Why hasn't Pakistan named any of its weapons after Akbar?

[Shaitan]

Well in the earlier part of his Life Akbar was not so "great" as we read in our history books.

He was a twilight secularist. One whose tolerance levels increased at the later part of his life.

Akbar is one of the awkward/strange figures in Indian history. He did some really bad things, but again he did some good.

 

[pmaitra]

Akbar is some of the awkward/strange figures in Indian history. He did some really bad things, but again he did some good.

Akbar an awkward figure? Akbar did bad things? I am not aware. Please elaborate...

 

[Sabir]

Well in the earlier part of his Life Akbar was not so "great" as we read in our history books.

He was a twilight secularist. One whose tolerance levels increased at the later part of his life.

Dont forget Akbar became emperor at a age of 13 years and for sometimes he was controlled by others....first by Bairam Khan and then maham Anga.....So you need to give him some time to mature

A reason that Akbar was tolerant that he was born and brought up in a Rajput family when Humayun was running here and there....

 

[KS]

akbar an awkward figure? Akbar did bad things? I am not aware. Please elaborate...

fall of chitod and slaughter of 30,000 captive hindu peasants

despite nearly five centuries of muslim occupation of india, rajasthan in 1567 ce was still almost entirely hindu. Akbar infiltrated the area by marrying into rajasthan's ruling houses and by steadily capturing various forts on the eastern fringe of rajputana. But the senior house of rajasthan, rana of mewar proudly refused any alliance with mughals. Akbar's army started a campaign for chitod in 1567. Rana of mewar, uday singh left his capital, the great fort of chitod to be defended by 8,000 rajputs under an excellent commander, jai mal, and took himself and his family to the safety of the hills. Akbar arrived on october 24, 1567 and laid a siege of chitod. Akbar's huge army's camp stretched for almost ten miles . Akbar planned two methods of assault -mining and building a 'sabat', a structure which provides the invading army a cover of a high wall as it progresses 'infinitely slowly' towards the fort wall and tightens the noose around the fort. The mining proved disastrous since an explosion of a mistimed second mine claimed akbar's nearly 200 men including some leading nobles. As the noose of 'sabat' tightened, akbar forces lost nearly 200 men a day to musket fire from the fort. Almost four months after the siege, on february 23, 1567, a musket shot fired from the mughal army killed jai mal. Some chroniclers claim that this shot was fired by akbar himself. With the death of their leader jai mal, the rajputs for a while lost heart. That night flames leapt to the sky as thousands of rajput women performed jauhar (act of self-immolation, the term is a corruption of jay har - meaning hail shiva). They preferred jumping into a roaring fire, to being captured by mughal akbar. Later events do lend credit to their astute judgement. This was the third jauhar in the history of chitod.

Next day the rajputs under a new young leader patta singh donned on the saffron robes - kesariya, in preparation for a fight to death, flung open the gates of the fort and charged on to the mughal army. Patta singh, his mother and his wife duly died in the ensuing battle as did many rajput warriors. Later, the victorious mughal army entered the fort of chitod. At the time there were 40,000 hindu peasants and artisans residing on the fort besides the rajput army. Akbar then ordered a massacre of all the captured unarmed 40,000 hindus, some artisans indeed were spared and taken away but the slain amounted to at least 30,000 (5,6,7,8,9) akbar was particularly keen to avenge himself on the thousand musketeers who had done much damage to his troops, but they escaped by the boldest of the tricks. Binding their own women and children, and shoving them roughly along like new captives, the rajput musketeers successfully passed themselves off as a detachment of the victorious mughals and so made their way out of the fort .

The massacre of 30,000 captive hindus at chitod by akbar has left an indelible blot on his name. No such horrors were perpetrated by even the brutal ala-ud-din khilji who had captured the fort in 1303 ce. Abul fazl, akbar's court chronicler is at pains in trying to justify this slaughter. In the later period of his rule, akbar later had statues of patta and jai mal, riding on elephants, installed at the gate of his imperial palace at agra. Although probably intended as a compliment for their heroism, it was open to misconstruction since in the earlier history jai chand had placed a similar statue of prithvi raj chauhan at the gate of his palace (as a dwarpal) at the swayamvar of his daughter sanyogita.

Sir thomas roe, an englishman who visited chitod some fifty years later, found the fort deserted. In fact, it remained a firm tenet of mughal policy throughout the next century that fortifications of chitod, which till then was the capital of the then strongest hindu rana, should remain unrepaired, perhaps as a lesson to hindus who dared to take on the mughals.

Rana pratap singh of mewar, son of rana uday singh, kept the rajput resistance to akbar alive and tried to reclaim the glory of chitod.

 

[KS]

The guys who said Munafiq and Kaafir are right, Akbar united the nation and gave Hindus an important role whithin the hithero completely Muslim dominated court, Something that the ideological successors of Pakistan's Godfather Maulana Maududi cannot digest to this day. Pakistanis are taught that Aurangzeb was a greater ruler than Akbar.This was done as part of the Islamization of Pakistan that was started after Jinnah's death(Jinnah wanted a secular Pakistan based upon Muslim ideals).

The most important reason for that being a pragmatic way of expanding his kingdom rather than any altruistic motives. Lets not demonize anyone nor beatify them unnecessarily.

Dont forget Akbar became emperor at a age of 13 years and for sometimes he was controlled by others....first by Bairam Khan and then maham Anga.....So you need to give him some time to mature

A reason that Akbar was tolerant that he was born and brought up in a Rajput family when Humayun was running here and there....

That is what I meant by saying he was a twilight secularist whose tolerance levels increased when his testosterone levels reduced. Earlier in his life he was like any other Islamic king that had ruled India till then - brutal and unforgiving towards infidels, but to his credit he became more tolerant during the later stages of his life.

 

[KS]

That night flames leapt to the sky as thousands of rajput women performed jauhar (act of self-immolation, the term is a corruption of jay har - meaning hail shiva). They preferred jumping into a roaring fire, to being captured by mughal akbar.

And thus are the origins of Sati - a practice that became to reviled about 3 centuries later and promptly done away with.

 

[niharjhatn]

That night flames leapt to the sky as thousands of rajput women performed jauhar (act of self-immolation, the term is a corruption of jay har - meaning hail shiva). They preferred jumping into a roaring fire, to being captured by mughal akbar.

And thus are the origins of Sati - a practice that became to reviled about 3 centuries later and promptly done away with.

Yes, it's origins are so heroic, isn't it? Instead, India has developed infamous notoriety for forcibly burning women...

I think it also has something to do with the case of Madri (wife of Pandu) also committing self-immolation upon Pandu's death...almost 'idealizing' such behaviour and respect for one's husband. Such servitude was emphasized even more in the Mahabharata with Dhritarashtra's wife Gandari binding her eyes, refusing to see and share the joys of sight if her husband could not.

 

[johnee]

Akbar founded another religion, didnt he? So, how can the Islamic Republic of Pakistan venerate the munafiq Akbar?

 

[johnee]

Yes, it's origins are so heroic, isn't it? Instead, India has developed infamous notoriety for forcibly burning women...

I think it also has something to do with the case of Madri (wife of Pandu) also committing self-immolation upon Pandu's death...almost 'idealizing' such behaviour and respect for one's husband. Such servitude was emphasized even more in the Mahabharata with Dhritarashtra's wife Gandari binding her eyes, refusing to see and share the joys of sight if her husband could not.

The case of sati in scriptures is very rare and indeed it is celebrated as a great sacrifice for love. The practice was not only not obligatory but also discouraged. In Ramayana, Lord Rama consoles Tara(wife of Vali, brother of Sugreeva) who wanted to commit sati. Later, Tara re-marries and lives happily.

The practice of sati became prevalent when Hindu society was under assault from barbaric cultures. The women preffered death than to surrender to uncivilised enemy hordes.

 

[Virendra]

That night flames leapt to the sky as thousands of rajput women performed jauhar (act of self-immolation, the term is a corruption of jay har - meaning hail shiva). They preferred jumping into a roaring fire, to being captured by mughal akbar.

And thus are the origins of Sati - a practice that became to reviled about 3 centuries later and promptly done away with.

Storming cases have happened as late as 1987, again in Rajasthan:
Deorala - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The famous Deorala sati case where a rajput woman Roop Kanwar had given her life. There is controversy over whether she was induced via sedatives or did it by her own wish. But the locals staunchly claim that it was her own decision and noone had expected it, she actually took everyone by surprise. The case of criminal plot is pending in court but is weak because as soon as the new broke out, a lot of people had gathered and seen her jumping in the fire by their own eyes. Now she is worshipped like a goddess in that area even today. I consider it something like an over developed respect towards a perceived act of supreme sacrifice.

Sati custom was done away with the reasoning that:
a) By no means it was acceptable in a 20th century civil society system to let a woman die in such a way.
b) Orthodox male dominated society would be forcible and misuse this medieval custom to its satisfaction - killing many innocent women and wash hands by saying she died sati and by her own wish.

On a personal note, I do not have a position actually .. neither in favor nor against. Because such intense committment and its raw emotional manifestation is no longer found in marital bonds. Sati would be rare now anyways, more so after abolishment. There is a proper act in place to prevent it and prosecute the parties which allowed/encouraged so.
By the way, we're going OT now. Lets stick to Jalaluddin 'Akbar'.

Regards,
Virendra

 

[KS]

Yes, it's origins are so heroic, isn't it? Instead, India has developed infamous notoriety for forcibly burning women...

You can do better without the sarcasm mate.

Sati started because those women preferred to die rather than be slaves in the harems of the Islamic invaders and in those periods it may have been the easy way out for them.

But by the 18 th century it had become obsolete because the Islamic invasions had stopped and so it was time to do away with that practise and promptly done away with.

I don't see any reason for sarcasm/pessimism as no one is glorifying it. Certain social practises come into being in a particular time for a purpose and when they become obsolete due to changed circumstances they are done away with. This has been one thing that has been throughout the history of mankind.

 

[Yusuf]

BR, this Jinnah wanted a secular Pakistan thingy is a figment of someone's imagination. He was first of all selfish, may be he too wanted to "father of some nation". Jinnah is one treacherous person, that trend is still on in Pakistan.