While Shah Jahan was a moderate Emperor and undoubtedly a great builder, he had one horrible weakness. He used to covet the wives of his nobles who had no choice but to accede to his desires. I was surprised to read that in a book by one of his contemporaries. "Every virtue has its own absurd aspect."

I can only pity his poor Nobles !

Virtue and absurdity are relative artifacts of their time. Who are we to judge?

Stealing someone else's wife has never been a virtue and losing one's wife has never been a pleasure. : )

If the nobles so loved their wife they would have given up their lives to protect their "modesty". Again who are we to judge?

Well said ! : )

Look at the beauty in her face not the blemish under her chin...

Well said Rajendra! Its interesting that Akbar also practiced the same during Navroz where all the wives of the nobles (and this includes the Rajputs who chose to be subordinates, unlike Mewar/Udaipur) would be present and he could simply pick whom he chose from the gathering. I guess Shah Jahan was only doing what seemed to be normal practice of the time.

Morality is temporal. What is immoral in our times may be perfectly alright at that time. Maybe it was an honor to be selected, and then it's the Emperor. Who are we to judge?

LOL! Although I can't completely agree with you Rajendra, I am sure there are many in this forum who would. I think there is a fine line between what would be considered an honor and those who were simply opportunists. ;)

In these times of genotypes, elites and castes , we also seem to have god men and moralists of every persuasion. http://www.scs.illinois.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf I am glad that democracy, with 75+ nations, is on the ascent. In theory, a citizen of a democracy gives up the liberty of forcing ones belief on another to the state, which then has coercive power (thru the police (internal) and the army (external) to lay down one Law of the Land. Democracy is a work-in-process, but the world is probably more law abiding than in 1911… Looking at Shah Jahan and his times from a haplogroup perspective. It is seldom noted that he was 75% Rajput by blood: his mother was Jagat Gosain, Princess manmati of Jodhpur; his father the Emperor Jahangir. Jahangir’s mother was Harkha, Princess of Amber (Jaipur). The Rajput alliance made the Mughal empire possible. Shah Jahan’s treasury, in 1635, collected 30 million rupees, 1/7 of the empires annual revenue. As emperor, he projected his power thru his 443 nobles, but power followed the now familiar 80-20 rule: his four son’s alone controlled 8% of the revenues; the top 73 nobles controlled some 37%; 73 Rajputs and 10 Marathas were in the nobility. Even after spending vast sums of money to extend the empire with Bijapur, Golconda (successful) and Samarqand (unsuccessful), and construction (Taj Mahal, Shahjahanabah (Red Fort & Jama Masjid, Delhi), his treasury is reported to have help about 100 million rupees in the late 1640s. As to his love life, his wife Mumtaz Mahal gave birth to 14 children from 1612-1631, and died in the 14th childbirth. While alive, she insisted that the children of her husband’s other women be aborted. After his mourning and despair at the loss he did build the Taj Mahal. By 1640, an annual eight day fair was held, with fair maidens recruited from the length and breadth of the empire. Shah Jahan selected about 100 every year, while most of the previous year’s occupants of the royal harem were pensioned off. Royal prerogatives over nobles was not confined to 17th century Mughal India. It may have been rougher in Europe, with a feudal hierarchy of nobility: Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, Viscounts, Barons, and Baronets. Europe's last feudal state, the Channel Island of Sark, votes in its first democratic government in 2008. The Seigneur held bizarre rights, including the sole right to keep pigeons and unspayed female dogs, and all debris washed up between the high and low tide lines. There was also the “Droit de Seigneur” - the right to sleep with any bride on her wedding night. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1093407/Sark-ends-feudal-vote-democratic-government-today.html#ixzz1JRq6KGSe

how much has really changed since those times really?

Power has always been the greatest aphrodisiac?

If the person who has been granted positinitional power wields it well, all is well, if it misused you find rebellions & change in power structures.

Apparantly, by Jahangir and Shahjahan's time, the Christian influence in paintings had seeped in. Look at the 4 cheurabs at the top of the painting within the frame.

Re Shahjahan being a moderate emperor, not many know that in his time jiziya tax was reintroduced under pressure from the mullahs of the court. One should stop judging people subjectively but judge them objectively, if at all it is possible to do so. Morals and ethics of one age do not fit the other age - each age has its own morals and ethics within which the world has operated.

@Digvijay Singh & Rajendra Jain: :))

Quite a few customs among the nobility and royalty in Rajasthan have been gleaned from the Mughals. If a new member is initiated into the fold even among the zenana. A goblet of liquor is circulated around and all take a sip from it (the ones who are teetotalers just make a gesture of sipping while in fact they do not) This is most certainly not a Hindu custom. If a Maharaja wanted to elevate someone’s social status and bring him up the varna ladder he would take a bite of roti from his thali indicating that that person has been accepted by him in the higher varna and all were obliged to follow suit whether they liked it or lumped it. The highest honour accorded to a peer was allowing him to wear gold in their feet.(Hindus consider gold to be synonymous with Laxmi so it was never to be worn in feet) This was known as tazeem.If a peer had double tazeem it meant that the maharaja had to stand up to both receive and see off his peer.Now tazeem is certainly a Mughal custom the term itself suggests it loudly. Whether it is studded jewelry or meenakaari (enammelling), gota, patta,salma, sitara or zardozi embellishment in clothes all are a Mughal legacy so are the Achkans (frock-coat) churidaars, turrah and kalgi in masculine attire. Traditionally the Maharaja was a father in Rajasthani kingdoms and hence nobody observed purdah from him. He had access to anybody’s zenana and he could enter it alone.That certainly did not mean that he ‘violated’ the zenana’s sanctity but he was welcome there as father and as a provider. From today’s standards this may offend people who do not understand and can only think in one direction. Offering the hand in marriage of a princess to an emperor did not mean that the emperor had access to ‘all’ your women.Akbar’s religious discourses and his forays in the spiritual realm culminated in the evolution of Din-e-Ilahi . Only one of his navratans (nine gems of the court) accepted that faith and not even his brother-in-law.Nobody towed his line in private matters that were left to the individual just as each queen of his was free to follow her own faith. The palace of Jodhbai is the grandest structure in Fatehpur Sikri and is carved with temple bells all over. The central courtyard of the palace has a huge pot to house the holy Tulsi (basil) plant.It proclaims loudly her religious affiliations and also her exalted position in the Mughal harem. But yes as rightly pointed out by Rajendra and Pulin the customs, tradtions and social mores differ from generation to generation.Today feminists scoff at Jauhar, polygamy and purdah but that is how we have evolved whether they like it or lump it.It stood us in good stead for millennia and sustained us quite well but certainly purdah has outlived it’s relevance today.

Re: Mr Trivedi's remark that 'Shah Jahan re-introduced the Jiziya tax'. If that was so, why Aurangzeb is said to have reintroduced it? Or was it a reintroduction of the reintroduced tax? It was Aurangzeb who did it - not under pressure of Mullahs - but because of his own evil nature. These kinds of distorted historical facts (like the reintroduction of Jaziya by Shah Jahan, building Taj Mahal over the site of a temple, or the British army losing a battle somewhere with Marathas are distorted historical facts - introduced under pressure by an extremist political party - to re-write history and poison the minds of the Indian people. There is no historical basis for it unless it was a private revelation.

I agree with DSKji n Pulinji.Sumer ji you too are right that they were opportunist, what difference it makes that where from they were n what dignity they had? I want to add one more name for kind information , that was the wife of Raja Prithviraj of Bikaner, who was once almost abducted for Akbar's pleasure, n when Jahapanah approached her,, she pulled out a dagger [she always had it hidden for her safety, which was not allowed to take it inside that navroja area], n forced Akbar to apologize n promise not to do it again in future with any lady. These practices had nothing to do with religion or traditions, it was n even today are the side effects of power n money.

>> or the British army losing a battle somewhere with Marathas Huh? The first Maratha-English war resulted in disastrous result for the British. Lets not mix up fact and fiction liberally.

@ Asad uncle I’d seriously doubt what you have to say about the ‘roving eye’ of Shah Jahan.Not discounting your source I’d only like to add here that Arjumand Bano begum the queen consort of the emperor on whom Shah Jahan bestowed the title of Mumtaz Mahal (beloved of the palace) died in her fourteenth child-birth !. At a time when the Mughal harems were full of all manners of women from as far off as Constantinople to central Asia , Persia and even India he’d still lust after his nobles’ women seems a little difficult to swallow. Furthermore history records that his hair had turned a shock of white when he re-appeared for jharokha darshan ( A practice begun by his grand-father when the emperor appeared on the balcony to be admired by his subjects / basically to show them that he was alive and well) after the customary forty days of mourning. Akbar began the practice of recording of everyday events so this is recorded history not hearsay.(even if the chronicler/ scribe is Mughal) Besides an astronomical sum was spent on the construction of the Taj.It is a likelihood that a philandering (horsing around had social and religious sanction I conced)emperor would be averse to spending that kind of money to prove a point. Besides did he have to prove a point at all ?He was the master of all that he foresaw. Literally Shah Jahan ( the shah of the world). The Mughal rule was firmly entrenched in India and the sun was shining bright on the Taimoori Khandaan. The emperor found the streets of Agra too narrow for the royal processions and decided to shift his capital to Delhi to a new city that he founded Shahjahanabad. No Maharajah or Rajah would go to a Mughal party with their women. The very thought is incredible that the maharani of Bikaner would travel to Agra to attend a navroze celebration when there were no means of transport and the journey was tortuous and there were chances of getting waylaid. Besides there were ambitious brothers and cousins sitting at home to usurp power and declare themselves the new Raja In fact times have been so uncertain that a utradhikari/yuvraj (heir apparent) does not even accompany his father’s dead body to the royal cenotaphs as “gaddi khaali nahi chhori ja sakti “(the throne cannot be abandoned under any circumstances) .It was not the modern times when you throw a party and people attend with their better halves.A man of consequence’s house was his castle and women were treated like property which was inviolate. Even as late as the 20th century the brother-in-law of the then Maharaja of Jaipur ,Madho Singh ll who was the maharaja of Rewa had come visiting and expressed the desire to meet his sister in the Zenani Deorhi.It was his curiosity actually because the Jaipur harem was a Hindu replica of the Mughal harem and amongst the most elaborate and beautifully designed harems in India (the last occupant of the harem is now deceased who used to receive a stipend from the state govt )so the Rewa Maharaja wanted to see it.He was however not allowed to enter the Zenani Deorhi even though as per Rajput tradition he was by default the brother of all the maharanis irrespective of their clans.He had to contend himself with meeting his sister in the Chandra Mahal’s neutral pritam niwas chowk. The anglicized and Francophile late Rajmata of Jaipur records in her memoirs that whenever she threw a party for her husband’s nobility nobody brought their women even within Jaipur. She started the purdanasheen club or ladies’ club as it was later known but the presence of ladies was minimal inspite of of all her efforts.She did not want the next generation to suffer like her so she began a convent school for nobilitys’ daughters in the hope that at least the next generation would be more emancipated.The MGD (Maharani Gayatri Devi school) is today among India’s premium convent schools.Young girls of 8 and 9 in my mother’s generation had to wear saris and went to school in a bus with thick curtains made of canvas !

Err Digvijay, Maharani Gayatri Devi school is not a "convent" school, but a "public/secular" school.

Digvijay: Your facts, as usual, are accurate and unbiassed and I respect them very much. I have seen the Royal palace at Nagor and, as you say, the Rani had re-created a small Mughal harem, the only difference being that there were beautiful paintings of Rajas and Ranis on the walls (that are not seen in Mughal palaces). It is hard to believe that width of the streets in Agra was the only reason for shifting the capital to Shahjahanabad. Perhaps there were strategic reasons as well. Also, if Shah Jahan was so narrow in his outlook so as to impose the dreaded jaziya tax on his Hindu subjects, how come two of the three pillars of his empire (Asaf Khan, Raja Jai Singh, and Raja Jaswant Singh) were from that community? Both Raja Jai Singh and Raja Jaswant Singh served him loyally and led the Mughal armies as Commanders-in-Chief in all major battles from Bengal to Kabul. The truth is that, after Akbar, the Mughals did not discriminate between their subjects - it was only Aurangzeb who screwed everything up.

Not surprising that Mr Asad Ahmed has taken exception to my note. I would like to say that I stand educated since he "is an honourable man" who has at once detected re private revelations to me. In any case there is nothing more to say since RBSI has removed my note which was factually correct even if politically incorrect. Thank you RBSI.

I would refrain from calling many of the comments in RBSI as accurate and unbiased or even facts. Instead I would think that we could call them "opinions" or "educated opinions" by a group of "educated inidividuals"..... Unless we wish to admit that much of these discussions contain distortions and some are using a huge paint brush to white wash the realities of India's past. Unless someone is an accomplished academic in the field of India's history like Dr. Wagle, Dr. Israel, Dr. O'Connell, Dr. Haider, Dr. Salim Mansoor, Dr. McLeod, Dr. Eck (Harvard) and others, I really do think that we should be careful in RBSI what we claim as accurate and unbiased unless we wish to do more harm than good. It is truly fascinating to read the opinions of others and sometimes be surprised by what is brought to the table, however everything presented here in the threads needs to be taken with a grain of salt and understood that it might be correct and incorrect, but is far from carrying the seal of academia.

Excellent take above Sumer!!

Pulin Trivedi : I have not deleted any comments here !! Your comment continues to remain on this thread. Strangely my comment posted earlier ceases to exist ??

FB has gone nuts... I am seeing this issue on other (non RBSI) threads too...

@ Asad Ahmad, Most certainly Padhshah Shah Jahan Ji Sahib was a moderate "Emperor"....his deeds show it.....being a great builder makes one a good ruler, no matter if u tax the hindus for pilgrimage, and no matter if u try to kill the Sikh Guru, Guru Hargovind ji, the Guru was a child then.......should I stand up and applaud for the Invader ?

...hahaha, nothing changes ~ Gentlemen, you are all so busy in defining the parameters of your own arguments that you lose any coherence in your own thoughts...

I am surprised how much discussion Shah Jahan's little escapades has evoked. To me it was only a fringe benefit of the job he had.

Sumer, you wrote: “Unless someone is an accomplished academic in the field of India's history like Dr. Wagle, Dr. Israel, Dr. O'Connell, Dr. Haider, Dr. Salim Mansoor, Dr. McLeod, Dr. Eck (Harvard) and others… we should be careful in RBSI what we claim as accurate and unbiased.” That is quite a set of names to which I would like to add Prof. Bhagwan Ishwar, Dr. Bilkul Krishnamurthy, Dr. Michael Fact, and Dr. Pragmatic. While the above combined list is impressive, it will add more relevance if we make summary statements on why “Dr. Wagle, Dr. Israel… and others” are accurate and unbiased. In academics, a tested method is to include source(s) for your statements if you want to add weight to your opinion. All histories, and especially old books are reflections of earlier narratives written by humans writing through a memory treacherously colored by a desire for immortal fame. Stories exert a powerful influence on human thoughts and behavior. They consolidate memory, shape emotions, cue heuristics and biases in judgment, influence in-group/out- group distinctions, and may affect the fundamental contents of personal identity. My feeling is that we study the old books in our little FB circle of 20-30 active posters in RBSI, but look to a future that expands the “us” and reduces the Other. Do you agree?

Indeed Qamar this segregation of ‘us’ and ‘the other’ is a worldwide menace. If one is hell bent on segregating then we can go right upto the atom.Education opens up one’s mind provided there is no inherent placed bias.If it exists then all the facts notwithstanding the mind will find a way to further consolidate the hatred.On few occasions when this prejudice is hereditary and passed on from father to son it is well nigh impossible to thwart.It is a rather natural phenomena in every generation that earlier masters are vilified and are projected as ‘Ivan the terrible’ by a section of society to suit their own needs. In India there are such brilliant examples of erudite men who are a pleasure to listen to given their academic brilliance but they act like misguided missiles owing to their political compulsions and having to belong to a political party which is out and out communal. Love your way of looking at things.It is always a delight to read your take at history.

DSK mixing history and current politics is combustible, best not go there. Further best to not "tag" people in categories, that opens the door to us vs them, something you dont want to do. So lets just talk about history and leave the categorization biz out, what say.

Ha ~ "mixing history and current politics is combustible" ~ you're a fine one to talk Mr Sudershan !... anyway, education is a valuable commodity but it's only ever wasted on the 'masses'... do you believe that sending every child to university in India (to be indoctrinated by left-wing academics who gained their degrees in London or Geneva) is going to heal the wounds of Indian society ~ I think not...

Julian; you have mixed three distinct issues in your post. So (1) I do not believe in masses vs classes as two distinct category but a mutual interdependent group in all issues, including culture. (2) Education is not merely what is thought in a state sponsored class, (3) Wounds of Indian society are going to healed by a formation of scar tissue, cover the bleeding but remember the cut.

Satyakam I agree it is a lethal combination but this ‘us’ and ‘them’ springs forth owing to historical prejudices which education can at best dilute never exterminate.To understand a problem you need to go into it’s history.In any case you are right one cannot reason with a bigot.

...Mr Sudershan ~ what a load of tosh.... there are distinctions and barriers in life, you may not approve of them but that IS how the world works... this has never been better exemplified than by those who study Indian history.... by the way, the 'cut' was made by your own countrymen, I suppose that you care little for them ?

Julian, given your reaction I guess you have nothing specific to add, in that case gdby for now.

...I find you ever so slightly 'barking' Mr Sudershan (please do not call me Julian) but, then again, I suspect that you think exactly the same of me... I believe that Kipling was right : West is west and east is east... unfortunately the two are obliged to rub up against each other considerably more these days than they ever were before... nobody gains any 'insight' from this exchange ~ you and I will keep on reinforcing the same old prejudices...

Hmm what should I call you? would JC do? I find Mr Craig so very archaic. Kipling is dead and buried and probably is bones are now dust, it is good to let him be there, so is that era and so is that thinking. He is no more than a amusing anecdote, to tickle the fancy, but not to be taken too seriously. The emerging world would have different linkages.

Julian : I think many of us here are quite tired of your condescending attitude which are quite out of sync with the reality of times. It is difficult to guage whether yout comments are influenced by the oft self-confessed bouts of drink or they are just plainly out-dated imperialist attitudes. Of course you will pick on each of my comments and turn them around and accuse me of the very things you do. Your deep-rooted prejudices and a hilarous sense of superiority are as unpalatable to many here...as those of others you find to be chauvansistic here.

....and please do not pick up any fights over here and do not indulge in any abusive language.

...Mr Craig to you sir ...

With pleasure...sir.

Gentlemen: Now going back to history, Shah Jahan was having a good time with the wife of a Court noble, Khalilullah Khan. Khan did'nt approve of it but kept quiet until the Battle of Samugarh (Dara Shikoh vs. Aurangzeb, southeast of Agra). Khalilullah Khan was asked by Shah Jahan to lead a part of the army on behalf of the heir apparent Dara Shikoh. In the heat of the battle, Khalilullah Khan switched sides and moved to Aurangzeb. This was treachery at its worst. This switch was the turning point and Dara's army was routed in a few hours. Manucci writes that this personal vendetta may have changed the outcome of the battle, but I suspect there may also have been secret correspondence with Aurangzeb. Most of his battles were won by intrigue and temptation. Whatever be the truth, it changed Indian history for ever. Khalilullah Khan was rewarded by being appointed the Governor of Lahore. Some reward that was!

A lot of Mughal victory came on the back of treachery and switching sides, including that of Babar at Khanua. This is a constant pattern.

Isn't history of 'every land and race' filled with acts of treachery...why single out the Mughals?

Mr Sudershan: Babur's victory at Khanua was not treachery; it was pure strategic planning and infinte courage. Aurangzeb's victory at Samugarh was based on treachery. I will not discuss this matter further.

Oh no, please read up accounts of turning of Shiladitya/Salahadi. You may not discuss the matter further though, that is fine.

Dear Qamar, Yes I agree with you, however my point was simply that we need to be careful what we refer to as facts, unbiased or accurate. If in this case I am wrong to point out that what each of us are presenting here are opinions, than I guess I am wrong. It would be wrong to simply think that whatever presented in these threads is absolutely correct, unbiased and accurate. As you know Qamar, there are those who will scream out bloody murder at anyone who may disagree with their opinion and try to label the person a bigot, however one thing that higher education does allow for is a differing of opinions, without attacking or bullying the opposing side (especially on a personal level). But in the end, if we are educated ladies and gentlemen, then it would be wrong for us to simply applaud anyone with "unbias", "accurate" and "factual" simply because the writer's fantasies (as Tikka Sangram so aptly put it) may agree with our own firmly held opinions. Simply whitewashing history does not mean a person is not a bigot, its even worse, and that is why I have always admired and always will admire Dr. Salim Mansoor and follow exactly what he taught me by speaking out. Cheers. PS. Asad, you're funny, I have seen you state that you will not discuss the matter furher in an old thread months ago....but you always do. :)

Thank you all...its great to see people of such diverse opinions and entrenched positions still end the discussions with disagreements...though not disagreeably. I guess its time to move on...

Good idea, no point bashing a point beyond a limit.