When Did Akbar Became King?
Asked 343 days ago
top seo guys
|H7VDh9 I truly appreciate this blog. Keep writing.|
Answered on 2012-12-28 14:17:43
Similar Questions for from Yahoo Answers|
||East India company got its license cancelled in the year 1858 after first war of indian independence.?
so control of India came under direct British crown, means rule of King or Queen of England and Viceroy was appointed to rule as kings or queens representative in India. So India came under direct British crown in 1858. So King or queen must be the ruler of colony India, then why British parliament conferred Queen Victoria the title "Empress of India" in the year 1877, when already she was the ruler or Empress in 1858 itself? What is the speciality in this title? what special powers would queen get after assuming this title? Pls clarify?
From the first link...|
"In 1876 Victoria became Empress of India. In 1858 the Crown had taken over absolute rule of India from the East India Company. This was as the Sepoy Rebellion (aka Indian Mutiny) was being quelled. Victoria now represented the height of British imperial symbolism."
And from the second...
"Emperor/Empress of India (Urdu: Badishah-e-Hind) was used as a title by the last Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah II, and revived by the colonial British monarchs during the British Raj in India. The term 'Emperor of India' is also used to refer to Indian emperors such as Ashoka the Great of the Maurya Dynasty and Emperor Akbar the Great of the Mughal empire. For instance, Emperor Ashoka used the word 'Samrat' as his title, which means 'emperor' in Indian languages."
So the reason that the title was given was to try and enforce the 'legitimacy' of the reign of the British Monarch over India.
While many think it was not right that Britain ruled India through conquest, it was just as right as when other Indian Emperor's ruled India through the same means. Ultimately, any people should rule themselves through the process of democracy, all other means of rule through conquest, be that by a foreign power or not, being morally wrong.
||Which of the following statements is not true about akbar the great?
a. despite gaining power through military might, he was known for being a benevolent ruler
b. He constructed the Taj Mahal as a Muslim holy place
c. He tried to establish a new religion, Divine Faith, to unite Muslim, Hindu, and Christian tenets
d. Under his leadership the economy flourished and the arts were patronized
Duh...in the first place, Shahjahan (not Akbar) is credited with building the Taj Mahal...also it was not built as a Muslim Holy Place...it is said to be built by Shahjahan as a tribute to his beloved wife Mumtaz after her death...|
However as a matter of fact, Taj Mahal was an ancient Shiva Temple built by a Hindu King roughly 500 years before Shahjahan...it was usurped by Shahjahan by force and today as a result of extensive propaganda, it has become a symbol of "eternal love"...
There are hundreds of facts which support this claim...to know more about this in detail, go to - http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/taj_oak.html
As far as your other statements are concerned about Akbar being a benevolent ruler, uniting various faiths & religions, patronizing arts, it is a total fabrication by his fawning court poets, flattering accounts by historians etc, which went on to become a part of common lore...
The truth is that Akbar was a tyrannical monarch who during his reign, massacred thousands of hindus, cohabited with hundreds of women and had a harem of 5000 wives...he also desecrated & destroyed hundreds of hindu temples...
The famous religion Din-e-ilahi said to be founded by Akbar was merely a matter of convenience for him...as Islam prohibits an individual from having more than 4 wives, Akbar wanted a convenient way of technically having hundreds of wives...so he founded this so-called new religion which less than 18 of Akbars followers converted to...
Though he was no less blood-thirsty or fanatical than his predecessors or descendants, he was marginally a better man and more inclined towards fine arts, spirituality etc...the Mughal era can be called as the darkest time in Indian history and Akbar's rule was not much better (for non-muslims)...
For more details on the barbarian's atrocities go to - http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/akbar_vs.html and http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/akbar_ppg.html
Another bubble that I would like to burst is about the famous love story between Akbar & Jodha, which has been the subject of romantic bollywood movies such as Ashutosh Gowarikar's Jodha Akbar...
There is no historical record of Akbar having a wife called Jodhabhai...Akbar did in fact marry a Rajput Princess called Hira Kunwari, but she promptly converted to Islam after her marriage to Akbar...her name was then changed to Mariam-uz-Zamani and after she died she was buried as a Muslim...
She was the mother of Prince Jehangir...Jehangir married a Hindu woman called Jodhabhai...
In addition, there is no record of Akbar having given first preference to his wife Mariam...Akbar had hundreds of wives and thousands of more women in his harem...the romantic notion of Jodha-Akbar love is therefore utterly false !!!
||Do the present central government knows how to spend money?
India being world's 12th largest economy of the world has 20 crore poor people. The party presently ruling the country has ruled India for more than 50 years. But why poverty is yet not eradicated?
All such explanations like "situation is completely changing or India is shining" looks false to me whenever I see a beggar on traffic signal.
Inspite of having so much money in a big room, don't you think it should have spent on some useful purpose?
poverty can not be eradicated by govt. alone.|
i will tell you two/three examples.
1.0 if we consider the ornamental gold , Indians wear/have , we become ricchhhest country in terms of gold reserves
2.0 consider /take out the Swiss bank accounts owned by Indians we can comfortably place ourselves in top three dev. countries bracket
3.0 one of the YA questions referred to the black money , again we can be one of the top financially strong countries
to a recent question on beggars my answer was as under
begging is a profession by itself in India , an easiest way of money making ( no investment /capital only a deal with the local beg ger assn, to allocate a suitable place)
however best you try to reform them, they will not be interested s they re not interested in any sort of physical /mental strain, they donot want to assert .
( example is that most of the BPL/LIG houses are either leased out or sold, not being occupied by the persons they are meant for)
i have seen a TV serial recently( which was very similar to Akbar beerbal) wherein the king asks beerbal to prove the same.beerbal asks for an ice block and request king to pass on the same down the hierarchy and when it finally reaches the needy only a small piece is left. our case is also very similar.govt. sanctions in crores but when it reaches the poor it comes down to tens or hundreds , max
i hope you agree with me