5 ms·

Despite the hype, Akbar was not tolerant at all. Like most Muslim kings in India, he was heavy-handed towards Hindus but was also towards Shia Muslim [1]. He or

by n_t 6y ago

Despite the hype, Akbar was not tolerant at all. Like most Muslim kings in India, he was heavy-handed towards Hindus but was also towards Shia Muslim [1]. He ordered numerous massacre of Hindus (e.g. massacre in Garha in 1560 AD[2], order to weight Janeu - a cotton thread worn by hindus - of killed Hindus which weighed 200kg [3], rewarded Abd al-Qadir Badauni with gold coins who soak his Islamic beard in Hindu infidel blood [4]), had many Hindu temples razed/looted and destroyed, among many other things. Despite many facts, AFAICT, India is only country which portrays its invaders and looters as heroes. [1] ’Akbar and His India’ by Irfan Habib [2] The SAGE Encyclopedia of War: Social Science Perspectives edited by Paul Joseph [3] Emperors of the Peacock Throne: The Saga of the Great Mughals By Abraham Eraly [4] Source: The Legacy of Jihad:Islamic Holy War & the Fate of Non-Muslims edited by Andrew G. Bostom

keiferski 6y ago
As I said, > quite tolerant for the time Compared to most contemporaries, he was certainly tolerant of pluralism. Compared to today, of course not, but that should be obvious.
nefitty 6y ago
> AFAICT, India is only country which portrays its invaders and looters as heroes. The US still widely observes Columbus Day, despite it being a celebration of, “...the greatest waves of genocide of the American Indians known in history.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbus_Day#Opposition_to_Columbus_celebrations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbus_Day#Opposition_to_Col... I’m sure there are many other countries with similarly strained relationships to their “heroes”.
puranjay 6y ago
Nations are usually built on lies. Most countries would likely fall apart if they were completely truthful about their histories. In India's case, the whitewashing of Mughal rule was a necessity because there are still a substantial number of Muslims living in India, and painting their ancestors - the Mughals - as barbaric invaders would likely lead to violence (especially when seen in the context of the Partition violence). At this point, India has to confront a hard question: does it continue believing the old lies, or does it accept the harsher reality? If we go with the latter, can you be confident that the country will survive in its present form? I'm not sure of the answer. The mature position would be to understand that the violence and religious persecution happened, but since that's in the past, we can't really change anything about it. Punishing the present does not undo the sins of the ancestors. But I'm not convinced that most people will take the mature position.
- srean 6y ago
  Your point is very well taken. Empire making and keeping is inherently violent, but the current trend seems to be trying to make the case that Hindu emperors achieved what they achieved with peace, rainbows and divine fairness (and some old Hindu science of flying machines, plastic surgery between humans and elephant heads. All lost because of outside invasion). Pushing this point of view has been the national agenda in the current political situation.
  - puranjay 6y ago
    If nothing else, it's a gross oversimplification of history - a basic "us vs them" narration. When in reality, alliances were driven more by political necessity than by religion. There were Hindu generals in Mughal armies, just as there were Muslim commanders in the Maratha armies. If you trace the Mughal family tree, you'll also find that someone like Shah Jahan was 75% Indian by blood (Hindu Rajput grandmom, Hindu Rajput mom). Make of that what you will.
    - srean 6y ago
      Agreed. Even the notion that the British took India from the Mughals is quite a laughable notion. Mughals were a shadow of themselves at that time. India was taken from the Marathas, not the Mughals. An aside, are you aware of significant artifacts (more than hill top forts) institutions that the Marathas left behind. I would be quite interested in knowing about them. With the subject matter so politically charged it is hard to have levelheaded conversations on it.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - drieddust 6y ago
    There is various degrees of violence. In Indian context Kings fought each other to grab kingdoms but that did not translate into general massacre of public for their religious beliefs until Islam arrived.Of course this comes from my little knowledge of Indian History so I will be happy to learn more. > some old Hindu science of flying machines, plastic surgery between humans and elephant heads. All lost because of outside invasion). I do not subscribe to this nationalistic view. But then a lot of knowledge from India did get appropriated and lost. Take the example of Fibonacci series. Europe didn't adopt decimal numerals until 16th century and yet Fibonacci was able to invent his series?? No, he himself wrote I learned this from Indian and I am merely translating it. Yet it's called Fibonacci series with no attribution to its origin.[1] Nalanda reportedly had 10k students, 2000 teachers, and 9 million books. When Khilji destroyed it, library burned for 3 months as reported by the historian of the destroyer himself so saying nothing was lost is just not real.[2] [1] Liber Abaci [2] Tabaqat-i Nasiri - Minhaj-i-Siraj

by n_t 6y ago

keiferski 6y ago

As I said, > quite tolerant for the time Compared to most contemporaries, he was certainly tolerant of pluralism. Compared to today, of course not, but that should be obvious.

nefitty 6y ago

> AFAICT, India is only country which portrays its invaders and looters as heroes. The US still widely observes Columbus Day, despite it being a celebration of, “...the greatest waves of genocide of the American Indians known in history.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbus_Day#Opposition_to_Columbus_celebrations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbus_Day#Opposition_to_Col... I’m sure there are many other countries with similarly strained relationships to their “heroes”.

puranjay 6y ago

Nations are usually built on lies. Most countries would likely fall apart if they were completely truthful about their histories. In India's case, the whitewashing of Mughal rule was a necessity because there are still a substantial number of Muslims living in India, and painting their ancestors - the Mughals - as barbaric invaders would likely lead to violence (especially when seen in the context of the Partition violence). At this point, India has to confront a hard question: does it continue believing the old lies, or does it accept the harsher reality? If we go with the latter, can you be confident that the country will survive in its present form? I'm not sure of the answer. The mature position would be to understand that the violence and religious persecution happened, but since that's in the past, we can't really change anything about it. Punishing the present does not undo the sins of the ancestors. But I'm not convinced that most people will take the mature position.

srean 6y ago
Your point is very well taken. Empire making and keeping is inherently violent, but the current trend seems to be trying to make the case that Hindu emperors achieved what they achieved with peace, rainbows and divine fairness (and some old Hindu science of flying machines, plastic surgery between humans and elephant heads. All lost because of outside invasion). Pushing this point of view has been the national agenda in the current political situation.
- puranjay 6y ago
  If nothing else, it's a gross oversimplification of history - a basic "us vs them" narration. When in reality, alliances were driven more by political necessity than by religion. There were Hindu generals in Mughal armies, just as there were Muslim commanders in the Maratha armies. If you trace the Mughal family tree, you'll also find that someone like Shah Jahan was 75% Indian by blood (Hindu Rajput grandmom, Hindu Rajput mom). Make of that what you will.
  - srean 6y ago
    Agreed. Even the notion that the British took India from the Mughals is quite a laughable notion. Mughals were a shadow of themselves at that time. India was taken from the Marathas, not the Mughals. An aside, are you aware of significant artifacts (more than hill top forts) institutions that the Marathas left behind. I would be quite interested in knowing about them. With the subject matter so politically charged it is hard to have levelheaded conversations on it.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- drieddust 6y ago
  There is various degrees of violence. In Indian context Kings fought each other to grab kingdoms but that did not translate into general massacre of public for their religious beliefs until Islam arrived.Of course this comes from my little knowledge of Indian History so I will be happy to learn more. > some old Hindu science of flying machines, plastic surgery between humans and elephant heads. All lost because of outside invasion). I do not subscribe to this nationalistic view. But then a lot of knowledge from India did get appropriated and lost. Take the example of Fibonacci series. Europe didn't adopt decimal numerals until 16th century and yet Fibonacci was able to invent his series?? No, he himself wrote I learned this from Indian and I am merely translating it. Yet it's called Fibonacci series with no attribution to its origin.[1] Nalanda reportedly had 10k students, 2000 teachers, and 9 million books. When Khilji destroyed it, library burned for 3 months as reported by the historian of the destroyer himself so saying nothing was lost is just not real.[2] [1] Liber Abaci [2] Tabaqat-i Nasiri - Minhaj-i-Siraj