Akbar
Wrote the following in late Feb, 2008...somehow got published in the wrong place. Here it is :)
Saw Jodha-Akbar on Friday. The movie has many good things going for it - authentic sets, smart dialogue, good acting, (the oh-so-gorgeous Ashwariya), and dazzling camera work at times. But the whole is much less than the sum-of-parts and the story is not coherent enough to impress. I think it would have been much better had the moviemakers concentrated on narrating Akbar's remarkable story itself rather try to use it as a background to portray a historically insignificant (if not non-existent) romance.
Akbar's story is indeed remarkable. He is one of four Indians I am very fascinated by (the others being Ashok, Gandhi and Nehru - there are also Samudragupta and Kalidas, but I know too little about them). Supremely brave (the movie's depiction of him tackling aggressive elephants is probably historically accurate), intelligent (the movie's suggestion that his illiteracy resulted from lack of effort is untrue - he tried learning how to read and write, but was probably dyslexic) and wise (Marriage to Jodha and the removal of the jizyah ensured that many of his subjects became loyal to the Mughal empire out of not just fear, but admiration); Akbar and his legacy shaped the destiny of Hindustan for over two century (till the battle of Plassey in 1757 atleast). From 1556 to 1658, Hindustan was ruled by three brilliant emperors - Akbar, Jehangir and Shah Jahan - who deeply imprinted their mark on India. Apart from Nehru and Indira Gandhi, I find it hard to believe that any but the most devoted scholars will recall any of the prime ministers of the first sixty years of the Indian Republic three or four hundred years later.
From the battle of Panipat where a young Akbar led by Bairam Khan fended off the challenge from Hemu, to the defeat of the Rajputs in the sieges of Ranthombore and Chittor, to the 12-day ride from Agra to Gujarat to crush the rebellion by the Sultan there, Akbar's prowess in battle was to be proven time and again. He never lost any significant battle, and kept expanding his empire throughout his 49-year reign. There must truly have developed an aura around the persona of the emperor, which later Mughals would have found indispensably useful.
His military prowess was surpassed by his administrative and political insight. Defeated enemies were co-opted and became pillars of the empire. A conscious effort was made to make it a Mughal empire where all subjects had equal rights, rather than one where being a Muslim automatically bestowed privelege. The abolition of the jizyah in 1580 ranks in my mind as the most politically astute gesture in Indian history, alongside Gandhi's disobeying of the Salt Act in Dandi in 1930. Marriage to Rajput princesses ensured that they became political partners rather than disaffected subjugated locals (If Aurangzeb had managed to similarly co-opt the Maratha deshmukhs instead of humiliating Shivaji at his court, the history of India would have been very different). Revenue reorganisation under the supervision of Todarmal ensured that the Mughal treasury had funds for both war and creating monumental architecture.
Above all the Pax Mughlai that north India witnessed for almost 150 years from 1570 to 1720 (Aurangzeb was a very competent emperor, though not a very far-sighted one) created the backdrop for sustained economic progress and population growth. India's population probably rose by 50% between 1500 and 1750 (from 150 million to 220 million), and then stagnated till 1900. Indian farmers grew crops to suit the market, Indian artisans made products exported to multiple regions of the world, Indian merchants were actively involved in Asian commerce...the Mughal economy was amongst the most prosperous pre-industrialised economies in world history.
A slightly random post, I guess...I'll edit this sometime in the future, if I have the inclination :)
Saw Jodha-Akbar on Friday. The movie has many good things going for it - authentic sets, smart dialogue, good acting, (the oh-so-gorgeous Ashwariya), and dazzling camera work at times. But the whole is much less than the sum-of-parts and the story is not coherent enough to impress. I think it would have been much better had the moviemakers concentrated on narrating Akbar's remarkable story itself rather try to use it as a background to portray a historically insignificant (if not non-existent) romance.
Akbar's story is indeed remarkable. He is one of four Indians I am very fascinated by (the others being Ashok, Gandhi and Nehru - there are also Samudragupta and Kalidas, but I know too little about them). Supremely brave (the movie's depiction of him tackling aggressive elephants is probably historically accurate), intelligent (the movie's suggestion that his illiteracy resulted from lack of effort is untrue - he tried learning how to read and write, but was probably dyslexic) and wise (Marriage to Jodha and the removal of the jizyah ensured that many of his subjects became loyal to the Mughal empire out of not just fear, but admiration); Akbar and his legacy shaped the destiny of Hindustan for over two century (till the battle of Plassey in 1757 atleast). From 1556 to 1658, Hindustan was ruled by three brilliant emperors - Akbar, Jehangir and Shah Jahan - who deeply imprinted their mark on India. Apart from Nehru and Indira Gandhi, I find it hard to believe that any but the most devoted scholars will recall any of the prime ministers of the first sixty years of the Indian Republic three or four hundred years later.
From the battle of Panipat where a young Akbar led by Bairam Khan fended off the challenge from Hemu, to the defeat of the Rajputs in the sieges of Ranthombore and Chittor, to the 12-day ride from Agra to Gujarat to crush the rebellion by the Sultan there, Akbar's prowess in battle was to be proven time and again. He never lost any significant battle, and kept expanding his empire throughout his 49-year reign. There must truly have developed an aura around the persona of the emperor, which later Mughals would have found indispensably useful.
His military prowess was surpassed by his administrative and political insight. Defeated enemies were co-opted and became pillars of the empire. A conscious effort was made to make it a Mughal empire where all subjects had equal rights, rather than one where being a Muslim automatically bestowed privelege. The abolition of the jizyah in 1580 ranks in my mind as the most politically astute gesture in Indian history, alongside Gandhi's disobeying of the Salt Act in Dandi in 1930. Marriage to Rajput princesses ensured that they became political partners rather than disaffected subjugated locals (If Aurangzeb had managed to similarly co-opt the Maratha deshmukhs instead of humiliating Shivaji at his court, the history of India would have been very different). Revenue reorganisation under the supervision of Todarmal ensured that the Mughal treasury had funds for both war and creating monumental architecture.
Above all the Pax Mughlai that north India witnessed for almost 150 years from 1570 to 1720 (Aurangzeb was a very competent emperor, though not a very far-sighted one) created the backdrop for sustained economic progress and population growth. India's population probably rose by 50% between 1500 and 1750 (from 150 million to 220 million), and then stagnated till 1900. Indian farmers grew crops to suit the market, Indian artisans made products exported to multiple regions of the world, Indian merchants were actively involved in Asian commerce...the Mughal economy was amongst the most prosperous pre-industrialised economies in world history.
A slightly random post, I guess...I'll edit this sometime in the future, if I have the inclination :)
posted by FiFo @ 12:29 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home