History does not speak truth always, it is the perception of writer and his/her inclination to political thoughts that affects history writing.

It is not true. The Title "Great" was not a self conferred title. It was conferred by the English and Indian Historians . The Great Title on Akbar is well justified.

Akbar was a mughal emperor but being a mughal emperor he did a lot for Hindus too in his rule. May be that's the reason he was tittled with ''great''. There is nothing wrong in it in my opinion.

Sanjeev Gupta wrote:

Akbar was a mughal emperor but being a mughal emperor he did a lot for Hindus too in his rule. May be that's the reason he was tittled with ''great''. There is nothing wrong in it in my opinion.

 

I'm also of the same opinion. His welfare activities are not just restricted to Muslims. He has seen that all his welfare activities are applicable to all communities and religions.

There could be different views. Many may not like to accept Akbar as 'Great'  but they have no option. Akbar is 'Great'  according to historians world wide. Nobody can now change. This is just like that many don't like the title 'father of nation'  for Mahatma Gandhi. But this does not affect gandhi. He will always be known as 'father of the nation'. 

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:

There could be different views. Many may not like to accept Akbar as 'Great'  but they have no option. Akbar is 'Great'  according to historians world wide. Nobody can now change. This is just like that many don't like the title 'father of nation'  for Mahatma Gandhi. But this does not affect gandhi. He will always be known as 'father of the nation'. 

 

History can neither be distorted nor changed. Yes, I agree with you. There are many still, Hitler.is being appreciated. History depicted him as a cruel Nazi who massacred lakhs of people in his infamous concentration camps. Hitler remains as a war criminal and was tried. Because, there are Hitler lovers still, can Hitler become a Gentleman? Similarly Gaddafi and Saddam Hussain .

 

It was confronted by British and Indian historians of left and center thoughts, no one is denying his greatness but should other prominent persons not be given the status which might have deliberately omitted by such partisan historians.

That will be decided by the eminent Historians. If there is a need to add to the list of Prominent people, they will take a decision.

Prominent and neutral historians would be taking decisions, so that true picture of history comes to light.

Yes you are right. The Historians should be impartial