{"id":7155,"date":"2026-02-04T15:00:15","date_gmt":"2026-02-04T15:00:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fondationfranceasie.org\/?p=7155"},"modified":"2026-03-25T14:10:49","modified_gmt":"2026-03-25T14:10:49","slug":"the-representation-of-the-mughal-emperor-abkar-in-hindi-cinema-as-a-reflection-of-indian-societal-issues","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fondationfranceasie.org\/en\/the-representation-of-the-mughal-emperor-abkar-in-hindi-cinema-as-a-reflection-of-indian-societal-issues\/","title":{"rendered":"The representation of the Mughal emperor Abkar in Hindi cinema as a reflection of Indian societal issues."},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

By Ada Lipman<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

India, in its current form, is a relatively young\u00a0 state \u2013 it was created only in 1947, thus bringing\u00a0 an end to the British Raj (Empire of India). Before\u00a0 the British succeeded in bringing a large part of\u00a0 South Asia under their influence, several other\u00a0 kingdoms and empires existed in this region \u2013\u00a0 some smaller in size, others covering vast\u00a0 territories, comparable in certain respects to\u00a0 today\u2019s India. Among the particularly large and\u00a0 important empires was the Mughal Empire\u00a0 (1526\u20131857).<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

This empire, ruled by a Timurid dynasty [1] that\u00a0 came to the Indian subcontinent from territories\u00a0 of present-day Uzbekistan and was of the\u00a0 Muslim faith, at the height of its expansion\u00a0 extended over what today constitutes part of\u00a0 Afghanistan (to the west), Kashmir (to the\u00a0 north), Bangladesh (to the east), and part of the\u00a0 Deccan (to the south). The Mughal Empire is\u00a0 particularly well known for its significant\u00a0 architectural legacy. Several monuments are\u00a0 today essential tourist destinations, for example:\u00a0 the Taj Mahal in Agra, the Red Forts (in Agra and\u00a0 Delhi), the city\/former capital of Fatehpur Sikri, or\u00a0 the mausoleum of Emperor Humayun in Delhi.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Mughal dynasty also left its mark on\u00a0 the collective imagination of the inhabitants\u00a0 of the Indian subcontinent, and the rulers of\u00a0 this dynasty became heroes of fictional\u00a0 narratives, especially from the beginning of\u00a0 the twentieth century onward.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The first half of the twentieth century was\u00a0 arked by many important events: the\u00a0 beginnings of Indian cinema [2]; the anti colonial movement; the project of creating,\u00a0 once freed from colonial rule, two separate\u00a0 states \u2013 India and Pakistan; and finally, the\u00a0 independence and creation of these two\u00a0 countries in 1947.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

This turbulent period gave rise to the growth of\u00a0 numerous historical films, several of which\u00a0 (notably those produced in Bombay [3] and,\u00a0 after the arrival of sound cinema, in the Hindi\u00a0 language) told stories rooted in the Mughal\u00a0 past. Historical films, regardless of the period\u00a0 represented, had a patriotic aim: by depicting\u00a0 past regimes in sumptuous settings,<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

accompanied by the staging of military and\u00a0 economic power, filmmakers sought to\u00a0 represent India\u2019s glorious past and thus\u00a0 encourage national sentiment among\u00a0 spectators \u2013 giving them hope that once freed\u00a0 from British colonization, they could once again\u00a0 build a prosperous and wealthy country, as had\u00a0 been the case in the past.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Films focused on the Muslim dynasties that\u00a0 ruled the subcontinent [4] also had a\u00a0 second objective: to highlight friendly\u00a0 relations between Hindus and Muslims in\u00a0 order to ease tensions and convince Indians\u00a0 of different religions that they could coexist\u00a0 peacefully in an independent country, since\u00a0 such interreligious peace and friendship had\u00a0 already been possible before colonization\u00a0 [5].<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The idea of creating a separate country for\u00a0 Muslims, Pakistan, gained momentum in the\u00a0 1930s, which prompted some filmmakers (those\u00a0 opposed to Partition) to include calls for\u00a0 intercommunal friendship in their films. On a\u00a0 human scale, Partition, marked by population\u00a0 displacement, numerous acts of violence, and\u00a0 hundreds of thousands of deaths, was a failure.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Indian cinema, particularly Hindi-language\u00a0 cinema from Bombay, the country\u2019s most\u00a0 important film industry, therefore continued to\u00a0 produce historical films emphasizing these\u00a0 bonds of friendship between Hindus and\u00a0 Muslims in the early post-independence years,\u00a0 seemingly in the hope of easing the trauma of\u00a0 Partition.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Whether before or after 1947, one Mughal\u00a0 emperor in particular emerges as filmmakers\u2019\u00a0 favorite \u2013 Jalaluddin Muhammad Akbar.\u00a0 Emperor Akbar was born in 1542 at the court of\u00a0 Rana Virisal, a Rajput king, in Amarkot. His father,\u00a0 Emperor Humayun, lost the throne of Delhi in\u00a0 1540 to Sher Shah of the Afghan Sur dynasty and\u00a0 was forced to take refuge in Iran. During their\u00a0 years of wandering, one of his wives \u2013 Hamida\u00a0 Bano Begum \u2013 found refuge at the court of\u00a0 Amarkot, where she gave birth to Akbar.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Akbar was the third (after his father Humayun\u00a0 and his grandfather Babur, founder of the\u00a0 dynasty) emperor of the Mughal dynasty, but he\u00a0 is sometimes considered its true founder, as his\u00a0 predecessors had conquered only a relatively\u00a0 small territory, not to mention that Humayun lost\u00a0his father\u2019s lands for several years before\u00a0 reconquering the throne of Delhi.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The figure of Akbar lent itself well to the\u00a0 objectives of Hindi historical films of this period:\u00a0 he symbolized both the glory of India\u2019s former\u00a0 regimes and the peaceful coexistence of its\u00a0 communities. Even though Akbar inherited a\u00a0 relatively small and weak state at the time of his\u00a0 father\u2019s premature death, he succeeded in\u00a0 expanding and strengthening it significantly.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

During his reign (1556\u20131605, the year of his\u00a0 death), the Mughals established a rich and\u00a0 powerful empire characterized by ethnic,\u00a0 religious, and cultural plurality. Being Muslims\u00a0 themselves, they allied with and included in the\u00a0 state apparatus many local kings, primarily\u00a0 Rajputs (Hindus).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

One of the reasons Akbar is particularly well\u00a0 known today is the territorial expansion of the\u00a0 empire under his reign, achieved partly through\u00a0 conquests, but also through alliances. These\u00a0 alliances (between the Mughal Empire and the\u00a0 Rajput kingdoms) were often sealed through the\u00a0 marriage of the emperor (and later his sons and\u00a0 grandsons) to the daughters or sisters of allied\u00a0 kings.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The first of these marriages took place in 1562\u00a0 with the daughter of Raja Bharmal of Amber,\u00a0 who in 1569 gave birth to Akbar\u2019s first son (who\u00a0 survived early childhood), Prince Salim [6].\u00a0 Subsequently, important positions within the\u00a0 empire\u2019s administration and army were given to\u00a0 the (male) relatives of the princess of Amber, as\u00a0 well as to other kings and princes from clans\u00a0 allied with the Mughals. The alliances between\u00a0 the Mughals and the Rajputs, as well as the\u00a0 famous religious tolerance characterizing\u00a0 Akbar\u2019s reign, thus lent themselves to the anti colonial and unifying message of filmmakers\u00a0 from the 1930s to the 1960s and were also\u00a0 emphasized in the discourse of politicians and\u00a0 historians.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Indeed, from the 1930s onward, Jawaharlal\u00a0 Nehru [7] began to evoke Akbar in his writings,\u00a0 and did so in very laudatory terms. In his work\u00a0 Glimpses of World History, Nehru compares\u00a0 Akbar to another great Indian emperor, Ashoka,\u00a0 and writes: \u201cIt is strange that a Buddhist emperor\u00a0 [Ashoka] of India in the third century before\u00a0 Christ, and a Muslim emperor [Akbar] of India in\u00a0 the sixteenth century after Christ, could speak in\u00a0 the same manner and almost in the same\u00a0 voice.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

One cannot help wondering whether it was\u00a0 perhaps the voice of India itself that spoke\u00a0 through its two great sons\u201d [8]. He also insists on\u00a0 the fact that the Mughals were viewed by the\u00a0 population of the Indian subcontinent as\u00a0 foreigners and that it was only from Akbar\u2019s\u00a0 reign onward that the Mughal dynasty became\u00a0 Indian. As mentioned earlier, the 1930s saw a\u00a0 growing demand to divide the country into two\u00a0 at independence \u2013 a project Nehru opposed.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

His vision of India and Indian identity rested on\u00a0 inclusive nationalism (without distinction of\u00a0 religion, language, regional culture, etc.) defined\u00a0 by the slogan of \u201cunity in diversity.\u201d Mobilizing the\u00a0 figure of Akbar as a great Indian ruler was\u00a0 therefore for Nehru a way to counter both the\u00a0 separatist rhetoric of some Muslims and the discriminatory rhetoric of Hindu fundamentalists.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Under Nehru\u2019s pen, Akbar emerged as proof that\u00a0 one could be both Indian and Muslim and,\u00a0 moreover, accomplish great deeds. He was\u00a0 presented not only as an ideal political leader\u00a0 (\u201che worked hard for the welfare of the Indian\u00a0 people\u201d [9]), but also as the father of the Indian\u00a0 people (\u201che might be considered the father of\u00a0 Indian nationalism\u201d [10]).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moreover, Nehru\u2019s vision of Akbar\u2019s proto nationalism as placing \u201cthe ideal of common\u00a0 Indian nationality above the claims of separatist\u00a0 religion\u201d [11] was quite similar to what he and his\u00a0 political party themselves promoted. The image\u00a0 of Akbar promoted by Nehru\u2019s political discourse\u00a0 and that of his party was taken up after\u00a0 independence by Indian historical discourse: the\u00a0 historian Ashirbadi Lal Srivastava [12], in his\u00a0 biography of Akbar, described this emperor as\u00a0 \u201cour national king\u201d [13].<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

As mentioned above, Akbar, a historical figure\u00a0 highlighted by politicians and historians, is also\u00a0 the hero of numerous works of fiction. Here, I will\u00a0 analyze only a few of them in order to answer\u00a0 the question of how the statements cited above\u00a0 are reflected in artistic discourse.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

It appears that Akbar was constructed as a\u00a0 national hero first and foremost in cinema. In the\u00a0 film Humayun (dir. Mehboob Khan, 1945),\u00a0 devoted primarily to Akbar\u2019s father and released\u00a0 two years before independence, the director\u00a0 emphasizes the ties between the Mughals and\u00a0 the Rajputs by imagining friendship and mutual\u00a0 assistance between the Mughal emperors\u00a0 Babur and Humayun and the Rajput princess of\u00a0 Amarkot. The Mughals (primarily Babur) are\u00a0 presented as a people in search of a new home,\u00a0who came to India not to plunder the country\u00a0 but to make it their homeland, and who were\u00a0 committed to guaranteeing all their new\u00a0 subjects religious, cultural, linguistic, and\u00a0 property freedom.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

While Babur is shown as the founder of the\u00a0 dynasty and the first to befriend the Indian\u00a0 peoples, it is Akbar \u2013 born at the court of his\u00a0 \u201cadoptive\u201d aunt, the princess of Amarkot \u2013 who\u00a0 emerges as the first to possess this dual Mughal\u00a0 (and by extension, Muslim) and Indian identity.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The film ends with a shot of the child Akbar\u00a0 helping the princess of Amarkot raise the Rajput\u00a0 flag on the ramparts of her fort, accompanied\u00a0 by the narrator\u2019s voice-over announcing that\u00a0 Akbar continued, in every measure he took, to\u00a0 strengthen Hindu\u2013Muslim friendship.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The film\u2019s message, calling on Hindus and\u00a0 Muslims to unite against a common enemy\u00a0 (which, in the minds of spectators in 1945,\u00a0 would have evoked the British colonizers)\u00a0 and to jointly create a multireligious and\u00a0 multicultural country, perfectly underscored\u00a0 the major issues of the period in which it was\u00a0 made.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

After independence (and Partition), when the\u00a0 Indian Republic under the governance of\u00a0 Jawaharlal Nehru became a country \u201cunited in\u00a0 its diversity,\u201d the symbolic importance of Akbar\u00a0 did not diminish \u2013 quite the contrary. Post\u00a0independence films continued to take up the\u00a0 ideas set down in writing by Nehru and\u00a0 proposed in earlier films (such as Humayun),\u00a0 with the dual aim of offering an ideal of\u00a0 leadership for new rulers and, once again,\u00a0 affirming that peaceful coexistence among\u00a0 diverse communities was possible (an ideal all\u00a0 the more important to maintain after the\u00a0 violence of Partition).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Thus, in 1960, in the film Mughal-e-Azam (The\u00a0 Great Mughal, dir. K. Asif) [14], Akbar is presented\u00a0 by the narrator (using the same device as in\u00a0 Humayun) as one of those men who did not\u00a0 come to India to plunder it but who truly loved it.\u00a0 Whereas the audience had heard similar\u00a0 statements legitimizing the Mughal dynasty\u00a0 from Babur fifteen years earlier in Humayun, this\u00a0 time they are presented as more objective. In\u00a0 Mughal-e-Azam, it is not Akbar himself who\u00a0 declares his love for India (or Hindustan, as the\u00a0 country is called in the film) and who wishes to\u00a0\u00a0distinguish himself from other \u201cforeign\u201d rulers\u00a0 who governed the subcontinent \u2013 it is an\u00a0 extradiegetic narrator (in voice-over) who\u00a0 informs the spectators.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moreover, unlike the narrator of Humayun, that\u00a0 of Mughal-e-Azam introduces himself in his\u00a0 opening monologue \u2013 he is Hindustan, which\u00a0 makes him a witness to the entire history of\u00a0 many regimes and dynasties of the\u00a0 subcontinent and renders his words all the more\u00a0 truthful for spectators.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

That said, even though Akbar, the Great Mughal\u00a0 eponymous hero of K. Asif\u2019s film, is presented\u00a0 from the outset as a major historical figure and\u00a0 a positive character, he later also becomes the\u00a0 antagonist of the film by opposing the union of\u00a0 his son, Prince Salim, with a court servant\u00a0 named Anarkali. It should be noted here that the\u00a0 film is based on a legendary story of the\u00a0 forbidden romance between Prince Salim and\u00a0 the beautiful Anarkali [15], first mentioned at the\u00a0 beginning of the seventeenth century by the\u00a0 English traveler William Finch, who visited the\u00a0 city of Lahore [16], where a mausoleum\u00a0 dedicated to a woman nicknamed Anarkali was\u00a0 under construction at that time.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The legend recounts that Anarkali, a simple\u00a0 servant, was punished for her love defying social\u00a0 hierarchy by Akbar, who ordered her to be\u00a0 walled up alive. This version, recounted by Finch,\u00a0 fit into a Western tendency to portray Indian\u00a0 rulers as corrupt, which later served to justify\u00a0 colonization as the liberation of the Indian\u00a0 people from the yoke of despots.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Even though the idea that Akbar, the benevolent\u00a0 and tolerant ruler, could wall up an innocent\u00a0 young woman alive posed a problem for some\u00a0 Indians from the twentieth century onward, it\u00a0 was taken up by works of fiction such as the\u00a0 play Anarkali by the playwright Syed Imtiaz Ali\u00a0 Taj (first published in 1922) and its subsequent\u00a0 cinematic adaptations.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

However, filmmakers gradually realized that it\u00a0 was difficult to present Akbar as a good ruler\u00a0 while respecting the canonical ending of the\u00a0 legend. In 1953, Nandlal Jaswantlal proposed his\u00a0 Anarkali, in which Akbar decides at the last\u00a0 moment to commute the death sentence, but\u00a0 before Prince Salim, tasked with transmitting his\u00a0 father\u2019s new order, arrives at the execution site,\u00a0 Anarkali has already died, walled in. K. Asif was\u00a0 the first to drastically change the ending of this\u00a0 well-known story in Mughal-e-Azam. In his\u00a0 version, Akbar, remembering that the emperor is\u00a0\u00a0the guarantor of justice, decides after meeting\u00a0 Anarkali\u2019s mother to secretly free the heroine.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

He tells the young woman that he is not \u201cthe\u00a0 enemy of love, but the slave of principles,\u201d and\u00a0 that for the good of the empire Salim must\u00a0 remain convinced that his beloved is no longer\u00a0 of this world. Anarkali leaves the country through\u00a0 an underground passage leading beyond its\u00a0 borders to ensure the stability of the empire.\u00a0 Indeed, as Akbar explains, if a prince were to\u00a0 marry a servant, the enemies of Hindustan\u00a0 could invade it by arguing that Mughal rule was\u00a0 no longer legitimate because of this misalliance.\u00a0 Thus, even though Akbar\u2019s behavior in the film\u00a0 remains in some ways ambiguous and the\u00a0 spectator can never be sure to what extent the\u00a0 emperor\u2019s primary concern is the well-being of\u00a0 his people or to what degree he himself\u00a0 despises this union due to class bias, the\u00a0 reputation of the Great Mughal is ultimately\u00a0 saved \u2013 he is presented as one who sacrificed\u00a0 himself to preserve the stability of his country,\u00a0 even if it meant that posterity would consider\u00a0 him a tyrant.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In this way, Asif succeeded in his film in\u00a0 meeting the expectations of an audience\u00a0 familiar with the legend of Anarkali and in\u00a0 aligning himself with the nation-building\u00a0 project proposed by Nehru and his party,\u00a0 which presented Akbar\u2019s era as a golden age\u00a0 of tolerance and peace to which the newly\u00a0 independent India should aspire.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

It is important to note that in comparison with\u00a0 Humayun, Mughal-e-Azam appears less\u00a0 didactic with regard to communal issues. Asif\u00a0 does not preach friendship and inclusion of\u00a0 different religions and ethnicities within a single\u00a0 country, but presents them as something\u00a0 already established.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Indeed, several important secondary characters\u00a0 are Hindus holding high positions at the Mughal\u00a0 court: Queen Jodha, Akbar\u2019s Rajput wife and the\u00a0 mother of Prince Salim; Raja Man Singh, the\u00a0 commander-in-chief of the Mughal army and a\u00a0 member of Jodha\u2019s clan; and finally Durjan\u00a0 Singh, Man Singh\u2019s son and Salim\u2019s best friend,\u00a0 who tirelessly helps him overcome obstacles to\u00a0 be with Anarkali. Syncretic culture is also\u00a0 presented as natural at Akbar\u2019s court.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The film begins with Akbar and Jodha\u2019s\u00a0 pilgrimage to the hermitage of a Sufi mystic<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

(Muslim) to ask for his mediation with God, as\u00a0 the couple still has no child\/heir. Later, Akbar\u00a0 participates in the rites associated with the\u00a0 festival of the Hindu god Krishna organized by\u00a0 his queen in her apartments \u2013 Akbar\u2019s active\u00a0 participation and the fluidity of his gestures\u00a0 indicate that he is familiar with Hindu rituals and\u00a0 that his wife\u2019s culture has already become his own.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The emperor also organizes large-scale\u00a0 celebrations in the palace for both the festival of\u00a0 Krishna and Nawroz \u2013 a festival of Zoroastrian\u00a0 origin (Persian New Year), later adopted by\u00a0 certain Muslim communities.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In the post-Partition context, Asif seems to want\u00a0 to emphasize the syncretism of Indian culture,\u00a0 here assimilated to the culture of the Mughal\u00a0 court, rather than highlighting differences to be\u00a0 overcome. Thus, even though Akbar is married\u00a0 to Jodha, a Hindu woman, there is no discussion\u00a0 whatsoever of potential difficulties or the\u00a0 possible strangeness of an interreligious\u00a0 marriage.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The film\u2019s main conflict arises from the fact that\u00a0 Prince Salim wishes to marry a servant \u2013 a\u00a0 woman who is far below him in the social\u00a0 hierarchy. The difference in social status (even\u00a0 within the same community, Salim and Anarkali\u00a0 both being Muslims) thus proves more\u00a0 problematic than that of religion (Akbar and\u00a0 Jodha belong to different religious beliefs but\u00a0 both come from royal families).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The film seems to tell the Indian audience that it\u00a0 must first resolve tensions related to religion\u00a0 before fighting for a more egalitarian society in\u00a0 terms of social classes. According to scholar\u00a0 Swarnavel Eswaran, Akbar here represents the\u00a0 vision of Mahatma Gandhi, who fought for\u00a0 peaceful unity among religious communities\u00a0 but did not challenge the caste system within\u00a0 Hinduism. Salim, according to Eswaran, would\u00a0 symbolize Jawaharlal Nehru and his more\u00a0 socialist and egalitarian project [17]. The film\u2019s\u00a0 ending, which shows Akbar secretly freeing\u00a0 Anarkali, suggests that society is not yet ready\u00a0 for greater social equality and that even if those\u00a0 in power recognize its importance, a\u00a0 generational change must occur before more\u00a0 egalitarian policies can be implemented.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

At the same time, the film seems to send a\u00a0 message to political leaders: they must\u00a0 always dispense justice, especially moral\u00a0 justice, even if they must do so secretly when\u00a0\u00a0it challenges overly rigid (and sometimes\u00a0 unjust) laws governing the country.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The most recent Hindi film featuring the figure of\u00a0 Akbar is Jodhaa Akbar (dir. Ashutosh Gowariker,\u00a0 2008), which, as the title indicates, focuses on\u00a0 the imperial couple: the Mughal emperor Akbar\u00a0 and his Rajput wife Jodha, the princess of\u00a0 Amber.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The film, released in 2008, was created in a\u00a0 sociopolitical context very different from that of\u00a0 the mid-twentieth century. Since the 1970s, the\u00a0 Congress Party led by the Nehru\u2013Gandhi family\u00a0 had been in decline, even though it won some\u00a0 elections, while parties previously in opposition,\u00a0 notably those linked to Hindu nationalist right\u00a0wing movements [18], were gaining strength.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Hindu nationalist turn marked the 1990s, and\u00a0 as Hindi cinema specialist Rachel Dwyer points\u00a0 out, this political shift is particularly reflected in\u00a0 Hindi cinema of that period. According to Dwyer,\u00a0 \u201cit would be surprising if, from the 1990s onward,\u00a0 Hindi films, produced and consumed by the new\u00a0 middle classes, did not manifest Hindutva\u00a0 ideology [19], just as nationalist and Nehruvian\u00a0 ideologies dominated earlier films\u201d [20].<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

If the 1990s emerge as a decade in which no film\u00a0 focused on Akbar was produced, this may\u00a0 perhaps be explained by the fact that in the new\u00a0 atmosphere of Hindutva reigning in India,\u00a0 filmmakers did not know what to do with this\u00a0 Muslim emperor (Dwyer recalls that Muslims are\u00a0 the primary target, the chosen enemy of\u00a0 Hindutva [21]), who was widely considered\u00a0 nonconforming to the image of the Muslim that\u00a0 emerged in the cinema of that era \u2013 terrorist\u00a0 and religious fanatic (or agent of Pakistan).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moreover, the 1990s and the beginning of the\u00a0 twenty-first century were marked by numerous\u00a0 cases of extreme intercommunal violence [22].\u00a0 In this context, Ashutosh Gowariker created a\u00a0 film that, on the one hand, seems to aim to\u00a0 promote Nehru\u2019s secular and syncretic vision,\u00a0 traditionally symbolized by the figure of Akbar,\u00a0 but on the other hand does not escape the\u00a0 omnipresent pro-Hindu (or even pro-Hindutva)\u00a0 discourse.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Jodhaa Akbar, which can be seen as a spiritual\u00a0 prequel to Mughal-e-Azam (its story ending\u00a0 shortly before that of Asif\u2019s film begins), focuses\u00a0 on the early years of Akbar\u2019s reign and his\u00a0 marriage (and budding love story) with Jodha\u00a0 [23].<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

Unlike Mughal-e-Azam, Jodhaa Akbar presents\u00a0 religious differences as a major difficulty that the\u00a0 protagonists must overcome in order to be\u00a0 together. Their marriage, proposed by Jodha\u2019s\u00a0 father to Akbar in order to secure the protection\u00a0 of the powerful emperor, is initially a political\u00a0 alliance that displeases the princess.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Upon learning of her father\u2019s decision, she\u00a0 openly asks how she could allow a man to mark\u00a0 her hair parting with vermilion if that man\u00a0 ignores the meaning of the gesture [24]. When,\u00a0 on their wedding night, Akbar notices the\u00a0 coldness of his new wife, he informs her that in\u00a0 Islam a woman can divorce her husband, to\u00a0 which Jodha responds that in Hinduism a\u00a0 marriage lasts seven lifetimes.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Through these lines, the director quickly\u00a0 establishes the central issue of the film and\u00a0 makes the audience understand that as long as\u00a0 they are not in harmony on religious and\u00a0 cultural levels, Jodha and Akbar will not truly be\u00a0 able to fall in love and be happy.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Subsequently, it is Akbar who moves toward\u00a0 Jodha and gradually adopts her customs. He\u00a0 accepts the conditions set by Jodha before the\u00a0 marriage (she will not convert to Islam and will\u00a0 be able to build a small temple dedicated to\u00a0 Krishna within the Mughal imperial palace) and\u00a0 willingly participates in the prayers led by his\u00a0 wife.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moreover, when Akbar comes for the first time to\u00a0 Jodha\u2019s apartments to listen to the prayer she is\u00a0 chanting and joins her, one notices the\u00a0 difference in his attitude compared to that of his\u00a0 counterpart in Mughal-e-Azam. Whereas the\u00a0 Akbar of Mughal-e-Azam (older and more\u00a0 experienced) knew exactly how to behave\u00a0 during prayers dedicated to Krishna, that of\u00a0 Jodhaa Akbar seems lost, and it is his wife who\u00a0 must guide him step by step. Akbar\u2019s so-called\u00a0 \u201ctolerance\u201d policies (such as the abolition of a\u00a0 discriminatory tax on Hindus) are also shown as\u00a0 being prompted by his wife. Indeed, the film\u00a0 presents Akbar as gradually becoming\u00a0 \u201cHinduized\u201d under his wife\u2019s influence, which\u00a0 ultimately allows him to win her heart.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

This vision differs from what is known from\u00a0 historical sources and history books, which\u00a0 describe Akbar as a man in search of a certain\u00a0 spiritual truth, guided, admittedly, by\u00a0 representatives of various beliefs (not only\u00a0 Hindus) whom he invited to participate in\u00a0 debates organized at his court, but autonomous\u00a0 and mature in his reflections.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Portraying his interest in Hinduism as the result\u00a0 of his passion for a woman seems to remove\u00a0 some of his agency and overly simplify the\u00a0 complex character. Akbar becomes, at the end\u00a0 of the film, the good monarch loved by his\u00a0 people, but the path he takes to get there\u00a0 makes spectators understand that he can only\u00a0 be accepted by his wife and his people if he\u00a0 gradually abandons Islam in favor of Hinduism\u00a0 \u2013 the religion of the majority.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Increasingly \u201cHinduized\u201d in his practices, Akbar is\u00a0 presented as the \u201cgood Muslim\u201d and opposed to\u00a0 certain members of his court, \u201cbad\u201d Muslims\u00a0 (more orthodox), who seek to undermine the\u00a0 religious harmony he pursues and who\u00a0 disapprove of his marriage to a Hindu woman\u00a0 [25].<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

This Manichean vision is not new \u2013 in works\u00a0 devoted to Akbar it can already be found (at\u00a0 least) from the 1970s onward in comic books.\u00a0 Indeed, comic series published by two\u00a0 publishing houses \u2013 Amar Chitra Katha and\u00a0 Diamond Comics \u2013 and focused on the\u00a0 adventures of Akbar and his Hindu minister and\u00a0 friend Birbal, highlighted the same dichotomy.\u00a0 Akbar, preferring Birbal over all his other\u00a0 courtiers and regularly needing to be educated\u00a0 in proper conduct by his Hindu friend, was\u00a0 shown as a character not without flaws but\u00a0 nonetheless positive.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The other Muslim characters in these comics\u00a0 (the emperor\u2019s vain wives, jealous courtiers\u00a0 plotting to kill Birbal, or others simply foolish and\u00a0 mocked by the Hindu minister) were generally\u00a0 presented as antagonists and always lost to\u00a0 Birbal.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Inspired by older oral folklore, these stories\u00a0 reemerged and gained popularity in comic\u00a0 form in the 1970s\u20131980s, one of the first major\u00a0 moments of popular disenchantment with the\u00a0 model proposed by the Congress Party and of\u00a0 victories by the Hindu nationalist right.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The analysis of the representation of the\u00a0 figure of Emperor Akbar in Indian fiction,\u00a0 particularly in Hindi cinema (one of the\u00a0 country\u2019s most important industries), shows\u00a0 the close links between artistic discourse\u00a0 and the sociopolitical context in which\u00a0 works are created.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A symbol of a glorious past, of a syncretic\u00a0 culture in which each religion is equal or, later,\u00a0\u00a0still illustrious but this time in need of progressive \u201cHinduization,\u201d the fictional Akbar reflects the\u00a0 changes that have taken place in Indian society\u00a0 and politics since at least the 1940s. Even though\u00a0 he must be adapted to a changing\u00a0 (increasingly pro-Hindutva) context, Akbar\u00a0 remains a national hero in works of fiction [26].<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The rise to power of the Bharatiya Janata Party\u00a0 (a party claiming Hindutva ideology) since 2014\u00a0 has given rise to numerous politically engaged\u00a0 films promoting a new vision of Indian identity\u00a0 (assimilated to Hindu identity). While films such\u00a0 as Tanhaji: The Unsung Warrior (dir. Om Raut,\u00a0 2020) and Chhaava (dir. Laxman Utekar, 2025)\u00a0 depict the battles of Hindu kings (Marathas in\u00a0 both films) against the Mughal Empire, they\u00a0 choose as their villain Emperor Aurangzeb (r.\u00a0 1658\u20131707), who in the collective imagination of\u00a0 Indians has always been opposed to Akbar and\u00a0 criticized as intolerant and responsible for the\u00a0 decline of his predecessor\u2019s ideals.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The figure of Akbar, constructed as a national\u00a0 hero by historians\u2019 writings, political discourse,\u00a0 and fictional narratives, still seems to hold firm,\u00a0 at least in fiction, in the face of the denigration of\u00a0 Indo-Muslim rulers of past centuries.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[1] Drawing his heritage on one side from Genghis Khan, and\u00a0 on the other from Tamerlane.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[2] The first Indian feature film, Raja Harishchandra (dir.\u00a0 Dhundiraj Govind Phalke), was released in 1913.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[3] Today: Mumbai.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[4] Which scholars Ira Bhaskar and Richard<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[5] Allen call the \u201cMuslim Historicals.\u201d<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Ira Bhaskar and Richard Allen, Islamicate Cultures of\u00a0 Bombay Cinema (New Delhi: Tulika Books, 2009), 5\u20137. Rachel\u00a0 Dwyer and Divia Patel, Cinema India: the visual culture of\u00a0 Hindi film (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2002),\u00a0 140\u2013143.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[6] Future emperor Jahangir (r. 1605\u20131627).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[7] Leader of the Congress Party (Indian National Congress)\u00a0 and the first Prime Minister of the Indian Republic after\u00a0 independence.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[8] Jawaharlal Nehru, Glimpses of World History, Being\u00a0 Further Letters to His Daughter, Written in Prison, and\u00a0 Containing a Rambling Account of History for Young People\u00a0 (Bombay: Asia Publishing House, 1962), 316.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[10] Loc. cit.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[11] Loc. cit.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[12] One of the first Indian biographers of Akbar, whose work\u00a0 long remained the standard reference on the subject.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[13] Ashirbadi Lal Srivastava, Akbar the Great. Volume I:\u00a0 Political History, 1542\u20131605 A.D., vol. I (Agra; Delhi; Jaipur:\u00a0 Shiva Lal Agarwala, 1962), 530.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[14] The director had the idea for this film as early as the\u00a0 1940s, but, notably due to the departure of his first producer\u00a0 to Pakistan after Partition, production was delayed.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[15] Her identity \u2013 whether a servant or imperial courtesan,\u00a0 one of Salim\u2019s wives or even one of his father\u2019s \u2013 remains an\u00a0 enigma, and the story of her love for the Mughal prince is\u00a0 purely legendary.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[16] Today in Pakistan.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Swarnavel Eswaran, \u201cHumayun and Mughal-E-Azam: History\u00a0 and the Contemporary,\u201d in Historicizing Myths in\u00a0 Contemporary India, ed.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[17] Swapna Gopinath and Rutuja Deshmukh (New York:\u00a0 R o u t l e d g e , 2 0 2 3 ) , 4 1 \u2013 6 3 ,\u00a0https:\/\/doi.org\/ 10.4324\/9781003363149-3.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[18] For example, the Bharatiya Janata Party (Indian People\u2019s\u00a0 Party), currently in power (since 2014).<\/p>\n

[19] Ideology of the Hindu nationalist right promoting the\u00a0 idea that Indian identity should be built on Hindu values.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[20] Rachel Dwyer, \u201cThe saffron Screen? Hindu Nationalism\u00a0 and the Hindi Film,\u201d in Religion, media, and the public sphere,\u00a0 ed. Birgit Meyer and Annelies Moors (Bloomington: Indiana\u00a0 University Press, 2006), 274.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[21] Ibid., 276.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[22] Riots in Bombay in 1992\/1993 and those in Gujarat in\u00a0 2002 in which many Muslims were killed, as well as the\u00a0 terrorist attacks in Mumbai in 2008 carried out by a jihadist\u00a0 group.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[23] Historians generally agree that this princess could not\u00a0 have been called \u201cJodha,\u201d which would have been a\u00a0 nickname given to a princess from Jodhpur rather than\u00a0 Amber, but this is the name that first became known\u00a0 through North Indian oral folklore and later through cinema.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[24] Married Hindu women apply vermilion in their hair\u00a0 partings as a sign of marriage.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[25] Shahnaz Khan, \u201crecovering the past in \u2018Jodhaa Akbar\u2019:\u00a0 masculinities, femininities and cultural politics in Bombay\u00a0 cinema,\u201d Feminist Review, no. 99 (2011): 131\u2013146, https:\/\/ www.jstor.org\/stable\/41288880.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[26] This is not the case in political discourse: in recent years\u00a0 the Mughals, including Akbar, have been denounced as\u00a0 colonizers, and there are increasing attempts to rewrite\u00a0 history, notably through school textbooks.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

*****<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

Ada Lipman earned her PhD in Arts from INALCO (National Institute of Oriental Languages and Civilizations) in Paris\u00a0 in 2025. Trained as an Indologist, her research focuses on Indian arts, particularly cinema and Hindi-language\u00a0 comics, the representation of Indian history in fiction, and the mutual links and influences between Indian and\u00a0 Western cultures. She also works as a lecturer at INALCO, where she teaches South Asian cinema and Indian\u00a0 comics.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

This publication reflects the views and opinions of the individual authors. As a platform dedicated to the sharing of information and ideas, our objective is to highlight a diversity of perspectives. Accordingly, the opinions expressed herein should not be interpreted as those of the Fondation France-Asie or its affiliates.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Ada Lipman   India, in its current form, is a relatively young\u00a0 state \u2013 it was created only in 1947, thus bringing\u00a0 an end to the British Raj (Empire of India). Before\u00a0 the British succeeded in bringing a large part of\u00a0 South Asia under their influence, several other\u00a0 kingdoms […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":6892,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"episode_type":"","audio_file":"","cover_image":"","cover_image_id":"","duration":"","filesize":"","date_recorded":"","explicit":"","block":"","filesize_raw":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[118],"tags":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fondationfranceasie.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7155"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fondationfranceasie.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fondationfranceasie.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fondationfranceasie.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fondationfranceasie.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7155"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/fondationfranceasie.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7155\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7227,"href":"https:\/\/fondationfranceasie.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7155\/revisions\/7227"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fondationfranceasie.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6892"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fondationfranceasie.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7155"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fondationfranceasie.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7155"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fondationfranceasie.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7155"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}