being a mughal. He treated Hinduism equally. I would call him great because I never heard any Muslim king doing the same. 

 

Just because an invader treated you cleverly he became GREAT- really great philosophy!

 

 

suni51 wrote:

Sanjeev Gupta wrote:

''Which has left this country in the stage that it is in today''. I couldn't get it. It's written in history books that Akbar never differentiate Hindus being a mughal. He treated Hinduism equally. I would call him great because I never heard any Muslim king doing the same. 

 

Just because an invader treated you cleverly he became GREAT- really great philosophy!

 

He would have made all Hindus Muslim like aurengzeb tried to do in his dynasty but he did not. Don't you think he could have done it forcibly.;-)

 

 

 

Sanjeev Gupta wrote:

suni51 wrote:

Sanjeev Gupta wrote:

''Which has left this country in the stage that it is in today''. I couldn't get it. It's written in history books that Akbar never differentiate Hindus being a mughal. He treated Hinduism equally. I would call him great because I never heard any Muslim king doing the same. 

 

Just because an invader treated you cleverly he became GREAT- really great philosophy!

 

He would have made all Hindus Muslim like aurengzeb tried to do in his dynasty but he did not. Don't you think he could have done it forcibly.;-)

 

No he could not, that's where people like Maharana Pratap and Sikh Gurus were played their role. He had to play carefully which he did and you thought he was a great humanitarian. He was a clever king that's all.

 

 

 

 

suni51 wrote:

Sanjeev Gupta wrote:

suni51 wrote:

Sanjeev Gupta wrote:

''Which has left this country in the stage that it is in today''. I couldn't get it. It's written in history books that Akbar never differentiate Hindus being a mughal. He treated Hinduism equally. I would call him great because I never heard any Muslim king doing the same. 

 

Just because an invader treated you cleverly he became GREAT- really great philosophy!

 

He would have made all Hindus Muslim like aurengzeb tried to do in his dynasty but he did not. Don't you think he could have done it forcibly.;-)

 

No he could not, that's where people like Maharana Pratap and Sikh Gurus were played their role. He had to play carefully which he did and you thought he was a great humanitarian. He was a clever king that's all.

 

"He would have made all Hindus into Muslims." is a speculation and presumption . History sees the final product. It doesn't have a place for speculations and unfounded fears.

 

 

 

 

 

Who says this is speculation Aurangzeb tried it but couldn't succeed. Akbar never thought of this that's the reason he allowed her wife jodha to have a temple in his Mahal.

Akbar's title of "the great' is now contested as many feel he was not so great. In fact he carried out massacre of a lot of hindus and in addition there is an incident when he wished to take his friends for an outing to see the spectacle of Sati. Not a sign of greatness. even his abolition of Jizzia was more on paper than reality. in fact he had banned it thrice and no result.

Please read http://hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/akbar_vs.html

Who gave the title to Akbar ' the Great" . how many are aware ?  The title came to be used only in thirties and became full blown after 1947 as per the education policy of Congress. Many European and American  historians  like Will Durant have classified Akbar only a let less sanguine than other Mughals.