Hindu Vivek Kendra
A RESOURCE CENTER FOR THE PROMOTION OF HINDUTVA
   
 
 
«« Back
 

Sanjay Leela Bhansali has only himself to blame for the Padmavati controversy

Author: Makkhan Lal
Publication: The Print
Date: November 24, 2017
URL:   https://theprint.in/2017/11/24/sanjay-leela-bhansali-himself-blame-padmavati/amp/

Bhansali should have thought about how much liberty he can take with traditions, customs, and people’s sensibilities.

For the past three weeks, the film Padmavati has dominated the discourse in the media. Certainly, the debate could have been more informed and reasonable. Politicians, film actors, directors and journalists have all contributed to the poor quality of the debate.

I strongly condemn the threat of violence against the actors, filmmakers and others. There is no place for violence in any civil society.

But we must accept that Padmini has been worshipped, regarded as the ultimate symbol of woman’s honour and is a household name not only in Rajasthan, but all over India. Those who call Padmini a fiction must answer how that is possible when Allauddin Khilji, Raval Ratan Singh, the conquering of Chittorgarh on 13 August 1303 and everything else is history and reality. How can all these historical realities revolve around a fictional character?

Many have argued that the whole discussion is unnecessary, because no one has seen Padmavati yet. But Sanjay Leela Bhansali himself is responsible for this. He has been carefully crafting the publicity strategy.

Additionally, his own past record shows how he has distorted storylines: his depiction of Ramlila and making two characters who have never met in the novel ‘Devdas’ dance together in his film. Similarly, Kashi Bai, the Peshawa queen who suffered from arthritis, was shown dancing in Bajirao Mastani.

The release of the promo of Padmavati was the last straw. Bhansali should have thought about how much liberty he can take with traditions, customs, and people’s sensibilities.

Then there is the question of history and myth. Besides the written records, oral traditions, social customs and practices are considered to be the credible sources of history. These are regarded as alternative, non-elitist, unsponsored sources of history. These sources broaden our understanding of history and writings.

I may be forgiven for pointing this out, but much of the Hadidh is based on oral tradition, collected several centuries after the death of Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him). There is hardly any written record about Christianity or of the time of Jesus. On the contrary, there is a whole group of documents known as the ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’, which question the very existence of Jesus.

Let us not forget that Ashoka the Great erected a pillar in the Lumbini forest marking the birthplace of Lord Buddha; almost after 250 years of Buddha’s death. No one has questioned it. The place was identified on the basis of oral traditions.

If we insist only on written records, then what will happen to those people, societies and culture who have no records, or those who have not bothered to keep records as per historians’ standards and crafts.

All historians must recognise that the past is perceived in different ways by different cultures. The methods of interpreting, recording, managing, protecting the past and creation stories also differ between cultures. They are handed on from one generation to the next.

We must recognise that powerful and important emotions are involved in the realm of sacredness, traditions and beliefs. The media coverage is guilty of disrespecting this emotion. On one hand, the media calls the protesters ‘fringe’ groups. On the other hand, it also says that people from Rajasthan to Madhya Pradesh, UP to Haryana are protesting against the release of Padmavati. Are all these people fringe elements?

Who decides who is mainstream, and who is on the fringe? Films on Padmavati have been made earlier but no one protested. But times have changed, with the rapid spread of education, awareness and widespread use of technology. News travels fast and opinions are formed in no time. People are no longer depending on advertisements of films.

The protests and calls for a ban have been termed an assault on the fundamental right of freedom of expression and creativity. This is baffling. Does the freedom of expression have any limit? Does this freedom have a right to offend, insult and even violate other people’s faith? For example, M.F. Husain exercised his artistic freedom only for Hindu Gods and Goddesses when he painted his nudes, often bordering on pornography.

But the bigger question here is one of the crippling impact of colonisation on many local cultures around the world. It has shown that domination by a more powerful culture, which defines its reality in different ways, either destroys or, at best, drives the less powerful culture into a subservient role. What was considered culturally ‘valid’ can be rendered ‘invalid’, and the politically weaker entities are required to somehow modify their reality to fit within the constraints of a new code.

The oral narratives around Padmini have survived for many centuries despite successive foreign domination and have resisted attempts at invalidation.

- Prof. Makkhan Lal is Founder Director of Delhi Institute of Heritage Research and Management and currently Distinguished Fellow at Vivekananda International Foundation
 
«« Back
 
 
 
  Search Articles
 
  Special Annoucements