4 ms·
"The Mughal's did bad things too, but some of their kings like Akbar at least tried to integrate society and not cause religious strife." I wouldn't be so sure
by fooker 9y ago
"The Mughal's did bad things too, but some of their kings like Akbar at least tried to integrate society and not cause religious strife."
I wouldn't be so sure of that. A lot of Akbar's praises can be attributed to 'creative' history writing after the 1950s.
- apsec112 9y agoInteresting, do you have sources for that?
- portpecos 9y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus Scroll down to Akbar and you'll find some interesting things. Also of interest is Allauddin Khilji.
- indogooner 9y agoIt only talks about Akbar's early reign (remember he was crowned at the age of 13) and was under the influence of Bairam Khan. Later years he removed the jaziya tax on Hindus, gave them high postions in his court and would not be recognized as Muslim (see Din i Ilahi). He is also supposed to have made a lot of effort to understand other religions. There is a reason why he and Asoka are considered Great Emperors of India.
- product50 9y agoYeah - great point with amazing sources. This is really helpful. Now we will wait for you to give 1 of those links which will confirm your point while you ignore 1000s which contradict it. If Akbar was bad and made to look good by creative history writing, why didn't the same apply for other Mughal rulers such as Aurangzeb (who was just evil) or Shah Jehan (who was a weak ruler)?