Indian Movies Thread V

[Guest]

I am happy there is a debate on this issue, atleast vast Hindu population will think again, how Muslim/commie historians twisted facts and create fantasy and so-called love story.

[Bodhi]

<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Feb 2 2008, 08:34 AM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Feb 2 2008, 08:34 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->In the middle of 16th century, Raja Bharmal, who ruled over Amer (Jaipur), was under tremendous pressure from all sides. On the one hand, he was facing the threat of an attack from the powerful Meena chieftains, and, on the other, the ruler of Jodhpur was making determined efforts to snatch some of his territory, including the strategically located Sambhar.

In January 1562, Akbar, then 20, was on his way to Ajmer. He had camped at Dausa, about 50 km from Amer. Raja Bharmal went to see him with the hope that Akbar could help him. Historical records confirm the meeting had taken place. Akbar reciprocated to the friendship offer because he knew the value of making peace in the neighbourhood of Delhi. The young emperor hoped to solidify alliances by marrying into the families of the rulers of Amer, Bikaner and Jodhpur.

In the meeting, it was agreed upon that Raja Bharmal would offer to get his daughter, Heera Kanwar, married to Akbar. The official records of the Jaipur royal family show that on February 6,1562, Heera Kanwar's wedding was solemnised with the Mughal ruler at Sambhar. Naturally, this caused a scandal in the Rajput society. The ruling families of Mewar and Udaipur severed ties with Amer. They also advised the other Rajput royal families to follow suit as it was against their pride to marry their daughters to non-Rajputs. A Muslim groom was out of question.
[right][snapback]77944[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Above has a few things which are disputed by many other narratives of this episode. Especially the famous Dr A L Srivastava's account has a few differences.

But before that, there are many other *facts* which need to be told.

First of all, Akbar had another wife already at the above mentioned time: Salma Sultana Begum - who was none other than his own aunt - widow of his maternal uncle and guardian Behram Khan. Behram Khan was suspiciously trampled upon by a group of elephants when he was sleeping in his tent on an expedition. The episode was really strange because Khan had only recently survived another attempt upon his life.

Akbar - of about 17 years then (or 15, per another account) - married one of the rather good looking and young widow - Salima Sultana Begum - the mother of 3 year old boy who would later become Abdur-rahim-khankhana one of his famous krishna-devotee noble.

Above is recorded in some detail, by famous Mugal history specialist Dr. A L Srivastava in Vol 1 of 'Akbar the Great'.

Another incident must be noted to understand the lusting mind of Akbar. Another noble of his - Sheikh Abdul Wasi - was bereft of his good looking legally married bride who was forced to join Akbar's harem. Wasi is not mentioned at all after this incident in Mugal records - in all probability removed like Behram Khan.

The same book of Anandilal Srivastava also brings to light some more startling facts of why would a proud Rajput of Amer - Raja Bharmal Kachhwaha - be forced to marry his daughter off to a musalman. Such an event would have attracted a complete truncation of relations from other Rajputs and Hindu royal families amongst whom his family inter-maried. Such a thing as marrying off own's daughter to a 'turuk' would be worse than death to a Rajput - those who know medieval rajputs would vouch for it.

An addiional factor brought to light by AL Srivastava:

Mugal commander Sharf-ud-din had been raiding and ruining the Bharmal's principalities repeatedly. This was during these horror raids that he succesfully captured the 3 sons of Bharmal - princes of Amer - namely Khangar, Rajsingh, and Jagannath. They were incarcerated and Sambhar and were threatened with torturous death.

In addition to all the above things mentioned, Srivastava says that , it was to secure his princes and save the Amer kingdom which was already facing extinction from other factors, that Bharmal reluctanty agreed to sacrifice his daughter - per some accounts daughter of his muslim half-wife - at the harem door of Akbar.

The wedding itself was not performed like a wedding. The transaction took place silently in a wayside palace of Sambhar, away from Amer's capital Jaipur or Mugal capital Agra. Unlike other Rajput weddings - which lasted for weeks per the contemporary records - after bartering the princes to Bharmal, Akbar left the very next day with the 'bride' to Agra, where she was properly converted to Islam.

Go between from Bharmal side for the negotiation with Akbar was a freelance ally of Bharmal - named Chagtai Khan.

Soon after the above, Akbar employed the very similar technique with the next Rajput house - Merta. documentation of that episode is more clear.

Soon, forced with insults from other Rajpute bretheren, it would become natural hat these 'surrendered' Rajput houses would want the 'unfallen' houses to do the same - so as to avoid the selective disgrace.

This is also evident from another episode. Jaisalmer's Raval Har Rai also surrendered his daughter to the harem of Akbar. Rajput Raja Bhagwandas was the one who represented Akbar in Bikaner to conduct the business and bring the bride to Agra. It is the same Raja Bhagwandas who surrendered his own daughter to prince Salim in 1584. The "wedding" took place not in Rajasthan but in Lahore to avoid the insult in his own land.

Likewise, Raval Pratap of Banswara, and Raval Askaran of Dungarpur were 'persuaded, pressurised, and pushed' by such 'surrendeded' rajput houses - in this case Lon Karan and Birbar - who brought the surrendered ladies to Fatehpur harem.

So it was a **chain reaction**, and dynamics of which is understandable. One humiliated rajput would want others to be under the similar condition to avoid the selective disgrace.

Another Rajput however - Raja Bidhichan of Kangra at Nagarkot - refused to surrender his daughter although he fulfilled the other demads of the Turk-mongol b@st@rd. He fatly refused to not only give his daughter but any Rajput girl in a 'doli'. Srivastava quotes Badayuni's footnote that in response, the Mugal army riddled with arrows the umbrella over the deity of a certain pupolar temple, slew 200 black cows within the temple premises, and filling their shoes with cow blood, threw these all over the kafir's butkhana's floor and walls. Srivastava says the temple was none other than the famous Shakti Peetha - Goddess Jwalamukhi Temple at Bagalkot. Dispite all of this, Raja Bidhichand refused to send any 'princess' or even daughter of a noble to the harem of Akbar.

Likewise the house of Maharana, Chittod never surrendered

===

Akbar applied this harem-dawai even to muslim rulers - like the record shows where Akbar demanded the hand of the daughter of Khandesh ruler Mirza Mobarak Shah.

Or when in 1600, daughter of Bijapur ruler Ibrahim Adil Shah was married in a negotiated contract to Daniyal - the son of Akbar.

====

There was said to be a certain Muslim Maulavi - Sheikh Abdun Nabi - who was objecting to Akbar's extension of harem into other's houses. He of course did not mind this done to Hindus, but was concerned about outraging the modesty of daughters of muslim families, like the cases mentioned in the beginning - Abdul Wasi etc.

He was forced to exile in Makka, andupon return died a mysterious death in 1583.

====

Christian missionaries present in the court of Akbar have also given the account of the lustful ways of the real Akbar. One boastful jesuit even says that the only single problem that stopped him from converting Akbar to Christianism was - that Christianism allowed "only one wife and strict sexual morality whereas Akbar could never give up his harem. (read this account in detail under the Mugal History thread where I had posted the book links too)

====

I hope Gowrikar would show at least some of the above being done by Hritik Roshan.

(sources: AL Srivastava 'Akbar the Great Vol 1, and kind of response by P N Oak 'Who says Akbar was Great')

[ramana]

Hindustan Times, 3 Feb., 2008

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Jodha was Akbar’s bahu, not begum: Experts

February 03, 2008
Jodha-Akbar in trouble again
December 06, 2006
Film comes first: Ashutosh
January 11, 2008
Avishek G Dastidar, Hindustan Times
New Delhi, January 31, 2008
First Published: 00:12 IST(31/1/2008)
Last Updated: 13:15 IST(31/1/2008)
 
Has Ashutosh Gowariker got it all wrong? Noted historians have contended that his highly publicised film Jodhaa Akbar, starring Hrithik Roshan and Aishwariya Bachchan, is factually incorrect.

<b>Noted historians maintain that Mughal Emperor Akbar never married anyone named Jodhabai. And that Jodhabai was, in fact, his daughter-in-law, Jehangir’s wife.</b>

The debate comes ahead of the film’s release next month. Rajput organisations in Rajasthan have threatened to block the release, accusing Gowariker of distorting facts.

<b>"Historical documents, including Akbarnama and Jehangir’s memoirs, say it was not Akbar but Jehangir who got married to the House of Jodhpur. So the princess was later called Jodhabai," says historian Satish Chandra, author of NCERT History books.</b>

Agrees historian Mohammad Amin. “Akbar forged alliances with Rajput families and he married the daughter of Raja Bharmal of Amber, who was later titled Maryam Rahmani or the Mother of Rulers of the Universe. But there is no evidence to say that she was called Jodhabai.”

How did the name Jodhabai get coined for Akbar’s wife then? Some blame the epic film Mughal-E-Azam. “A whole generation grew up believing what Mughal-E-Azam showed as accurate account of Mughal history. But accurate history said something else,” says SZH Jafri, head of the department, History, DU.

<b>Gowariker says: “I have referred to books like A History of Jaipur by Jadunath Sarkar, Kachhvahon Ka Itihaas by Jagdish Gehlot and other works by KL Khurana and Hari Shankar Sharma. All call Akbar’s wife with various names like Harkha, Man Mati, Shai Bai etc.” </b> “I agree there is a confusion regarding the name,” he said, adding, “I consulted the Royal family of Jaipur that gave me the nod to use the name Jodha.”

(With KS Tomar)

<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Still he goofed up big time. The only reason to see the movie is Aishwarya Rai who is delight to see in any role.

[Pandyan]

<!--QuoteBegin-Mudy+Feb 2 2008, 11:32 AM-->QUOTE(Mudy @ Feb 2 2008, 11:32 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->I am happy there is a debate on this issue, atleast vast Hindu population will think again, how Muslim/commie historians twisted facts and create fantasy and so-called love story.
[right][snapback]77961[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, debate is restricted only to a few of the concerned. The vast majority of sheeple will go watch the crapwood movie. I don't understand what kind of moron would watch this film. Historically accuracy/inaccuracy aside, it looks to have been terribly made from the trailer, and the battle scenes etc are so phony and amateurish. I refuse to watch this crap and finance further anti-hindu projects. Only losers watch crapwood and the 1000 movies it churns out everyday starring no-talent, anti-hindu hacks.

[Pandyan]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Bollywood dhimmis romanticising historical record of Mohammedan demographic warfare</b>
As if the perverted negationism perfected into a fine art by "eminent historians" of the JNU pseudo-liberal school were not enough, Bollywood dhimmis are trying their hand at celebrating the Mughal butcher Akbar, the poster boy for India's perverted Nehruvian Stalinist "secularism". To these sick dhimmis, a Rajput woman forced under duress to convert to the binary death cult from Arabia and serve as a concubine in the Mohammedan baby producing factory is the most exalted example of "secularism", the illegitimate Mohammedan progeny born out of such forced relationships the greatest living examples of "Composite Culture"(Or "Ganga-Jamuni Tahzeeb" in Hindi heartland Kaangress dhimmi speak)

If a butcher like Akbar is praised to the skies, no doubt the "secularist" intent is that the lives of Hindu women forced to serve as "comfort girls" for Mohammedan invaders, gets emulated in the present day. These JNU & Bollywood dhimmis are collaborators in the Mohammedan demographic aggression on Hindu soil. It is no coincidence, therefore that many of these "eminent" dhimmis happen to be of "composite" parentage themselves. By the way, see how the idiot Yankee dhimmis quickly digest JNU lunatic propaganda. They're very receptive to such crap, although adamant when it comes to presenting Hindus in a fair light in their history text books; CAPEEM's struggle is a case in point.

Hindus will naturally find glorification of their Mohammedan oppressors offensive. The psecs find any resistance coming from Hindus unbearable! Here's some Bollywood dhimmi moron indulging in typical dhimmispeak and I quote:

    “We have taken every precaution. A tremendous amount of research has gone into the movie,” Siddharth Roy Kapoor, executive vice president (Marketing and Distribution) of UTV Motion Pictures, told PTI.

    He said “certain elements” were trying to create problems to force filmmakers to stay away from certain topics ."


Of course, you moron! These "elements" see no value in your crappy movie or it's vulgar celebration of Mohammedan genocide.
For a small glimpse of the psec poster boy's babarism, I shall quote from Sitaram Goel's book THE STORY OF ISLAMIC IMPERIALISM IN INDIA.

    "Humayun had hardly any time free from troubles to devote to the service of Islam. But his son, Akbar, made quite a good start as a ghãzî. He stabbed the half-dead Himu with his sword after the Second Battle of Panipat. The ritual was then followed by many more brave warriors of Islam led by Bairam Khan who drove their swords in the dead body. In 1568 AD Akbar ordered a general massacre at Chittor after the fort had fallen. Abul Fazl records in his Akbar-Nãma as follows. There were 8,000 fighting Rajputs collected in the fortress, but there were more than 40,000 peasants who took part in watching and serving. From early dawn till midday the bodies of those ill-starred men were consumed by the majesty of the great warrior. Nearly 30,000 men were killed When Sultan Alauddin (Khalji) took the fort after six months and seven days, the peasantry were not put to death as they had not engaged in fighting. But on this occasion they had shown great zeal and activity. Their excuses after the emergence of victory were of no avail, and orders were given for a general massacre. Akbar thus improved on the record of Alauddin Khalji. Watching the war and serving the warriors were re-interpreted as acts of war! To top it all, Akbar travelled post-haste to Ajmer where he offered profuse thanks to Allah and the Prophet, and his (Akbar's) patron saint, Muinuddin Chishti, and issued a Fathnãma in which many appropriate verses of the Quran were cited in order to prove that he had followed faithfully in the footsteps of the Prophet. "<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Don't understand what kind of <b>utter <i>loser</i></b> would go watch this anti-Hindu production. I hear all these brainless sheep who watch and harangue about it, it all seems like a bunch of trash to me. Some moron was raving about its sufi influence to me urging me to watch it, as if I care. Same crap, different toilet.

[Bharatvarsh]

Well the same retard who watched it would then cry later that his daughter ran off wid some Muslim, if Hindus can't even put their money where their mouth is by boycotting it then they deserve more movies like this, next time they will make one on Aurangzeb's secularism and they can whine like little girls about how anti national movies are being made.

[Pandyan]

<!--QuoteBegin-Bharatvarsh+Feb 16 2008, 07:02 PM-->QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Feb 16 2008, 07:02 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Well the same retard who watched it would then cry later that his daughter ran off wid some Muslim, if Hindus can't even put their money where their mouth is by boycotting it then they deserve more movies like this, next time they will make one on Aurangzeb's secularism and they can whine like little girls about how anti national movies are being made.
[right][snapback]78617[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What can you expect from them, they're the same crowd that promote garbage like Urdu and other "great muslim contributions" to Indian culture, if there is ever a movie on Aurangzeb, they'll be first in line to watch it.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-Pandyan+Feb 17 2008, 05:37 AM-->QUOTE(Pandyan @ Feb 17 2008, 05:37 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Bharatvarsh+Feb 16 2008, 07:02 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Feb 16 2008, 07:02 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Well the same retard who watched it would then cry later that his daughter ran off wid some Muslim, if Hindus can't even put their money where their mouth is by boycotting it then they deserve more movies like this, next time they will make one on Aurangzeb's secularism and they can whine like little girls about how anti national movies are being made.
[right][snapback]78617[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What can you expect from them, they're the same crowd that promote garbage like Urdu and other "great muslim contributions" to Indian culture, if there is ever a movie on Aurangzeb, they'll be first in line to watch it.
[right][snapback]78618[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

You may take a look at Ramana Garu's take on the movie in BR movies thread

[ramana]

Thanks Sridhar. Here it is. My Hindu mind gives me an open mind to look for the truth. The movie has mixed messages. And is a sleeper.

<!--QuoteBegin-"ramana"+-->QUOTE("ramana")<!--QuoteEBegin-->Two stories from Deccan Chronicle, 16 Feb 2008

<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
Flawed epic worth a watch


Jodhaa Akbar
Cast: Hrithik Roshan, Aishwarya Rai, Ila Arun and others
Director: Ashutosh Gowariker
Rating: ***

When you watch the CGI-assisted battle scenes in Ashutosh Gowariker’s Jodhaa Akbar, you marvel at the work done by K.Asif and Sohrab Modi, who made their historical masterpieces without such modern-day conveniences. The many shortcomings of Jodhaa Akbar — the director’s ambition, courage and passion not being among them — only remind you of the fact that films are made or broken on the written page, not on the computer.

<b>Jodhaa Akbar has the grandeur a 40-crore budget can buy, but why does it still leave the fan of the historical/costume drama cold?</b> Because it doesn’t have a single scene that brings tears to the eyes, not a single confrontation that sets the pulse racing, not a line that will go down in movie history, not a song that will be hummed half a century later. like Pyar kiya to darna kya from Mughal-e-Azam still is.

<b>It has a hero like Emperor Akbar, but its villains are puny;</b> its supporting cast has no teeth and the plot teeters from romance to court intrigues without figuring out where it is headed. <b>The fictional love story between Akbar (Hrithik Roshan) and Jodhaa (Aishwarya Rai) makes the screen light up with the beauty of the lead pair and the chemistry they share. No other actor today, could have brought the grace dignity and gravity to the character of a prince that Roshan does —even though he is made to perform needless ‘items’ like an elephant fight and a bare-bodied sword practice scene for the benefit of the breathless queen (if only he had allowed his hair to be styled according to 16th century styles when layers were not in!). Aishwarya Rai looks gorgeous in period costume and performs well too.</b>

<b>You appreciate Gowariker’s feminist interpretation of Jodhaa, though it was not very likely that a Rajput princess could, in those times, lay down conditions before marrying the Emperor, refuse to let him touch her, or have a sword-fight with him to determine whether she would live with him or leave him!</b>

Some scenes of Akbar’s wooing of Jodhaa have a sweet tenderness — like the one where he learns what to do when an aarti is placed before him, or eats from her platter. And you wait for these bits impatiently, while Akbar’s rivals and enemies pop up with exasperating regularity — from relatives eyeing the throne, to religious leaders whining about his Hindu wife, to his old wet nurse (Ila Arun) cooking up her own reptilian plots in the zenana.

Even after the love story has come to a nice romantic conclusion, when Jodhaa comes back to Akbar to consummate the marriage, Gowariker goes in for another climax so that a wicked brother-in-law (Nikitin Dheer) can be dealt with. And he pauses to let the character of Jodhaa’s beloved cousin Sujamal (Sonu Sood) take his time to die, as forgotten misunderstandings are cleared.

With all the attention on authentic costumes and sets (still, the machine stitching on drapes shows), there are lapses — like characters reaching over vast distances in no time, when they had to travel on horseback. The angry populace complaining of high prices and misrule by the Emperor’s officials, bursting into dance (superbly choreographed) when Akbar abolishes a tax on pilgrimage, which he didn’t even know was levied! Finally, cribs about the film being too long are justified — in putting together his labour of love, Gowariker did let himself get self-indulgent.

<b>For a patient viewer, Jodhaa Akbar is watchable, but it never achieves the level of a tour de force. Still, his valour can be applauded — better to have achieved a flawed epic, than never to have attempted one.</b> After all, who would have predicted that a period film about a rustic cricket team would make it to the Oscars, until he made Lagaan?

<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

and

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Who was Jodhaa?

By Bijoy Bharathan


Mankind’s fascination with womankind, especially the ones whose histories are embroiled in a veil of murkiness seems to be a never-ending subject of contemplation. Every generation has a tale of mystery to pass on to its successive generation. In most cases, they rage on for centuries together – unsolved, debated, hypothecated and reviewed by high brow historians, academicians and researchers of all kinds.

Jodhaa Akbar, Ashutosh Gowariker’s big-screen adaptation of the love story that blossomed from the relationship between one of India’s greatest Mughal emperors–Akbar and his beloved wife Jodhaa has now sparked a renewed interest in the history of the Mughal period. But really, who was Jodhaa? And how instrumental was she in shaping the destiny of this nation of ours? Did she even exist in the first place or was she just the figment of a collective imagination spawned through centuries-old folklore?

<b>The common perception is that Jodhaa was a Rajput princess who was married off to Akbar as part of an ‘alliance-founding’ exercise between the Rajput and Mughal communities.</b> But then, the historical accuracy of this ‘fact’ stands in question. Historians and academicians say that the very existence of a person called Jodhaa is highly questionable.

The renowned historian <b>Irfan Habib,</b> a Padma Bhushan awardee, former chairman of the Indian Council of Historical Research, a fellow of the Royal Historical Society, London and Professor Emeritus at Aligarh Muslim University, who has authored several books and research papers, many of them pertaining to the history of the Mughals, voices his opinion about the controversial Rajput princess.

He says, <b>"According to the Akbarnama, which is a biography of the emperor, Akbar married the eldest daughter of Raja Bharmal (a Rajput king) of Amber in 1561. But interestingly, nowhere in the historical manuscript is a single mention of the name of this princess. The Akbarnama does not even describe any significant power that this princess had supposedly exerted on him. The fact is that there is also no reference to a woman named Jodhaa in it."</b>

<i>{Does Akbarnamah name any wife of Akbar? Isn't it un-Islamic to name women or consorts of Muslim rulers. And dont forget irfan Habib's father Mohammed Habib started the project of rewriting hisotry to show Delhi as the center of Muslim power for all times. So he is hardly a 'fair' expert!}[/i


Such revelations are in stark contrast to how the filmmakers of Jodhaa Akbar perceive the couple’s relationship to be. Hyder Ali, who wrote the film’s screenplay along with Ashutosh says, "We spent hundreds of man-hours doing our homework before embarking on a cinematic quest as monumental as this. We employed several researchers and historians of repute and got our facts down to a tee and we have made every attempt to stay as true to the historical aspects of the story as possible. In fact, the film has been made with the approval of the living descendants of the Rajput emperors who have had absolutely no qualms about the way their princess has been depicted on screen."

The process of tracing a royal family tree might seem like a daunting task. But it gets even more challenging when one considers the numerous alliances that emperors had with princesses and concubines. As it was customary in those days, emperors were used to having harems that housed hundreds, at times even thousands of women, several of them who bore successors for the emperor. <b>Isn’t it possible that Jodhaa was just one among Akbar’s many wives? What makes her so special in order to be mentioned alongide Akbar in the annals of civilisation?</b>

[i]{Ashutosh gowariker has depicted that the first Mughal Empress was a practicing Hindu. Thats what is rubbing the scholars wrong way.}</i>

Conflicting viewpoints emerge as Irfan says that according to some accounts, the authenticity of which still stands disputed, a Persian traveller who visited India somewhere around the year 1563 recorded in his memoirs that Akbar was very much influenced by a Brahmin woman, who he eventually married and it was she who gave him the impetus to abolish slavery.

Harbans Mukhia, a retired professor of medieval history from the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi says, "Actually, it is very doubtful if Akbar really had a wife called Jodhaa. In the light of the fact that women in those days were named according to the place they came from, why would a woman from Amber be named as Jodhaa which would a typical name for a lady who hails from Jodhpur. In fact, I believe that this entire myth regarding Jodhaa is a part of folklore, which was concocted over the years. The legend grew somewhere around the late 19th and early 20th century."

Harbans further elaborates saying, "Akbar was considered to be very progressive about the rights of women with regards to ownership of paternal or ancestral properties, inheritance, etc., but few people know about his conservatism when it came to his several Rajput wives and the women in his family (including his sisters and female relatives). He never let any of them keep their original first names. The reason was that Akbar believed that a woman was defined by her name and that her chastity and name was of utmost importance. He did not want any woman related to him being defiled because of an impure thought that may have crept into the minds of men with respect to these women. In a way – he just erased their identities in order to protect them. So it’s just a matter of contention when it comes to Jodhaa as well. For all we know it could be the rechristened name of any one of his wives." But the question of Jodhaa’s origin has been doing the rounds since the time Ashutosh’s historical romance was announced for the first time. The film, which is touted to be one of this year’s biggest Bollywood releases found itself in the middle of a controversy that has its roots in the very place where the film’s female protagonist hailed from – Rajasthan. Several members of the Rajput community from the state have voiced their protest against the film. <b>According to them, Jodhaabai (Jodhaa for short) was Akbar’s daughter-in-law, who was married to Akbar’s son Salim ‘and not Akbar himself as portrayed in the film.’</b>

<i>{Yes there are books that point out that Noorjehan was upset with her rival Jodah who was Salim's first wife and was the mother of the successors to Salim}</i>

Ajit Singh Mamdoli, the state president of Sri Rajput Karni Sena, an organization based in Rajasthan, which is in staunch opposition to the film says, "We have documented historical evidence to prove that Jodhaa was Salim’s wife and not Akbar’s. This is even mentioned in the Class 11 history textbooks of the CBSE syllabus. We will shortly hold a national press conference to inform the public about the inaccurate depiction of history as shown in the film and we will ensure that the film is not screened in Rajasthan."

He adds, "In fact in the period depicted in the film, Rajput women were used to wearing purdah or veils and they were married to kings in accordance to a political agreement or pact, which is negated by the film through its romantic angle. Apart from this, the film depicts Jodhaa and Akbar, (who are basically a daughter-in-law and a father-in-law) in love with each other, which is an absolute distortion of historical facts."

<i>{ I saw the film. The marriage was political alliance. The romance comes after the marriage. I think the commentator is mixing things up. However AG aslo showed some scenes which will make many a syncretic chatterati scared- the Naqshbandis sufie singing Khwaja Khawja, Bairam Khan role in executing captive prisoners, the utter divisive role of the ulema, the utter debased world view of Raja Bharmal and his wife who steal a kingdom and to preserve their rights give thier daughter to the Mughal}</i>


Of course, it’s a common practice among filmmakers to take creative liberties in order to dramatise a historical legend onscreen. Hyder Ali says, "The film has shown Jodhaa and Akbar in a romantic light which is necessitated by the script. It is a mix of both historical and fictional elements, which we have clarified before. Even the climax of the film is a work of fiction. So there is no need to kick up a fuss over this."

A similar sentiment is echoed by Dashrath Singh Baradva, who plays the role of Maharana Pratap Singh in the film and in real life, is associated with the Rajput Yuva Morcha. He says, "There are several members of Rajput families, who have acted in this film along with me. None of us have any objections regarding the depiction of Jodhaa. The entire brouhaha has erupted out of political animosity between some Rajput factions."

Which brings us to the question of animosity – <b>Is there a larger canvas that Ashutosh is trying to paint, a bigger story that he’s trying to tell? </b>Hyder Ali says, "The film aims at conveying the message that religion is not above humanity. It’s about how two different cultures came together having ignored communal differences. <b>If an emperor could do it in that age, why can’t we do it now?"</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

The message is from the narrator who is Amitabh Bacchan. He propagates the syncretic nature of Akbar and shows how different he was from the earlier riff raff and the latter bigots. The film shows the concept of zawabit(The ruler shall make rules) that I was writing about. the biggest H&D is that the first real Mughal Empress was instrumental in Akbar's world view. One eyeopener is the Sufi influence as shown by the headgear and the whirling dervish dance after the wedding. There isn't the hardline Wahabi/Deobandi style of the latter colonial era.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

added: The Naqshbandi headgear and the dervish dance shows that the Mughals are Turks and not Mongols. After the Mongol razing of Baghdad, its the Sufis who spread the message of Allah. And the Naqshbandis were the foremost per Bernard Lewis.

[ramana]

Also a quick note. The use of indian war elephant against infantry does justice to it as a weapon system. All along we were taught that Indian war elephant was big handicap and somehow the Indian rulers were morons to persist with it for vanity. Sure makes no sens when Hannibal imported them for use in Northern Italy!

[Bharatvarsh]

Let me give my take:

1) There was no Jodhabai
2) Akbar's "wife" Heera Kunwari was converted to Islam upon biah.
3) Akbar had over 30,000 Hindu civilians massacred because they happened to be kaffirs.
4) He kept writing letters abroad to Islamic authorities saying that he has a grand strategy and that he was still a true Muslim.
5) He called himself a Ghazi.
6) In the battle of Hadilghati he is recorded as saying that the Muslims should shower arrows indiscriminately since either way a kaffir would get killed and it didn't matter if he was on the Mughal side.
5) Even when he removed Jizya there was no guarantee that the lower officials didn't collect it being the bigots they were, this was pre modern times and in the vast rural area Akbar didn't have any personal say.
6) The personal actions of Akbar put into doubts about the truth of his "broadmindedness", as an example:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Akbar first attempted to restructure the nobility between 1560 and 1575 when revolts by Turani nobles severely compromised his position. No wonder it was during this period that he entered into matrimonial alliances with Rajput kings, besides abolishing the pilgrim tax (1562) and jizya (1564). Yet, the moment the clouds of uncertainty were cleared, he reverted to his old habit, which was most disdainfully seen at Chittor in 1568, when Akbar ordered the massacre of 30,000 peasants taking refuge in the fort. Seven years later, jizya was re-introduced.

Finally, Akbar turned 'secular' in 1580-81, when he faced existential crisis at the hands of his fellow religionists. Only Indian Muslim and Rajput nobles remained loyal to him during that period, while his foreign nobles -- Turanis and Iranians -- either revolted or remained non-committal. This understanding led to a definitive shift in Akbar's attitude, leading to the abolition of jizya for the second time in 1580.

http://www.boycottjodhaaakbar.org/news1.htm<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->There is no hint at the complex processes that went into the shaping of Akbar�s policies, nor the fact that he started his reign as a conservative Sunni Muslim monarch. He, after all, re-christened Hindu holy cities (Prayag being the most notable), imposed the jaziya and pilgrimage tax, and even indulged in forcible conversions in the early part of his reign. Though he ultimately did seek a more neutral legitimation, at least by way of supplement, the state under him remained unmistakably Muslim. 70% of his nobility consisted of foreigner-Muslims. The Hindu representation was confined to the Rajputs, there being just four other Hindus in the upper echelons of the nobility. These were Birbal, Todar Mal, his son, and another Khatri.

http://www.voiceofdharma.com/indology/th...view1.html<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
7) It was under him that Farsi became the official language.
8) Akbar did not do Hindus any favor by his alleged "tolerance", that is the natural behavior expected from rulers in Bharat.
9) People who glorify or celebrate him are spitting on the memory of Maharana Pratap Singh and his countless followers.

[Husky]

My view aligns wholeheartedly with Bharatvarsh (see above post).

And now I add to that my unsought opinion:
I find the very idea of this film offensive. Offensive against truth, against history, against my Hindu ancestors, against the Hindu community as a whole (past and present, which includes my Hindu person). When our ancestors were terrorised by Akbar and his kind, and our people today continue to be so, I don't see that our people can afford to be so cavalier as to overlook all this continued suffering in order to watch a movie that promotes such a false, untruthful view of the oppressors.
It is no more than dawaganda.

Can anyone see these psecular 'Hindus' making movies about real historical facts - on our Hindu hero(in)es? They would never. It would be oh so 'communal' to present such terribly inconvenient facts in film, when they aren't even allowed to be in textbooks. Since they can't ever tell the unpleasant truth about islam in India (it would be decidedly uncomfortable; certainly not the idea pseculars want to promote at all), they have to concoct a fantasy that makes it look all swell. (And predictably, it's a romantic fantasy about the usual: a male oppressor and a female oppressee falling in love. It perfectly represents the state of India that they wish to maintain: keeping the dhimmi populace - the oppressee - subordinated to the oppressor: terrorism and the terrorist violence that is the falsification of history. By means of induced/contrived infatuation. For instance through the media's 1984-esque inversions such as 'we win against terrorism when we continue on after each attack as if nothing has happened' <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo-->) Of course I can imagine they made the film <i>look</i> good: colourful and pretty. Just like the pseculars and their media make dhimmitude look so convenient and comfortable which keeps Hindus in continued inertia.

But when one <i>knows</i> it is dawaganda, vote with your wallet.

"Although it is a great crime to speak evil words, it is an even greater crime to listen to them". In Amar Chitra Katha's comic book rendering of Kalidasa's Kumarasambhavam, the glorious Parvati said something like that on leaving a Man In Guise who was demeaning her wonderful Shiva to her face.
Similarly, when pseculars commit violence against truth it is expected of them. That is what they do. But it is a far greater evil when an aware Dharmic individual accepts it, facilitates it (say by monetary contribution or some other way of endorsing it). Just like I won't watch the christolying of Mel Gibson against Mayans in his "Apocalypto".

"Jodhaa Akbar" is <i>not</i> just a film. It is social engineering, and insidious manipulation. Why help further it.
It is against our heroic ancestors who gave their lives so we could remain free happy Hindus today with the relative peace we still have now. For me to watch such a film is treason against my ancestors.
(Before anyone nitpicks: Yes, I know I am not directly descended from Rajput heroes, Shivaji, the Reddy Rulers, and our other great heroes from the many ends of Bharat. But as a Hindu I have immediate claim on all of them, which translates into instant spiritual 'genetic' kinship. Every Hindu has that, when he chooses to recognise and acknowledge it. In that sense they <i>are</i> my ancestors and no different to me from my physical ones.)

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Bharatvarsh: 9) People who glorify or celebrate him (akbar) are spitting on the memory of Maharana Pratap Singh and his countless followers.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->It's how I feel. I just can't imagine why Hindus would do such a thing, even cursorily - by participating or watching such a film.
Don't know what Aishwarya was thinking. (I expect nothing of Hrithik Roshan who always insists on playing the 'loveable' psecular islamic terrorist in movies. As in, actual terrorist. I speak of the much-advertised films "Mission Kashmir" and "Fiza".) I thought Aishwarya's secularism would have been more honest, less careless. Guess I was merely wrong.

[Bharatvarsh]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Of course I can imagine they made the film look good: colourful and pretty. Just like the pseculars and their media make dhimmitude look so convenient and comfortable which keeps Hindus in continued inertia.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i seen som trailer of it n its pretty retarded i wud say, indian movie makers got enuf money to spend on making songs in switzerland runnin around trees n snow but ain't got enuf to hav decent sound effects (thy r still stuck in dishoom dishoom sounds for fights).

by the time bollywood comes up wid something lyk bourne ultimatum (& even then i can imagine them making jason bourne dance around trees turning the whole thing into comedy) or lotr my great great great great grandkid will have his great great great great grandkid n even then it ain't guaranteed.

the only war movie that was semi decent was lakshya.

[ramana]

A few x-posts from BR

<!--QuoteBegin-"Paul"+-->QUOTE("Paul")<!--QuoteEBegin-->Akbarnama

Ain-e-Akbari

Neither of them AFAIK refer to Akbar's marriage or his numerous wives.

I was reading in Ain-e-Akbari about the way Hemu was slaughtered. Akbar's role in this heinous episode is not clear. Bairam Khan egged Akbar to get rid of this Kaffir.

Tardi Beg and Bairam Khan did all the dirty work for Akbar in his early days.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


<!--QuoteBegin-"Paul"+-->QUOTE("Paul")<!--QuoteEBegin-->Akbar was short, bow legged from years of riding  horses, had mongolid features....completely opposed to what Hrithik is like.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


<!--QuoteBegin-"csharma"+-->QUOTE("csharma")<!--QuoteEBegin-->Regardless of what the reality of Jodha is, one has to keep in mind that the story was important for Hindu Rajput narrative. Muslim writers would definitely downplay such an episode because history writing at that time(or even now) was not an impartial event recording exercise.

  To cite an example, a book written on Indian history by a British author in early 20th century devoted one third of the book to Alexander's "invasion" of India.

  In the movie, they show Bairam Khan beheading Hemu. In any case, Akbar was definitely more tolerant and credit should be given to him for that. For 100 years Hindus enjoyed equality until Aurangzeb became the emperor.

IMHO, while Turks were great conquerors, running of an efficient administration was possible when the Hindus were co-opted. The same thing is seen after Persia is conquered. Eventually all the bureacratic positions were filled up by Persians.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-"csharma"+-->QUOTE("csharma")<!--QuoteEBegin-->Not unsurprising since the Mughals are Turko-Mongol from Central asia. They are the descendants of Tamerlane.

  It is quite remarkable how these Uzbeks, Tajiks had traveled far and wide conquering lands like India among others. Look at how these countries are faring now and look at India. The Indian civilization genius is now free again and should take us again to the dizzy heights achieved during Gupta age.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-"ramana"+-->QUOTE("ramana")<!--QuoteEBegin-->Csharma, I was thinking that the hundred years respite that Akbar's reign gave the Hindus led to them casting of dhimmitude and do bhagawat all over Hindusthan, when zulmi laws were brought back by Aurangazeb. I personally thank Jodha Ma for giving us the respite. This is the narrative we need to understand. Not the bogus one of eternal dhimmitude. And the other thing is Akbar's tolerant kingship was the model for the West's Enlightenment.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-"bhavani"+-->QUOTE("bhavani")<!--QuoteEBegin-->Amen Ramana sir, i think one has to put a lot of things out of his mind, before they watch this movie

Saw Jodhaa akbar at the 10.00PM Show. Same crap of showing Akbar as a secular, merciful lord of Hindustan. Johdhaa Is never converted in the movie, which is false. She has her own small place of worship in agra fort which is not true. Everyone of Akbars wives did convert.

When Akbar sends the mullah to Mecca at the end of movie as a way of moving the guy out of kingdom, everybody was laughing as it was similar to the way he sends bairam khan to mecca.

WHo ever Jodhaa bai was she must be one hell of a lady, for living in such a frightening place and also controlling all the Other Harems.

Akbar was obviously better than aurangzeb, like getting fried in a pan is better than falling in the fire itself.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-"csharma"+-->QUOTE("csharma")<!--QuoteEBegin-->Ramana, good points.

The more history I read, the more I think Hindus have always fought against injustice. This eternal dhimmitude is probably an invention of Muslim triumphalism and sustained by British admiration of the Turkic Mughals and Europe's knowledge and admiration of the Ottomans. They know of the Ottomans who were all set to conquer European heartland in the 16 century and in India they find the 'brethren' of the Turks and they glorified that chapter of India's history. The lack of western interest in the dramatic rise of Marathas is perplexing to me. Here are a bunch of people reeling under the mighty Mughal empire and they come from nowhere to replace them as rulers of India. While many in BR already know but most Indians don't know that 18th century was the century of Hindu revival in India. Mughal emperor in Delhi was reduced to a puppet of Marathas and Marathas used to provide security to Delhi.

You also have to keep in mind that Hindus at this stage were a very old civilization. And Muslim world was the superpower at this stage (even though the Ottomans peaked in the 16 century). Yet the Marathas achieved the improbable. That shows the fighting spirit and resilience of the Hindus.

  As we all know Indic and Sinic civilization have survived the longest. What is remarkable is that India because of the geography took a lot of pounding in its lifetime, more so than China. But yet, here we are at ths cusp of achieving greatness one more time. How can this happen if people are eternal dhimmi?

  The present dhimmitude could be traced to recent leadreship of the Hindu community. By recent I mean last 75 years.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[ramana]

I am glad I got his message without his telling it.

Gowarikar's Take



<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->....In fact, the film is about how Rajputs made a difference to the life of the Mughals. How they changed them around. That's a very important, interesting, entertaining and educative part of this story.....<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[dhu]

I came across the following, written in response to Hussein's lecture to Hindus- `In Hindu culture, nudity is a metaphor for purity'.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->We Hindus say: "Vaarthaikku vyavasthai illai" which means words have no allegience.  Same words can be used both by good men and the goons.

What I am saying to you is that there is no such thing as real objective and unbiassed logic.  The moment a person spins the logic his subjective and biased view shapes the logic.

I am opposed to Hussain for his acts hurt my sentiments.  You would rather gloss over the feelings of millions of Hindus like me and identify yourself with Hussain.  That is your bias. 

Truly words have no allegience for if they had they might revolt against those who use them to hurt others!<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

<b>The Real Akbar, The (not) So Great</b>

ABSTRACT

Akbar is considered as the great Mughal emperor who put the Mughal empire on a firm and stable footing, with a reliable revenue system and with expansion of its borders deeper into Indian heartland. There is a belief prevalent in the present day India that Akbar's rule was secular and tolerant of the native Hindu faith. This belief is fostered by the Indian history texts, Hindi movies like Mughal-e-Azam, Akbar jodha and TV serial on Doordarshan and the fictional tales of Akbar and his Hindu court jester Birbal. Although Akbar did abolish two obnoxious taxes on Hindus namely the pilgrimage tax in 1563 CE and Jizya (A tax stipulated in the Koran to be paid by Zimmis or unbelievers) in 1564 CE, his rule was better compared ONLY to the other Mughal and Turko-Afgani rules. <b>This article illustrates this with two specific historical events. First, Akbar like all Mughal rulers had the holy Muslim title of GHAZI (SLAYER OF KAFFIR - infidel). Like Timur Lane and Nader Shah, AKBAR HAD A VICTORY TOWER ERECTED WITH THE HEADS OF THE CAPTURED/ SURRENDERED ARMY OF HEMU after the second battle of Panipat. Later, AKBAR AGAIN SLAUGHTERED MORE THAN 30,000 UNARMED CAPTIVE HINDU PEASANTS AFTER THE FALL OF CHITOD ON FEBRUARY 24, 1568.</b>

This article also relates another historical event which shows the <b>true dubious nature of Akbar's religious beliefs which he used merely to suit his convenience</b>.

<b>THE MUGHAL ANCESTRY</b>

Akbar's grandfather Babar founded the Mughal dynasty. Babar was a direct descendent of Timur Lane from his father's Barlas Turk side and of Chengiz Khan the Mongol from his mother's side. The name Mongol had become synonymous with barbarian by the 16 th century CE, hence Babar was proud of his ancestry from Timur, whose descendents were regarded as 'cultured Turks'. In a twist of poetic justice, the dynasty founded by Babar became known through out the world as Mughal - an adaptation of Mughul, the Persian word for 'Mongol'(1). In Marathi also Mughals are referred to as 'Mongal' which is close to Mongol.

Babar's son Humayun was defeated by Sher Shah Sur, an Afgan at the battle of Chausa on 26 June 1539. But Humayun later defeated Sikandar Shah Sur in 1555 to regain Delhi.

<b>SECOND BATTLE OF PANIPAT AND HOW AKBAR BECAME GHAZI</b>

On 24 th January 1556 CE Mughal ruler Humayun slipped while climbing down the steps of his library and fell to his death. The heir to the Mughal throne, 13 year old Akbar was then campaigning in Punjab with his chief minister Bairam Khan. On February 14, 1556, in a garden at Kalanaur, Akbar was enthroned as emperor. The other rivals for the throne of Delhi were the three Afgan princes of Sher Shah.

However the main threat to Akbar's future came not from the Afgan princes but from a Hindu. Hemu, the Hindu chief minister of Afgan prince Adil Shah led a surprise attack on Delhi in October 1556 . The Mughal forces under its governor Tardi Beg Khan panicked and went into a sudden ignominious flight. This was Hemu's twenty second consecutive victory in successive battles. After the capture of Delhi, Hemu set up himself as an independent ruler under the Hindu title of 'Raja Vikramaditya'. At this juncture against the advice of most nobles, Akbar and Bairam Khan took a courageous decision, to press forward against Hemu's undoubtedly superior forces. On November 5, 1556 the Mughul forces met the army of Hemu at Panipat.

In this second battle of Panipat, the Mughals were saved by a lucky accident after a hard fight which looked more than likely to go against them. An arrow hit Hemu in the eye and although it did not kill him it had pierced the cerebral cavity enough to make him unconscious. In any battle of this period the death of the leader meant an end of the fight, and the sight of Hemu slumped in the howdah of his famous elephant Hawai was enough to make his army turn tail. Shah Quli Khan captured the Hawai elephant with its prize occupant, and took it directly to Akbar.

Hemu was brought unconscious before Akbar and Bairam. <b>Bairam pleaded Akbar to perform the holy duty of slaying the infidel and earn the Islamic holy title of 'Ghazi'. Among much self-congratulation AKBAR THEN SEVERED THE HEAD OF UNCONSCIOUS HEMU WITH HIS SABER (2,3,4). </b>Some historians claim that Akbar did not kill Hemu himself, but just touched the infidel's head with his sword and his associates finished the gory 'holy' work. However the latter version seems inconsistent with the events that followed. After the battle Hemu's head was sent to kabul as a sign of victory to the ladies of Humayun's harem, and Hemu's torso was sent to Delhi for exposure on a gibbet. Iskandar Khan chased the Hemu's fleeing army and captured 1500 elephants and a large contingent. THERE WAS A GREAT SLAUGHTER OF THOSE WHO WERE CAPTURED and IN KEEPING WITH THE CUSTOM OF HIS ANCESTORS TIMUR LANE AND CHENGIZ KHAN, AKBAR HAD A VICTORY PILLAR BUILT WITH THEIR HEADS. Peter Mundy, an Englishman travelling Mughal empire some 75 years later (during Jahangir and Shah Jahan's rein), found such towers were still being built. <b>(Reference 2 gives pictures of a sketch by Peter Mundy, and Mughal painting of the tower of heads during Akbar's reign</b>). Hemu's wife escaped from Delhi with the treasure and Pir Mohammad Khan's troops chased her caravan without success. <b>HEMU'S AGED FATHER WAS CAPTURED AND ON REFUSING TO ACCEPT ISLAM, WAS EXECUTED (3). This is the 'glorious' history of Akbar's victory at the battle of Panipat.</b>

<b>FALL OF CHITOD AND SLAUGHTER OF 30,000 CAPTIVE HINDU PEASANTS</b>

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). <b>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.</b>

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. <b>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)</b> 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 (5,6,7,8,9).

<b>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.</b> 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, <b>perhaps as a lesson to Hindus who dared to take on the Mughals (5).</b>

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.

<b>AKBAR AND RELIGION</b>

In the later part of his rule Akbar founded a new religion Din-e-Ilahi in which he vaguely tried to combine practices of Islam and Hinduism. He observed Muslim, Hindu and Parsee festivals. He had Jesuit priests in his courts. However, this founder of Din-e-Ilahi was practically illiterate. Till the end of his rule only seventeen nobles yielded to Akbar's wishes (and pressure) and converted to his new religion, among whom Raja Birbal was one. None of Akbar's children adopted his religion. To top it all, Jahangir, Akbar's son from his Hindu lady Jodhabai, later killed a Kaffir (Hindu infidel) and gained the holy Islamic title of Ghazi. It is indeed true that Akbar drifted from orthodox Islamic practices and became more tolerant of other religions. However, more often Akbar used and twisted religious principles to his own advantage. Let us look at one such example.

Akbar used marriage alliances with various royal houses as a way of expanding his empire. The political advantages of this steady stream of presentation of princesses were incalculable. <b>In the end Akbar had more than 300 wives. The actual number of women in the harem was nearer to 5,000</b>. Many of these were older women, but there were also young servant girls, or Amazons of Russia or Abyssinia as armed guards, all with the status only of slaves. It was these who, if so required, were the emperor's concubines. The three hundred were technically wives, even though the Koran limits the number to four. Akbar wanted religious sanction of all these 300 wives. Now as per the Persian Shia interpretation of Muslim scriptures (and also by the present day 'Mohammedan Act of India'! ) a Muslim can have a 'Mutta' marriage with a free women of OTHER religion. A 'Mutta' marraige involves no ceremony , but is a private pact between a man and a woman for, officially, 'a limited period time (as short as one night)' agreed between them. As per Shia interpretation, 'Mutta' constituted a legal Muslim marriage. Akbar used 'Mutta' principle to justify his300 wives. But the Sunni Ulemma (Islamic scholars) from his courtdisagreed. <b>The arguments between Akbar and Ulemma raged back and forth, until -completing the parallel with Henry VIII- Akbar dismissed the Kazi, the highest religious officer from his court, a Sunni, and replaced him with a Shia who did agree with him! (10)</b>

Later, Akbar had effrontery to decree that 'it was best for ordinary men to have only one wife'! (10)

<b>DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION</b>

Akbar killed an unconscious Hemu (a Hindu) to become a 'Ghazi' at the second battle of Panipat, he later ordered slaughter of all the captives from Hemu's army and had a victory tower built with their heads. Similarly, Akbar later on ordered a massacre of 30,000 plus unarmed captive Hindu peasants after the fall of Chitod on February 24, 1568. Are these the characteristics of a truly 'secular' and 'tolerant' emperor ? These events reveal Akbar's true nature during early part of his reign. Should Akbar be called 'Great' and 'Secular' only because he was a lesser despot than the rest of the Mughal emperors ? In the entire Indian history of thousands of years NOT A SINGLE HINDU KING EVER SLAUGHTERED THOUSANDS OF PRISONERS OF WAR. In fact the Hindu virtue of generosity to the surrendered (SharaNaagat Vatsal Bhav), came to haunt them later. Prithvi Raj Chauhan defeated Mohammed Ghori several times and generously let the loser free each time. This generosity of Pritviraj was paid back by Mohammed Ghori who after having finally defeated Prithvi Raj in 1193 CE, blinded him and carried him to Afganistan in chains where Prithvi Raj died an ignominious death. The Mughals were the descendents of brutal Mongol Chengiz Khan and the Turk Timur Lane.

The above incidences clearly show that MUGHAL EMPERORS WERE FOREIGN AND NOT INDIAN, AND AKBAR BY HIS ACTIONS WAS NO EXCEPTION. Thus to call Akbar as 'The Great' is nothing but an insult to all civilized societies. This article also has shown Akbar's dubious use of religious principles.

If we are to take example from the 20th century, then even the Nazis did not kill 30,000 prisoners of war in cold blood during the second World War. However scores of Nazis were sentenced to death during the Nuremburg trials for their War Crimes against POWs.

Readers are encouraged to read more about the true brutality of Mughal empire.

The readers should ponder upon following questions:

<b>If Akbar 'the epitome of secularism' was so cruel and brutal, what must have been the extent of brutality of Timur Lane, Babar, Aurangzeb and Nader Shah? </b>
Why don't the Indian School texts give these details of Akbar and What else are they hiding?

<b>REFERENCES </b>

1. The Great Moghuls, By B.Gascoigne, Harper Row Publishers, New York, 1972, p.15

2. Same as ref. 1, pp. 68-75

3. The Cambridge History of India, Vol. IV, Mughal India, ed. Lt. Col. Sir W.Haig, Sir R.Burn, S,Chand & Co., Delhi, 1963, pp. 71-73

4. The Builders of The Mogul Empire, By M.Prawdin, Barnes & Noble Inc, New York, 1965, pp. 127-28

5. Same as ref. 1, pp. 88-93

6. Same as ref. 3. pp. 97-99

7. Same as ref. 4, pp. 137-38

8. An Advanced History of India, by R.C.Majumdar, H.C.Raychoudhury, K.Datta, MacMillen & Co., London, 2nd Ed, 1965, pp. 448-450

9. Encyclopedia Britannica, 15 th Ed, Vol.21, 1967, p.65

10. Same as ref. 1, p. 85

[Bodhi]

"जोधा अकबर" का विरोध विशेषकर राजपूत समाज सम्बन्धी जातीय संस्थाएं जोर-शोर से कर रहीं है । इनके विरोध का कारण यह है कि एक राजपूत स्त्री को एक विदेशी आक्रांता के स्वामित्व में दर्शाया है । <b>यह तो ऐतिहासिक तथ्य है कि राजपूत महाराजाओं ने मुग़लों के हरम में अपनी बेटियों को भेजा । भले हे जिस राजपूत राजकुमारी तो अकबर के हरम में भेजा गया उसका नाम जोधा न हो तो क्या ? यह स्वाभाविक है कि शिशु, वृद्ध और स्त्री वर्ग, हिंसक आक्रांताओं से अपनी रक्षा करने में असमर्थ हैं । इस वर्ग कि रक्षा करना पुरूष वर्ग का मौलिक कर्तव्य है । न कि अपने राज-पाट को बचाने के लिए स्त्रीयों को विदेशी आक्रांताओं की हवस के मुहँ मे झोंक देना ।</b>

कहाँ के राजपूत और कैसे क्षत्रिय ? कोई मूछें एंठने और चमेलीबाई का मुजरा देखने से क्षत्रिय नही बन जाता । क्षत्रिय वर्ण का अधिकार उसी को है जो समस्त समाज की रक्षा हेतु लहू बहा दे । इन छद्म-क्षत्रियों का तो वही हाल है की पहले घर बेच खाया अब ब्याज मांगने निकले हैं ।

"जोधा अकबर" विवाद का विष्लेषण करना आवश्यक है । राजकुमारी जोधा को एक मुग़ल आक्रांता के साथ एक स्वाभाविक स्त्री-पुरूष प्रेम-प्रसंग में दर्शाना मध्यकालीन भारत के अन्ध्मय इतिहास को झुठलाना है । राजपूत राजकुमारियां अपनी इच्छा से मुग़लों के हरम में कभी नही गयीं थीं । कोई भी अपनी इच्छा से शत्रु के स्वामित्व में नही जाता ।

भारत का मध्यकाल मानवी इतिहास का एक विशिष्ट काल रहा है । जिन आक्रांताओं ने भारत को अपनी रक्तरंजित तलवारों से इसके अस्तित्व को मिटाने की चेष्टा की, वे विफल ही रहे । उन्ही लोगों ने विश्व की और भी सभ्यताओं के साथ वैसे ही किया । मिश्र और फारस की संस्कृति और अस्तित्व मिटाने में इन्ही लोगों ने बस लगभग पचास वर्ष लगाये । परन्तु भारत १४०० वर्षों लड़ता रहा और अंत में विजयी हुआ । यह सच है की इसी काल में भारतीय समाज में कुछ दोष अवश्य उत्पन्न हुए, परन्तु भारतीय सभ्यता का आधारभूत अस्तित्व बना रहा । यह स्वाभाविक होना चाहिए था की स्वतन्त्रा प्राप्ति के पश्चात इतिहासकार भारत के इतिहास को भारतीय परिपेक्ष्य से लिखते । परन्तु जो स्वाभाविक था, वह नही हुआ क्या कारण था । इसको समझना चाहिए ।

उन्नीसवीं शताब्दी में किसी भारतीय मूल के लेखक या इतिहासकार ने मुग़लों का गौरवीकरण नही किया । यह प्रक्रिया बीसवीं शताब्दी में प्रारम्भ हुई । मुग़ल आक्रांताओं का गौरवीकरण किसने किया? इसके पीछे कौन लोग थे और उन लोगों यह क्यों किया? सबसे पहले राजनीतिज्ञ जिन्होंने मध्यकालीन भारत के आक्रांताओं का गौरवीकरण किया वे प्रखर वामपंथी श्री मानवेन्द्र नाथ राय थे । उन्होंने ऐसा क्यों किया इसके पीछे वैचारिक और राजनैतिक कारण थे । उस समय वामपंथी सोच का अभ्युदय काल था । विश्व भर में वामपंथी क्रांति की हवा चल रही थी । भारत के वामपंथियों का कुछ ऐसा मत था की भारत को किस तरह वामपंथी क्रांति के लिए तैयार किया जाई । वे इसको किसी ऐतिहासिक परिपेक्ष्य में होने देना चाहते थे । हर क्रांति का कोई न कोई ऐतिहासिक परिपेक्ष्य अवश्य होता है । इसी परिपेक्ष्य की स्थापना हेतु उन्होंने इस्लामी आक्रांताओं के भारत आक्रमण को "समाज सुधार" के रूप में स्थापित किया और तभी से वामपंथी विचारधारा के लोगों ने मुग़लों का जोर-शोर से सम्मान करना प्रारम्भ कर दिया ।

कालांतर में यह वर्ग भारत के वैचारिक जीवन में हावी हुआ और इसी का परिणाम "जोधा अकबर" जैसी विवादित कला कृतियाँ हैं । चीन देश में कोई जापानी आक्रांताओं को सम्मान से नही देखता है । रूस देश में जर्मन आक्रांताओं को सम्मान नही दिया जाता । भारत ही ऐसा राष्ट्र है जहाँ आक्रमणकारियों का सम्मान किया जाता है । जो लोग जोधा और अकबर का सम्बन्ध एक प्रेम-प्रसंग के रूप में दिखाने में लगें है वे भारत के अस्तित्व को मिटाने वाली ऐतिहासिक शक्तियों के मूक समर्थक ही हैं ।

http://ajaatshatru.com/2008/02/blog-post.html

[ramana]

Bodhi Whats the synopsis of the Hindi article? My Hindi is rusty after so many days in videsh.

I understood the red fonts. The writers is decrying the "Kshatryias" who are really pseudos and dont live up to the dharma of protecting the society.

[ramana]

From TOI

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->LEADER ARTICLE: Power Of Imagination
23 Feb 2008, 0046 hrs IST,

SHARMISTHA GOOPTU

Jodhaa Akbar, the love story of emperor Akbar and his Rajput queen Jodhabai, has been decreed non-historical by historians. That's no great surprise: the love story of Jodha and Akbar as a Bollywood film would necessarily need to be 'created' by the director. No history book in the world provides much insight into, whether Akbar had, or had not, ever married a Rajput princess named Jodhabai.

One does not need to be an expert of Mughal history to spot discrepancies in the film's period reconstruction. For instance, would a Mughal queen step into the shahi (royal) kitchen and cook a meal for her husband, or would she actually make an appearance before his courtiers to serve him lunch, with the queen mother looking on? Possibly not. The film is most clearly a work of fiction built on a skeleton of history, with some characters who are 'real', others imaginary.

The greater part of the controversy around Jodhaa Akbar has, however, centred around the figure of the Rajput princess Jodha, who in the film is married to Akbar as part of a diplomatic arrangement between the Mughals and the Kachwaha king of Amer. According to historians of the period, Jodha was never married to Akbar. The Rajput princess known as Jodhabai or Jodh Bai was in all probability given in marriage to his son prince Salim, later emperor Jehangir.

On the other side of the spectrum, however, is a powerful popular imaginary centring Jodhabai. Known to have been allowed to retain the practice of her religion even after her marriage to Akbar, the name of Jodhabai stands as testimony to the Mughal emperor's greatness and tolerance. Thus, the tourist guide at Fatehpur Sikri would invariably point out to you the palace of Jodhabai popularly known as Jodha Mahal, and tell you how in the time of Akbar the chime of temple bells from the palace would mingle with the sounds of the azaan emanating from the emperor's quarters. In the popular imagination, Jodha's name is almost as inextricably linked to Akbar's as the legend of Mumtaz Mahal is to Shah Jehan. Jodhaa Akbar largely draws upon that popular imaginary. Faced with questions about the film's historicity the director has acknowledged that he has drawn upon the most popular usage in this context, that of Jodha as Akbar's Hindu queen. In Jodhaa Akbar, the Hindu-Muslim angle becomes the peg for a contemporary audience to consume the love story of a Mughal emperor and his Rajput queen. Historians of the period have pointed that this Hindu-Muslim peg in the film has been the superimposition of a more contemporary perspective on the 16th century, when identities were formed not so much in terms of the Hindu-Muslim binary, but rather in terms of caste, clan and lineage.

For the Rajputs, therefore, matrimony with the Mughals would not be a matter of reservation principally on religious grounds. Matrimonial relations among the ruling classes of the period were mostly determined by considerations of rank and stature, and by political exigency. Marriage between the Hindu and Muslim ruling classes was therefore known even in pre-Mughal days, though it became a more institutionalised practice under Akbar and Jehangir. If at all Jodha was married to Akbar, such an alliance would not quite have been the bolt from the blue that it is in the film, where Jodha confronts her father, Raja Bharmal of Amer, for promising her in marriage to a man who would not even know the significance of the sindoor.

Here, of course, 'communalism' or the Hindu-Muslim binary that has structured Indian history in the 20th century and thereafter becomes transposed on an earlier period for it to be more comprehensible to a contemporary audience. The period trappings apart, it is not greatly different from, say, a film like Mani Ratnam's Bombay, with its Hindu boy-Muslim girl love story and message of national integration. While all of this clearly spells incongruity so far as the film's 'authenticity' is concerned, it also upholds the vibrancy of a popular text in its capacity to interpret the past in terms of the present, and to inscribe greater life into the past.

Other such 'discrepancies' in the film could be likewise ascribed. In the film, Jodha is a feminist figure who speaks in terms of 'her' rights, whether it is when she asks for an audience with her future husband, the emperor of India, where she lays down her conditions of marriage, or, later, when she refuses to be wooed back by her husband who had suspected her integrity.

While such episodes in the film are anachronistic, it is more enabling to look beyond their obvious incongruity. Jodhaa Akbar is as much about Jodha as it is about Akbar; a very contemporary perspective constitutes this love story, for without it there would have been no love story, only perhaps a documentary on Akbar the Great, right out of the history books. This love story has no historical basis, but it is also important to note here the dynamic of a popular medium, its power to make the past relevant to the present through the mechanics of pleasure and the imagination. And can even historians discount the imagination in our interpretation of the past?

The writer is working on her PhD thesis on Indian film at the <b>University of Chicago.</b> 
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->