2 ms·
I suspect Akbar’s “illiteracy” like the similar case of Charlemange, was probably performative. Both were representing dynasties whose people were recently cons
by InfiniteRand 6y ago
I suspect Akbar’s “illiteracy” like the similar case of Charlemange, was probably performative. Both were representing dynasties whose people were recently considered barbarians. While being a sponsor of learning brings great prestige, being too literate can make you look soft and corrupted by decadent civilization (Chinese history has a repeated pattern of coups like this against conquering inner Asians who became too Chinese). Not a serious historical theory mind you, just some irresponsible speculation
- valarauko 6y agoThere might be some merit to this idea, though I'm not sure it really applies to Akbar, or even the early Mughals. His youth was also fairly tumultuous, and in the early years the continuation of the Timurids in India was not a sure thing. Besides, while the early Mughals may have been only the latest new kids on the block in Delhi, they were part of the same Persianate culture that had dominated North India for close to half a millennia by that point. I doubt there would be much value in performative illiteracy in this context. For what it's worth, while Persian was the court language, the Mughals retained their Turkic dialect as a household language, and Akbar was conversant in the major Hindi dialects. There is evidence that subsequent Mughals and the vast number of Mirza princelings in the Imperial household grew up speaking Hindi as their primary language with their Rajput mothers, before formal instruction in Turkic, Persian, and Arabic.