Jodha was shown as the daughter of King Bharmal (or Biharimal) of Amber (or Amer) and the lone wife of Akbar. But the film as such was a heavily fictionalised take on some real events to tell a compelling love story between a Hindu woman and a Muslim man. This was one of the high points of the film. A particular scene had Akbar appreciating Jodha’s straightforward behaviour and courage and declaring that he too is a son of Rajputana’s soil. Jodhaa Akbar tried to favourably weigh in on Akbar’s Indian identity too.
#Jodha akbar movie tv#
Many of them appear on TV news panels-which double up as pulpits to preach nationalism to people-and insist that Akbar shouldn’t be remembered in India. This important point was lost on Vincent Smith, and we see it getting lost on the nouveau Indian critics of Akbar who declare him a foreigner. What’s interesting here is that Fazl includes the first two emperors as foreigners who entered India, but not Akbar-an attestation of the Indian origin of this emperor. Fazl meticulously then goes on to list the names of Mahmud of Ghazni Muhammad of Ghor various Delhi sultans like Qutubuddin Aibak and Iltutmish Mongol generals like Saldi, Qutlugh Khwaja and Targhi Amir Timur and finally ends it with the first two Mughal emperors-Babur and Humayun. Yet Fazl also writes about Alexander of Macedon, Prophet Mani, and Sassanid kings like Bahram before coming to the first Islamic conqueror, Muhammad bin-Qasim. Fazl’s guides in this seem to be the Shahnameh and the Zend Avesta, for many of those individuals mentioned belong to the Pishdadian dynasty, believed to be the first dynasty to rule over Persia, and whose stories are part of the Persian epic and the Zoroastrian holy book. The third volume of Ain-i-Akbari has an entire chapter (number 10) dedicated to people who came to India from outside. Abu’l Fazl shows great understanding of India of his time and before him in his monumental work, Akbarnama, of which Ain-i-Akbari is a part. But the Indian amnesia has more to do with the majoritarian bias against medieval Muslim rulers, which is of colonial vintage, than anything else.īut it seems this wasn’t always so. For instance, in Britain, there is little or no awareness about 73 foreign invasions that happened on British soil since 1066. And amnesia isn’t a preserve of Indians world over, we see such examples.
The easiest way to explain this would be to blame it on general amnesia in India about history. In this discourse, Achaemenid invasions or the conquest of Alexander of Macedon, which predate Islam, rarely register. In Assam, this tale assumes a new form and becomes 17 Mughal invasions of Assam. Every Indian child grows up hearing tales of the 17 invasions of Mahmud of Ghazni. This was perfectly in sync with the assumption in India today of military invasions of South Asia being the handiwork of Islamic warriors alone. There was another problem too-the narration said the “loot and plunder” of India started from 1011 AD, an obvious reference to the plundering raids of Mahmud of Ghazni.
The opening narration by Amitabh Bachchan, which condensed the history of Babur and Humayun down to a few seconds, declared that the Mughals had come to India in 1450-a good 75 years before they had actually arrived and a good 50 years after their great ancestor, Amir Timur or Tamerlane, had seized Delhi. There were inaccuracies galore right from the beginning.
0 kommentar(er)
