Was akbar an INDIAN or an INVADER?
Hello everyone!
Welcome to Antique Saga
Translate this page in your preferred language:
You can translate the content of this page by selecting a language in the select box.
Was Akbar an Indian or an invader?
There are many differences of opinion as to whether Akbar was an invader or an Indian. Nobody knows much about it, but they themselves have a strong opinion on it. We can say that their personal feelings are also behind it. But what does history say? What the evidence says is more important.
We cannot decide our own definition of who is and who is not Indian citizen. India has its own definition of citizenship.
There are two types of citizenship in the world: The first is jus soli and the second is jus sanguinis. jus soli is the right of citizenship if you are born on nation's soil.
According to this interpretation, Akbar is not a citizen of India because Akbar was born on 15 October 1542 in Umerkot, Pakistan.At the rajput fortress of amarkot in rajputana(in modern day sindh)where his parents humayun and hamida banu begam had been given refugee by local hindu rajput ruler rana prasad sodha.his parents fled from military defeat at the hands of sher shah suri.
location:pakistan, Umarkot
Jus sanguinis means right of blood.according to jus sanguinis you get the right to base citizen if you are descended by blood in nation .babar was a turkic invader.he had no indian blood so,jus sanguinis also discard akbar as an indian citizen.
Indian constitution jus soli(citizenship by birth)section 3 of the 1955 act renders automatic dissemination of citizenship to a person born in the territory of india.it was stated that if a person was born in india on or after january 26, 1950 and before july 1,1987 then the person will be a citizen of india.Today in 21st century india does not recognize jus soli citizenship by birth .
According to Indian modern defination of citizenship akbar was not a citizen of India.
No comments