The Padmaavat debate is going in the wrong direction

I haven’t seen the movie Padmaavat yet, but after what I have heard and read in reviews I am confused whether I should even go and watch it, especially since even my 11 year old daughter is interested in it. I don't have a problem with the war scenes and I think I can explain to her the scenes showing a ruthless Alauddin Khilji. What I do have a problem with is the romanticization of Jauhar. Apparently, all they discuss related to Jauhar and why Rani Padmavati chose to do it is about her faithfulness to her husband (she asks his permission to commit Jauhar) and the Rajputi pride, honour and ‘usool’. There is no mention at all of the brutal consequences that Rani Padmavati would have faced if she would have been captured alive by Khilji.

There are a few debates going around this movie. The first one and the more well-known one involves Karni Sena. Honestly, I am lost here because I do not even understand what problem they have with the movie. From what I understand, the movie is solely about the grandeur and opulence of the Rajput kingdoms and about their valour, honour and pride. Now, my question is that does Karni Sena, which claims to protect and hail exactly the same, does not want the country and the world to witness their culture, heritage and everything else? I really do not understand why else would they protest against this movie. And so I will not venture into this further. I will also not comment on what is the real history because, in my personal opinion, it is but a documentation of legends that had fallen down from various generations. Some incidents may have different interpretations as communicated by different people to further generations. Everything should be accepted, yet with a pinch of salt.

The painting of Maharani Padmavati 

performing Jauhar as displayed in the

Maharana Pratap Memorial in Udaipur

(Source: Google search)

Then there are some thoughts shared by Swara Bhaskar in an amazingly worded open letter to Sanjay Leela Bhansali. One of my friends, Radhika, expressed similar thoughts on her blog. Though I agree to every word of what they said, I will refrain from commenting whether Rani Padmavati was right in committing Jauhar or not. What Swara and Radhika say are pertinent and true for the current age and times. But Rani Padmavati lived in a different age and a different era. The customs, sentiments and principles of that age were different. Human race evolves over time. New sentiments and new principles evolve and are accepted and it should be so. Jauhar and Sati were regressive and sexist practices and have been rightly done away so. What is important is that it should have been made clear in the movie that they were old age archaic practices and have been rightly done away with. The movie instead glorifies Jauhar and that is where I have an issue. When you showcase a part of history on the screen, at least put the right facts there. Those ladies did not commit Jauhar because they wanted to prove their valour. They did not commit Jauhar because they were too proud to face defeat for their community. And they definitely did not commit Jauhar because they did not want to live without their husbands. They committed Jauhar because they did not want to face what they knew were a determined fate in the face of their army’s loss – rape, torture and the brutality of Khilji and his army.

I don't understand why people are even discussing rape here. It's not about rape; and yes I do believe that rape is not the end of the world for a woman and life is much more precious. The discussion here should be more about sex slavery vs. death. To set the record straight, I am also not saying that it was better to choose death over sex slavery. I am saying that there is a difference between rape and sex slavery. I am saying that the Rajput women including Rani Padmavati made a choice and chose death over sex slavery. But that choice aspect and the other option if not death, should have been brought out clearly in the movie, which I have heard has not been done. The fact is that Padmavati's Jauhar did take place and she chose death. Obviously when you are presenting a historical fact (irrespective of creative liberties), you will not present that Rani Padmavati chose life or chose to fight (which some debaters allege that she should have done). But her decision should have been presented in the right perspective - that she chose death over sex slavery or inclusion into Khilji's harem. It shouldn't have been presented as something that she did out of love for her husband or because she was a brave 'pativrata stree'.

In reality, Padmavati's Jauhar has more deep rooted relevance than just honour and pride. It’s more to do with war plunder and how the ruthless winning armies take to brutalizing women in a show of power. The women captured were raped, enslaved and brutally treated as a mark of humiliation and for gross display of power and conquests. For some reason, devastation of cities and loot of wealth is never enough for the wining armies to show their dominance over the losing side. They make the humiliation more personal by ravaging their women and making them sex slaves. This is the deepest mark of patriarchy where they demonstrate their dominance over the women. After all, they want to prove to the men over whom they won that now we control what you have controlled all this while… your subjectives (read women). It’s like saying, “You were their ‘protectors’ once but now see what we will do to them.” And it's not just true for history. It's happening right now too in various parts of the world. It had happened in India-Pakistan during Partition, in the World Wars, in Vietnam, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and loads of other wars… every war. Even today, ISIS is a real example. I have read horrifying stories of Yazidi women who have escaped the clutches of ISIS. Girls as young as 9 years old are raped and sexually abused by multiple partners. They are tortured and sold like cattle. The details are horrific beyond imagination. True, they did not commit Jauhar and probably they did not even have a choice to do so even when they feel like giving up. True, that they have hope against hope that someday they will escape the clutches of their captors. Some have been lucky too. But, no one would deny that it is a horrific state to be in. And your fault? As Swara and Radhika would put it… They have a Vagina.

If only Sanjay Leela Bhansali would have had the guts to bring this out instead of trying to appease the Rajputs and the Karni Sena with his glorious representation of Rajput pride.