Jodha Akbar: Does it Deserve the Attention?

I didn’t want to blog about the controversy around Jodhaa Akbar simply because it doesn’t deserve the attention it is getting. The opinion I’ve heard about the movie is that it is an expensive and lengthy bore–at the least. Taking liberties with history is nothing new to Bollywood. Jodhaa Akbar is just the latest after the cinematic character-assassination of Bhagat Singh.

Akbar’s benevolence is a loaded term because history shows his love for mass murder in the service of Islam. He was just less crueller than Babur or Humayun or the other Mughals. However, he more than compensated that by masterful deception. By "marrying" Rajput ladies via entering into "treaties," he executed a bloodless conversion spanning generations.

Pity, Aurangzeb didn’t learn from this illustrious ancestor.

35 comments for “Jodha Akbar: Does it Deserve the Attention?

  1. Varaha5
    April 10, 2013 at 8:00 AM

    The problem with this movie is that it perpetuates the myth of mughal/islamic benevolence towards the native Hindu populace.

    If it is just a fictional romance then why use the names of Akbar & Jodha at all? Its obvious that it was written with an agenda & a fictional one at that, of hindu muslim unity.

    Of course Hindus & Muslims do share a unity and that is of common ancestry. Why not therefore make a movie depicting how they were converted? That would surely do far more to promote unity in india.

    Most of the audience being either illiterate rickshaw Wallas or historically illiterate & indifferent muddleclass wannabe oh so european I speak english indians don’t give a damn about historical accuracy.

    European costume dramas about Elizabethan court attempt at both accuracy and authenticity and are tremendously successful see dame judith dench eg.

    As regards selective reading to suit ones purpose, we read history to discern the truth and though it is by it nature subjective; all the history books referred to above have been by the moslems themselves.

    It is islamic chronicles such as akbar nama; ain I akbari, badshahnama; babar nama that detail the atrocities commited in glee.

    As is sometimes argued that Islamic chronicles exaggerate events to such as genocides to humour the king; begs the question what kind of ruler takes pride in killing thousands of people or demolishing places of worship?

    The film is a slur on history in general and indian history in particular. It is a symptom of a people who for whatever reason choose not to see their past in its true light. It is an attempt at masking the past to make it palatable. In short it is self deception and at worst it is perptrated by ourselves upon ourselves.

    Until a nation chooses to be truthful about its history how can it ever mature? That is why a country with such a rich culture appears as an immature adolescent in the world. Which is surely a paradox. It is a country which appears to need some serious psychological counselling.

    Just look at our culture and the unwatchable crap we come out with in movies. I had to switch Ashoka off within 2 mins of it starting to save my sense of self respect.

  2. Rizwan Khan
    April 14, 2009 at 4:14 PM

    Mr. Pinakin,

    If you have studied few books that suits your taste, that can not become a truth. There is sea of books that spreds the truth in History, study them all. Do not destroy the innocent minds. Study well the histry. Thanks.

  3. indian
    May 14, 2008 at 2:20 AM

    Pinakin. Thanks a lot for reminding the truths about history brother. I also know the atrocities of moghuls, nijam nawaba, bahamani sultans etc who used to kill rajput kings in midnight sleep and declare themselves as ghazis. And Divya, i know the movie commercial values are good but plz remember, dn’t call a person who is telling u the atrocities done against our ancestors as hindu extremists. Bcoz the same islamic rule was applied against hindus in bangladsh in the name of secularism. Just check with any bengali and those millions of people who migrated from bangladesh. U know y???????????????
    They were raped on road before their husbands and the so called secular govt was enjoying the scene. This is fact. If u want plz go to bengal and u will see the plight of migrant hindus in millions. I have seen with my own eyes. My intention is not to blame u. But plz remember, u r safe now. Can u imagine india being the country ruled by the simila kind of islamic rulers in bangladesh. Imagine the plight of hindu women. My dear sister, muslim population in india is growing at doublt the rate than that of hindus. By 2050, they will become equal to us in population. Just check the kind of rapes and attacks happening on hindu women while they were going in tourist buses for marriages. If u think still i am lying, just go and check with your own eyes. My kind request to all hindu brothers and sisters, plz don’t call any person who is giving the details of atrocities done against us as a hindu extremeist. Islam means not shahrukh khan or aamir khan. Come out of dreams. In realty, u won’t find such soft personalities in islam bcoz they r aggressive andthey rdetermined to destroy hindus. In their view, we r kafirs (means infidels). And in koramn, they mentioned they can do any attrocities against infidels including women, children. Allah will forgive them. I also like shahrukh khan, aamir khan as actors but in realty u won’t find them in muslims. Just watch the plight of hindus who were reduced from 20% to 3% in pakisthan. Eveyday on an avg, 4 hindu girls in sindh province were abducted and married to criminals and their courts are approving marriages. Hindu women were treated worst in muslim majoritty countries. Plzz realize the situation in our neighbouring countries. Plz don’t call hindus as extremists. We are the most tolerant people. Just check the pentagon, CIA archivesss. U will find how india was made as brothel club in the moghal rule. More than 300 rajput princess were sexually abducted and harassed by akbar and his generals. Do u know the queen padmini who burnt herself when alluddin khilzi invaded chottorghar? She is the most beatiful lady of that time. Alluddin khilzhi told her husband that she is like his sister and he want to see her. After seeing her, he gave anasthetis to her husband and took him as prisoner and in return demanded her to sleep with him to save her husband. She and along with her thousands of women servants jumped into fire to avoid rape by the invaders. Just go thru the history of rajput. Blood will come out of your eyes after knowing the treatment of moghuls to hindu women. Bollywood movies are not histiry. U can see and enjoy but remember the real history. If we neglect it now, india will become another bangladesh and pakisthan where women will be treated like prostitutes rather than human beings. If u guys still call me as hindu extremists, just go and sit with any imam in mosque and he will tell u their views and intentions towards hindus. This may look mad to u now but it’s the long term ambitions of the arabians to restore moghal rule in india. If any of our sister or brother still have doubts, just convert to islam for 6 months and then u will get all answers with detailed practical experiences.

  4. Shamiran
    April 28, 2008 at 8:59 AM

    Very interesting thoughts. I just saw the movie, and off course true to Bollywood the splendour was grand the characters beautiful (mmmm the guy is delicious).

    Anyhooo, don’t know who to believe … what you are saying or my current college history book (studying East Asia now) titled “A History of Asia” by Rhoads Murphey (probably a self-centered Brit); who, writes regarding Akbar as the movie portrayed him – rightous and benevolent?!?

    You certainly have a lot of knowledge & sources, so I’m sure there is some truth to it.

    I would love to see a movie like this splendour on Layla & Majnoon, I’m an Assyrian from Iraq — so, we always love the Hinustan culture and movies. And Layla & Majnoon is a famous Indian story with us – Any sugestions??

  5. March 12, 2008 at 10:22 PM

    history by its very name is HIS STORY

  6. Pinakin
    March 11, 2008 at 7:15 AM

    Truth About Akbar
    ————————
    Akbar’s reign by contemporaries like Abul Fazl, Nizamuddin and Badayni and by western scholars like Vincent Smith is enough to convince the reader that slavery in its most abject forms flourished under Akbar and his reign was full of atrocities, lawlessness, repression and relentless conquests of a kind rarely paralleled in history.

    As for the other part of the myth that he was a great man and ruler, we propose to prove in this article that he was one of the most detested by even his nearest of kins and all Indians, and, therefore, ought to be ranked as such in Indian histories.

    Akbar was a direct descendant in the 7th generation on his father’s side from Tamerlain (or Timur) and on his mother’s side from Chengiz Khan. Thus Akbar was descended from two of the most cruel marauders known to history who made the earth shrink in fear during their life times. But Indian historical texts would almost have us believe that Akbar belonged to a family of people as saintly as St. Francis of Assissi and Abou Ben Adhem.

    Akbar , says Smith, habitually, “disgraced himself by inflicting on his opponents the most fiendish tortures, not sparing even women and children.”

    Akbar was No Hrthik Roshan
    ————————————–…
    Akbar’s Ugly Personality

    From the description of Akbar’s physical characteristics given by Vincent Smith (Pg. 242) it is clear that Akbar’s was an ugly, deformed personality which is quite consistent ethnologically since he belonged to a very vicious family. Smith says, “Akbar (in mid-life) was a man of moderate stature, perhaps 5′ 7″ in height, broad-chested, narrow waisted and long armed. His legs were somewhat bowed inward and when walking he slightly dragged the left leg, as if he were lame. His head drooped a little toward the right shoulder…The nose was rather short, with a bony prominence in the middle and nostrils dilated as if with anger. A small wart, about half the size of a pea connected the left nostril with the upper lip…his complexion was dark. In spite of such ugly features, the self-appointed, self-styled, sycophant chronicler of Akbar’s reign, Abul Fazl, described by his contemporaries as a shameless flatterer, does not tire of asserting that Akbar was the handsomest man on earth. It is obvious that this historian was writing with a purse under his nose and a sword on his neck.

    History is replete with instances of Akbar’s extreme addiction to strong drinks and stupefying drugs. He also used to take liberal helpings of horrifying combinations of both, drugs and drinks. Akbar’s son Jehangir records: “My father, whether in his cups or sober moments always called me Shekhu Babu.” That was a drunken man’s endearing term for his son. Smith observes (Pg. 82) that although panegyrists of Akbar made no mention of his drunken bouts it is certain that he kept up the family tradition and often drank more than he could carry.

    Akbar’s Learning
    ————————
    All historians unanimously testify to Akbar’s stark illiteracy. His son Jehangir has recorded that Akbar could neither read nor write but used to pose as though he was very learned.Aquaviva, a Jesuit at Akbar’s court, says that Akbar “went to such excesses in drinking that he…often fell asleep (while speaking to visitors), the reason being that he made too much use, sometimes of arrack, an extremely heady palm wine, a similar preparation of opium diluted and modified by various admixtures of spices.”

    Akbar’s Lechery
    ———————–
    Abul Fazl, describing Akbar’s harem, says: “His Majesty has made a large enclosure with fine buildings inside where he reposes. Though there are more than 5,000 women (in the harem) he has given to each a separate apartment.” This apartment portion is of course a lie because there is no building of Akbar’s time, where 5,000 women could have been accommodated in separate apartments. On page 276 of Ain-i-Akbari, Vol. I, edited by Blochman, Abul Fazl tells the reader: “His Majesty has established a wine shop near the palace…The prostitutes of the realm who collected at the shop could scarcely be counted so large was their number…The dancing girls used to be taken home by the courtiers…if any well known courtiers wanted to have a virgin they should first have His Majesty’ permission. In the same way, boys prostituted themselves and drunkenness and ignorance soon led to bloodshed…His Majesty himself called some of the principal prostitutes and asked them who had deprived them of their virginity?”
    Despite an exclusive harem of 5,000 women, and all the virgin prostitutes of the realm whose virginity, as Abul Fazl tells us, was at Akbar’s exclusive royal command and could not be violated without special permission by any courtier, the honor of the wives of noblemen and courtiers was itself always subject to Akbar’s sexy pleasure. In Vol. III of Akbarnama, edited by Sir Jadu Nath Sarkar, Abul Fazl says: “Whenever Begams or the wives of nobles, or other women of chaste (sic) character, desire to be presented, they first notify their wish to the servants of the seraglio and wait for a reply. From thence they send their requests to the officers of the palace after which those who are eligible (sic) are permitted to enter the harem. Some women of rank obtained permission to remain there for a whole month.”

    Vincent Smith refers to another incident on page 103 which underscored Akbar’s lust. Jaimull, a cousin of Raja Bhagwandas, was sent on an errand. The garbled version of the incident says that Jaimull dropped dead on the way. His widow, no longer desiring to live in those perilous days, prepared to burn herself on the husband’s funeral pyre. Akbar lost no time in chasing those who accompanied the widow putting them in prison after capture…A little investigation is likely to reveal that Jaimull was poisoned by Akbar’s insiders so that Akbar could drag his widow to his harem. (The secular bastards of the Nehru government used this incident to prove Akbar’s liberal stance against the Suttee system; they pretend not to know the incident of Anarkali! – The Publisher.)

    Akbar’s Cruelties
    ————————–

    In cruelty, Akbar ranks among the worst sadists of history. Vincent Smith says (Pg. 20) “that in privately executing Kamran’s son (Akbar’s own cousin) at Gwalior in 1565 A.D. Akbar set an evil example, imitated on a large scale by his descendants Shahjahan and Aurangzeb.” The atrocities perpetrated by Shahjahan and Aurangzeb were, therefore, not of their innovations but well- worn traditions handed down by their illustrious ancestor Akbar.
    On November 6, 1556 A.D., the day after the battle of Panipat, when Hemu was brought before Akbar, wounded and semi-conscious, “Akbar smote Hemu on the neck with his scimitar,” says Smith. Akbar was then just 14 years of age. Even from that young age he glorified in the cowardly killing of helpless and prostrate enemies; such was the upbringing of Akbar the Great!
    After the battle of Panipat, Akbar’s victorious army entered Delhi and then Agra, in state. In accordance with the ghastly Islamic custom, towers were built at both places with the heads of the slaughtered Hindu enemies. Immense treasures were taken from the family of Hemu. Hemu’s aged father was summarily executed.

    In suppressing Khan Zaman’s revolt his confidant Muhammad Mirak “was tortured for five successive days on the execution ground. Each day he was trussed up in a wooden frame and placed before one of the elephants. The elephant caught him in his trunk and squeezed him and flung him from one side to the other…Abul Fazl relates this horrid barbarity without a word of censure.
    After the capture of Chittor, says Smith (Pg. 64): “Akbar exasperated by the obstinate resistance offered to his army, treated the garrison and town with merciless severity…The emperor ordered a general massacre which resulted in the death of 30,000. Many were made prisoners

    The greatest indictment of Akbar is perhaps presented by the great historian Tod’s remark that in Chittor “The emperor’s proceedings were marked by the most illiterate atrocities…”

    Masud Hussain Mirza, a near relation of Akbar, who had risen in revolt, had his eyes sewn up after capture. His other 300 supporters were drawn up before Akbar “with the skins of asses, hogs and dogs drawn over their faces. Some of them were executed with various ingenious tortures. It is disgusting to find a man like Akbar sanctioning such barbarities which he inherited from his Tartar ancestors,” says Smith.

    Akbar’s Perfidy > Page1

    Smith’s account of Akbar’s reign contains numerous instances of Akbar’s perfidy. On page 57 he says: “An extraordinary incident that occurred in April while the royal camp was at Thaneshwar, the famous Hindu place of pilgrimage to the north of Delhi, throws a rather unpleasant light upon Akbar’s character.”

    “The Sannyasins assembled at the holy tank were divided into two parties, called the Kurs and the Puris. The leader of the latter complained to the king that the Kurs had unjustly occupied the accustomed sitting place of the Puris, who were thus debarred from collecting the pilgrims’ alms.” Akbar asked them decide the issue by mortal combat. They were drawn up on either side with their arms drawn. In the fight that ensued, the combatants used swords, bows and arrows and stones…” Akbar seeing that the Puris were out-numbered, gave the signal to some of his savage followers to help the weaker party.

  7. Pinakin
    March 11, 2008 at 6:20 AM

    Jodha-Akbar Real true story? Whats truth?

    ———————————————————

    Even historians have not realized piety signified in ‘marriage’ ceremony To show historians’

    Failure to understand the word ‘marriage’ mentioned in Islamic chronicle, Shri. Oak writes, “Shrivastava says that King Raval Hariraya of Jaisalmer married his daughter to Akbar. Here, he never realized that the word ‘marriage’ used by him is most inappropriate.” Raja Bhagawandas went to Jaisalmer to bring his daughter. He took this helpless princess to harem of Akbar. This shows that nobody from Jaisalmer’s royal family took her to Akbar. It was like sending a man and a cartful of food for demon Bakasur to eat everyday. Every Hindu or Muslim king or Nawab had to offer his daughter to Akbar irrespective of his surrendering to or giving a fight to Akbar since Akbar was extremely lascivious. Kings like Bhagawandas and Mansingh, who had surrendered to Akbar, used to advise other Rajputs that it was better to provide Akbar with their women and wealth rather than fight with the powerful Emperor. As per their advice, except Maharana of Udaypur, all the other kings and princes had surrendered to Akbar either by giving a fight or without fight. After their surrender, they did not get away with sending just one princess; but they had to send a carriage-full of women. How in a wedding, presents are distributed to the people from one’s family as per their status, these Hindu women used to be sent to army personnel of Akbar as gifts. Children of these Hindu women used to get grow up hating Hindus since very young age and after growing up, they used to carry on the legacy of killing Hindus, converting them and raping Hindu women.

    On page 213-215, Shri. Shrivastava says, “King Ravalpratap of Banswada and King Raval Asakarna of Dongarpur were induced to surrender to Akbar and since then, they were known as subjugates of Akbar. The princess of Dongarpur was sent to the harem of Akbar. Lunkarna and Birbal induced both the kings to conciliate with Akbar. Both the kings brought princess of Dongarpur to Akbar’s camp. Akbar was on his way to Fattehpur Sikri. Even during the journey, Hindu ladies from royal families were supplied to satiate Akbar’s sexual desires. The princess of Dongarpur was taken to Akbar from her father’s shelter to Akbar’s camp. In Hinduism, ‘marriage’ is a rite, however, Akbar destroyed the sanctity of marriage.
    Akbar used to demand Hindu women for providing to relatives and friends
    Shri. Oak has shown how to surmise the descriptions written by fanatic chronologists who were refugees of Akbar and who believed in keeping him happy. Shri. Oak writes, “Akbar used to ask for women belonging to his enemies’ families defeated by him and he used to call for Hindu women even for his relatives and friends, e.g. the ruler of Tibet was asked to send his daughter for Akbar’s son Shahajada Salim (Jahangir). Accordingly, she went to the harem in Lahore on 1st January 1572. Who will be ready to send his daughter willingly to a dissipated lustful Mughal king? This shows that the king of Tibet could not have sent his daughter along with his wealth unless he was threatened of getting his kingdom destroyed. He had to therefore, sacrifice his daughter.

    On 26th June 1586 daughter of Rayasinh of Bikaner too entered the harem of Salim (Jehangir). Historians are describing these incidents as marriages which is totally wrong. Had it been ‘marriage’, the ceremony would have taken place in the palace of Bikaner. Whole of Bikaner would have strongly condemned if such ceremony would have taken place in there.

    There is a reference of Akbar marrying two Hindu princesses to Salim (Jahangir) in a book authored by Shallot. He says in the book that on 2nd February 1584, there was a grand celebration of Salim’s wedding with daughter of King Bhagawandas in Lahore and in the year 1596, Salim was wedded to the daughter of Rayasinh. It was natural to celebrate for Muslims as it was their policy to defile Hindu princesses; but it was a matter of grief for Hindus. It was a hell for Hindu women to spend the rest of their lives in dark prison like harems along with their co-wives with such dissipated and immoral Muslim husbands. Moreover, Hindu princesses had to even take abuses hurled at them for being Hindus as Hindus were treated inferior.

    Bhagawandas and Mansinh, the two princes became agents of Akbar and they used mediate and send other Rajput princesses to Mughal harems. It used to be deathly for the parents of such girls to sacrifice their daughters to Mughals; therefore, they used to avoid going and used to send their daughters through Bhagawandas and Mansinh with a little satisfaction that their daughter was sent (to hell) through a Hindu Rajput so that the daughters would be able to hear at least a few Hindu words in that hell.

    On Jodhbai’s death, Rajputs refused to perform ‘kshour’ rites
    Now we shall study an incident that took place after Jodhabai’s death from the book written by Shri. Oak. It is given in the book titled ‘Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan’ (Part 2, page 385) by Colonel James Todd that Akbar ordered all Rajputs to perform ‘kshour (cut hair and beard)’ after Jodhbai’s death. When the barbers reached the camp of Hada Rajput, they refused to get their hair cut and beat up the barbers. Among the protesters, there was Raja Bhoj. He was the son of Rao Surajan whose capital was Fort Ranathambore. Those against Raja Bhoj, informed Akbar about the incident that the barbers sent by him were beaten up by Hada Rajput and they refused to observe mourning for Jodhabai.

    Bhoj Raja was a valiant king. He had no other option but to stay in the camp along with other Hindu Rajaput as a hostage. As Akbar heard about Bhoj’s resistance, he ordered that Raja Bhoj should be fettered and his mustache should be cut.

    The news reached Hada camp and all the occupants were enraged. They took out their swords and planned to revolt. Finally, Akbar had to personally go there and made peace with them; even he did not dare to touch a hair of Rajputs.

    The crux in this incident was that Jodhabai was from Jaipur’s royal family. Her name was written off by Rajput since she was taken to his harem by Akbar and as such she was ostracized by the Rajputs and they felt that she was not a Rajput and did not deserve to be honoured in any manner. Therefore, Rajputs were not ready to perform rites even after her death or observe mourning. King Bhoj thought that what right did Akbar has to force upon us such rites and ask us to cut our hair.

    For every Rajput, mustaches was a sign of his honour, pride and manliness. They used to be ready to even sacrifice their lives to save their mustaches. On the other hand, Akbar was bent upon insulting Rajputs in every possible way and wanted to make them helpless. Akbar was very particular about others obeying his orders and their bowing before him. Akbar thought it very insulting that Rajputs were not ready to perform rites for Jodhabai as she was his slave. He, therefore, tried, by hook or by crook, to make Rajputs perform the rites; but his plan did not succeed.

    Even today, the thought of marrying one’s daughter to a Muslim is loathsome
    For the past 60 years, Hindi film industry has this bad habit of showing all Muslim characters as very chivalrous. Now even a very depraved king like Akbar is being glorified. It has been 402 years since Akbar’s death; but even now, a Hindu father would not be ready to marry of his daughter to a Muslim. Such thought is very loathsome for a Hindu even today. How bad it must have been even earlier? Hindus have to now decide whether they want to believe in a so-called love story produced by a film producer with his eyes only on earning money or have faith in the proven history told by a virtuous person and protect our women folk.
    Akbar’s name was actually Jalaluddin Mohamad and as the name suggests he was fiery. When barely 18-19 years of age he got Behramkhan, the very man who had brought him to power, murdered because he was lusting for Behramkhan’s wife. So with his murder the path was clear to take Khan’s wife to his harem. The monarch of Jaipur Bhagwandas accepted his sovereignty and gave the hand of his sister, who it is said was named Jodhabai in marriage to Akbar. There is also some confusion regarding the words Jodhbai and and Jodhabai. One of them is associated with Akbar and the other with his son Salim (Jahangir).
    Akbar the brute who molested several Hindu princesses !
    The great India historian who can be equated to a sage, Shri P.N. Oak has written a well researched book titled ‘Akbar Thor nhavtaach’ meaning Akbar was certainly not great. This book elucidates many misdeeds of Akbar. So Jodha Akbar is only one aspect of misdeeds of Akbar of grabbing Hindu women.

    Oak writes, ‘Even an ordinary person with no knowledge of Indian history could say that it was impossible for Akbar to marry a Rajput princess. Even the most ordinary Hindu man would prefer Hindu women to die instead of them being captured by Muslims. To save the honour of their women Rajputs even gave up their lives. So it is absurd to say that a Rajput king chose Akbar belonging to another country and who always remained in his harem drinking wine and smoking opium, as an ideal suitor for his daughter.

    One of the reasons for the deadly hatred of the Kshatriya kings for Akbar was his lust for their beautiful women. Akbar had also developed the superiority complex that he would become the emperor by abducting their women and by way of his being a Muslim.

    In fact every Muslim youth even if he be poor always dreams of abducting a Hindu girl.They think this is a praiseworthy act. Islam teaches its followers that a Muslim has every right to snatch away everything from a kafir. And it does not end at that. They abduct the Hindu girl and oppressing the kafirs force them to embrace Islam. This is their ultimate objective.

    Akbar being a powerful Muslim he thought it was his duty to use as many women from Hindu kingly families as possible. In fact he was convinced that he was entitled to abducting Hindu women more than other women firstly because he was an emperor and secondly because he was a Muslim.

    In this way Akbar began to fill his harem with Rajput women. Is it not important to substantiate whether the bride had formally accepted the groom, whether they were engaged formally, the names of the Rajput princesses, whether the bride’s relatives attended the wedding, whether families of both the bride and groom were invited to the wedding, whether the wedding was held in the Hindu style with the antarpat and akshata, whether the bride’s family had sent out invitations, whether the wedding procession had taken the chief royal road and whether banquets were being organised for months together to entertain people of all levels from the groom’s darbar ? It is absolute foolishness that without even little evidence the claim is made that a Hindu princess married Akbar.’
    Threat of destroying the Hindu kingdom if the princess was not handed over to him !
    How false and deluding the historical claim that the monarch of Jaipur happily consented to the marriage of his daughter to Akbar is is described by Shri Oak thus, ‘An average history book narrates this incident as – the 19 year old poor Akbar who had come to pay homage at the dargah of the fakir Moinuddin Chisti with pure, religious emotion halted on the way to Ajmer at the Sambhar village .Here King Bharmalla of Jaipur came to greet him and pleaded with him to marry his daughter as if it were a great opportunity that he seized to grab this excellent Muslim youth emperor crossing his territory, as a suitor for his daughter. Bharmalla is believed to have pleaded with him saying, “I would be elated if you would accept my daughter as your bride. Then I will no longer remain in her debt.” And it is projected that Akbar married her as a favour on the king (actually he oppressed her in his harem).
    The average reader and historian both think that the above story is true. However even the average reader will be able to substantiate the falsity of the above untrue story. It is sheer madness to believe that a Rajput king got his daughter married to Akbar ( or for that matter that other Rajput princesses married Muslim emperors/sultans) when it is well known how Rajputs would do anything, even wage wars or kill their women to prevent them from being captured by the Muslims!
    Let us see why King Bharmalla had to surrender to Akbar. The lesson in Ashirvadilal Srivastav’s book (pg 61 -63) says :-“ A commander from Akbar’s army, Sharfuddin attacked Bharmalla’s kingdom time and again and created terror. Falling prey to such attacks Bharmalla had to accept defeat. Sharfuddin captured three Rajput princes, Sangar, Rajsingh and Jagannath who retaliated this attack and imprisoned them. At Sambhar using Islamic tactics of attack they treated them cruelly, even threatened to kill them. To save these princes King Bharmalla was compelled to sacrifice his daughter to these sex-lorn Muslims.Usually men were not allowed to see even the hands or feet of the beautiful Rajput women . When they were given so much protection by their men would a Rajput father hand over his own daughter to an unjust, cruel Muslim ? Certainly not. Because this was akin to a man handing over his family cow to a Muslim butcher. King Bharmalla had to finally surrender unto Akbar as he had no alternative and could no longer bear the destruction of his kingdom. Bharmalla was compelled to submit to all the conditions laid down by Akbar and handing over his daughter to Akbar was a part of that treaty. Only then were the three captive princes released .”
    Let us now acquaint ourselves with the credentials of Shri Ashirvadilal Srivastav, the author of ‘Akbar the Great’. He was the head of department of history at the Agra University and has three doctorates to his credit . In his book in some places Shri Oak has already made a reference to this book.
    It was not a wedding, rather a dacoity !
    Further Shri Oak says, ‘Along with the daughter as per the treaty Bharmalla was compelled to gift Akbar with hundred elephants, thousand horses, gold , silver, jewels, etc. It was done only so that Akbar would not kill the three princes. In his book Srivastav has also recorded that when Akbar’s army was approaching Sambhar the entire village of Devsa on the way was deserted and fear-ridden. This proves that Akbar’s army had unleashed terror by looting, plundering and murdering the villagers and raping their women. This army was certainly not a happy marriage procession with music, etc. A Muslim called Chagatikhan was nominated by Bharmalla to strike a compromise with Akbar. If these were talks regarding marriage then would the Rajput king select a Muslim mediator for such an auspicious cause ?After Bharmalla’s surrender in this manner Akbar commanded Sharfuddin to attack another Rajput kingdom of Medta. If this were a marriage then would he attack another Rajput kingdom in the same way ?
    By abducting Rajput princesses and taking them to his harem Akbar certainly did not insist on calling it a wedding. In fact he could not care less whether the darbar recorded it as a wedding or not.’
    Why are details on the marriage of a Hindu girl not available ?
    When giving the causes for inability to trace the names of Rajput princesses along with Jodhabai ,Shri Oak writes, ‘It was impossible to call this abduction a marriage from the side of Rajputs because no religious ritual was performed. Besides, the sanskar of Vivaha with the abductors was next to impossible. The kings had no option but to let go of their daughters akin to one caught in a crocodile’s jaw be it by head or foot. In this way like hungry crocodiles the Muslim attackers held the kings to ransom . So they had no alternative but to let go of their women- daughters, sisters, mothers, etc. They had lost their valour to give up their lives to protect the chastity of these women. The Rajputs did not realise where down the line they lost their courage, their warrior radiance. They would give up the woman and then out of shame never utter her name again saying that now “she was dead for them”. As even uttering the name of a kafir was a sin for the fickle- minded Muslims, in the Muslim darbar the Hindu girl would be projected as a Muslim by changing her name. In this way these unfortunate Hindu women’s names were wiped out from both sides and never remained on record That is why history only has records of abduction of Hindu princesses from Basvada, Dongarpur, Jaipur, Jodhpur and other kingdoms to the harems of so-and-so Muslim sultan or emperor. No details about their names , family, date of abduction, perpetrator, etc. are on record. This alone is sufficient to testify that this was not a marriage. Yet Muslim protagonist teachers and professors from the very beginning have quietly fed this falsity down the generations in such a way that none has dared to oppose this. See how useless our historians who have studied this history are.
    Kalyanmalla was the monarch of Bikaner. His brother Kahan’s daughter had to be gifted to Akbar and him as a darbar hostage.But he was so obese that he could not even ride a horse because of which he was permitted to return to Bikaner. Till date historians have not dared to project to the world how all this was a type of slavery. The abducted princesses were not only oppressed in the Muslim harems but also to prevent the Rajput kings from revolting against them their Muslim perpetrators would keep those kings and their sons in the Muslim capital darbar under strict vigilance.’
    ——————————-===============================—————————-

    These are the theories put forth by a famous historian Mr. P.N.Oak with substantial evidences to support his statements. I am not sure what is real as such.

  8. Pinakin
    March 11, 2008 at 5:20 AM

    Indians ( not Hindu ) are foolish. One day they say Akbar was great and on other day they say Maharana Pratap was great.

  9. amar
    March 9, 2008 at 5:49 AM

    watching jodhaa akbar and appreciating it, even though put forward as more fiction rather than history, more romance rather than bloody power stuggle, means the utter distortion of the whole theme on which the movie is based on.

    Who was Jallaludin Akbar? HE WAS A JALLAAD. A mass murderer like his ancestry, an invader, a Ravan whose descendants were defeated by the Ram-like Shivaji.

    Who was Jodhaa? A forcibly taken Rajput princess taken over by Akbar as a prostitute locked in his harem amongst others.

    So WHAT THE HELL IS THE REAL JODHAA AKBAR? The shameful story about the abduction of a Rajput princess by a vileful Moghul emperor for lust, and thanks to Bollywood, they have glorified the pair …

    How wrong we hear about Akbar, just think about it, makes the blood of not every Hindu, but the entire humankind boil:

    - Oh, he married a Rajput princess, and gave her honour, and the right to worship Hindu gods and goddesses… WRONG, SHE GOT CONVERTED TO SOME FUNNY NAME
    - He repealed the Jizia tax on non-Muslims… HE SAID THAT TO APPEASE BUT HIS EXECUTORS NEVER FOLLOWED IT> AND BY THE WAY WHY SHOULD AN INVADER COLLECT TAX FROM HINDUS??
    - He was a good, and just king compared to other Moghul emperors like Babur and Aurangzeb: ARREY KISKO BEWAKOOF BANNAA RAHE HO? BAAP THAA BHAANG OR CHARAS KE NASHEY MEIN DOOBAA, BETTEY NAALAYAK NIKLEY, O MERE ‘AZIM-O-SHAHENSHHAAH’ (CHALLOW TERE KO FOKAT MEIN YEH FICTIONAL TITLE BHI DIYAA) KYAA TUNNEY KOI TAALIM TEREY BETTO KO NAHIN DII … KE JIS HINDUSTAAN MEI WOH REHTEY HAI, HINDU KE SAMMAANNA KO KADARR KARO… HINDU NEI KABHI BHI MUSLIM KO HINDU NAHIN BANAYAA, NAA KOI CHRISTIAN KO BHI. HINDU SABKI KADDAR KARTAA HAI, KYUNKE HAMAARE MEIN SOLAA SANSKAAR HAI. HAM AISHWARYAA KO BHI NAHI APNAAYENGE AGAR WOH AISAA SAMAJTI HO KE WOH NAAREE KI LAJJAA SE BHI ZYAADAA SUNDAR LAGTI HAI..SUNDARTAA TO SIRF DIKHAWA HAI. ITIHAAS GAWAAH HAI KE HAM KABIR KO BHI APNAATEI HAI KYUNKE WOH ASLI SANT THAA. AKBAR KI HISTORY PEHLE PADDHO, PHIR JODHA AKBAR JAISI GHATIYAA PICTURE BANAAVOH .. Remember: GANNDAA KHOON RANG DIKHAATAA HAI, BAHUT KAM HAI JO KICHHAD MEIN KAMAL HOTEY HAI … CERTAINLY NOT AKBAR …

    But would I care? I just wouldn’t watch Jodhaa-Akbar, not because I detest Hindu Muslim marriage (its a matter of choice, it should not be forced), but because the premise on which it is based is UTTERLY FALLACIOUS. Remember, a filmmaker cannot recreate a Ramayan on the opposite, where Ravan is the Hero and Ram is the villian… or would they? I bet Ashutosh Gowariker and the like may spend crores of their stinky ruppees on such a project … you never know these guys..

    get the historical facts correct even if you are making fiction…

    Amar

  10. Rahul Agrawal
    March 8, 2008 at 1:29 PM

    I object!!!!!! if there are issue for the role of jodha in the movie in jodhaa akbar than y not in mugleazam the (superhit movie).Why we indians always want to create issue for something or other.Might be the role of jodhaa in the movie was wrong but why dont we understand it is just a movie for entertainment.The movie was not made to hurt RAJPUTS, but they should understand and be tolrent.By juss burning the posters the issue wont be solved.

  11. Shrey Agrawal
    March 8, 2008 at 1:18 PM

    The Movie was Really GOOD.It Tried to teach us lesson that hindu and muslim are one.It was not at all bore.And there was no sot of insult for hindus.I myself is a hindu and i am proud of being a indian where there was a rule of such tolrent muslim rulers.

  12. Kishkindhaa
    March 6, 2008 at 1:14 AM

    Symbiotic relationship? Not really. But they are trying to alleve their anxiety-ridden guilt complexes. It would help to make a few distinctions among these guys:

    1. Chalta hai wala Secularists – these guys usually give comments like “why are you hindus making a fuss, sit back and enjoy, have some chai biscuit, watch the pretty colors”. These guys do not get the picture and may actually not be interested too much. They don’t want to rock the boat since their driver is a christian or they like Shah Rukh Khan. Understanding the geopolitics of conversion and the long-term trends is not on the agenda for these guys.

    2. half-christian wala Secularists – These are the guys whose minds have been thoroughly colonized by missionary education. They actively represent the agenda of their colonial masters, whether muslim or christian. When they see any group of Hindus who are actively resisting or who can expose the neocolonial psychological games, they feel pangs of guilt and anxiety and try desperately to bring these free Hindus into their world of subservience. “Have I made the right choice by selling my soul to the missionaries and jihadis?” “Let me try to convert these guys so I don’t have to think about it and maybe my cowardness will remain unknown” When they realize that their games aren’t working work, then the abuse reigns down: “Simian Hindu” Chaddhi wala” etc etc……

    John was neither of these – probably a fully-converted Christian. He went straight to the abuse and skipped the pleading.

  13. March 5, 2008 at 11:23 PM

    What I don’t understand is the almost pathological fetish of the “smart” secularists to get abused through “idiot baiting”? Makes you wonder who the real “idiot” is. Perhaps its a symbiotic relationship with the occasional bonus play of baited conscience keepers. Some circus!

  14. March 5, 2008 at 5:30 PM

    just another day when hindutva true believers get all riled up about something, and their baiters get into more idiot baiting, and the true believers get more riled up, and … end result, a page full of empty abuse and zero substance.

  15. March 4, 2008 at 6:52 PM

    guys im about to make a movie about my experience with johns sister and mom. trying for a bollywood release, wish me luck.

  16. Ranaveera
    March 4, 2008 at 5:18 PM

    “where was ur jesus freak ass when ur “persecuted” community was going on rampage attacking theatres”

    i reckon john was either in da nut house or getting his freak on wid da local priest, so chill man.

  17. Harish Duggirala
    March 4, 2008 at 5:00 PM

    John you retarded clown if you don’t like my comments, you can do the same, if you had no problems where was ur jesus freak ass when ur “persecuted” community was going on rampage attacking theatres, i didn’t see any rants against that.

    Only a retard would find it okay to glorify invaders and criminals, you should try it with Hitler, i am sure your corpse worshipping self will get ur ass handed back to you along with that clown deeps, just lyk ur anti semitic freeloading friend arun gandhi.

    The issue has nothing to do with patriotism for me you dumb loser, Maharana Pratap is a Hindu hero for any real Hindu not only for Indians and since u r so confident hiding behind ur PC ranting against Hindu deities, u should come down and say the same shit to my face if u r ever in toronto and see if u don’t regret it, address:

    710 Kennedy Road
    Apt # 210
    Scarborough
    M1K2C3
    Ontario

  18. sugerbabez
    March 4, 2008 at 8:35 AM

    honestly guys….whats the point of arguing over a movie that was made to entertain us?? whether it is an insult to any religion or is a misrepresentation of actual historical events is not for any of us to decide. A movie is made…for our entertainment. So just sit back and enjoy the wonderful work done by the director and the actors to make this movie a success. why is everyone so desperate to judge this movie for its content?? not going to change anything, is it??? by complaining that it is not an accurate historical movie…is it going to change whats in the movie?? NOO…dan take a chill pill n enjoy the best movie that was ever made….!!!

  19. Niketan
    March 4, 2008 at 6:49 AM

    Dance songs, Kwaja merey …was the best
    Dovya
    Have not seen the movie and so cannot comment. Sorry for the blunt comment, but anybody who says the music is good has never heard good Hindi cinema music or needs to get his/her ears examined. ARR has for some time at least post – lagaan stopped composing music and is simply getting his singers to scream in the midst of a bad orchestra and is passing this tripe as music- sufi music to be precise.(Guru was the only exception).
    Other than that I have not been a fan of this director (Ashutosh Gowariker). Even Lagaan was overrated. Swades was terrible and hence I do not expect this to be any better.

  20. Kishkindhaa
    March 4, 2008 at 5:56 AM

    Da Vinci Code told the truth about Christianity and its persecution of heathen cultures. The Akbar movie negates these same facts in regards to Hindus and denies the Hindus’ burdensome experiences with a religion imposed by brutal invaders. You cannot make a love story between Anne Frank and Ribbentrop and not expect some type of reaction.

    This is not an issue about censorship or freedom of speech or any other such clown act from the west. These non-issues are just ways for apologists to avoid dealing with the real effects of the invaders’ cultural terrorism. Rajputs certainly had no love for their oppressors although they had to deal with “a wall and the deep blue sea” type of situations often enough. If you are clueless enough to ask “Why are Hindus Opposed to Movie”, just ask yourself why were the Rajputs opposed to the Mughals. If even that does not do it for you, ask yourself why are Iraqis opposed to American armywalas.

    Hindus do not care about whether a movie is factual or non-factual, although they may clothe their concerns in this manner. The issue is the continuing cultural desecration of India and the erasure of India’s cultural diversity by these ideological cults.

  21. John
    March 3, 2008 at 11:30 PM

    Harish, much like your pot smoking name sake, you’re an idiot, a zealot high on his own hindutva bullshit. I had no problems with the Da Vinci Code. If you don’t like a movie or its subject matter, don’t watch it and go piss off. Only an idiot looks for accuracy in commercial cinema.
    Oh, and don’t pretend to be patriotic, thats the last refuge of the scoundrel you know. Burnt monkeys like you love bending over for the white man. Get over yourself shit sainik, not everybody will agree with you on everything…so grow up, monkey shine.

  22. deeps2981
    March 3, 2008 at 7:41 PM

    Thank god the world is not full of dry sarcastic boring human beings as john…and whoever wants the detailed history lessons can watch discovery…or nat geo….

    the movie is magical…its for matured audience who are open minded and who feel.
    certainly not for the robotic people.
    any one who connects with their own emotions and understnad other people will love it.

  23. Harish Duggirala
    March 3, 2008 at 5:30 PM

    Obviously John if of the “secular” persuasion and you can see his intelligence by his comments, these dumb morons Divya, Amit and John are the kind of scum which put India under foreign rule in the first place, no one makes movies glorifying Hitler in Israel or Hollywood, why don’t these scum try it with the disclaimer “this is not history, go to the library to read Hitler’s real story” and see if people will accept that.

    But we are supposed to take it meekly when the founder of India’s worst dynasty and a massacrer of 30,000 Hindu civilians of Chittor who called himself a Ghazi (kaffir killer) is glorified as some supreme lover-boy and that too on a totally fabricated “love” story. Obviously xtians like John are expected to be anti Hindu (notice that he was nowhere to be seen when his “persecuted minority” community got Da Vinci Code banned in several places, no indignation about stupid ass jesus freaks but the Hindus who glorify Akbar are spitting on the memory of Maharana Pratap Singh and his followers.

  24. John
    March 3, 2008 at 2:17 AM

    Goddamn, its just a movie you stupid ass fecal fascists. Must be a slow week in nutty hindu extremism….

  25. Amit
    March 2, 2008 at 11:01 PM

    Akbar Jodha is the best WATCH IT guys….wonderous splendour!

    BEST MOVIE! Its worth watching. Go with your family, your children would enjoy the movie.

  26. Divya
    March 2, 2008 at 10:58 PM

    Its the best movie ever produced. I love this movie, everything about this movie was so beautiful. Dance songs, Kwaja merey …was the best. I loved the way Akbar goes to trans n swirls. Akbar acted so natural. mua! We a group of 20 watched the movie for 3 rd times…and its just mind blowing. Guys watch this movie u will fall in love with it. Ash was so beautifuk. Akbar acted so gracefully with eyes n wonderful diction. In lamonh..ke songs was so so so romantic. Story was so beautiful. Its a movie so it has to be an entertainment… its not a documenty , if u wanna read history go to any library nearby. b bu but if u wanna watch a colourful movie with so much purity ….between Jodha n akbar then watch jodha akber u will fall in love with them.

  27. Nikhil
    March 2, 2008 at 6:59 PM

    Erin
    There is a lot of history of the mughal period written by historians (their own) of their time that contain not many complimentary comments of that period.
    But the fiction that we are served in the name of history is subjective and gives a completely distorted picture.

  28. Erin
    March 1, 2008 at 12:35 AM

    History is just as subjective as fiction.

  29. Prabhu
    February 25, 2008 at 5:00 PM

    I too say no one has right to history tell through his imaginations, but it is always done so, for all reasons.

    Every history is cruel and inhuman. We should be a society which accept the real history as it is. let not alter it, and don’t debate about it much, because we aren’t under any Mugals, they are past, we are in a democratic age, lets fix issues in democracy.

    I have read SL Byrappa’s AVARANA, I feel Mr.Byrappa should have extended his message to how to accept the history as it, and live with Harmony.

    Till we understand this and teach this to next generation we aren’t an immature society.

  30. February 19, 2008 at 3:08 PM

    Contd…

    “The Emperor Abul-Fath Jalaluddin Muhammad, King of Kings, known since his childhood as Akbar, meaning “the great,” and latterly, in spite of the tautology of it, as Akbar the Great, the great great one, great in his greatness, doubly great, so great that the repetition in his title was not only appropriate but necessary in order to express the gloriousness of his glory—the Grand Mughal, the dusty, battle-weary, victorious, pensive, incipiently overweight, disenchanted, mustachioed, poetic, over-sexed, and absolute emperor, who seemed altogether too magnificent, too world-encompassing, and, in sum, too much to be a single human personage—this all-engulfing flood of a ruler, this swallower of worlds, this many-headed monster who referred to himself in the first-person plural” – S R

  31. February 19, 2008 at 3:02 PM

    You have to read Salman Rushdie’s new fiction in New Yorker:

    http://www.newyorker.com/fiction/features/2008/02/25/080225fi_fiction_rushdie/

    “Even the Emperor succumbed to fantasy. Queens floated within his palaces like ghosts, Rajput and Turkish sultanas playing catch-me-if-you-can. One of these royal personages did not really exist. She was an imaginary wife, dreamed up by Akbar in the way that lonely children dream up imaginary friends, and in spite of the presence of many living, if floating, consorts, the Emperor was of the opinion that it was the real queens who were the phantoms and the nonexistent beloved who was real. He gave her a name, Jodha, and no man dared gainsay him.”

  32. Kishkindhaa
    February 19, 2008 at 7:09 AM

    indmovbuff,

    The movie is in the sexual colonization genre. Look up some critical reviews of Pocahontas and other works on the fetishization of Asian woman in western media.

    What’s next? Bush marries iraqi princess? Why are you upset, arab bigot? It’s just art.

    The effort is being made to sexualize the colonized women and infantilize any signs of opposition. But India is not a demised civilization like Native Americas, Pakistan, Phillipines, and so forth.

    Really, it’s not that difficult to pick up on the psychological games being played.

    Why Iranians were upset with ’300′ and being shown as eunuchs and effeminates?

  33. February 18, 2008 at 5:53 PM

    Sandeep, true. So called historical movies in India (atleast the cheap Bollywood trash) are very distorted.

    Be it mughal e azam, or the recent Asoka or Mangal Pandey or Shaheed Bhagat Singh movies. And now we have secular Akbar being kind to Hindu women by marrying them…

    I think even a comic book movie like 300 had much more historical truth in it compared to our “historicals”

  34. Sandeep
    February 18, 2008 at 5:42 PM

    Ind,

    What are you driving at?

  35. indmovbuff
    February 18, 2008 at 5:02 PM

    Such animosity, that from a hindu. You think god would be proud of you?! Hinduism spreads the word of love and not hatred. Just take a chill pill man and go watch the movie as a form of entertainment and not a history lesson. No point in this armchair talk with you having not even given the movie a chance by watching it.

Leave a Comment