I’ve been collecting my thoughts about the previous post on Padmaavat – every time I see a comment, I want to reply, but the comments have been so quick in coming that just approving them is taking up all my time. So instead of answering them one by one, I thought I’d put up a post addressing them all – mainly to continue the point about the jauhar, and why it isn’t empty glorification.
To continue with the points in the earlier post, let’s consider Padmavati, who’s introduced as a warrior (hunter). Now, that’s the key to her character. Because the screenplay doesn’t build on this the way it should have, it’s not immediately apparent (I admit I had to reflect on the film a bit) – but there are enough scenes that offer clues to the reasoning behind the jauhar scene.
- Let’s begin with the scene where the peeping-Tom priest is brought before Ratan Singh. Padmavati advocates a more severe punishment (banishment) than Ratan Singh does, and she does this after he has pronounced his punishment. Essentially, she’s saying, “No, Ratan Singh, that isn’t enough. This man needs to be punished more severely.” This is no meek woman, following orders. She’s someone who countermands the king’s orders.
-
After Alauddin camps outside Chittor, the senior queen is worried. But Padmavati calls him a mere chowkidar, someone who just lies in wait. She proves she’s the braver queen, mentally tougher.
-
When Alauddin says he wants to meet Ratan Singh and enjoy Rajput hospitality, Padmavati is the only one who sees through it – that it’s a strategy.
-
When Alauddin says he wants to see Padmavati, she decides to agree for the sake of her kingdom – else there will be no peace. And when Ratan Singh opposes this, she says “Then why didn’t you cut his head off when you had the chance?” Look at her subsequent line: “Nibhane dijiye hamein Mewar ki rani hone ka kartavya.” Again, she’s no simpering queen, agreeing to everything Ratan Singh says. She thinks like a warrior. (Which raises the question: Why did she have to ask him “permission” for jauhar later? But that’s a different kind of screenwriting problem.)
-
When Alauddin invites Ratan Singh, again it’s Padmavati who sees through this. Ratan Singh says, “Sena jaa chuki hai.” She tells him, “Vapas bhi aa sakti hai.” Again, thinking like a warrior.
-
When Ratan Singh is kidnapped, Padmavati smears mud on her mirrors. She’s already begun to see that it’s her beauty that’s causing all this, even if she tells the senior queen otherwise. This is a tangential point, but it tells me that she’s already weary of the troubles to this kingdom — her kingdom — her beauty is causing.
-
When Gora opposes her going to Khilji, Padmavati’s warrior hat is on again. She defies him, says she will go, that this has to be done with careful planning. (Later, Gora admits her “strategy” worked.)
-
Padmavati is bloodthirsty enough to demand the priest’s head – something the “usool”-bound Ratan Singh would never do. And in Khilji’s kingdom, she smears gulaal on Khilji’s map, hinting at the bloodshed ahead, which she has planned and put into motion. We don’t see a single such strategy in the film from Ratan Singh. (Which raises the question: What did she see in that wimpy Rajput? But again, that’s a different kind of screenwriting problem.)
-
After saving Ratan Singh, Padmavati isn’t happy. Men have died. Worse, Alauddin is back with “dugni sena,” twice the army. She knows there’s no happy end in store. Once again, Ratan Singh has failed her. (See Point 4.) He didn’t kill Khilji when he had the chance.
-
Which is why it makes sense that the arrow with Khilji’s missive lands at her feet. She reads it and sets it afire – a mini-jauhar hinting at the bigger one to come. We see resolve on her face, and this look stays till the last scene.
-
When Ratan Singh is fighting Allaudin outside, Padmavati gathers the women and (warrior hat again!) gives a rousing speech, like a commander would give to his army. She talks about jauhar and frames it in terms of “defeat” – she says this will be Alauddin’s “sabse badi haar.” It sounds less like something a helpless woman would do than another military strategy – her final one.
-
Maybe not – for she has orchestrated another strategy. As she heads to the jauhar, she has stationed (women) troops at the doors of the fort, to delay Khilji with torches and burning coals.
-
Padmavati heads to the jauhar. Her face is grim-resolve all through, eyes filled with tears. (After all, when Ratan Singh told her, “Jaane ka waqt aa gaya hai,” they both knew it was the final goodbye. I loved the touch that we meet Ratan Singh as his front is pierced by an arrow. And we leave him after his back is pierced with arrows.) And only just before entering the fire do we get a small smile on Padmavati’s face. (I think this is the only time she smiles in the entire second half.) Given the preceding points, I chose to read this as a smile of victory. She managed to do what Ratan Singh could not do. She “defeated” Khilji. And methinks that small smile wasn’t unwarranted.
The problem with Padmaavat is that all these scenes on paper don’t translate entirely (and convincingly) on screen. Did linking scenes get chopped off? (Like how Alauddin becomes such a softie, sentencing his traitorous wife to prison instead of chopping her head off.) And the silliness of parts of the story – did no one guess that Padmavati’s retinue was filled with men, not women? How did this Singhal princess get so quickly accustomed to Rajput values? – doesn’t help. All of this should have been fleshed out better.
So, again, Padmaavat isn’t without problems. But the jauhar scene isn’t one of them. No one’s saying that the custom isn’t a terrible patriarchal imposition – but in this film, it isn’t just that, but also something that became this woman-warrior’s final war strategy. Had Ratan Singh jumped into the fire, we would have said “he’s upholding custom unquestioningly” and so forth (he seems to do everything unquestioningly), but when Padmavati does it, we get (okay, at least I got) the sense that it was a brave woman choosing a lesser evil and also executing a final strategy to defeat the enemy.
Over and out.
Jai Bhavani.
Baradwaj Rangan 
Radhika
February 1, 2018
We can debate this to death intellectually and even take the position that this is just a movie, it’s not going to impact anyone in real life with its regressive story – but then look at this piece in the HuffPost. These Rajput women have to bear the brunt of their families and communities buying into this tale of valour, and this is just the beginning. I do really hope we don’t see some kind of hysterical repeat of the RoopKanwar episode. There is a general belief that India is becoming less medieval but there are corners of our country where no light seems to fall.
http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2018/01/24/for-these-rajput-women-padmavati-is-now-a-curse_a_23342945/
LikeLiked by 1 person
SAI KISHAN R
February 1, 2018
Hmm. The thought is acceptable but the strategy included pregnant women and children jumping into a cauldron of fire….it somehow does not entail validation however justified
LikeLiked by 2 people
sanjana
February 1, 2018
Well, a compassionate queen would have thought of others’ pain doing jauhar. Khilji wanted her but not the others. Instead of waiting, she simply could have died by any means leaving the other women to their individual decisions.
Problems in writing arises because the portrayal itself is not convincing enough. If she could do this, why not that?
I am not referring to the context here. But a queen who could think out of box, could also have envisaged some other strategy. She could have cut off her nose and disfigured herself and spread word about it! A small gesture! The first wife would have been more than happy! Afterall it was her beauty that caused so much mayhem.
LikeLike
brangan
February 1, 2018
sanjana: So I am also admitting that the film followed the poem’s flow. So within the “given,” I am saying the ending isn’t so out of place. That’s the point of this piece.
Of course, if you think the ending should have been reinvented or contextualised, then I have no argument, for I am okay with Bhansali’s decision to stick to this end.
LikeLiked by 2 people
harish ram
February 1, 2018
In the movie’s context, I see parallels in the mass suicide and Operation Barbarossa of WW2. War sometimes give rise to unusual strategies that can’t be judged with a civilian framework.
Nevertheless, the problem is we as civilians are voicing our concern over the war strategy because we are appalled that it has seeped into our culture.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
February 1, 2018
Again, she’s no simpering queen, agreeing to everything Ratan Singh says. She thinks like a warrior. (Which raises the question: Why did she have to ask him “permission” for jauhar later? But that’s a different kind of screenwriting problem.)
I said this earlier – to me, she demanded ‘jauhar’ as her right – following your other points that she took agency for her own decisions.
The ‘ijaazat’ she asks for arises out of the deep love she has for Ratan Singh – after all, he’s just told her.’I have nothing to give you except my love, and I know you will not ask for anything more than that.’
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anu Warrier
February 1, 2018
@Radhika, I read that link with interest; thank you. I do agree that we can debate this intellectually but it is those primarily affected by it who can say how badly it affects them.
I agree that the culture deifies patriarchy; I don’t agree with some of what I read there. Which is why I think the less we talk about this film, the less we give someone a chance to entrench that patriarchy.
And I remember the Roop Kanwar case; my cousin, who was covering the issue, was accosted outside their hotel by a group of sword-wielding men who told her that it was ‘women like her’ with their short hair and modern ways, who were ‘spoiling’ their women.
She was told by her newspaper seniors that when she went there, to make sure she covered her hair, preferably wore salwars, etc. She still agonises about not being able to do anything to stop that from happening – they stood and watched. 😦
LikeLike
sanjana
February 1, 2018
The movie touched me and also others. Otherwise why we are reading so many passionate arguments. It is a beautiful movie just like a fairy tale with all those fairy lights like in Tangled.
The movie had its moments, especially in the first half. The same movie can be liked and disliked simultaneously just like we do in our personal relationships.
And I get your point.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
February 1, 2018
@Radhika, another viewpoint:
http://www.huffingtonpost.in/rituparna-chatterjee/the-many-ironies-of-karni-senas-destructive-campaign-against-padmaavat_a_23342997/?utm_source=spotim&utm_medium=spotim_recirculation&spotim_referrer=recirculation
The choice, especially for women, is a tough one. On one hand, they’ll be inclined to stand up against hegemony and come out in support of a filmmaker’s right to free expression and a woman actor’s right to work safely, while on the other, from all accounts, Padmaavat is a film steeped in sexism of the 16th century kind – a time when women from royalty were currency in battles between kingdoms, traded to maintain peace and stop hostile takeovers. They were part of harems designed to keep kings happy and women engaged in bitter battle for territory. But there’s a way out – it is possible to stand in support of an individual’s right to an idea, and yet criticize that very idea for being anti-women. It’s called democracy, a word tom-tommed at international gatherings of global leaders to highlight the Indian march.
LikeLike
Sahir.
February 1, 2018
Absolutely, absolutely.
I discussed the film with someone recently, and their argument was that the film should have taken pains to show the trauma of jauhar, and that a choice between death and rape isn’t much of a choice. But if that IS your only choice, isn’t choosing one your right?
To reply to sanjana: Do you really think Alauddin would have settled only for Padmavati if he could get his hands on other women into the bargain? Recall his canoodling with a random woman on his wedding night, and even murdering the person who spies him. Also, even if Alauddin chose to abstain from having sex with those other women, would he prevent his army of men from doing so? I think not.
LikeLike
Vidya Ramesh
February 1, 2018
@ Radhika that was a good article in huffpost..I for one really did not think about Rajput women who are affected so much by the movie. Well I just hope they keep fighting and not get bogged down by anything.
And BR the jai Bhavani made me Laugh out loud in the metro and I had some ten people looking at me like I have lost my mind 🙂 you are the king of last words. Iam upto my eye teeth with Padmavati now. Reading the comments section on your post number one ,one can write a thesis on the movie. Your bullet point rebuttal / proof of warrior Ness is impressive. Pona janmathula lawyer a irundhirupel. I’m now waiting for Warrier and Chandramouli to rebutt. ” Runs and gets popcorn”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
sanjana
February 1, 2018
Sahir, Alauddin waged war for Padmavati only and he would not have settled for anything less at that point of time. And he would not have allowed his men enjoy other women when he was grieving over his loss. Thats one of the possibilities. Yes, there could have been other possibilities too.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
February 1, 2018
Vidya, 🙂 I’m all rebutted out – and yet I find myself pulled in to comment again. It’s like watching a train wreck. Can’t look, can’t look away.
Sanjana, once he got Padmavati, he wouldn’t have cared who got whom. And if Padmavati was dead, and the other women, not, then he wouldn’t have bothered too much about what his soldiers did.
Every marauding army – to this day – rape and pillage. Women and children are always collateral damage.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rahul
February 1, 2018
Not sure how it can be a custom and also a war strategy. And I am also not getting how so many others have written that she made a choice that was terrible either way.
Notwithstanding the Bhansalian drama, If it is a custom, where does the question of choice arise? Can A woman in a patriarchal society choose to not follow a custom?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anuja Chandramouli
February 1, 2018
“but there are enough scenes that offer clues to the reasoning behind the jauhar scene.”
I don’t think so BR. Yours is a clear, lucid interpretation of a film made by SLB who seems to have succeeded in fulfilling the Karni Sena’s idea of a wet dream (too bad they don’t seem inclined to watch it) and little else. Either that or he was high. The portrayal of Jauhar was merely the cherry on this crap sundae of a film.
None of the characters were clearly delineated so their behavior seldom if ever makes sense and the barest simulacrum of a script on display here is hardly worth discussing. Even so, here goes nothing. Padma went from being a warrior Singhal Princess (who speaks Hindi fluently and can perform a traditional dance form alien to her land without missing a beat) with a fierce will and a mind of her own to being a simpering, sacrificing sort who needs her husband’s permission to kill herself. Its hard to buy any of it. Even those beautifully drawn glassy eyes with the unshed tears may be attributed to the clunky, uncomfortable looking nose rings she wears through the good times and bad rather than the tragedy about to happen. Trying to blow your nose in those arid climes is sure to make you wanna cry but you dare not because sobbing with those thingamabobs would have been excruciating too!
Then there is the thankless role played by Shahid. The Maharawal for all his talk of usool is still not above letting his best men get slaughtered like chickens just to save his sorry self. I know you don’t give a rat’s ass about the historical aspects of it, but in some versions (the Muslim sources from that period), Ratan Singh surrendered to Khalji to spare his people the slaughter that would have otherwise been inevitable but his courtiers revolted, denounced him as a coward and chose instead to fight. Needless to say what followed was a massacre. Personally, I thought this story gives a little insight into the character of the last Rawal of Mewar. Perhaps he was not the strongest ruler but at least he was willing to set aside Rajput pride even in the face of dissent if only to save those who depended on him. Of course, it all depends on where you stand. In SLB’s version though, which seems hell-bent on glorifying the Rajputs even while inadvertently presenting evidence to the contrary, he is a thankless archetype who is rigidly righteous to the point of ridiculousness which reduces him to an object of ridicule.
This black and white portrayal is problematic on other levels as well. While we are supposed to loathe Khalji for his lecherous ways, Ratan’s feelings for Padma while on a quest for Nagmati is romanticized and the poor woman is portrayed as petty and jealous when she is less than thrilled (understandably so) at having been alienated from her husband’s affections. For those interested in history, Nagmati was also the mother of the Rawal’s heir apparent. It must have galled her mightily to have her rival calling the shots but she is shown as having redeemed herself only when she follows Padma’s lead into the flames. I’ll grant that chauvinism was big back in those times, but for those pointing out that SLB is staying true to that era allow me to disagree. When Nagmati accuses Padma of drawing the enemy to Chittor with her beauty, she retorts by condemning the nastiness of the male gaze which is a modern construct nah? Besides women have always exercised their agency at the height of chauvinism in every part of the world including ours throughout the course of history, no matter the odds, so spare me that tired old rigmarole.
In conclusion BR, you conceded that “Padmaavat isn’t without problems.” Allow me to rephrase: Padmaavat is problematic. Period.
LikeLiked by 1 person
veraishq
February 2, 2018
While I understand your reasoning and I respect you as a critic immensely, the fact that Padmavati is presented as a warrior was even more annoying to me while watching the film. She’s the only one who makes sensible decisions, she’s the only one who sees that their battle of pride will not help solve anything, yet in the end she accepts a deeply unsettling custom as a last resort, that includes the death of pregnant women and girls – with a smile. AND they call that a victory. Isn’t calling that a victory glorifying it? Sure, sometimes she says: Why don’t you do this or that, but they rarely listen to her and when they do (with the priest) it backfires, because it leads to the whole problem.
And her beauty is the problem. Isn’t it sad that this is the conclusion? Isn’t the fact that her husband thinks her honor lies in another man not getting to see her the problem? Or that their values mean she’s better off burning alive instead of being raped or – god forbid – dying in a fight? Isn’t the fact that Khilji thinks he can have her and that it doesn’t matter what she says about it, only what her husband says, the problem? I know this is the past, but a heroine like that, restricted by customs and not very angry about them, embracing them in the end, is just disappointing.
It’s the way men like women to be strong: With grace, intelligence, beauty and integrity. We can’t be furious, we can rarely be wrong, we can’t be petty and the moment the world takes our complains seriously, everyone is annoyed that suddenly they are forced to actually listen to the perspectives of feminists. (Disclaimer: I don’t agree with all of them and I don’t want to ban any films or whatever, I just wanna talk.) We’ve seen enough crap over the years, selfsacrificing women being celebrated over and over again and when we see it in form of a ritual that is as masterfully shot as Bhansali does it in Padmaavat, it’s just a bit disturbing. I’m sure he means well, he’s always had strong women and it’s not like the men don’t have to suffer in his films either. But I’m just tired of his weak heroes with stupid egos falling for extremely pretty women, only to put them on a pedestal. All I’m saying is: Can we do better? And also: Wouldn’t that even be artistically more demanding to try?
LikeLiked by 2 people
KP
February 2, 2018
Is this all because someone told you are not reviewing enough Hindi movies adichu thovaikuringa. Don’t we know by now Indians don’t see anything in historical context.
LikeLike
Maru
February 2, 2018
Brangan, I’m guess I’m confused by your argument that there is no glorification of Jauhar since it was a military strategy, an act of war if you will by a strong willed warrior princess. Wasn’t Jauhar always sold by the Rajput kingdoms as a military strategy? The women committed Jauhar and the men Saka demonstrating the power of the kangan and the talvar to preserve honor in the face of certain defeat and servitude. We now know that some likely subscribed to the value of death with dignity, others were drugged and coerced into participation but I’m pretty sure it was always marketed as a military strategy that preserves honor in defeat. Unless such value is prescribed to the act how is it possible to sell mass ritual suicide? Suicide bombers are recruited as soldiers in a holy war, they are glorified as martyrs by those fighting that holy war no matter what observers may think of the strategy.
Further, Padmavati’s choice was hers to make but as Sanjana points out the Jauhar isn’t limited to her alone. I’m not sure how one argues that every single woman who participated (including children) exercised agency.
Bhansali may not have recontexualized the Jauhar but he did make a choice to deviate from the source material on how it occurred. In Jayasi’s poem Ratan Singh dies in an internecine feud and Padmavati and Nagmati commit sati before Khilji arrives in Chittor. There is a Jauhar but it isn’t led by Padmavati. Clearly this ending wouldn’t have the impact Bhansali was going for and I wouldn’t be surprised if Bhansali chose to rewrite the Jauhar sequence simply for the visual presentation – it was spectacular. I still don’t have a problem with the sequence because it was true to the time and context and he is allowed some artistic licence to valorize his heroine. The film doesn’t advocate for the return of Jauhar but to my mind it certainly glorifies the event as it occurred in its place and time.
LikeLike
AK
February 2, 2018
The movie did not do enough to position her as a warrior (like you say). Hunting deer in the forest barely qualifies as being a warrior. At best she is experienced with the bow and arrow, and surely she possesses political and military acumen, as you mention in the scenes with the king. Devasena was a warrior. She led and attacked a bunch of bandits (or something). There are scenes where she practices her skills. Her scenes clearly demonstrate that she is a warrior princess.
On another note, the audience needed to see why jauhar was a better option than being captured by khilji s army. Just a few minutes of the post-war battering and looting and violence against a defeated people would have sufficed in showing the brutality of war. Instead we get a sanitized version of a head on spear and a cloud of settling dust. Even his taunting of the captured princess did not drive home any possibility of what would have happened if Padmavathi and the women had been captured. Remember that a lot of the audience making noise about jauhar today is fed on a diet of game of thrones and what not which show dramatized violence and gore which appropriately reflect the period and the times the show is set in. So when Queen Cersei is cloistered in a room with the other women and has an appointed man to behead them in case of defeat, we don’t bat an eyelid, as we know what are the possibilities are otherwise. Surely this kind of depiction is not possible in our mainstream movies, but there could be ways to show what war and post war realities were like in those days.
I really liked the scene in point 10. This was one scene that felt like the battle was between Khilji and Padmavati, the scene says that this is not a battle for land and territory and instead “you want something from me, I am going to make sure that you are not going to get it”. If only the rest of the movie was made this way then we would have been able to buy Jauhar as an act of victory for Padmavati.
LikeLike
Vikram S
February 2, 2018
Punee, where are you when the comments section needs you urgently… 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jai
February 2, 2018
@Rahul, wrt
“Can A woman in a patriarchal society choose to not follow a custom?”
Most likely not, in the time period this film was set in, but perhaps not impossible. Anuja has earlier given a real historical example of Kamala Devi, wife of Rai Karan Singh Vaghela of Gujarat, who opted to marry Allaudin Khilji after he invaded Gujarat and defeated the Vaghelas in battle.
I think no one is denying that Jauhar is indeed a deeply problematic, horrifying practice. Yes, of course, it was born out of a deeply patriarchal mindset where women were viewed as spoils of war by invading armies, and where their own society emphasized that this rite embodied honour and sacrifice.
But this film shows women of that time following this practice. Perhaps it was voluntary, perhaps not really so in the sense that they were conditioned to believe that this end was preferable. But The movie shows that grim resolve on their part, that belief of theirs. I don’t see the rationale behind assuming that the film reccomends/ glorifies/ promotes this practice in today’s context.
Like I’ve said before, when that climactic sequence rolled, I saw the horror inherent in that fate. My wife was in tears. My sister who saw the film on our reccomendation had a similar reaction, reflecting on how agonising such a death……burning alive…..must have been. I would think that many, many people have similar takeaways from the last scene.
I come back to this: there is a difference between depicting what happened, and glorifying it. This isn’t a “show and tell” game right? SLB has shown a sequence which legend says happened 700 years ago. Why not just view it in the context of that time. We can interpret and reflect on our own, no? Why expect the filmmaker to interpret/retro fit past historical acts into the present context for us?
Debates aside, I’ve not met one single person who said that after the climax sequence, they felt uplifted and overjoyed by the way Padmavati and her companions died. So where is the “glorification” here?
In our discussion on the previous thread, I think you mentioned in a reply to me, that you’d not seen the film yet. Why not give it a try and then judge for yourself, how you felt after watching that scene? You might feel that after all, it didn’t glorify jauhar, right? 🙂
LikeLike
Jai
February 2, 2018
Since a lot of the debate is about a depiction of a historical rite (admittedly a horrifying rite born out of the patriarchal attitudes of those times) and whether it amounts to its “glorification” in present times, it might be useful to examine certain historical accounts of Jauhar. That is the setting to which it relates, after all.
Let’s take the account of the Mughal siege of Chittor, culminating in the sacking of the fort on 23 February 1568. Contemporary accounts by Abul Fazl and Badauni exist, translated in the book by Abraham Eraly. As a commentary on internecine Rajput squabbles and disunity, it must also be remembered that the Raja of Amber, an erstwhile vassal of Mewar, was on the Mughal side during the siege.
Quoting from the Eraly’s book: “”…….Smoke could be seen billowing from the fort—- it was, Raja Bhagwan Das explained to Akbar, jauhar, ‘the last awful sacrifice which Rajput despair offers to honour and the Gods’. Jauhar meant that the Rajputs were conceding defeat, bit it did not mean that they were giving up the fight. As the Mughals stormed into the fort, the battle raged on, street by street and house by house, each Rajput fighting till he fell, taking with him as many of the enemy as he could, seeking honourable death………….. Akbar, furious at the bitter resistance he faced……………..ordered a general massacre in the fort, ‘which ceased only for the lack of victims’. Some 30,000 people, mostly peasants who had taken refuge in the fort, were slaughtered, according to Abul Fazl, but this is probably a vastly inflated figure. Badauni simply states that ‘eight thousand valorous Rajputs were slain’, without mentioning the peasants killed……..The slaughter was not merely vengeance. There was also a policy behind it—-the greater the resistance, the greater the retaliation, to strike terror in potential adversaries and cripple their will to fight.”””
This is the perspective of the Rajputs’ actions of that time. Problematic, patriarchal, paternalistic, horrifying, repugnant——all true. But that was their perspective then. Perspectives differ from age to age, even between different cultures in the same age. For example, in 1527, when Babur attacked Medini Rai of Chanderi, and there too, jauhar was committed in the fort, Babur is reported to have found the practice macabre and a “throwing away of life”. That was his perspective, though he does not seem to have valued the opponents’ lives all that much, considering the general slaughter he inflicted after the Battles of Panipat, Khanwa and Chanderi.
Or take the description by Cooper on the essential difference in pragmatism between the martial communities of Rajputs and the Marathas. “The Marathas were serious about warfare, but as realists, placed a premium on cost effectiveness in terms of resource expenditure, both human and material. Their culture did not necessarily endorse dying for a transitory political cause”.
So during the Mughal—Maratha clashes in the late 17th Century, time and again, Maratha commanders of certain hill forts would play the saam–daam–dhand–bhed game with consummate skill. They would sow dissent among the besieging commanders, bribe them to abandon or at least drag out the siege with no actual assault on the fort walls, or would nominally surrender the fort on condition of safe passage, only to turn around and recapture the fort the moment the main vanguard of the Mughal forces had left.
Different ways of dealing with war and invasion, right? Some pragmatic and probably yielding better/more concrete long term results. Others definitely not so pragmatic, more concerned with tactics (not strategy) and with notions of honor and chivalry. Evaluating each approach is fair, and essential for any serious student of history. However, complaining that a depiction of jauhar in a period film set in that time period was somehow “glorifying” the practice, is not (IMHO), a well conceived analysis.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Vivek narain
February 2, 2018
The faces and figures that launched a thousand ships or pushed legions into 18 year wars, are a thing of bygone era. Nowadays we are left with stuffed bags or mousey little freaks punching away at touch screens to show their indignation or smartly dressed leggy tarts tearing a man apart till he becomes a dopey-looking lug. Exceptions are still there and right here.
LikeLike
veraishq
February 2, 2018
By the way, since someone mentioned Game of Thrones: I’d defend Bhansali’s vision in one regard and that is that he decides to not depict the Jauhar too realistically. The horror comes across in my opinion – I just have a problem with him defining it as a victory and her smiling in the end. But maybe his hands were tied there, maybe he had to, maybe I would have liked an alternate ending. What he does try to do is give those women some dignity in their death. As much as I like Game of Thrones and the women there coming out surprisingly strong, their suffering has been sensationalised in the first couple of seasons to a point where I was just shrugging when I saw another rape scene (it has become a lot better though). I don’t think Bhansali would do that to them and I think that is a good thing.
Also, it’s not like they are discussing Jauhar as the alternative to what Khilji has in store for them. It really seems to be treated more like a strategy, the last one they have. It’s not really a pragmatic decision, but one based on their values and on their believe that a woman’s life is less important than her honor. You even see that in Khiljis victims and that is where I think the film could have been cooler: Instead of making those scenes all about the villain, give those women some character and show that life is not over under him, that they can fight back. Of course, that would have made Padmavati’s sacrifice pointless, which it IS.
LikeLike
brangan
February 2, 2018
veraishq: The film does give several clues about how life for a woman-slave would have been like under Khilji, from the captive princess in chains to the woman he pours perfume on (to rub over himself) to even thw way he humiliates Mehrunnisa with the crown.
LikeLiked by 1 person
veraishq
February 2, 2018
Exactly my point: They are not treated as characters, but as probs for the villain to show what could await Padmavati. Aditi Rao Hydari’s role is another example: They could have done so much with her. It shows that life is worthless like that and that justifies their strategy. I’m just not convinced you have to show it like that. This is where the whole argument about how these were the customs of that time doesn’t hold up. It would be possible to show how that even then, Jauhar was not really justified.
LikeLike
sanjana
February 2, 2018
veraishq: The film does give several clues about how life for a woman-slave would have been like under Khilji, from the captive princess in chains to the woman he pours perfume on (to rub over himself) to even thw way he humiliates Mehrunnisa with the crown.
Times have not changed. There are many men who do the same to their wives. And some pour kerosene or petrol and ignite them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Shweta
February 2, 2018
This is such a deeply unsatisfactory film on so many levels, it is hard to know where to begin.
I don’t know if SLB was glorifying Jouhar or not. The scene didn’t really work for me. The intercutting wasn’t handled very well. I never understood where Padmavati and Khilji are spatially. The geography wasn’t very clear. How far he was from the site of the Jouhar, how many gates and doors does he have to breach to get to the main site? These things need to be evident to create a sense of drama and escalating tension. The music doesn’t cue us very well either. It switches between the rousing Rani sa and the more plaintive opening credit music. It was very underwhelming for me.
Frankly, by the time we get to the ending, I wanted Padmavati to become one with the fire and burn down the entire bloody fort and Khilji’s army with her Jouhar. I wanted that fire to spread and consume everything that stood in its path.
What I thought was never fully expressed, in the film but was simmering below the surface and that something that I believe most people could empathize with, was Padmavati’s frustration and anger with her husband at not dealing with the situation in an intelligent, practical way. It wasn’t her beauty or Khilji’s greed and rapaciousness that led to the horrible end but his idiotic, self-righteous notion of honour. You have a king supposedly acting to defend his queen but failing again and again and you begin to wonder what is more important to him? His kingdom and his people, including his queen or his ideals. He commits blunders after blunders in the name of usool. He lets go of the chance to kill Khilji, ending his mad quest and thus saving his kingdom and queen. This is so unbelievably, criminally stupid that it is hard not to imagine Padmavati wanting to scream in frustration. You are right when you point out that after Padmavati rescues her husband and brings him back safely to Mewar from under Khilji’s nose, the next missive from Khilji lands at her feet. It is clear that this is a battle between Padmavati and Khilji and not between Khilji and Ratan Singh, as Ratan Singh (who still thinks that Padmavati needs to be protected and fought over by two men) claims before the climatic swordfight. We can see that Padmavati is capable of taking care of herself and if she were allowed to handle the situation, she would have found a way to avert the disaster or at least dealt with it far better than her ineffective husband.
Which brings to what truly upset me: Padmavati comes from a kingdom where she was allowed a great deal of freedom. She hunted, she preferred to and was allowed to live in the forest instead of the palace, she was given the freedom to choose her husband. This society is the polar opposite of the society and culture that she marries into. She adopts the rituals and the practices of this new society, learns to speak their language but she also challenges their customs and goes against their traditions. But yet, in the end, those misplaced notions of honour doom her. That is why when Padmavati decides to commit Jouhar, the most extreme of their practices, I wanted her to make it her own, use it not to showcase Rajputi valour but an expression of her disappointment and grief and her courage and her agency.
Another point (and then I will shut up): What exactly is Khilji’s motivation here. Yes, I get that he is a collector of all unique and beautiful objects but he goes on this prolonged, insanely expensive campaign based on the words of a disgraced priest. When he finally gets to see her, he barely gets a glimpse. It would have been far more satisfactory and would have served as far better motivation if he had been allowed to see how exquisite she is. There is this great moment of doubt when Khilji wonders if all this endless waiting would turn out to be pointless, that he would find Padmavati not as beautiful as he has been led to believe. In the end, it felt like all this death and tragedy was the result of a whim, a hearsay, an entitled king’s out-of-proportion desire for someone he has not even seen.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rahul
February 2, 2018
Jai , You need to stop being defensive about the movie : ) I was not attacking it , or its portrayal of Jauhar (as yet) , because, as you mentioned, i have not seen it. In that board i was just defending a principle of engaging with any art/heroes/icons etc. . The application of that principle may be unsatisfactory but it can not be dismissed a priori .Anyway, Moving on ..
My point, which is not directly related to the glorification (or not) of Jauhar, , is that, Bhansali does not seem to have dealt with the fact that Jauhar being a custom/ritual, there may not have been much of free will involved on part of Padmavati. As he is showing Jauhar to be a choice, it is not just the critics of the movie but it is Bhansali himself who has retrofitted this movie according to modern sensibilities!
Again, I am not knocking this principle, but perhaps you can see why in this case it can be problematic.
Yeah, I agree, I should watch the movie, but I think I have been careful to not assume much about it. I am commenting on either some undisputed observations or generalities arising out of this discussion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Shweta Nambiar
February 2, 2018
“The film does give several clues about how life for a woman-slave would have been like under Khilji, from the captive princess in chains to the woman he pours perfume on (to rub over himself) to even thw way he humiliates Mehrunnisa with the crown.”
Yes, but I never got the impression that Khilji would treat Padmavati the way he treated the captured princess. Padmavati is presented to him as the epitome of feminine beauty and intelligence and that her presence by his side would enable him to conquer the world.
Recall how he made the effort to dress up to impress her on both the occasions, first when invited inside the fort and later in Delhi. It is played for comedic effect but you can sense that he wants this reputed beauty to like him. So I am not so certain that he would mistreat her as horribly as we fear.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jai
February 2, 2018
@ Rahul: 🙂 Let’s agree to disagree. I do see the point(s) you are making, though I don’t agree with them. 🙂
Phew! As I was saying yesterday on the previous thread, while I liked Padmaavat quite a bit (better than Bajirao Mastani for me); it’s not a film I would think of as a classic, which would stay with me for ages. But all the brouhaha around the film just makes me want to defend it more. 😁
Was nice debating with you dude. 👍🏼
LikeLike
sanjana
February 2, 2018
Our own beauty queen got a black eye from some big star. So beauty is no guarantee against ill treatment. Once he gets over her, he will be searching for new experience. After a while boredom sets in even in ordinary lives. With a maniac, life will not change just because he got her. He also loved Mehrunnisa and she was also very beautiful and intelligent.
LikeLiked by 1 person
arampesu
February 2, 2018
I do not think this jauhar has anything to do with Patriarchial. We quickly agree that it should be so. It could have been one of the reasons.
Let me give an alternate current example.
Yazidi women were taken by ISIS and sold and resold as sex slaves in markets.
Their lives are the worst you can imagine.
Many of them thought of suicide and some did commit suicide.
Or for that matter the girl, Anita who couldn’t make it to Medical exams and committed suicide
Do we have sympathy or do we frown it as patriarchial.
Jauhar and Sati are first of all different in how they are thought about executed etc.
Of course women being held as object is really worse in any culture.
How much could we do in this 21rst century other than watch the ISIS do to these women what it did.
What did powers like USA do. or what did India do.
We should empathize with the weak.
Alauddin Khilji and ISIS arent different. They practiced the same things.
if at all, we should think about Alauddin and why and how could it have happened.
If today someone takes a yazidi inspired movie where fellow non yazidi neighbors watched as they were taken to be sex slaves, then it will be like Schindlers list.
Our preconceived notions and what is unpalatable to us cannot come in the way of truth telling.
Who in their right minds will like to watch women burning?
I do not think the men do or the women do.
In Anita case we keep asking what and who and which policy and what lack of intervention drove her to suicide.
Empathy demands us to do to thousands of such Padmavatis.
And just read Amir Khusru for depiction of life then of Khilji
Truth is even harsher. SLB just dealt with it as lightly as he could tread.
Even for this light treading lot of Indians do not have education to allow him to write and release a movie.
As audience we should live in another world. Movies allow us for such alternate worlds. Bringing that down to real current world is the last thing a viewer should do.
Brangan rightly talks about all this within context of the movie. What is set and intended within that world.
I appreciate him for his integrity.
LikeLike
Rahul
February 2, 2018
Thanks Jai, Same here.
LikeLike
gnanaozhi
February 3, 2018
Not wading into the cinematic debate here, but as an amateur historian, I just want to clarify one thing – Jauhar was NOT Patriarchal imposition. How can it be an imposition when every able man has ridden off to battle (and die).
Consider the first Jauhar we know on record – the Jauhar at Sindh. After the King of Dahir died in battle, his queen took charge. And not in the Padmavti kind of “just holding fort till the king comes back” but as a general and a warrior queen. She ran the defenses (Arab sources are a testimony to her bravery and skill), conducted the very war for months and then finally when resources ran out, committed to Jauhar.
Is this “patriarchy”?
Likewise in pretty much every known instance of mass immolation of women, children and old men, be it in Gaul (during Caesars campaigns- the word immolation even comes from a Latin word immolare) or indeed in India, it was usually because the consequences of not self immolating could be and indeed were just as if not more terrible than the quick release of death.
Ever wondered how much torture it would have been to be a slave working a Roman silver mine in Hispania with an average life expectancy of less than a year? Or multiple gang rapes and then murder (either burnt alive, or cut in half – Khilji’s favourite punishment for idolators and apostates) that death by fire was a preferred alternative?
All these Swara Bhaskars or anybody whinging about “patriarchy” are guilty of the crime of “presentism”, viewing the past through the prism of the present. It.just.doesn’t.work!
We know from recorded history that whenever a castle or a fort fell to Islamic invaders, the results were almost always butchery, mass rape and if they were lucky (the handful few prettiest women) slavery. Mind you a slave in Islamic India had zero rights (As opposed to say, the rights a self imposed slave in the Mauryan Empire enjoyed) and lived at the literal whim and fancy of their master. Just see how slaves were / are treated today in ISIS controlled lands…suicide then becomes an eminently better option.
It was not even “moral victory” or any such thing – Jauhar or self immolation is not recorded in Indian history till the Islamic invasions…why? Because wholesale sacks, murder and rape was not common when cities fell, thus the question of “honour” or “victory” don’t arise. Life went on for the conquered, except the management changed. Mind you it was not just lives, but as James Todd in his “Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan” notes destruction of property in this Jauhar was also a key factor.
Idea was, neither plunder nor slaves (money and valuable booty) nor property for pillage would be left to the enemy when he charged through the gates!
It all changed when the Arabs and later the Turks and central Asian tribes introduced a heretofore unknown concept of “total war” – a war that penalised and punished innocent civilians as much as it did combatants. When the inhabitants of India, particularly the Rajput territories that was the frontline for almost 5 centuries figured out that if they resisted and then were defeated, their women were raped and sold into slavery (if lucky), children and old people murdered outright, mass ritual suicide cropped up as an alternative.
All those whinging about “patriarchy” should pick up a history book or two (and I don’t mean you in this case) to understand just really why Jauhar came up as a concept.
As Mary Storm in her “Head and Heart: Valour and Self-Sacrifice in the Art of India” says, this was the ultimate scorched earth policy. It was a purely voluntary act and to label it as patriarchy betrays an ignorance of real history.
LikeLiked by 1 person
நவீன்
February 3, 2018
Would the movie have been presented on a non-linear template from the climax point of view than just it’s theme tune reflecting on it.
LikeLike
sanjana
February 3, 2018
Instead of ending it with jauhar scene, they could have briefly shown the last days of Khilji, dying without glory, surrounded by power mongers, alone and very old. That would have shown how his victories did not help him to have a happy end. Instead we were shown the death of good king and his queen which left the story half told. Yes, the story maybe of Padmini but it is also the story of war and its consequences.
LikeLike
Radhika
February 3, 2018
@Anu – your cousin mustve had a horrific experience – both the attack on her and having to stand by and see this. There is a scene in Far Pavillions, I think, where the girl is forced to do sati and as it starts, she is horrified and wants to move off and the villagers push her with a stick. It was an English response to our custom, of course, that story – but it was also a realistic one, that a woman could land in that situation pushed by the fervour of the village and yet balk at the last minute but not be allowed to go.
So SLB says the movie is based on the poem, but per the poem, both the Nagmati and Padmavati commit sati on his pyre – it is the rest of the women in the fort who commit jauhar. I presume he didn’t dare follow that line because sati would find much fewer apologists for it – the jauhar bit can at least have the “had to die before the enemy gets us”logic.
Re the Rajput-Jauhar custom – I had a relative who just about escaped with famiy intact during Parition and he had left a gun with his servant to kill his two sisters if the mob landed at the door; I do get the death before gangrape funda. But I do wonder (as Anu did in the other thread) – why not a more painless death and I wonder if they didn”t even want to leave the bodies susceptible to desecration, because then, dishonour? One could argue of course, that they could have had a custom by which the women all commit suicide via eating poisoned berries and then a faithful vassal burns the palace down.
LikeLike
Radhika
February 3, 2018
Reading these threads, I am reminded of a book reading Shashi Tharoor did in Madras – one of the Mylapore thathas got up with a lot of criticism – your book doesn’t have this and it doesnt have that. After a while ST got up, did his usual flip-the-long-locks-back move and said urbanely, this is my book, you could always write yours with all those features in it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Radhika
February 3, 2018
@gnanaozhi that was interesting – but what about the other border states – Punjab, Gujarat – or was this only in Rajput territory
LikeLike
Pavan
February 3, 2018
Never felt swimming in a cesspool so liberating…. Thanks to one and all!
LikeLike
Arjun
February 3, 2018
Point no. 8. Ratan Sen/Singh does show his battle strategy when he is besieged, when the first lot of cavaliers advance towards Chittor (though it reflects badly on his Senapati who seems to have forgotten about the trench). He shows it again when he speaks about celebrating Diwali and Holi and strategising by getting the other Rajas together. His strategies are all defensive vs Padmavati’s who is more attacking.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
February 3, 2018
Radhika, yes, it was traumatising from what I remember her saying. She is pretty sure that Roop Kanwar was both drugged and tied to the pyre. They weren’t allowed to get too close – there was a whole phalanx of men surrounding the bier. Meena didn’t speak much about the act itself, though she was so furious about it, and wrote against it for the Times then.
About Jaysi’s poem: What I know about the poem is only what I’ve read through the years. From the credits, it appears that there were two other works involved. Also, I went back and re-read my Amar Chitra Katha copy of ‘Padmini. That does end with her committing Jauhar, so somewhere, there is a version of the story that SLB told. 🙂
did his usual flip-the-long-locks-back move
🙂 Thank you for that visual – it made me smile.
LikeLike
Madan
February 4, 2018
“Not wading into the cinematic debate here, but as an amateur historian, I just want to clarify one thing – Jauhar was NOT Patriarchal imposition. How can it be an imposition when every able man has ridden off to battle (and die).
Consider the first Jauhar we know on record – the Jauhar at Sindh. After the King of Dahir died in battle, his queen took charge. And not in the Padmavti kind of “just holding fort till the king comes back” but as a general and a warrior queen. She ran the defenses (Arab sources are a testimony to her bravery and skill), conducted the very war for months and then finally when resources ran out, committed to Jauhar.” – Amen thank you. Actually, after reading Swara Bhaskar’s critique, I was surprised by even what agency the queen was shown to possess in the climax. She rallies the women around to bravely hold off the Khiljis for as long as they can. But as Alauddin escapes and comes charging for Padmavati, there is no option left in the matter. If anything, I thought the film was very sympathetic to Padmavati and portrayed Ratan Singh as a valiant oaf. Padmavati is shrewd and tells Ratan Singh to seize the moment and get rid of a violent foe but he keeps parroting Rajput values all the way to the grave. Whether this was actually the case or not, in the film, Khilji is portrayed as so cruel and such a remorseless mercenary that marrying him could not have been an option for Padmavati, seeing as he already cares nothing for his wife Malika-i-jahan.
LikeLike
Radhika
February 4, 2018
So much of the argument is about Jauhar that the anti-muslim bias seems to have been brushed aside – except by Malaysia. One of the arguments made against the Karni Sena protest, was that there was no historical basis for Padmavati, and the movie was based on the poem. In the poem, Ratan Sen is not killed by Khilji – so when this has been distorted just to give the paavum HIndu king an “unfair” killing from behind, it reeks of an attempt to portray the Rajputs as noble and valourous and the Muslims as willing to win even with dishonorouble methods. SLB is entitled to make a movie per his biases, of course, but I can’t help wondering – if the story had been reversed – the Rajput been shown to do a “not-honourable” act – I can just imagine the kind of protests we would have seen. As it stands, i am sure many a Muslim is gnashing his teeth quietly in india, angry at how Khilji is portrayed but not willing to pour more oil on this fire.
LikeLike
Madan
February 4, 2018
Radhika: While, by some accounts, Ratan Singh simply fled the battlefield, it is also true that the way Khilji actually plotted Jalaluddin’s death was even more devious than what was shown in the film. He conveyed his guilt over not sharing the spoils of Devgiri with the Sultan and said he would duly hand over the same upon the Sultan personally visiting him at Kara. He used this as a pretext to get Jalaluddin to leave Delhi and at Kara he killed him after initially pretending to greet him. I have checked a couple or more accounts (apart from the wiki article) and they are all consistent about this. One of them even confirm that Khilji did in fact mount Jalaluddin’s head on a spear and publicly parade it to assert his might.
What is my point here? That Khilji was indeed an unprincipled and utterly ruthless king and if he is shown to have disregarded the traditional rules of engagement, that is not unwarranted. For an advanced nation like Malaysia to pander to Muslims and ban Padmavat is just as bad as Karni Sena calling for the film to be banned here and we should at least credit the SC for not bowing down to their wishes and upholding free speech. Also note that the film mentions in passing how none of the other Rajput kings come to Ratan Singh’s aid when he suggests that they should all unite against Khilji. So the portrayal of Rajputs is not as one sided as is being made out and maybe this is more a reaction upon learning that the film is actually not anti-Rajput (which people had surmised must be the reason for the Karni Sena opposing its release).
But getting back to Khilji, there is little to suggest that he was anything other than a powerful and shrewd but cruel and despotic Sultan and is perhaps beyond any whitewashing. It is not just Indian history sources, even historypak.com has damning words for him. I quote:
“A plot was hatched by his (Jalaluddin) nephew Alauddin, to kill him in order to occupy the throne, to which he had not a shadow of claim either by divine or by human law. ”
Also:
“The cruel measures he adopted to secure his ill- gotten throne showed clearly that Alauddin was a heartless tyrant. He had no regard for justice.”
http://historypak.com/jalaluddin-khilji/
http://historypak.com/alauddin-khilji/
So if Malaysians are upset with the portrayal of Khilji, perhaps it really can’t be helped. A sequel to Padmavat could perhaps be made, though, to show Khilji’s efficiency as a monarch and his innovative administrative reforms. But, hey, if a film was made showing the efficiency of Hitler, wouldn’t Jews protest until the film was banned?
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
February 4, 2018
Radhika, again, I don’t think movies such as these are ‘pandering’ to the anti-Muslim bias. Like history that is always written by the winners, the legends that we pass on are seen from a unique perspective – that of those invaded. It was told to evoke the bravery and courage with which they resisted the invaders.
While, in this film, they do show the internal struggles that the Rajputs faced you are seeing the view from the Rajput perspective of a ruthless invader.
Legends and myths are black and white. And Khilji, from all accounts, was a cruel, ruthless leader. Recorded history says so. Of course, if they were going to show ‘Khiji’, then they could also show how he codified the administration, instituted a disciplined rule of law, etc. This is one view of him.
(For that matter, in Jodhaa Akbar one didn’t show one of Akbar’s most heinous decisions – a decree that forbade Mughal princesses from marrying. Well, the story they were telling didn’t have anything to do with that part of his character. And at this point, I wonder if anyone will make a film on Prithviraj Chauhan? He was, after all, betrayed by his own.
Incidentally, most of my Muslim friends didn’t have any issue with the portrayal – perhaps because they are academics, and perhaps because it was a Bhansali film. The one person who is slightly sensitive to the anti-Muslim bias told me simply, ‘They are not us.’ Which, again, is true. 🙂
I think Malaysia pandering to the ‘Muslim sentiment’ is as bad as our elected government pandering to the likes of the Karni Sena.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
February 4, 2018
Jauhar was NOT Patriarchal imposition. How can it be an imposition when every able man has ridden off to battle (and die).
While I agree with your basic take on the issue at hand, let me point out that patriarchy’s success does not depend on whether men are physically present or not. When the concept of a woman’s honour being the ‘honour of the family’ is force-fed to you as fact from the time of your birth, then we, as women internalise those teachings.
Otherwise, we wouldn’t have mothers-in-law who excoriate daughters-in-law for not giving them sons to carry on the family name.
Patriarchy is not just the imposition of a male vision of an ideal woman on women by the men; it is also the cultural acceptance of that male view as the right one. When you have the males in your family make your decisions for you – where you will go, with whom. where (and whether) you will study, whom you will marry, how you will behave… it is insidious. And oh, it is there. Whether the men are there, or not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Naveen
February 5, 2018
Madan/Anu, isn’t Malaysia a country Islam as the state religion. strangely enough, for the Tamil festival Thai Poosam, Malaysia has a national holiday while most of the companies in TanmilMadu do not have a holiday.
i ended catching up with the movie. inspite of my efforts not to think logically, the moment everybody in Singhal country talked in chaste Hindi, I could not ‘not think’, particulaly having read most of the comments on the multple BR thread on this.
as an SLB movie, it was colorful and grand. Shahid and Deepika both can across as too plastic and just dressed up dolls. Ranveer and the music were the saving grace. Bindte Dil was magical, other worldly. with a few masala movies, Ranveer shoudl join the Khans list of top heroes in Bollywood.
LikeLike
Apu
February 6, 2018
gnanaozhi:
“Jauhar was NOT Patriarchal imposition. How can it be an imposition when every able man has ridden off to battle”
By that logic, dowry deaths are also not patriarchal because mostly mother-in-laws are the ones who set fire to the bride or met out cruel punishments.
Patriarchy does not mean imposed by men at the time the custom is carried out – it means a society bound by rules led down by men who view everything from the prism of being a man, for e.g. a woman’s honor need to be protected by a man else death is better than being violated.
“Because wholesale sacks, murder and rape was not common when cities fell, thus the question of “honour” or “victory” don’t arise….It all changed when the Arabs and later the Turks and central Asian tribes introduced a heretofore unknown concept of “total war””
The Marathas were quick to catch on, eh? Marathas attacking villages did not leave out much too.
I am not a historian, but I think your points are a little wrong here.
LikeLike
Apu
February 6, 2018
Anu: Now I feel stupid. I did not read your rebuttal to “gnanaozhi” (I searched with that name though before writing). Seems like we both wrote the same rebuttal.
LikeLike
arjun_shivaram
February 7, 2018
How would it have been to see Khilji as a decent sultan (we can dismiss the killing of his predecessor as it might have been normal for those fellows in those times) and his hearing of Padmavati’s beauty inciting the storyline and giving him his motive. After this we could have simply followed him through his systematic investigation, learning of her, her husband, how they came to be, etc. and his own qualms of being interested in someone else’s wife could be the inner conflict, while the external conflicts could be his journey to and stay in Mewar, a potential mutiny among his soldiers, and his wife’s resistance to his motive. All along, we could just be Malik Kafur (the dedicated eunuch and confidante of the sultan) or some other fellow traveler in Khilji’s journey as he fights forces in him and others to set eyes on a promised beauty… more here: https://arjunshivaram.wordpress.com/2018/02/04/i-at-the-end-of-padmavat/
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
February 7, 2018
@Apu – no worries. 🙂 When comments come in thick and fast, it happens. (And it’s always good to have backup.)
LikeLike
Jauhar_Sati
February 8, 2018
There is part-2 to this thread? I missed seeing it completely. Here is write up I agree in totality. People should read it:
There is a well known book on the eminent director Steven Spielberg’s making of the movie ‘Schindler’s list’. The book was written by a polish reporter who worked with him and was fascinated by how Spielberg dealt with a highly sensitive and emotional topic as holocaust in Poland. As he writes, ‘Spielberg went to Poland to talk to numerous survivors, read avidly on everything on the subject, talked to people who told him about their memories to understand the subtle emotions that people carried in order to understand the tragic reality that remained enveloped for a community’.
I had read that book at a second hand store. The book is a revelation on how you make works of art, especially books and films on sensitive topics such as war, genocide and gulags.
The author talks of the core theme of the novel Schindler’s list as being the pain of the community that is not understood and difficult to project on screen. The pain the Jews felt at being thrown out of their homes having lived in for centuries, being herded like cattle in trains to be killed in mass extermination camps and the silence of the world, all were issues that stared them in the face. He writes of the dilemma of the director as not just how to show the pain in day to day events as it actually happened but also the emotions the present generation Jews still carry about that chapter of their 2000 year old history.
Of all the writings I have gone through about Rani Padmini (Rani Padmavati), I find the story by Abonindronath Tagore, nephew of Rabindranath Tagore, to be one of the best. When I first read it as a teenager, I understood and felt the dilemma of the queen at being responsible for the suffering of her people. As Rani Padmini began to realize that her beauty is the cause of so many deaths in Chittor, her desperation and holding herself responsible for it is was described poignantly by the author. I understood that she wasn’t a vain, narcissistic woman who was self absorbed. Her ambivalence, her dilemma not only I felt in every sentence of the story, it was so real that it took my mind to a land where valor and honor ruled supreme and kings and queens faced a tragic reality together. Nowhere while reading it I felt she was egoistic as a queen but the people of the fort loved her and she loved them back befitting a queen. That made it worse for her as she saw the upcoming massacre.
To me the stories of Spielberg and Bhansali have an uncanny similarity but their styles as a film makers come as just diametrically opposite to me while dealing with sensitive issues. Both directors depict an issue and an era where lust, greed and power tried to overcome every human moral virtue of what was good in society. The irony is that while one researched it by going in the hearts of people, studied in depth to make it a story depicting human condition, the other is how a mass tragedy is converted into a mindless entertainment and turned into an insensitive drawl.
I remember a visit with my father to Chittor fort when I was fifteen. We were taken around the fort in a tonga, a horse drawn cart. I have forgotten most of that journey except three things the tongawala showed us. The first was the mirror in which he said Allaudin Khilji saw Rani Padmini, the second where the women of Chittor committed Jouhar and the third where Allaudin Khilji rested for three days in Rani Padmini’s palace before going back.
His voice was full of grief as he told us the story and showed us around, especially the second place. The story, he said, he had heard sitting at the feet of his grandmother with other children. His voice full of emotions was soon replaced with pride as he told us why the Ranas of Chittor are called Maha Ranas and no train from Chittor will ever go to the center of Delhi [it was true then]. At that time they stopped before reaching New Delhi station. He talked of the warriors, Gora and Badal and described their valor as how they were central to the story of Rani Padmini.
The grief of the Rajputs and perhaps much of the rest of India over that incident is not over and perhaps won’t be for a long time to come. The Jouhar, where thousands of women immolated themselves, are an image every Rajput child carries inside as his or her identity. Through stories, the grief has been passed on from generation to generation. Till the time efforts are made for a closure through acknowledgement, through poetry and literature by later generations, the trauma of a society will not be laid to rest and will continue to haunt
Sadly the films with the likes of Bhansali and Bollywood do nothing of the kind. They don’t bring a closure. They do the opposite of that. They open raw wounds again and fragment us as a society even further due to their insensitivity.
The film by Spielberg on the other hand took a giant step towards bringing in a closure by portraying a painful chapter of Jews with sensitivity, research and humility. A reason lost to the film makers of Bollywood and why they fail to achieve this goal that can bring in healing of a lifetime. They don’t understand such movies are about survivors and their feelings, first and foremost. Witness the actress, Deepika Padukone saying, ‘We have regressed as a nation’. No, we haven’t, Ms. Padukone. The whole of Bollywood industry needs to grow up from a culture of insensitivity into a mature industry.
The image of Jouhar has become an indelible identity for Rajputs and perhaps for many Indians who will hold on to this past of their ancestors that is fragmented and full of humiliation for an entire race. The images existed then as an island of resistance in midst of brutalities by Mughals. Today their existence is challenged by historians and liberals who try to crush it saying that our past should not be defined by the survivors and their memories but by the very absence of it.
If a director like Bhansali would have made Schindler’s list, would he have shown Jews dancing in groups wearing fancy costumes before being herded like cattle in trains for gas chambers? Would Deepika Padukone acting as a Jew, be having a fantasy about some Nazi officer singing a song? Why not in the name of artistic freedom or in the name of free speech, some might say.
Who will care if the sensitivity of a race whose women killed themselves regularly to protect their honor be lost in that process to the future generation? Didn’t the British believe we Indians are regressed and ruled us based on that hallowed principle. Isn’t it a question of freedom of expression?
A spokesperson for congress recently said that female literacy rate in Rajasthan is more important than the current Padmavati debate. Sure, why not Mr. Spokesperson? Self respect and honor – they come only after we learn to speak English? They are meaningless till our society becomes English language savvy and people are able to speak in a polished manner? Till then we will let others define it for us?
A familiar argument of colonial times given by ‘Barra Sahibs’, ‘Why discuss certain things in front of natives? Natives can’t think after all’.
A columnist, a socialite, who represents a vast mass of intellectuals, too wrote in a national daily sometime ago. In her article she said she wants to protect the battle of this beautiful queen from the most savage attacks she has faced, more savage than the attack on her honor by Allaudin Khilji, in her opinion which is the current one. Perhaps a queen lusted at and at the center of a humiliation, the lives of thousands at stake is difficult to imagine for her. Perhaps she has forgotten that feelings of humiliation existed in those days too, in a far more raw and savage form than it is today. There were no hiding spaces for those who became the center of it unlike now.
She says cinema occupies its own universe. No, it doesn’t Ms. Author. Cinema is part of the same universe that you and I, a million Indians living in slums breathe in day after day and feel in their bones. It is reflective of your life, my life and is the universal human condition that governs the genocides, the fate that befell our people regularly from invasions and led to Jouhars. The longings and sufferings of those women while they immolated themselves in the fire or the Jews who were gassed in concentration camps remains a voice that hasn’t died.
If you cared to pause and heard the voices of the people you were making a film about Mr. Bhansali, you wouldn’t have made them dance and sing the way you did. You would show a voice of a people whose descendants then would have faith in you because someone is respecting their memory. Memory remains a raw nerve even after centuries of silence, Mr. Bhansali that will good for you to remember when you make your next film.
The Jews who died in camps, the women who immolated themselves still serve as a beacon of hope and light to millions of people. It is something the directors of Bollywood have yet to understand it seems whose vision of everything is entertainment first and is typified by dancing in front of the camera. Queens, Kings, survivors, their persecutors including all dance in abandon in Bollywood movies to show a peculiar human condition no film critic has figured so far. Who will tell them it doesn’t express the deeper emotions of mankind and its tumultuous history? The emotions that emerged during the times societies were in trouble and faced annihilation, the ambivalence and doubt that plagued them is of another kind.
The author of the above said column writes that the legend of Padmavati was invented by a Sufi saint and Rajputs are not the sole owners of her legend. Why, did Sufi saints have nothing better to do than create mythical Hindu women characters?
History has countless interpretations as is claimed by our secular brigade. Only the one by survivors doesn’t figure in that according to them. And of course many interpretations are created by paid historians to sow confusion and doubt in the minds of survivors of the future generations so that the version of the victors remains the only one. The victims in every age had to fight to get their voice heard. When they didn’t their voice turned into deathly silence and was used for entertainment.
Like millions of others I also saw the trailer of the dance sequence of Padmavati. I felt full of disgust that I hadn’t experienced in a long time. Whether that dance was done by Rani Padmini or not is not what bothered me. The image I carried of her was of a stoic noble queen who felt for her people and stood as a symbol of courage that was noble, just and upholder of human dignity of her people. When I had read the book by Abonindronath Tagore, I had felt an impending and unforeseen tragedy in the air that will wipe out her people forever and change the history of her land forever. When I saw the trailer, I felt none of those emotions.
The Bollywood film industry has not touched sensitive themes in a way like their counterparts in other parts of the world have done. Ours is an industry in transition, growing out of showing entertainment films to making films that may have a surreal, disturbing and painful quality. The genocides, the partition, riots and mass violence belong to that genre. I wish our filmmakers and actors would realize that sooner than later and make it following one cardinal rule. The survivors and only the survivors need to find their voice, their pain through the artwork and feel it has been heard and brought out sensitively. That is the rule every great art work and writer and director follows. In the process it may open a raw wound again but it is needed when truth is shown after being suppressed for long.
It is perhaps the first right of the survivors and not that of media, intellectuals or even historians to define that reality for us and to say whether that pain has been addressed or not.
The Rajputs, her descendants of the royal family, are the survivors of the horrendous carnage that took place centuries ago in the name of bigotry and lust. It is the descendants of survivors of those who deserve to be heard even if it is a whisper. Not hearing it can turn it into release of avalanche of emotions for the descendants.
When you make a film on trauma, a carnage that is as real in your heart as if it happened only yesterday, it is imperative to listen to that voice and that voice alone before anyone else. Otherwise it is the perpetrators voice that dominates and takes the center stage.
Our land has gone through many atrocities and the memory of those events remains suppressed but alive. The voice of the victims has been relegated to the background as not worth listening to. Let us listen to that voice now and hope that it reigns this time.
LikeLike
Naina
February 9, 2018
For all the lists made and arguments for and against the last scene, I only know how I felt watching it, a sense of horror that no horror film had ever evoked in me, and subsequently a sense of rage, not at Khilji ironically, but at the director and the gut wrenching irresponsibility with which the scene had been dealt with. No review could have prepared me for the last 20 minutes, and no dissection of what glorification is or isn’t. It was a visceral rejection of what I saw that is probably a testament to SLB’s skills as a filmmaker but also of his obliviousness toward the experience of women in India today, of which mine is but one.
However, it seems emotions very quickly become fodder for the “subjective-objective” debate blackhole- so, I feel the issue or question underlying this sense is that of an artists responsibility and the inseparability of art and context. And yes, I believe film-makers have a immense responsibility, more so than the broader definition of artists owing to the overtly public nature of films, and ever more so as film-makers in India.
In this case of period/mythical dramas, the film-makers world may be historical, but the film is of this time; the film-makers world dwells between sets and yet, it is not place-less. In every grain of film is a response to the place and time we live in, they may be reconstructions, but they ARE a product and response to the present. So a film about Schindler’s list made in 1993 will be different from the one made in 2010 which will probably be greatly different from the one made during a resurgence of fascist ideals in civilisation. Because every story told has a deeper narrative ideology. This is also why we have “re-makes” and where the idea of “classics” comes from. This pedantic overview is to question this deeper narrative ideology of Padmaavat which has proved to be regressive, misogynistic and xenophobic (I could get into the details of each but they have been outlined by many others). So much so that, Padmavati, historical in nature it may be, says nothing about the times we live in (implicitly or explicitly) and it could well be a film made by 15th century folks with great technical skills.
In my eyes, SLB is dangerously oblivious of the times, art may be made in isolation, but good art always synthesises conflicts and contradictions, and is painfully aware of society. The director has all but forgotten this truth in the headiness of visual splendour and stirring soundtracks, the SLB way of making films has crossed over into the realm of ‘style’ since a while now, using a patented mix of ingredients. Not that I care particularly for this decline, but here, in Padmaavat, this descent into the trappings of style means that the horror of jauhar is swept under the rug in leiu of a climax, and worse, it is a climax of triumph, associating jauhar with victory, and that is something I will vociferously oppose. I hope that one day a film like this will have no effect on me, that there would be no ramifications of a regressive idea in gift wrapping paper, but until women can go to a theatre without being raped or groped to watch such films and others, filmmakers have a responsibility to treat sensitive subjects with some goddamn perspective.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Madan
February 9, 2018
@Naina: Very thought provoking comment. You have forced me to reconsider my position. Mind, I have an almost doctrinaire commitment to freedom of expression in art. At ‘worst’, art only imitates life so maybe we should reform society rather than blaming artists for showing us just how rotten the republic is? That said, the thing I find troubling is Padmavati is legend, not historical FACT. If I understand correctly, the real Khilji did NOT attack Chittor just to capture Padmavati; it happened to be yet another of his brutal military exploits. Which is not to condone him but to question what is this Padmavat myth all about? Was it just a legend invented to glorify Rajputs or was it intended to legitimize Sati and Jauhar (the original Padmavat legend had both with Rani Padmavati committing Sati upon the death of Ratan Singh)? Sure, SLB has the right to make a film on whatever he bloody well wants but can I honestly say it was responsible of him to make a film on a myth (and not real history) which legitimises sacrificing women? No. I am not looking at Jauhar here through the narrow context of a barbaric war where it was a last resort to save oneself from a more gruesome fate but as part of a basket of regressive practices. The film itself gives, as I noted in another thread, more agency to the key women characters and asks sharp questions as well from a feminist perspective (DP asking whether it isn’t the fault of society if it struggles to deal with her looks). But the subject matter remains troubling. Not because Jauhar didn’t happen per se but because in this case, the conquest wasn’t about Padmavati and what we have instead is a made up story that appears to serve the patriarchy more than anything.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nawaz
February 11, 2018
” a testament to SLB’s skills as a filmmaker but also of his obliviousness toward the experience of women in India today, of which mine is but one.”
“deeper narrative ideology of Padmaavat which has proved to be regressive, misogynistic and xenophobic”
Your response is same as that of politicians who blame rape victims of going out in night, wearing short skirts and drinking. That is the exact analogy. You cannot blame victim of war or rape. The finger of blame is on the perpetrator and not on the victims of the crime. A rape victim of today, a soldier of today and Soldier or rape victim of yore have commonality irrespective of time. They both are victims.
LikeLike
Jabberwock
February 14, 2018
Baradwaj: finally got around to putting my own thoughts about the film down and then went through these two posts and the dozens of very thoughtful comments (including the ones by Anu Warrier and my namesake Jai). Far more interesting discussion here than the ones I have had on FB, where the focus seems to be on the reductive idea that women will necessarily have a completely different take on the film than men will.
Anyway, like I told you, I enjoyed the film very much, and was surprised by my response to it, especially after having been left somewhat cold by Bajirao Mastani. Also, Swara B’s criticism that it doesn’t care for the present-day context is surprising, given scenes like the one where Padmaavati responds to the woman who blames her for bringing this ruin on the kingdom with her beauty.
Look forward to more conversations along these lines soon.
LikeLike
Naina
February 15, 2018
@Madan
Thank you for your reply, on the subject of myth, whether it is myth or fact may be irrelevant when speaking of the portrayal of regressive practices prevalent in the present, this is why Game of thrones’ repeated and unnecessary depiction of rape is also troubling to me. But yes, I do agree that when one looks deeper as to where does this story come from, what was its purpose, which version of the tale the director choses as a foundation*, and how he/she builds on it- all of these layers have been dealt with (or not at all) in a most troubling manner. There are also several well researched articles I have come across about that talk about this: the wasted character of Amir Khusrau, potentially a great Muslim voice in the film; neglecting the character of the first wife who as documented was a strong and intelligent person; neglecting the greys in Ratansen’s character for taking a second wife; the unaddressed gaps in Rajput valour when they do not support one another; the amplified the portrayal of Khilji as a barbarian- there are so many choices here that I have to question the need to make the narrative conform to an ideology rather than the lived experience of the characters. In fact this is where the farcical nature of this whole ‘controversy’ comes in, that the choices made in the structuring of the story and the relentless valour based dialogue and the Jauhar scene (this list can go on) point to a film that is more propaganda than art, there is liittle care for nuance that have led to caricatures rather than characters.
We can speculate whether the myth of Padmaavat was actually fact, or whether it was a myth told to further a patriarchal agenda, I suspect it is one more in the long line of stories inadvertently fantasising about events from a perspective so strongly coloured by patriarchy, unfortunately, in my opinon, Padmaavat joins this list and all these years later society is still fantasizing about the same things.
On the subject of the agency of the women in the film, I am surely out of my depth wrt to the feminist perspective but I will venture a reading. The Bechdel test comes to mind, I have not studied the film to know if it passes or not, but I cannot recall any such conversations that are not about a man, and in the instances when the two queens talk to each other, or Padmavati to other women, it is more like she is talking ‘at’ them rather than ‘to’ them, always in platitudes or maxims. As to the agency of Padmavati, she surely has more than others in the film, but I feel it is a case of being slightly more liberated than other women but very much still functioning within patriarchal frameworks and in service of the agendas of male characters, illustrated by her having to take permission to die etc.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Naina
February 15, 2018
@madan, another conundrum comes to mind, the trouble with the absolute freedom of expression in art stance is similar to the freedom of speech limitation wherein one’s freedom of speech rights can be hypothetically curtailed in instances where a person walks into a crowded room and screams ‘fire’, a false warning, thereby causing a stampede and possibly deaths. Not saying this is comparable to film in any way, but as a concept, freedom of expression in art too has ethical anchors.
LikeLike
Madan
February 15, 2018
@Naina: In fact, that fire example is among the very few exceptions to free speech even in the US. And it is fair. What is not fair is banning a film because it offends sentiments of some or other constituency. In fact, terribly unfair in a country where politicians are allowed to give hate ridden speeches that incite communal unrest.
I also don’t agree that the context is irrelevant. Some scenes shown in a film may be disturbing but the context may ensure that the ‘message’ is not inappropriate. A Clockwork Orange comes to mind where Alex is clearly irredeemably evil. My issue with Padmavat is that a myth that appears to have been designed to reinforce patriarchy has been resurrected. What for? And when Shahid Kapoor says they always intended the film to glorify the Rajputs, I can no longer give SLB the benefit of doubt where his motives are concerned.
LikeLike
Naina
February 15, 2018
@madan, indeed, that limitation cannot be applied here from a governance standpoint, hypocritical to say the least.
The irrelevance of whether it is a myth or fact was not to say that ‘context’ is irrelevant (as I wrote in my first post, it is the entire point of critique) but that the nature of the premise of the story, whether fictional or non-fictional, is irrelevant.
And yes definitely, it is deeply troubling to hear SLB’s responses to the critique, whether one can term it is as ‘motive’ or ignorance, there is no benefit of doubt whatsoever. This story has been written from a self-evident ideological lens, one that reinforces regressive thought systems. Just as the battle of Chittorgarh was transformed into a story about the lust of a invader, the sacrifice of a woman, honour etc- so also this story has been moulded to glorify these regressive ideas, adding its own departures to suit its agenda.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
February 17, 2018
Naina, while I get where you’re coming from, and indeed can empathise with that feeling, let’s say that, where SLB is concerned, there really is no ‘ideology’ behind his film-making, at least not a political one. Bhansali has been living with Padmavati for the last twenty years. If he had made it immediately after HDDCS, no one would have batted an eye.
Also, the ‘distortion of history’ charge – please absolve him of that: He was NOT making a historical; he was retelling a legend, and the legend of Padmini (if you remember your Amar Chitra Katha) was about Khilji’s obsession with the beautiful queen, and her ultimate sacrifice that defeated his intentions. What Bhansali made was a period costume drama; there was nothing historical about it.
To say that we cannot retell legends because many of them would go against our modern sensibilities, or were part of a patriarchy would mean that we lose our legends, our stories, our oral traditions. I may not like a particular legend or myth, or the female character in them (can’t stand Sita, for instance; my favourite poem when I was a kid was Maithili Sharan Gupt’s Urmila), but to say they cannot show the agni pareeksha if they film the Ramayan, or Rama abandoning his wife because men do so now, or Ganga drowning her babies because foeticide, etc., make me want to crawl into a world that’s more nuanced.
My part of the world has bards extolling the valour of a chieftain; one of our finest scriptwriters/directors duo made a film from the opposite view – that of the antagonist. It is still considered one of the finest films in Malayalam cinematic history, and was a huge hit even if it turned the legend on its head. Today I suppose, the descendents of that warrior would take the duo to court.
LikeLike
Naina
February 19, 2018
Hello Anu, I didn’t think there was an ‘ideology’ initially, just that he was supremely oblivious, as they say ignorance is bliss, but madan’s comment prompted me to revisit the narrative of the film itself and I felt there were must be, at the very least, a deep sense of denial of belonging to the patriarchal mindset. In glorifying an already patriarchal tale there is a tacit reverence of said mindset. Whether this was calculated or ingrained is debatable, but its hard to say that he is innocent of propagating ‘an’ ideology, this as you say coming from the director of HDDCS and also from someone whose middle name is his mothers, so there is surely some doubling in SLB’s personality.
I also don’t believe he has ‘distorted’ history, as I wrote in an earlier comment, the same tale is retold in very different ways but it is ‘how’ the re-telling is done that I was commenting on, the glorification of it, that is what I had trouble with. If he had depicted that scene in any number of other ways, more creative tellings, and shorter ones at that, without the conch ‘call to suicide’, the pregnant woman and child, the seeking of permission, etc etc – I may have felt otherwise, that it’s just another bad costume drama.
An interesting facet you pointed out is whether this going against of ‘modern sensibilities’* can impact whether we retell our oral heritage. I don’t think a questioning of ‘how’ we tell a story goes against the tradition of telling the story, I am in no way implying the story shouldn’t be told, I once again go back to ‘how’. A.K. Ramanujan’s essay, ‘Three Hundred Ramayanas’ comes to mind. Legends and myths, especially those told orally, are always modified, their essence re-interpreted, there is no one absolute version of it, just the most popular one, and each version reveals as much in ‘how’ it communicates the story as in what it leaves out and what it adds. The traditions as we know them today were not always this way, probably someone from the 16th century might say we have turned legends on their head. This another contemporary trend I have an issue with, the idea that tradition or legends are immovable, absolute and any ‘change’ is an affront, or a threat. I believe this culture people are so frantically trying to preserve is not from the past, to be passed on in the same form, but it is made every day, and changes constantly. I only hope that these changes takes us ahead, not backward in thought. And not that I expect any such notions from SLB, but I would have appreciated at least some sensitivity toward the regressive practice, some awareness.
I would love to see this film you mention, it is exactly the kind of creative interpretation one might hope for period films of the hindi film industry. Also since you mention Sita, there is a wonderful book that illustrates Ramayana from Sita’s point of view.
*it’s much more than modern and sensibilities but that’s probably best left for another time.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
February 19, 2018
Naina, I agree with a lot of what you say, and I still enjoyed the film when I watched it. Perhaps that’s a contradiction but it’s one that I’m comfortable with. The film is not one that will stay with me as a cinematic experience, so I guess what I’m saying is that we give these notions more heft when we focus on one aspect of it. Again not defending patriarchy or regressive practices or wanting to deify it.
The film I was talking about is Oru Vadakkan Veeragaatha, a ballad told from the point of view of the antagonist. Even today, almost 3 decades after it was made, it still holds our interest. If BR doesn’t mind:
https://anuradhawarrier.blogspot.com/2011/05/ballad-of-fallen-warrior.html
(BR, please feel free to remove the link, and the previous sentence, if you don’t want links to other blogs here.)
LikeLike
P
March 10, 2018
I loved the movie. Just watched it for the sixth time. It is beyond brilliant and probably Deepika’s most powerful (and difficult to watch!!) role. She is an avenging angel, a Draupadi, married to a Yudhistira, always intent on doing the (almost cartoonish) right thing. The way they show Rawal going to visit Khilji without arms despite her warning is similar to Yudishtira going to play dice with the Kauravas after they cheated the first time already (whatever they stole was given back to the Pandavas by their fearful father!)- again despite Draupadi’s warning. He is helpless and driven by his ideals. Khilji is a combination of Ravana and Duryodhana. His zest for life and his close association with another man, a slave at that- Malik, mirrors Duryodhana and Karna’s association. His obsession with possessing uniquely beautiful things is akin to Ravana. The sequence with Padmavati going Rama-like to rescue Rawalsa who’s been imprisoned is similar to Rama rescuing Sita. They even cross multiple water bodies- a lake and what looks like a waterfall to get there. Her Lakshmana and Hanuman are Gora and Badal. Gora calls himself her brother, and Badal even kneels down on one knee to her at their first meeting in a Hanuman-like fashion.
There is a Mahabharata touch even in the death of Rawalsa. He becomes Bhishma fighting a valiant, powerful but ultimately not-as-skilled Arjuna in Khilji (what a SPECTACULAR role reversal), with Kafur standing in for Shikhandi who shoots a sheath of arrows at his back. Rawalsa falls to his death on the bed of arrows exactly like Bhishma. The sun shining above his head to bless him (he is a Suryavanshi after all!) just like Gangadevi was seen in the skies blessing Bhishma as he fell.
To SLB this is classic Indian mythical puppet/nautanki/streetplay/ramleela storytelling and as an audience I revel in it. There is nothing better than when SLB does this.
To him Rajput/Khilji enemity was just the paint he used to paint his painting. And I see that. Maybe others don’t which is fair enough. Whats not fair is some of the stuff they are saying.
Now to that:
People wondering if Padmavati should have just accepted the idea of marrying Khilji, and maybe he wouldn’t have treated her that badly, hey, what the fuck happened to consent now?
She did not want to be in his harem. She did not want him to touch her. She did not want him. PERIOD.
As for Khilji whom everyone is starting to portray as some angelic barbarian, do note that SLB left out some of his most (documented) evil acts. At Kara he not just kills his uncle, but also both of his wife’s brothers who were the true heirs to the throne.
The Princess of Devgiri was not the first “spoils of war” for him, there was also the wife of Karna, a gujarati king, who he “took” for himself after destroying, plundering her castle and kingdom and murdering her husband. And not just him, in an almost Dothraki-ish fashion all his men “took” whatever woman, girl, boy they wanted for themselves.
So yeah, I would assume these rumours would have reached the ears of the Rajputana. And though real she may not be in the eyes of some(funny how its always the women who’s existence is disputed by historians), I do not condemn Padmavati and her retinue for choosing to not give in to him either as a war strategy to “defeat” him or as a way to escape a much worse fate.
IF the only war strategy available to the people back then was this wholesale destruction of human life then so what?! She lived in a time where there wasn’t even pepper spray for gods sake!
And anyone who was not weeping at that last scene is the kind of person who would consider it glorification. I wept and wept at the horrible choice she had to make, and yes I understood her tiny “smile” for all Khilji got was a pyrrhic victory.
Haar ke jeetne wale ko baazigar kehte hain. 😦
LikeLiked by 3 people
brangan
March 10, 2018
P: What a stupendous comment. Salute.
SLB’s films are very deeply layered — and I’ve found that the more you watch them, not only to the narrative layers (like in your reading) pop out, but also the visual choices.
Even the films I’m not THAT great a fan of in the overall sense (like Ram Leela), there’s so much going on that each viewing seems like a new viewing. I mean, you can view that film through just the paintings and murals and tapestries, which actually contribute to the storytelling (through the mythical sense on them).
Thank you 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
P
March 10, 2018
@brangan: Thank you. This is really high praise coming from you 🙂 I am going to watch it a few more times and take a notebook with me because there are just so many scenes and layers and references to the myths, to old Hindi films, to SLB films especially Bajirao Mastani which I see as a kind of companion piece to Padmavati- in that it shows two outsiders- there a woman and here a man pursuing love and passion- one consensual and the other absolutely not- and the ends of each of their loves.
And I absolutely agree that there are amazing visual choices that add layers to the narrative, but I am not as good at seeing them as a @pankajsachdeva so I will await his comments on that 🙂
LikeLike
sanjana
March 10, 2018
A very interesting take on Padmaavat. At the end of it we are foolishly wise sometimes, we try to get out of situations which another person creates for us, we are backstabbed and some of us desire to flaunt a rare custom built creation. Only thing which we cant have is a friend or unequal friend who can lay down his or her life for us. That sacrifice is usually done by our parents most of the times and our other very close ones like spouses, children and siblings.
LikeLike
Anuja Chandramouli
March 10, 2018
BR and P, allow me to state that this comes from a place of affection even though it may not be in the best of taste but I say BAH while sticking out my tongue at both of you while also going NYahhhhh…..
PS: Such panegyrics for a pathetic poltroon like SLB. Pshaw!
LikeLiked by 1 person
P
March 10, 2018
@Anuja: I’ve been told to go and jump into a fire for enjoying the movie, so your comment is among the harmless ones TBH.
PS: SLB is one of the four big influences on me and I don’t think he’s pathetic at all 🙂 And not even remotely a poltroon. Despite being attacked on set, forced to change movie titles, character names, cgi cover up waists, apologise on camera, consistently heckled and mocked and derided by the industry, by vanguards of leftist, feminist and religious morality, he just keeps doing what he loves. Not a hallmark of a poltroon but hey what do I know shrugs
LikeLiked by 1 person
tonks
March 10, 2018
Hilarious, Anuja 😀
Such panegyrics for a pathetic poltroon like SLB. Pshaw! reminded me of Captain Haddock.
LikeLike
Vivek narain
March 10, 2018
It is a fact that there is some occult urge which draws a member of a coterie to pinch the nose of a gate crasher who gets honoured. Unless that nose belongs to the impudent VN who crashed rudely into the placid meandering of all those illustrious members of BR’s blog who had hitherto been content to justify their presence as marshals by perfecting themselves in the time honoured sport of splitting the hair.
LikeLike
Pavan
March 10, 2018
After reading everything, can’t help but say, “Suffering is personal, mate. Let them suffer!” Having said that, the way this scene was shot isn’t that non judgmental. Hence the problem, because cinema is a visual medium. Read it in a book, the jauhar scene shall not be that effective. Because your mind envisions it in the way you wanted, with your preference.
LikeLike
P
March 11, 2018
@Vivek: Me? Gatecrasher? More like Return of the Prodigal Nightmare. LOL.
LikeLike
Vivek narain
March 11, 2018
P: That calls for a feast, i wasn’t acquainted with the prodigal, sorry.
LikeLike
Vishakha
April 5, 2018
I’m a huge fan of your reviews, and I totally agree with your ‘new critical’ approach to Padmavat. A movie should be judged as a movie, based on the skill/thought displayed in using elements of movie-making to evoke emotions in the audience.
It seemed to me that SLB played a trick on the audience, by subverting many core concepts such as beauty, honor, and even, love, and that made the movie slightly more watchable than the long drawn out plot.
IMHO, Deepika has definitely looked way more gorgeous in Bajirao Mastani/Om Shanti Om. Here, she tells the priest that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and indeed, many moments in the movie made me wonder why ‘the face that launched the battle of Chittor’ was never shown, dwelt upon by the camera, unlike in Bajirao Mastani, or Ramleela. Padmavati is dusky, most of her face and body buried underneath jewels and ornate clothes all the time. Even the lipstick is not an inviting hue of red, but a toned down brown in most cases. So as expressed by SLB, beauty was either in the eyes of the beholder, or a function of her ‘independent spirit’ showing through her actions, rather than just physicality. I liked that interpretation in the movie.
Khilji himself values only her, whom he cannot possess, over Mehrunissa or Malik, whom he does. Similarly, the honor and code of ethics of Rajputs is shown as an empty ideal. It ironically becomes the hamartia that leads to their downfall. Like the story of the deer who valued its horns over its legs, Ratan Singh valued the wrong thing.
The interpretation that love is beyond lust also came through very clearly for me in the movie, a principle from an older world order, which most of us now either shun, or seem to have forgotten. In that sense, the movie, just like the idea of Jauhar, do not belong to this day and age. They both don’t fit.
LikeLike
Saaa
March 19, 2021
Jai Bhavani!
I also want to add one more scene where padmavati takes the arrow out of him at the beginning of the movie.
And I think ritual says you have to ask for permission to jauhar. The way I heard her deliver this news was like “I’m following your rituals but do you see how dumb it is for me to ask you permission to end my own life”
But also, my partner says that this movie has shown the most authority for the women
LikeLike