[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.

[n_t]

I hear what you are saying but don't agree that "let's brush it under carpet" approach would be a mature one. My assessment is that current religious problems in India exist because there was no closure on hindu-muslim issues which started with Mughals and ended with partition. No political or religious leader addressed this issue with genuine concern and acknowledgement of history. Instead, all (including Gandhi to current politicians) took ostrich approach to deny the rift with slogans of unity, while pressurizing Hindus to forget-and-forgive since it appeals more to Hindus. This eventually gave rise to "pseudo-secularism" in India which is essentially anti-Hindu but pro-Islam stance. It is my opinion that due to this, distrust between Hindus and Muslims still lingers on and always will. Better approach would have been a proper closure of all the violence, conversions, atrocities, etc of past and then focus on moving on. And finally, mature approach would have been to figure out what is proper closure?

[ignoramous]

> a substantial number of Muslims living in India, and painting their ancestors - the Mughals - as barbaric invaders.

I'd like a source for Mughal ancestry of Muslims. It looks like you're passing of opinion as facts here.

[mavelikara]

Thanks for your comment.

[drieddust]

> In India's case, the whitewashing of Mughal rule was a necessity because there are still a substantial number of Muslims living in India ....

There are substantial level of German living in Germany, let's not teach them about Nazis? Interpreted other way you are advocating appeasement of people who already have superiority complex due to their religious beliefs.

History should be taught as it is? No lies. If Marathas were the aggressive towards Punjab and Bengal, teach it.

> I'm not sure of the answer .... ancestors.

How will you achieve that if you whitewash. Mature position requires understanding the past and then moving on.

[keiferski]

As I said,

> quite tolerant for the time

Compared to most contemporaries, he was certainly tolerant of pluralism. Compared to today, of course not, but that should be obvious.

[nefitty]

> AFAICT, India is only country which portrays its invaders and looters as heroes.

The US still widely observes Columbus Day, despite it being a celebration of, “...the greatest waves of genocide of the American Indians known in history.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbus_Day#Opposition_to_Col...

I’m sure there are many other countries with similarly strained relationships to their “heroes”.