Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Asian History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Asian History Asian History Forum - China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, and the Asia-Pacific Region


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 24th, 2012, 06:32 PM   #31
Lecturer
 
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 347

Quote:
Originally Posted by avantivarman View Post
first time I agree with you mere bhai.
"Mere Bhai"? LOL thanks bro, you made my day!. BTW, are u a sohail khan fan or something?
KunaltheGreat is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 24th, 2012, 06:34 PM   #32

Pusyamitra's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: USA
Posts: 672

Quote:
Originally Posted by KunaltheGreat View Post
"Mere Bhai"? LOL thanks bro, you made my day!. BTW, are u a sohail khan fan or something?
Sallu's Bro..haha
Pusyamitra is offline  
Old November 24th, 2012, 09:51 PM   #33
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: varanasi uttar pradesh, india
Posts: 1,610

Quote:
Originally Posted by KunaltheGreat View Post
"Mere Bhai"? LOL thanks bro, you made my day!. BTW, are u a sohail khan fan or something?
I used this just as an expression.

I have no love for ISI agents in bollywood like shahrukh or salman khan.
avantivarman is offline  
Old November 25th, 2012, 05:24 AM   #34
Lecturer
 
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 291

*ahem* If I may get back on topic... (thanks)

I'm a republican and a democrat (not the US kind - the philosophical kind), so I don't believe in the divine right of anyone to call themselves 'king' or 'emperor', or to hold political power without the consent of the governed. This is going to colour my views on Akbar and his secularism.

In the early days of the Mughal empire, there was no unity anywhere. Religiously, there were hundreds of Hindu sects, hundreds more Muslim ones, the Buddhists, Jains, Christians and others, not to mention syncretic groups like the Sikhs. Politically, the Muslim hierarchy was imposed on top of a mostly Hindu populous. While they claimed legitimacy from their relationship with the ulema, there was none accorded to them by the majority of their subjects, who weren't subject to the ulema. In other words, the only legitimacy they enjoyed was force.

Akbar was a smart man. I don't think anyone can dispute that. I think he understood the complexities of imposing himself on top of a population that couldn't care less about which Muslim ruler was set over them. This was the failure of his predecessors - particularly of the two Mughals who preceded him. He also had the example of all the Delhi sultans before, and of Sher Shah who was his immediate predecessor as the prime ruler of northern India. He would have understood that for his dynasty to become established, he needed to win the consent of the people, if not directly, at least by default (ie, they don't rise up too much). He did, or at least, tried several things for this, including trying to get the leaders of all the various religions to accept his supremacy.

Abolishing the Jizya, allowing temples to be built in Brindavan, overtures to the Jains,... These were all part of the attempt. I think we should recognize him as the first Muslim ruler who came to this realisation that the he couldn't be merely a Muslim monarch.

Din-i-Ilahi is one other such attempt - an overt one, to create a religion (or religious philosophy, at any rate), which encompassed what he had learned from all the various religious leaders and philosophers he had encountered. If you look at its structure, there is One God, and the Emperor is his representative on Earth - Caesaropapism!

I think he would have hoped that he could bypass the orthodoxy - both Hindu and Muslim - whose petty squabbles he probably grew disgusted with, and establish a direct relationship with his subjects. However, nothing imposed in that way from above could really work in a land like India.

I think we should look at his secularism as equal parts conviction and politics. And in many ways, his politics born from his convictions, and his convictions were influenced by the politics he had to play. There's no way that he would have believed that an emperor wasn't required, for example.
shash is offline  
Old November 25th, 2012, 07:29 AM   #35
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: varanasi uttar pradesh, india
Posts: 1,610

Akbar was the smartest muslim ruler and here I agree with you completely though my reasons are different and because I think he succeeded in enslaving people but with golden chains and people for a time forgot that golden metal pieces were chains only .

most clever man to have ruled india .
avantivarman is offline  
Old November 25th, 2012, 07:30 AM   #36

Pusyamitra's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: USA
Posts: 672

Quote:
Originally Posted by avantivarman View Post
Akbar was the smartest muslim ruler and here I agree with you completely though my reasons are different and because I think he succeeded in enslaving people but with golden chains and people for a time forgot that golden metal pieces were chains only .

most clever man to have ruled india .
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Pusyamitra is offline  
Old November 25th, 2012, 07:36 AM   #37
Lecturer
 
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 291

Quote:
Originally Posted by avantivarman View Post
Akbar was the smartest muslim ruler and here I agree with you completely though my reasons are different and because I think he succeeded in enslaving people but with golden chains and people for a time forgot that golden metal pieces were chains only .

most clever man to have ruled india .
This republican could say that about any and all kings!
shash is offline  
Old November 25th, 2012, 07:40 AM   #38
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: varanasi uttar pradesh, india
Posts: 1,610

Quote:
Originally Posted by shash View Post
This republican could say that about any and all kings!
so as per you all rulers were equally clever ?

I do not think allaud din was able to use golden chains , he used raw hide chain and this cost his dynasty dearly.
avantivarman is offline  
Old November 25th, 2012, 08:04 AM   #39
Lecturer
 
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 291

Quote:
Originally Posted by avantivarman View Post
so as per you all rulers were equally clever ?

I do not think allaud din was able to use golden chains , he used raw hide chain and this cost his dynasty dearly.
I'm saying that all dynastic rule is a chain - golden or otherwise... Akbar was smart enough to understand that you at least have to use gold. But no dynastic rule is as good as the consent of the governed, and a peaceful transfer of administration from one ruling party to the next. All dynastic rule seems to end up in internecine civil war!
shash is offline  
Old November 25th, 2012, 08:10 AM   #40
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: varanasi uttar pradesh, india
Posts: 1,610

Quote:
Originally Posted by shash View Post
I'm saying that all dynastic rule is a chain - golden or otherwise... Akbar was smart enough to understand that you at least have to use gold. But no dynastic rule is as good as the consent of the governed, and a peaceful transfer of administration from one ruling party to the next. All dynastic rule seems to end up in internecine civil war!
Of course.
avantivarman is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
akbar, emperor, secularism


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Akbar's Policies. Please Help bitdefen000 History Help 2 September 26th, 2010 03:43 AM
Question related to Akbar- Mughal.. Please Help bitdefen000 Asian History 2 September 25th, 2010 05:48 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.