The over-hyped anguish, vandalism and terror in the name of Padmavati seem not to be settling down even after the release of the movie based on her life, be it on the ground or on the Indian television channels. There may not be single person in the country unaware of the rampant protests over the movie Padmaavat by Sanjay Leela Bhansali, a renowned Bollywood filmmaker.
Based on Sufi poet Malik Muhammad Jayasi’s 16th-century epic work, the movie portrays real-life historical characters, the Rajput king of Mewar, Ratan Singh, his wife Padmavati and the second and most powerful ruler of the Khilji dynasty, Alauddin Khilji.
Although the characters might belong to the past, there is little or no historical evidence of the desire of Khilji to possess Padmavati. But since we Indians base our emotions not on facts but on provocations, almost the entire north of the country was literally burning over the issue of disrespect to Rajput valor, under the leadership of an extremist Rajput terror gang, as it must be rightly called.
There were threats of violence and, amusingly, jauhar (a Hindu custom of mass self-immolation by women in parts of the subcontinent to avoid capture, enslavement or rape by foreign invaders when facing certain defeat during a war), which never happened.
The maximum credit for the outcry against the movie definitely goes to the ruling party for backing the protests, and also to the opposition party, which maintained silence while preparing for the elections in 2019. The only losers in this drama were the people of India, who every now and then inadvertently become victims of cheap politics and bizarre displays of logic. The person who gained most out of the hoopla was Bhansali, who got free public relations and soaring box-office receipts for his movie.
My emotions in the cinema oscillated between anger and amusement over the appeasement of Rajputs displayed in the film, while the country was burning for precisely the opposite reason. It was disappointing not to see quality content amid the beautiful sets, pretty women and lavish clothes.
It was also disappointing to see a renowned director like Bhansali doing a blatant black-versus-white portrayal of Khilji versus the Rajput king. The brutal and savage depiction of Khilji is just obnoxiously belligerent, and the depiction of Ratan Singh as the sweetest, cutest thing on Earth is hard to digest.
The human memory forgets actual history but carries on with the depiction of history in creative popular media, which has the power to discredit and wipe out the real context of history
I am sure Muslim kings would have eaten meat, but not as savagely as shown, biting into a portion as big as an entire chicken in one go. Even animals would be offended if shown in this manner. Always dressed in gloomy shades of black and gray, Khilji is shown as a monster out of a horror movie, while the Raja of Mewar is the fairytale prince, always noble and genteel in all his deeds. It’s amusing to see the smart politics behind the Rajput protest in brainwashing people into pathetic logic.
I am confused at the intent of the movie, which was to make a period film or a fairytale drama on the triumph of good over evil, where the villain has to be a monster and the hero the savior with no blot on his character or actions. Using historical figures and portraying them as black or white have repercussions in the long run. The human memory forgets actual history but carries on with the depiction of history in such creative popular media, which has the power to discredit and wipe out the real context of history. In the ongoing scenario, an exaggerated portrayal of a Muslim king can create flawed imagery enhancing the bias and suspicions for the Muslim community.
The movie is based on a 13th-century context, which kind of justifies the regressive sexist depiction of women, by glorifying acts of jauhar in one of the most lavish sequences in the film, showing the age-old cultural hypocrisy of controlling and owning the sexuality of women. It is disappointing to see the insensitivity of such a big director in bringing 21st-century women back to an age when the burning of women was considered an act of pride.
The disclaimer claiming not to support sati (widows’ self-immolation) or jauhar seems to fall short of the vivid and majestic depiction of the latter practice in the film. This was unexpected from the director, who proudly uses his mother’s name as his second name.
Padmaavat remains to me an overhyped film, more to be viewed for its visual grandeur and lavish sets.
Getting paid every month online from $15k to $18K just by doing easy online work from home in part time. I have made $19K last month from this job just by doing work in my part time not more than 3 to 4 hrs a day.i am a full time student and i do this job easily in part time. Every person on this planet can get this job now by just follow the instructions on this page……..
====== >>>>>> ᴵᴵᴵᴵᴵᴵᴵᴵᴵwww.5EASYWORK.comᴵᴵᴵᴵᴵᴵᴵᴵᴵᴵᴵᴵᴵ :::::
just copy and past this…..
If the writer Anis wanted to be offensive she succeeded. Even if a dozen women committed "Jauhar’ then it did happen. She sounds like that typical "holocaust denier" except in this case the self inflicted "holocausts"did happen.
I do not know if Anis eats her meat like a bird with itsy bitsy bites and too timid to take one healthy portion but that is screen play at the discretion of the director
Obviously Anis hates this movie but she cannot deny the historical fact of Rajput chivialry. If not for the resistance the Hindu Rajputs put up against Muslim invaders a lot more of Asia would now be Muslim. Islamic influence was arrested at Rajasthan. Had it not South East Asia would be more Muslim than Buddhist, so would South India.
"holocaust "….What? When??
If Muslims wante they could have removed other religions very easily
Fazeel Ayaz
Holocaust definition: "destruction or slaughter on a mass scale, especially caused by fire or nuclear war."
Fazeel Ayaz
They wanted to destroy Hinduism in every form.
Hinduism is the only ancient faith to face Islam, fight it and emerge the dominant faith of her region in the 20th century.
Christianity is the faith of the common era to fend of Islam from Europe after 700 years of battle.
Only in India reality is fiction, and fiction reality. Bollywood educates people more than history books.
This timely movie fits the BJP plot to re-write history showing how bad Muslims were, and Modi, a divisive figure a la Trump, is succeeding beyond measure.
As Modi splits India along caste, religious, regional, linguistic faults, the natural outcome of his misadventure is to ripen India for another foreigner invasion and takeover similar to Aryans, Greeks, Arabs, Afghans, Turks, Mongols, Mughals, then finally the English. Every time the divided locals helped the invaders.
High Caste Indians hate low caste, Sikhs, Muslims of the latter there are no less than 400 million (though officially only a paltry 170 million). These majority "minorities" are a 5th column. If China or whoever decided to take on India in near future, this majority of locals, as usual, will be throwing gold petals on outsiders to welcome them, while squeezing the balls of their high caste. Let them enjoy the party while it lasts.
Yes…….Khilji was a Messanger of Peace…….His LOOTING & SLaughtering of Thousands of HINDUS was just a way of Helping them to Meet the GOD as soon as Possible…..& His Record of Taking Women of the Loser King as Sex SLaves was just His another way of Helping those Women…..Mr Bhansali has done a Great Disservice by portraying such a NICE guy as exactly as He was 😉 😉
Mr Michael, Well I didnot feel offended like a lot of other people did as evident from the numerous acts of vandalism on the streets. I just had an opinion and expected more from creative genius like Bhansali. And about ur fear of entire South India becoming Muslim doesnt make sense to me, because for me religion comes from belief and not force. I am sure your religion too is a result of faith and respect and not force.
Atiya Anis
If the Rajputs did not exist Muslim invasions would have not faced such resistance in that region. Mughal Empire was already established. Without the Rajputs I doubt if the Vijayanagar Empire would have had a chance to form and even they just managed to hold off the Deccani Muslims from conquering the extreme south (Tamil Nadu)
To know how important the Rajputs played one has to know their centuries old militant resistance which was more successful than Vijayanagar Empire
Christianity was imposed. Once the Roman Emperors became Christian it was imposed upon Europe. Christianity emerged as one of the most organized faiths and expanded in every way. From the age of discovery and expansion into the new world to the age of Colonial Empires
Christianity was the only faith not only to resist Islam but take the battles into the Muslim world (during the Crusades).
I don’t expect any rational debate from a muslim man on this subject. If you really want to know how Hindu feels about this either real or fiction, I should walk you over a funeral pyre along with your mufti.
Fazeel Ayaz You MF, you don;’t know shit. Let your ISIS deal with your head.
Bipin Shah rationality word seems unsuitable in your conversation when u urself use abusive words to prove ur point.