
How Akbar came to love books despite never learning to read (2019) - chesterfield
https://dailytimes.com.pk/377146/how-akbar-came-to-love-books-despite-never-learning-to-read/
======
keiferski
Akbar was one of the more interesting monarchs in human history. He was quite
tolerant for the time, so much so that he created his own syncretic religion
that aimed to soothe tensions among his subjects.[1]

He also had an official biography written, the _Akbarnama_ , [2] which is a
pretty fascinating look behind the throne of Mughal India. It includes
chapters on the imperial kitchen, coins used in the empire, army encampments,
and more. [3]

1\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Din-
i_Ilahi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Din-i_Ilahi)

2\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbarnama](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbarnama)

3\.
[http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00litlinks/abul...](http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00litlinks/abulfazl/ain_zzcontents.html)

~~~
n_t
Despite the hype, Akbar was not tolerant at all. Like most Muslim kings in
India, he was heavy-handed towards Hindus but was also towards Shia Muslim
[1]. He ordered numerous massacre of Hindus (e.g. massacre in Garha in 1560
AD[2], order to weight Janeu - a cotton thread worn by hindus - of killed
Hindus which weighed 200kg [3], rewarded Abd al-Qadir Badauni with gold coins
who soak his Islamic beard in Hindu infidel blood [4]), had many Hindu temples
razed/looted and destroyed, among many other things. Despite many facts,
AFAICT, India is only country which portrays its invaders and looters as
heroes.

[1] ’Akbar and His India’ by Irfan Habib [2] The SAGE Encyclopedia of War:
Social Science Perspectives edited by Paul Joseph [3] Emperors of the Peacock
Throne: The Saga of the Great Mughals By Abraham Eraly [4] Source: The Legacy
of Jihad:Islamic Holy War & the Fate of Non-Muslims edited by Andrew G. Bostom

~~~
puranjay
Nations are usually built on lies. Most countries would likely fall apart if
they were completely truthful about their histories.

In India's case, the whitewashing of Mughal rule was a necessity because there
are still a substantial number of Muslims living in India, and painting their
ancestors - the Mughals - as barbaric invaders would likely lead to violence
(especially when seen in the context of the Partition violence).

At this point, India has to confront a hard question: does it continue
believing the old lies, or does it accept the harsher reality? If we go with
the latter, can you be confident that the country will survive in its present
form?

I'm not sure of the answer. The mature position would be to understand that
the violence and religious persecution happened, but since that's in the past,
we can't really change anything about it. Punishing the present does not undo
the sins of the ancestors.

But I'm not convinced that most people will take the mature position.

~~~
srean
Your point is very well taken.

Empire making and keeping is inherently violent, but the current trend seems
to be trying to make the case that Hindu emperors achieved what they achieved
with peace, rainbows and divine fairness (and some old Hindu science of flying
machines, plastic surgery between humans and elephant heads. All lost because
of outside invasion). Pushing this point of view has been the national agenda
in the current political situation.

~~~
puranjay
If nothing else, it's a gross oversimplification of history - a basic "us vs
them" narration. When in reality, alliances were driven more by political
necessity than by religion. There were Hindu generals in Mughal armies, just
as there were Muslim commanders in the Maratha armies.

If you trace the Mughal family tree, you'll also find that someone like Shah
Jahan was 75% Indian by blood (Hindu Rajput grandmom, Hindu Rajput mom). Make
of that what you will.

~~~
srean
Agreed. Even the notion that the British took India from the Mughals is quite
a laughable notion. Mughals were a shadow of themselves at that time. India
was taken from the Marathas, not the Mughals.

An aside, are you aware of significant artifacts (more than hill top forts)
institutions that the Marathas left behind. I would be quite interested in
knowing about them. With the subject matter so politically charged it is hard
to have levelheaded conversations on it.

------
InfiniteRand
I suspect Akbar’s “illiteracy” like the similar case of Charlemange, was
probably performative. Both were representing dynasties whose people were
recently considered barbarians. While being a sponsor of learning brings great
prestige, being too literate can make you look soft and corrupted by decadent
civilization (Chinese history has a repeated pattern of coups like this
against conquering inner Asians who became too Chinese). Not a serious
historical theory mind you, just some irresponsible speculation

~~~
valarauko
There might be some merit to this idea, though I'm not sure it really applies
to Akbar, or even the early Mughals. His youth was also fairly tumultuous, and
in the early years the continuation of the Timurids in India was not a sure
thing. Besides, while the early Mughals may have been only the latest new kids
on the block in Delhi, they were part of the same Persianate culture that had
dominated North India for close to half a millennia by that point. I doubt
there would be much value in performative illiteracy in this context.

For what it's worth, while Persian was the court language, the Mughals
retained their Turkic dialect as a household language, and Akbar was
conversant in the major Hindi dialects. There is evidence that subsequent
Mughals and the vast number of Mirza princelings in the Imperial household
grew up speaking Hindi as their primary language with their Rajput mothers,
before formal instruction in Turkic, Persian, and Arabic.

------
webmobdev
Ironically, even though he loved books and the pursuit of knowledge, when the
British envoy first presented him a printed Bible, he was not impressed by it
and is said to have commented that his calligraphers could create much better
looking books than such ugly ones! The Mughals cared too much about art and
military to realise how much the printed books would revolutionise the world.

------
projectramo
I feel for the rather confused and well meaning non-subcontinent related
people who have waded into a culture war.

In South Asia - especially India — the moghuls are a loaded topic at the
moment. There is an extreme right wing government that is focused on a Hindu
resurgence (fine) at the expense of non Hindus (not fine), and the central
justification is look how badly we were treated in the past. All the moghuls
have gone through a lot of revisionism and reassessment (also fine) but it’s
all politically motivated to interpret current events (sad).

~~~
srean
Indeed. This thread is going to be a playground for the shills trying to push
the narrative that Hindu's were a pristine white snowflake who did no one any
wrong but were subject to the worst miseries.

------
asimovfan
Wasn't the guy probably dyslexic?

~~~
gzer0
Where do you come to this conclusion from?

There is one line in the entire article about that:

"Ellen Smart in her 1981 essay makes the case that Akbar may have been
dyslexic, though there is little evidence or corroborating facts in support of
this."

Do you have any sources?

~~~
madarco
That's what I suspect too, a guy so smart, how couldn't learn to read even
after being in contact with a lot of books?

------
Fiveplus
Where is @dang when you need him? Look at this thread and all the newer
comments.

~~~
dang
If you want to let us know about something, the only reliable way to do it is
to email hn@ycombinator.com.

