A friend finally managed to pull me for this 4 hour long movie. She knew that I am very much interested in History and thought I might love to see it come to life. But this movie was a mockery of history. Here is how.
1) Rajputs at the time of Akbar spoke Marwari (or its variants) while Mugals spoke Persian in court. However the movie made a mockery of the history by making the hindu actors speak so pure Hindi that it looked like speaking Sanskrit and Muslims speak Urdu.. I agree that expecting the audience to understand Persian might be too much to ask for, but Marwadi is an easy language to grasp.
2) Siege of Chittorgarh: Chittorgarh was one of the most strongly defended fort of Rajputs and was the center of all resistance to Mugals. The fort was considered impregnable and Akbar had to lay an expensive and bloody siege to defeat it. (which also included a lucky matchlock hit to then Rajput chief which demoralized the defending army) This battle established Muslim dominance over the region and make Akbar famous. but the movie conveniently ignored this important siege.
Then there were lots of discrepancies in the weapons used:
3) Cavalry archer and composite bow: Although towards the end there was a small scene where cavalry archers were shown, the movie simply ignored them.
The reason why Mugals (from the time of Babar) had military dominance was because of their mastery in making composite bow (an Mongol art which is now lost). Unlike the bows made of traditional wood, these bows were made of bone tendon of ox and wood shavings binded together in a short, light yet powerful bow. These bows were light enough to be used by a mounted archer and yet powerful enough to inflict a lethal wound at even 400 yards distance (500 m).
Cavalry archer was a highly trained Mongol/Persian soldier (Indian soldiers were never allowed to join these ranks) against which there was actually no defense. A foot archer cannot defend himself once the enemy closes in, hence his use and deployment is limited. But a mounted archer could close in at lightning speed, shoot a couple of arrows without stopping and flee to safety before the enemy could even think of retaliating. Also since they wore little or no armor, these soldiers were faster than normal heavy cavalry, who were glorified in this battle. Hence making a chase not only impossible, but one which could potentially lead into traps. Cavalry archers were the primary reason why Babar, with his tiny army could decimate the then Indian rulers.
BTW the depiction of a lone foot archer taking repeated shots at Hemu Vikramaditya is ridiculous. No archer can even stand a chance to be so close to enemy infantry as was shown in the movie.
4) Matchlock: Akbar’s weapon of choice was never a sword, but Matchlock. Its like a musket, but uses a slow burning wig instead of a flint-stone to ignite the charge. These weapons were light, deadly, had a good range and were easy to train/master. However I could not see any matchlock in the movie.
5) Elephants: Whoever has even seen a real life elephant would agree that elephants are not tamed in the way shown in the movie. It would be plain stupid to even think that a lone unarmed man could be a match against the beast. horses might be trained in the way as the elephants were trained in a movie, but you cannot compare the two.
Also in a battle, the elephants move before the infantry does. Once the battle starts and the ranks are broken, a charging elephant would kill more friendly soldiers then foes. Also during those days, the tusk of the elephant was sawed off and replaced by a sharp saber. Something which the movie missed.
5) Cannons: In the battle of Hemu Vikramaditya (first battle), there was no cannons. Thats amazing, because I do not think there could be any battle where Akbar would have not used the hundreds of cannons that he owned. Also during those days brass cannons were used (most of them manufactured in Rewari). This was because cast iron was brittle, and for machining a hole in the barrel you needed a high quality of steel. It was only in the later years when the metallurgy technology was perfected and when the brass prices went sky rocketing high did Indians switch to Cast Iron. But the cannons in the battle were exclusively cast iron ones.
6) I am not even talking about Jodha and all the mushy scene, because the movie started with a big disclaimer about her origins and how scanty and inconsistent historical records are about her.
7) tobacco and wheat: Remember the Akbar’s visit to the market disguised as a commoner? Tobacco was an Latin American crop that was not available in India for at least a century after Akbar (read this BBC Link). Also the prices of the coarse grains (jowar, bajara) were shown more than that of Wheat. Something which is historically wrong.
All I am trying to say is that although the Director wanted to depict this as a historical movie, it would have been more accurate if he had the basic courtesy of checking the details with even a guy who has a Undergraduate degree in Indian History (if fees of a professor was too much to pay for)
yup but they might not b able to understand d original script n now u can’t even trust the translator:P ……..n here u r – u only said that ppl don’t even know abt their ancestors so temme how is smthng that akbar did hundreds of years back gonna affect them? wat diff does it make ? so let poor ppl(overloaded by tensions) enjoy themselves by watching a movies which lies but entertains them rather than d one which depicts boring ,true history n wins oscars…..
Comment by Surabhi Singhal — March 29, 2008 @ 3:30 PM
well culture, heritage develops from history… and for a country that takes so much pride in culture and history, its amazing how little we know about our roots.
also otherwise, the history is very important. it helps us understand what mistakes we made in the past and what lessons we should learn from it.
Comment by Ankur Aggarwal — March 29, 2008 @ 4:18 PM
i won’t argue nymore as my fav person suggests me not to
Comment by Surabhi Singhal — March 29, 2008 @ 11:03 PM
he/she rightly says after all.. there is no point in arguing with a fool. he will drag u down to his level and beat u with experience
Comment by Ankur Aggarwal — March 30, 2008 @ 5:48 PM
oh…..nthng like that ……he just says not to get involved into strong arguments as no one can ever win an argument…… u really loose an argument when u think u hv won it( as u can never really convince a person to ur way of thinking)……he will always believe that he is right …….u’ll only hurt his ego n self respect in d process of proving him wrong ………so i generally stop an argument when it starts getting hot …….
but i agree that u do hv more experience than me
Comment by Surabhi Singhal — March 30, 2008 @ 6:28 PM
i agree, we (read I) often have mental blocks and no amount of convincing can ever make me change my stance of certain issues
Comment by Ankur Aggarwal — March 31, 2008 @ 1:40 PM
I agree to some people as to the importance of not distorting the history too much just for the sake of entertainment. History is not entertainment but a study of events in the past and their influence on people to this day. So history gotta b educative that instills inspiration in the mind of youth, and not pass by like any entertaining (love – knight in shining armour) kinda movie.
Since I am a rajput so i understand the emotional bonding with every inch of rajput history. Any distortions do hurt rajput feelings as it shapes much of our mind even today. We still rever our ancestors after daily prayer so we are still affected by any such distortions of historical facts.
What I feel strongly about Jodha – Akbar is that it was much of a romantic movie than a movie based on true valour of warriors.
Rajputs lost at the Battle of Khanwa not due to might of Babur, but due to a mix of using out dated techniques and plot. Rajputs led by Rana Sanga were on verge of winning the battle despite having no knowledge about use of artillery unlike Babur who came with concept of artillery from Fergana. Secondly in the last moment the mighty Purabiya Rajputs led by Silhaditya backed out during climax of the battle since Silhadi was promised Malwa by Babur after victory.
The most distorted fact of the movie was the apparent dialogue b/w Akbar and Jodhabai, whereas in those days and even in Rural Rajput families today such direct conversations are not customary. The Zenana system was most strong during Mughal times, and in no way cud any Mughal or Man enter a Zenana in a fit to discuss nuptial matters outrightly.
Thanks.
Comment by Ranbanka Rathore — May 3, 2008 @ 12:57 PM
@tambanka..
thanks for the views. what is Zenana
Comment by ankuraggarwal — May 5, 2008 @ 10:11 AM
Well, for that matter… Ashutosh Gowarikar never claimed it is a true story..
If you are so particular about history, the name of Akbar’s wife was not Jodhaa bai at all
Comment by Ishtiyaq Maniyar — May 15, 2008 @ 4:34 PM
then what was it?
Comment by Ankur Aggarwal — May 15, 2008 @ 4:40 PM
Sweet great Archery write up!
Very impressive that this blog is syndicated through Google and is it something that is just up to Google or you actively created?
Comment by KungFu — August 21, 2008 @ 7:20 PM
@kungfu
thank you for visiting E-Nagar. this is a blog that i have personally created over the past couple of years
Comment by pegasus — July 19, 2012 @ 1:25 AM