Why the Padmavati controversy continues to unfold
Reams of newsprint and cyberspace have been consumed by the hullabaloo over Padmavati. Was she real, or a figment of Malik Muhammad Jayasi’s imagination? Was she a courageous braveheart for walking into those flames, or a coward for not choosing to "survive"? Was she a feminist? A role-model? The victim of a patriarchal system?
Everyone who can put pen to paper or their fingers to a keyboard has voiced their opinion, whether they have any inkling of the facts of the case or not. If I were the Karni Sena, I’d have been delighted. This kind of promotional campaign cannot be bought, and it has highlighted the iconic Rajput queen’s existence before a global audience like nothing else could have.
But at what cost?
We seem to take pride in in thriving on intolerance and make a virtue of hatred. It’s unthinkable that in a civilised society, individuals can offer bounties on people’s heads and noses with impunity. Yet it is what we have witnessed in the past few days. She should have kept quiet, people said of Deepika Padukone. Why get involved? She’s a woman, she should have stayed silent. We live in a social order where staying diplomatically silent keeps your nose intact, apparently.
So what has Padmavati done wrong? Critics allege that the queen has been portrayed in a "romantic light" with Allaudin Khilji, that the Ghoomar performance is demeaning because "painted doll" Deepika’s midriff shows, and that Khilji has been glamourised. Really?
When Shekhar Kapur made Elizabeth, there were allegations galore of blatant inaccuracies. Historians commented that Elizabeth’s character was portrayed as weak and indecisive, glossing over her inherent strength and complexity. Elizabeth I is one of England’s greatest historical figures, but no one put a price on Kapur’s head, and theatres in England remained intact. Oliver Stone’s biopic chronicling the life of Alexander the Great was strongly pilloried for many reasons, all over the world - its inaccurate script, its incorrect costumes and in Stone’s own words, "puerile writing... confused plotting". But the film was released, and people had the opportunity to see it and form their own opinion.
There were protests, and there were demonstrations. Stone was panned by critics for making his Alexander bisexual, criticised by the gay community for not making him openly homosexual. But the Greeks did not threaten to chop of Stone’s nose, nor did the film get censored or banned. That is a phenomenon for which we Indians can take sole credit, while taking refuge in the fact that Lakshman did it to Shurpanakha 7,000 years ago. That makes it quite all right, clearly.
One would have thought that Sanjay Leela Bhansali would have learnt a few lessons in the management of the omnipresent Indian "sentiments" after the experience of releasing his magnum opus on the Maratha icon, Bajirao Peshwa. With descendants of the peshwa accusing Bhansali of misrepresenting history and Mastani’s descendents alleging vulgar dialogue, with protesters burning his effigy at Shaniwar Wada in Pune, Bhansali has been there, done that.
One would have imagined that once "burnt", he would make for a more careful investigation on how he should tackle Padmavati, who is as much of an icon to the Rajputs as Bajirao was to the Marathas. Not in terms of content; I am one of those who believe in creative freedom, but definitely in terms of media and the optics. Because at the end of the day, this controversy is more about bruised egos, and less about hurt sentiments.
While various political organisations are protesting that the content of the film is objectionable, it’s worth noting that none of them have actually seen the film. According to the Karni Sena, it was a chance, innocuous remark made by Ranveer about wanting intimate scenes with the heroine of Padmavati that first instigated the brouhaha.
It didn’t take long to blow up into a full-blown ego tussle that took on gargantuan proportions. And that was the cue for every wannabe to grab their share of the spotlight - what better way to hog some media footage than become embroiled in a raging storm.
The latest entrants into the ego battle are the members of a parliamentary committee and the censor board chief. Bhansali has managed to offend once more by holding a private screening for select journalists when the film has not yet received certification. The chairman of the panel asked him why he had bothered to appear before the panel if it was the press he needed to certify his film.
And the drama continues to unfold. Now the search is on for a list of experts who can vet the film. One wonders what would they say. Which experts can testify to the content of Khilji’s dreams, the amount of midriff the queen bared 800 years ago, or the state of her mind when she committed jauhar?
However, it’s all academic now, because Sanjay Leela Bhansali has just informed the committee that the film is based on a "fictional theme".