ON WATCHING PADMAAVAT
R. N. Misra
If you wish to see 3D cinematographic effect at its near perfection from Indian standard, the film Padmaavat would be a treat to your eyes. If further, you desire to observe minutely the midriff in several scenes of royal and not so royal ladies, Hindus and Muslims alike, the very first dance in Turkish-Afghan style as celebration for the acceptance of Nikah within the close family, in presence of Feroz Jalaluddin, would certainly throb your heart and keep you anxiously waiting for Bollywood Padmavati to appear as a dream girl dancing as courtesan like perfection to the tune of her director.
This makes a turning point in your mind about the film. Was this really the face that launched Jauhar? Was this Mewar or Rajput icon danced with Thumkas and waving waist? How had the natives of Rajasthan regarded her their mother or in a broader perspective as Goddess? For those who are unconcerned with the history of Chittor and never thought of Rajasthan of Medieval India, the cardboard structure and make-believe landscape of sand dunes and Aravali hills, falsifying history and geography together, the film Padmaavati provides sufficient return with satisfaction for the money in dollars or rupees spent per ticket for viewing it. But then from where comes the drama so melodramatically staged by Shri Rajput Karni Sena, one wonders? For an average man this is just another Bollywood film with suspense, fight, sex, murder, and the villainy – all as part of entertainment – and the comment like ‘see the film as a film’ is quite justified.
But the difference comes only when you try to be mindful of your pride, your icon, the essence of your cultural and historical account as a part of your critical judgement or emotional aspect of your collective consciousness in a Bollywood dramatized version of the film on Rani Padmavati – the spirited queen of Chittor. Rani Padmavati/Padmini had no occasion, purpose, craft, need and reason to dance like a dancing girl. But the heroine of the film is paid for it; paid for her midriff to keep open; paid for dancing with choreographic perfection and Bollywood harbours such sensuous exhibitionism. Dances and songs are synonymous to this tinsel city of India and if there is no demand for these in the film, they invent them. Bollywood has invented ‘item song’ superficially and there is Shabana Azami’s lone voice which has opposed this ‘Play-Girl’ culture only recently. If Bhansali’s earlier films are of any evidence, he is the perpetrator of this trend and this time Padmavati became the victim of his insensitivity by choreographic depiction of an iconic personality – the queen of Mewar – whom people of Rajasthan worship as Goddess. Bhansali made Bajirao dance in his earlier film and objections were raised by the Marathas, but the matter was subsided. Bhansali kills the very spirit of plot and the story by creating choreographic effects and movements of his heroes and heroines. In Devadas, Paro was made dance in a mismatched sequence. Devadas is not a historical figure or Paro is not an iconic character, but there is some established literary truth about them which should not be falsified. Even Ala-ud-din Khilji has danced in Padmaavat. It is awkward rather shameful to look at Padmavati dancing. The question is from where had she received the training? She was asked during her marriage reception at Chittor to present a Ghoomar dance of Rajasthani origin whereas she was a Singhalese damsel with no expertise of a Ghoomar dance. It was an impossible proposition. It was, on the other hand, unbecoming of a Rajput Rani to have danced like that. An important personality of Rajput clan, who upholds the legacy of Rani Padmini/Padmavati, Maharaj Kunwar Vishwaraj Singh son of Mahendra Singh of Mewar has reportedly called the film “a historic fraud to portray an incorrectly attired courtesan-like painted doll in the song as the very ‘queen’ the film purports to pay obeisance to”.
Here one can draw a parallel case of abuse relating to the iconic figure of Gandhi. It concludes: “Artistic freedom cannot be used for abusing icon like Mahatma Gandhi” SC. It adds, “You cannot use abusive words or diminish historical figures (by putting them in an unacceptable situation) under the garb of artistic freedom. There is complete freedom of ideas but freedom of speech and expression is not absolute. The Constitution provides restrictions and it is a regulated freedom” (TNN/April 17, 2015). Article 19(1) of Constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech, but it restricts under certain conditions in Article 19 (2). In case of Mahatma Gandhi episode (Supreme Court), it has been observed, “Had it been an ordinary Gandhi, it would have not been a problem but abusing icon Gandhi is objectionable”. It further explains, “You can write a satire on Gandhi, lampoon him or criticise him, but if put abusive words in his mouth, then it is not permissible”. Here the same yardstick should be used for Bhansali. The case is one Bhansali vs collective consciousness of the Hindus of India in general and people of Rajasthan in particular. Rani Padmini is an iconised figure of India as dignified, honourable and graceful as Gandhi, Vivekanand and Rani of Jhansi. Why Bhansali had been allowed to make a mockery of an icon? Why Rani Padmini was gracelessly reduced to an item girl? In some of the scenes in the film, Ala-ud-din Khilji holds a lotus flower in his hand and kisses it too. It is a symbol of Rani Padmini (Padma pushp symbolises her) and Khilji openly plays with it. It is like embracing the queen, an act more offensive than a dream sequence. This has tortured the inner self of the people who uphold the legacy of Rani Padmini and feel disgusted and deceived at the hands of Bhansali.
Now going back to Nehru-era, the fifties and sixties of the last century - there was an earnest demand - for making a film on Gandhi. Nehru liked the idea but had reservations about Bollywood’s capabilities in making the film on the iconic personality of Gandhi. Nehru knew the fact that no Indian cinematographer would be able to do justice in that case. The matter was dropped rather prolonged for another generation to come. By that time Attenborough was trying his skill to handle this great project on Gandhi and wrote the film script. During the last years of Nehru, the script was shown to him but the matter was not finalised, though tentatively approved. It was again prolonged with so many drafts, corrections, cuts and perusals of the script. During Indira Gandhi’s regime, the matter was actually finalised and it took more than 20 years (1959 to 1982) to come to the film in shape. Making a film on the icon like Gandhi whom the whole nation revered as a father figure was not an ordinary task. But Attenborough succeeded in depicting gracefully the dignified life of Gandhi. The film on ‘Gandhi’ grabbed eight Oscars and India basked in reflected glory. Is it possible even a fringe like this for Padmaavat to achieve? Hardly will it earn a national award (and awards like Filmfare are just a personal sharing – less said the better).
What is the difference between the film ‘Gandhi’ and ‘Padmaavat’? Both are period dramas in contents and based on the life and deeds of two great iconic personalities of India. But judging from their production stand-stand point, the film ‘Gandhi’ succeeded in historic contents and maintained reality of the main character supposed to be projected without much artistic liberty. Padmaavat in this sense failed in bringing about the real historical character of the queen Padmini who never hit her paramour with a bow or was loved instantly in that fashion and danced a Ghoomar – the art form – which was not so developed then. Actually, it was not a real Ghoomar dance at all. Bhansali has produced a Bollywood-Mix where other Rajasthani folk dances had been put together creating a cocktail of local dances. Attenborough, on the other hand, maintained the dignity and honour of the lead character as his life was unfolded step by step. There were no songs, no dances; not even Gandhi’s popular Bhajans and yet the film stood at the top of the world. Bollywood filmmakers must learn the cinematographic art from such films. What did Bhansali do of Padmaavat? The spirited queen was disgraced, degenerated and was made to dance as a courtesan with costumes not befitting the queen of Mewar. Padmavati has been turned into a commercial commodity while Gandhi of Attenborough remained, simple and dignified – a true icon - father of the nation. People who opposed Padmaavat were displaying the inner feelings – the collective consciousness - of their community and the society. They were not a fringe group, but a majority of the people. But those who interpret the laws are not as sensitive as those who are the lawmakers. Hence the majority suffers; an icon gets destroyed.
The film has a funny start. Ala-ud-din was asked to bring a feather of an ostrich but he brought the whole live Ostrich. A photographically managed image of a zoo-fed ostrich convinces the audience and the viewers of the film that something big and special has been brought to impress upon the princess – Mehrunian – to win over her heart. One can imagin to eat a royal roasted turkey – a large bird specially reared for that purpose – but to accept an ostrich as a part of menu for Arabs, Afghans and Turks and their descendants inside Delhi Sultanate is highly unimaginable. Muslims are voracious meat eaters but not as obnoxious and ferocious as shown in the scene where Ala-ud-din Khilji gulps up the pieces four times bigger than his hands.
You will have a few refined scenes and moments to enjoy the film that may elevate your thought and sublimate the inner self. The ambience created around some scenes is profoundly managed and dialogues, diction and delivery are beautifully arranged and performed. These may earn some credits from those who oppose the film on some other lines. These specific moments have saved Padmaavat from getting doomed and show a silver line in maintaining some honour and dignity of the queen.
But what did historian say about it? Some of them were vocal and others neutral. Farishta and James Tod had accepted Padmini’s existence, though they differed with each other about the dates and happenings. When you open a historical account after a gap of two/three centuries, such inaccuracies are bound to crop up. But the modern historians specializing in the medieval history of Rajasthan have conclusively accepted Rani Padmini, Jauhar, the siege of Chittor and its ultimate fall on Monday 26 August 1303 CE. But some of our historians differ. Prof. Irfan Habib never gave any cognizance to Padmini. And those who have nothing to do with history or art of film criticism have given certification to the film to convince the people that ‘when it is a work of fiction, why you worry for Padmini? The film's name has been changed to Padmaavat (of Jayasi) and it is not history. But by the same argument that it is being a fiction, Bhansali should not have included in the story the scenes of Chittorfort, names like Ratan Singh or Padmavati. The film should have been named like Leelaavati or Kalaavati etc., but it should not have any proximity to historical characters and places as was done by Bhansali. This is a fraudulent way of expression and it should have been restricted and curbed. The basic problem is that no constitutional authority has given any deep thought over it. Our Cinematographic Act is weak and its interpretation makes it much weaker to protect our national or community icons from getting debased or suffer indignation.
