Bhansali forced to defend Padmavati is honour killing of artistic freedom
Historians say that Padmini, the legendary queen of Chittor, first features in a work of fiction by Sufi poet Malik Muhammad Jayasi.
On November 8, filmmaker Sanjay Leela Bhansali came out with a YouTube statement, clarifying that Padmavati, his star-studded and star-crossed flick, has been made keeping "Rajput honour" in mind, that he meant it as a tribute to Rani Padmini, and that there was no "dream sequence" in the movie, rumours about which landed the film in trouble in the first place.
This is my tribute to the sacrifice, valour and honour of Rani Padmavati! – Sanjay Leela Bhansali @RanveerOfficial @deepikapadukone @shahidkapoor https://t.co/RfxgTzFtch
— Padmavati (@FilmPadmavati) November 8, 2017
Various Rajput associations have been demanding that they be shown the movie, and it be released only after they find it inoffensive to their "pride". The fact that a Central Board of Film Certification exists to certify movies seems not to matter to anyone very much at this point.
Much fight over fiction
Historians say that Padmini, the legendary queen of Chittor, first features in a work of fiction by Sufi poet Malik Muhammad Jayasi. Bhansali is making a movie on that poem by Jayasi. The movie allegedly had a scene depicting an imagined romantic sequence between Muslim conqueror Alauddin Khalji and Rani Padmini.
Bhansali now says that the scene never existed, and that he has denied its existence several times in the past, including in writing.
So what raised the hackles of the custodians of Rajput pride was the imagined existence of a dream sequence in a movie based on a poem. The layers of fiction here are Interstellar-esque, but the outrage they sparked was very real.
The very expensive sets of the movie have been vandalised twice – once in Jaipur and once in Kolhapur. Bhansali himself was roughed up in Jaipur. Groups such as the Rajput Karni Sena – whose members have been exposed as mercenaries – and Rajput Sabha, have been protesting against the film, saying there will be consequences if "objectionable content" from the film is not removed.
These voices cannot be taken lightly, for they include several BJP leaders', and the royal family of Jaipur.
It is ironic that while the BJP's main grouse against the movie is that it "plays with" a woman's honour, in a Facebook post against it recently, Ujjain MP Chintamani Malviya has said that the film fraternity can never understand "jauhar" because "their women change husbands every day". In the same classy vein, Malviya says that people like Bhansali understand "only the language of shoes".
Diya Kumari, former princess of Jaipur and now a BJP MLA, has said that no film should be allowed to hurt the sentiments of the Rajput community.
I am a daughter of the holy soil of Rajasthan and Rani Padmavati is the symbol of courage & honor of woman of our country. No disrespect to her will be tolerated by anyone. #padmavati
— Diya Kumari (@KumariDiya) November 8, 2017
I will not allow any distortion of the valiant history of Rajasthan & Sacrifice of its people in fighting barbarians by movie #Padmavati
— Diya Kumari (@KumariDiya) November 7, 2017
Creative freedom
A Sufi poet in 1540 AD in Awadh, then ruled by the Suri dynasty, enjoyed the creative freedom to invent a poem about a Rajput princess thwarting the lust of a Muslim ruler. In modern, democratic India, a filmmaker struggles to release a movie on the same subject.
Creative freedom is increasingly being seen by many as a concept invented for the express purpose of insulting Hindus. Union minister Giriraj Singh was recently quoted as saying: "Does Sanjay Leela Bhansali or anyone else have the guts to make films on other religions or comment upon them? They make films on Hindu gurus, gods and warriors. We will not tolerate this anymore."
Bhansali has never claimed historical accuracy in his works. Every retelling of story adds to it the viewpoint of the teller, which enriches the tale. Multiple versions abound of the Hindu epics Ramayana and Mahabharata, contributing to their fascinating richness.
Preventing a storyteller from presenting the story in his own way not only suppresses his freedom, but also robs the audience of multiple viewpoints, and leaves the story poorer by limiting the variety of interpretations and representations it can hold within itself.
Politics of myth and history
No one has watched Padmavati so far, and hence no one knows what the movie actually is. From what has been released of the movie so far, proud Rajput and Hindus should ideally been lapping it up – as a DailyO piece says, this is "love jihad in epic proportions", the story of a virtuous Hindu queen thwarting a Muslim king in the patriarchy-approved way of honour preservation.
Going by the trailors, Khalji is depicted as a barbarian in the movie.
However, Padmavati's legend also story also has a part where the Rajput ruler Ratan Singh, subjugated by Khalji, allows him to take a glimpse of his beautiful wife in the mirror. Bhansali's movie allegedly had a dream sequence showing romantic moments between Khalji and Padmini.
How fragile does "pride" have to be when it is hurt by what might be in a story that might not have been?
Protests against Padmavati are also in line with the recent attempts to rewrite history – Maharana Pratap won at Haldighati, Akbar was not great, Taj Mahal was a Hindu temple. Basically, any story that boosts the narrative of a great Hindu Rashtra, whether fact or fiction, is to be celebrated, those presenting the other side attacked.
Whose dishonour, anyway?
To his credit, Rajasthan Home Minister Gulab Chand Kataria has said action will be taken against those trying to disturb law-and-order in during the release of Padmavati. However, every time the government allows groups like Karni Sena more power over established institutions such as the censor board, it undermines and insults its own authority.
What Padmavati turns out to be will be revealed only after its release. Essentially, what has been going on amounts to honour killing of artistic freedom.