Ghalib obliged, but what he did produce was a short Persian poem castigating the Ai'n-e Akbari, and by implication, the imperial, extravagant, literate and learned Mughal culture of which it was a product. The least that he said was that the book was of little value and did not have much worth. Galib highly reprimanded the works of Syed Ahmad Khan for wasting his talents and time on dead things. What was even worse was that he praised sky-high the "sahibs of England" who at that time held all the keys to all the a'ins in this world.
Galib was greatly aware of the changes that were brought about by the Europe politics. Sir Syed, it can be said that, was highly annoyed with Ghalib's admonitions, but he would also have realized that Ghalib's reading of the situation, though not nuanced enough, was basically accurate.
Sir Syed later felt that he was the one who was better educated in English language ans well aware of the western society. Hence should have, by him, seen the change that now seemed to be just round the corner. Sir Syed Ahmad Khan never again wrote a word in praise of the Ai'n-e Akbari and in fact gave up taking active interest in history and archaeology, and became a social reformer.
This article is a stub. You can enrich by adding more information to it. Send your Write Up to firstname.lastname@example.org