# data[].attributes.body
Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s Padmaavat (2018) is a stunning work of cinematography and a tale of love, loss and revenge. Set in 14th century South Asia, it follows the romance between Singhal princess Padmavati and Rajput king Ratan Singh. There is an intersecting storyline about the rise of Alauddin Khiljii, a Muslim sultan who comes to rule the Delhi Sultanate and is obsessively infatuated with Padmavati for her rumored beauty.

After meeting and falling in love, the couple quickly becomes engaged and travels to Chittor where they marry in an elaborate expression of color and song. The tale of Sultan Khiljii’s ascent to power is demarcated by betrayal, greed and gluttony. He murders his uncle and assumes the throne, engages in intimate relations with several women and possibly men, and lusts after Padmavati. The stories intersect when Khiljii captures and extorts the king for a chance to see Padmavati’s face. Singh is ultimately killed in combat by Khiljii, and Padmavati calls upon the women of Chittor in an inspiring speech to commit jauhar, self-immolation, so that they may avoid the capture and rape by Khiljii’s army.

# data[].attributes.body
The are a few controversies surrounding this film: feminists found this discourse reductive and some Hindu/Rajput organizations believed the film would include a romantic sequence between Padmavati and Khilji that they disapproved of (BBC, 2018). The Supreme Court ruled that the film could not be banned in any state. Subsequently, Padmavati's midriff was censored, further disclaimers were added, and the film’s name was changed from Padmavati before release (Dhavan, 2018).

# data[].attributes.headline
Bollywood and Hindu Nationalism (Hindutva) 

# data[].attributes.subject
Bollywood and Hindu Nationalism (Hindutva) 

# data[].attributes.body
Bollywood is the dominant media outlet of South Asia and plays a definitive role in portraying ideology, particularly nationalism. Some Hindi films, like Padmaavat, include products of Hindu nationalism that have a clear message. After the trauma of Partition, the “otherness” of Indian Muslims was reinforced through text and media, culminating in the popularity of right-wing Hindutva groups in the 1990s that have garnered support through anti-Muslim propaganda (Khatun, 2018, p.6-8).

# data[].attributes.body
Modern gendered nationalism partially emerged out of 1990s Indian politics, an era where many Hindu women were allegedly abducted by Muslim men. This led to women becoming a figurehead of the Hindu community (Shaheed Soherwordi, 2013, p.40). As Hindutva politics seek to convert India to a Hindu state, women became the face of the Hindu community and symbolically involved in the nationalist project.

This view of women is somewhat paradoxical, as it empowers women to work but demands prioritizing family.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Heroic Mother, Chaste Wife, and Celibate Warrior

# data[].attributes.subject
The Heroic Mother, Chaste Wife, and Celibate Warrior

# data[].attributes.body
Hindutva concepts of womanhood derive from folklore and mythology, both present in Indian film (Banerjee, 2005, p.149).Women are models of virtue and chastity through accepting a role as heroic mother, chaste wife, or celibate warrior (ibid).

Two of these roles are obvious in Padmaavat. Padmavati is the prototypical chaste wife who maintains chastity in marriage. The couple never kisses on screen, and she exhibits duty to country and family over herself, attempting to sacrifice herself on more than one occasion to save her beloved, Chittor, or her virtue, most notably in the jauhar ending scene.

The only other female character with a comparable amount of lines is the heroic mother: Kunwar Baisa. Mother to a Chittor warrior who is killed, Kunwar Baisa does not shed a single tear when she discovers the news. Padmavati then claims that she “realizes why they call Rajputs ‘brave hearts’...because they have such brave mothers.”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Padmaavat JOHAR Scene | Deepika padukone | PADMAAVAT FINAL SCENE | PADMAAVAT BEST SCENE | FULL HD

# data[].attributes.headline
Masculinity and Nationalism, The Muscled Man

# data[].attributes.subject
Masculinity and Nationalism, The Muscled Man

# data[].attributes.body
As femininity and chastity are the basis of nationhood and national honor, masculinity is depicted as defender of these values. Sikata Banerjee (2018, p.50-3) describes this phenomenon as muscular nationalism: India’s imagining of itself is expressed through armed masculinity and nationalism. Asserting Western forms of strength counteracts national feelings of weakness deriving from British colonial feminization (ibid).

The Hindi film hero personifies the ideal man and aspirations of the nation, particularly Hindutva aspirations through historical examples (Mubarki, 2018). The physique of the male protagonist portrays national ideals. In Padmaavat, Ratan Singh is frequently shirtless and has an immaculate, buff physique. Khilji is similarly chiseled but is depicted as menacing, fulfilling his role of “hypermasculine enemy” (Banerjee, 2018, p.56).

# data[].attributes.body
Using trauma narratives, where a film rehashes historical events and portrays particular actors in a superior light, is very common in modern Hindi film. This narrative is the natural habitat of the Hindutva hero and the suspicious Muslim (Mubarki, 2018, p.17, 21).

# data[].attributes.headline
Ranveer Singh on NDTV: The "Love-Jihad" and Othering (play at 8:30 for the "Love-Jihad" question)

# data[].attributes.subject
Ranveer Singh on NDTV: The "Love-Jihad" and Othering (play at 8:30 for the "Love-Jihad" question)

# data[].attributes.body
Ranveer Singh, who plays Alauddin Khilji, claims that viewers should not take the portrayal of Khilji seriously as a "Love-Jihad". However, Nadira Khatun (2018) argues that Padmaavat is a perfect example of othering. The honor of the Rajput queen is equated to national honor. It is preferable for the women of Chittor to kill themselves than taint this virtue. In Ranveer Singh’s interview, he notes that he collaborated with Bhansali to portray a despicable man who eats meat, is sexually loose, and wears dark costumes, so it seems unlikely that he would not think critically and politically about this role having prepared so rigorously.

Furthermore, it is interesting that Singh self-labels as a “liberal person” who does not mind being portrayed as bisexual, as the character’s sexual deviancy is part of what makes him villainous. I found this interview fascinating, and I thought the actor was charismatic if a bit inconsistent.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Padmaavat Violence Made Me Angry "Beyond Control": Ranveer Singh

# data[].attributes.headline
The Limits of Progressive Change and Responses from Women

# data[].attributes.subject
The Limits of Progressive Change and Responses from Women

# data[].attributes.body
As Partha Chatterjee (1998) argues in his article “Modernity, Democracy and a Political Negotiation of Death”, the project of Indian modernity, as seen by elites, is compromised by electoral voting. Because of the traditional nature of many Indians, politicians favor traditional thinking. Chatterjee (2018, p.384) partially extends this thinking to the Padmaavat controversies: Hindu nationalism relies on the history of the “people-nation”, including religious, local, caste, political, and linguistic identities and histories. These histories are inseparable from folk legend and acquired new political significance as “the people” were mobilized as a political subject. He argues that as mass electoral politics appeals to “the people” as victims of the elites, these histories hold sway with the “people-nation”, which is evident in the ongoing Padmaavat controversy. Even though the Indian constitution guarantees equality to both men and women, there are still culturally determined differences between the standards that apply to either gender. Thus, the fundamental rights of citizens can be resisted because it is inconsistent with “culturally authorized practices” (ibid, p.385).

The attached Huffington Post article displays responses from Indian women who disagree with the notion that their minds and lives are less important than their bodies (Sharma, 2018). However, many of these women are unwilling to speak against this monolithic view, because Hindu nationalism disrupts the family system. Challenging this discourse risks losing one’s family as a source of support and national belonging, which includes political, economic, and cultural benefits (Banerjee, 2005, p.150).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
JAIPUR - Rakhi*, a 25-year old Rajput woman, is willing to wager that neither the actors in Sanjay Leela Bhansali's Padmaavat nor the sword-wielding goons opposing it will be ones living under the long shadow cast by the ₹190 crore movie and the controversies surrounding it.

She, however, has felt a change in her family in recent months, a hardening of conservative and patriarchal attitudes, especially after the period drama was pitted against Rajput honour.

In a recent conversation with HuffPost India, she said, "Please don't use my real name. My whole family is opposing the movie. They will throw me out of the house if I speak out publicly. Or worse, make me marry some Rajput man who brandishes a sword just like those horrible Karni Sena men."

As the opposition to the Bhansali's movie rages on, driven largely by a fringe group called the Shri Rajput Karni Sena, Rakhi has been admonished and lectured by her family members whenever she has spoken her mind on the movie and its titular character, Padmavati or Rani Padmini.

The Rajput queen first appears in Malik Muhammad Jayasi's poem 'Padmavat', a 16th-century fictionalised account of Alauddin Khilji's siege of Rajasthan's Chittorgarh. It ends tragically with Padmavati committing jauhar - an outlawed practice of mass self-immolation by Hindu women - to avoid capture by the Muslim sultan of Delhi.

While the Rajput community has always championed Padmavati as the standard-bearer of feminine virtue and bravery, Rakhi, who teaches art in a local school, routinely irks her family by questioning conventional wisdom. The school teacher told me that she "feels nothing" for the Rajput queen. "What did she do? Kill herself. What good was that? I don't think that Rajput women should think of her as a role model, at least, I don't," she said.

I don't think that Rajput women should think of her as a role model.

On the flip side, the school teacher also gets flak from her family for mocking the Karni Sena.

Even though she is not a fan of Padmavati, the young Rajput believes that Bhansali has the freedom to make the kind of movie he wants to. Of the many arguments which Rakhi has had with her family members over Padmaavat, there was one exchange that eventually silenced her on the subject.

It happened about one month ago, when Rakhi suggested that her family turn off a television debate which featured members of the Karni Sena screaming about "women's honour."

"I said something like 'how much more of this nonsense do we have to listen to?' They pounced on me. They said that 'you are anti-national, anti-Hindu and a disgrace to your caste and to Rajput women.' It went too far. They said that 'you are like Kanhaiya Kumar of JNU'," she said, referring to the former president of the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) Students' Union, who was arrested on charges of sedition in February, 2016.

You are anti-national, anti-Hindu and a disgrace to your caste and to Rajput women.

Following that outburst, Rakhi chose to stay mum about the movie. "I decided to shut up . What's the point? Then, they will say 'we made a mistake by educating her, by letting her work.' I'm afraid of having that conversation and where it could lead."

Rakhi put all Padmaavat- related thoughts out of her head until about a week ago, when she witnessed her neighbours brutally beating their wives in the street. It was a scene that she had seen play out many times in her neighborhood and sometimes in her own home. But what the women did after they were beaten shocked her.

"The same women went to join the protest against the release of the movie, they signed up for jauhar. I just couldn't believe it. They get no respect in their own homes and they care about some Rajput honour," she said.

Then, after a pause, the school teacher sarcastically added, "Actually, it makes perfect sense. Perhaps, jauhar is the only way for them to get away from their horrible husbands and their miserable lives."

Perhaps, jauhar is the only way for them to get away from their horrible husbands and their miserable lives.

The Karni Sena has claimed that almost 2,000 women are ready for jauhar if Padmaavat is released in Rajasthan today. Meanwhile, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which is in power in the three states that tried to ban the film, has stood by as the Karni Sena goons have vandalised movie halls, threatened cinema owners and terrorised the public.

The BJP may or may not reap the rewards of backing that agitation against the film and its vulgar evocation of "Hindu pride" in the run up to the state polls this year. Rajasthan has voted the BJP and Congress Party into power in turns for the past five elections. And by failing to speak up for the release Padmaavat, the Congress has once again ceded the moral high ground it claims to have over the Hindu nationalists.
READ: Apologise Or We Won't Allow You To Participate In Jaipur Lit Fest, Karni Sena Threatens Author
While the national parties play their political games, Rakhi feels angry, very angry, not just at the Karni Sena but also at the young Rajput women who were falling for a warped kind of traditionalism and the appalling practices that went with it. "I see teachers from my own school posting things on Facebook about joining the protests. They are not illiterate people but smart women. I don't know what is wrong with them," she said. "I want the Rajput community to get a slap on its face. I want to slap Lokendra Singh Kalvi (head of the Karni Sena). He should be the first one to commit jauhar."

I want the Rajput community to get a slap on its face. I want to slap Lokendra Singh Kalvi. He should be the first one to commit jauhar.

Never a hero, now a curse

For a section of Rajput women, the glorification of Padmavati, whether in a Bollywood movie or by Hindu radicals, is a hugely regressive step, especially now, when at least a few of them have started challenging the patriarchal norms that gauge their virtuosity.

Two Rajput women, 30-year-old Anjali Shekhawat and 23-year-old Moomal Tanwar, who I recently met in Jaipur, said they liked wearing their hair short, preferred jeans to salwaar-kameez and they did not see marriage as the key to their happiness. The expectation that Rajput women should "relate" to Padmavati has infuriated them.

Tanwar, who described herself as a social activist and a sexual educator, told me, "We actually don't hear about her while growing up. We never learn about her in school. Suddenly, she is everywhere, Padmavati, Padmavati and there is a pressure to be a 'good woman.' The boys I know ask me, 'why do you have short hair. Only bad women have short hair.' This kind of nonsense."

We actually don't hear about her while growing up. We never learn about her in school.

Neither Tanwar nor Shekhawat intend to watch the movie. Tanwar, who mentioned Yash Chopra's Dharamputra and Steven Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan as two of her favorite historical movies, said that she had seen promotional videos for Padmaavat and it felt like an "extended commercial for Tanishq jewellery."
READ: Ranveer Singh's Queer Act Shatters The Glass Ceiling In Indian Film Writing
Early reviews of Padmaavat have in fact pegged the movie as yet another spellbinding visual treat from Bollywood's most opulent director, with a fine performance from Ranveer Singh as Khilji. But critics have noted that even magnificent sets fail to cushion the ultimately linear narrative of film, a three-hour long ode to the Rajput valour, with a clear distinction between the good Hindu and the bad Muslim, which concludes with hundreds of women jumping into the funeral pyre.

Shekhawat, who is an animator by profession, said, "They tell us that this woman (Padmavati) was honorable because she lived behind closed doors, she did not talk to men, and finally her big act of bravery was that she killed herself because her husband died and she did not want to marry a Muslim man. What is all this s**t? Seriously, we don't want to watch it."

What is all this s**t? Seriously, we don't want to watch this.

Rajput women like Shekhawat and Tanwar fear glorifying Padmavati in any context, historical or otherwise, because they live in a community which still rationalizes and reveres practices like jauhar and sati.

Just thirty years ago, the residents of Deorala village in Sikar district, three hours from Jaipur, cheered as they watched 18-year-old Roop Kanwar being burnt alive on her husband's funeral pyre. While one no longer hears of sati cases, the belief that a woman who voluntarily kills herself after her husband's death is "pure" continues to thrive.

The Ram Sati temple in Jhunjhunu district, which is dedicated to a woman who burnt herself on her husband's funeral pyre, is not a small building tucked away in a back alley. The temple is a grand edifice of green and white located in the heart of town, drawing both faithfuls and tourists in large numbers.

Tanwar recalled the nasty comments and messages she received after publishing an article about Roop Kanwar and the evils of sati a few years ago. "People told me things like, 'you don't know what you are talking about. You should not criticize our tradition.' It was really scary."

Interestingly, Shekhawat told me that she did feel a "pinch" when hearing a story about a Muslim defeating a Rajput in battle, but her indignation does not extend to wanting women to burn themselves alive.

"It is so sick. So, say, someone takes over your country, then all the women should commit mass suicide to avoid getting raped. I'm not going to kill myself because I might get raped. My body is not that important to me. My mind and my life are equally important. I would have rather married Khilji. Say, if she had compromised and stayed with Khilji, who knows what kind of life she would have led."

I'm not going to kill myself because I might get raped. My body is not that important to me. My mind and my life are equally important.

At this point, Tanwar chimed in, "If the Rajputs were not protesting against the movie, if this had not become a caste issue, I'm sure socialist and feminists would have addressed it?"
(*Editor's note: Rakhi's name has been changed to protect her against any backlash from her family.)
Shekhawat believes that Rajput women need to be hands-on about expelling the ghost of Padmavati. "We have to speak against this kind of glorification especially in our families. That can be very difficult. But if we don't say anything now, they will say 'Wow, if Rani Padmini could do it then so can you.' So, we should never be quiet, we should always oppose."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Padmavati Was Never A Role Model For These Rajput Women, And Now She's A Curse

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
JAIPUR - Rakhi*, a 25-year old Rajput woman, is willing to wager that neither the actors in Sanjay Leela Bhansali's Padmaavat nor the sword-wielding goons opposing it will be ones living under the long shadow cast by the ₹190 crore movie and the controversies surrounding it.

# data[].attributes.body
Actress Swara Bhasker published an open letter to the Bhansali that went viral. I think this is a perfect juxtaposition between the women who feel they can speak out against perceived injustice and the "ordinary" Indians from the Huffington Post article who feel unable to do so. Although they have similar opinions, they are in different positions, spatially and in status, to be vocal.
Another critic of the movie, Bilal Qureshi (2018), spoke about the film as a lifelong fan of Bhansali and a diasporic Indian American who found the jauhar scene a savage and suspiciously nostalgic representation that parents in the U.S. would have a difficult time explaining to their children.
What happens if there is an ongoing, gradual change in Indian cinema that is moving away from the tastes of diasporic Indians when the culture industry has been relying on global consumption for so long (Rajadhyaksha, 2003, p.29)?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dear Mr. Bhansali,

At the outset Sir, congratulations on finally being able to release your magnum opus 'Padmaavat' - minus the 'i', minus the gorgeous Deepika Padukone's uncovered slender waist, minus 70 shots you apparently had to cut out.. but heyyyy! You managed to have it released with everyone's heads still on their shoulders and noses still intact. And in this 'tolerant' India of today, where people are being murdered over meat, and school children are targets for avenging some archaic notion of male pride, that your film even managed a release - that is I guess commendable, and so again, congratulations.

Congratulations also on the stunning performances all around by your entire cast - primary and supporting. And, of course, the film was a stunning visual treat. But then all of this is to be expected from a brilliant auteur like yourself, a man who leaves his stamp on everything he touches.

By the way Sir, we know each other, after a fashion. I don't know if you remember, but I played a tiny role in your film Guzaarish. A two-scene -long role, to be precise. I remember having a brief chat with you about my lines, and you asking me what I thought about the lines. I remember feeling proud for a whole month that Sanjay Leela Bhansali had asked me my opinion. I watched you agitatedly explaining to junior artists in one scene, and to the jimmy jib operator in the second scene; some minutiae of the particular shot you were taking. And I remember thinking to myself, "Wow! This man really cares about every little detail in his film." I was impressed with you Sir.

An avid watcher of your films, I marveled at how you pushed boundaries with every film you made and how stars turned into fierce and deep performers under your able direction. You moulded my idea of what epic love must be like and I fantasised about the day I will be directed by you in a protagonist part. I was and remain a fan.

And I want you to know, I really fought for your film when it was still called Padmavati. I grant you, I fought on Twitter timelines -not on the battlefield, and I sparred with trolls not raving manic Muslims; but still I fought for you. I said to TV cameras the things I thought you were not being able to say because your Rs 185 crore were on the line.

Here's proof:

And I genuinely believed what I said. I genuinely believed and still believe that you and every other person in this country has the right to say the story they want to say, the way they want to say it, showing how much ever stomach of the protagonist they want to show; without having their sets burnt, their selves assaulted, their limbs severed or their lives lost.

Also, in general, people should be able to make and release films and children should be able to get to school safely. And I want you to know that I really wished that your film turn out to be a stupendous success, a blockbuster breaking box office records, whose collections itself would be a slap in the faces of the Karni Sena terrorists and their ilk. And so it was with great excitement and the zeal of a believer that I booked first day, first show tickets for Padmaavat, and took my whole family and our cook to watch the film.

Perhaps it is because of this attachment and concern that I had for the film that I am SO stunned having watched it. And perhaps that is why I take the liberty and have the temerity to write to you. I will try and be concise and direct though there is much to say.

Women have the right to live, despite being raped sir.

Women have the right to live, despite the death of their husbands, male 'protectors', 'owners', 'controllers of their sexuality'.. whatever you understand the men to be.

Women have the right to live - independent of whether men are living or not.

Women have the right to live. Period.

It's actually pretty basic.

Some more basic points:

Women are not only walking talking vaginas.

Yes, women have vaginas, but they have more to them as well. So their whole life need not be focused on the vagina, and controlling it, protecting it, maintaining it's purity. (Maybe in the 13th century that was the case, but in the 21st century we do not need to subscribe to these limiting ideas. We certainly do not need to glorify them. )

It would be nice if the vaginas are respected; but in the unfortunate case that they are not, a woman can continue to live. She need not be punished with death, because another person disrespected her vagina without her consent.

There is life outside the vagina, and so there can be life after rape. (I know I repeat, but this point can never be stressed enough.)

In general there is more to life than the vagina.

You may be wondering why the hell I am going on and on thus about vaginas. Because Sir, that's what I felt like at the end of your magnum opus. I felt like a vagina. I felt reduced to a vagina-only. I felt like all the 'minor' achievements that women and women's movements have made over the years- like the right to vote, the right to own property, the right to education, equal pay for equal work, maternity leave, the Vishakha judgement, the right to adopt children...... all of it was pointless; because we were back to basics.

We were back to the basic question - of right to life. Your film, it felt, had brought us back to that question from the Dark Ages - do women - widowed, raped, young, old, pregnant, pre-pubescent... do they have the right to live?

I understand that Jauhar and Sati are a part of our social history. These happened. I understand that they are sensational, shocking dramatic occurrences that lend themselves to splendid, stark and stunning visual representation; especially in the hands of a consummate maker like yourself - but then so were the lynchings of blacks by murderous white mobs in the 19th century in the US - sensational, shocking dramatic social occurrences. Does that mean one should make a film about it with no perspective on racism? Or, without a comment on racial hatred? Worse, should one make a film glorifying lynchings as a sign of some warped notion of hot-bloodedness, purity, bravery - I don't know, I have no idea how possibly one could glorify such a heinous hate crime.

Surely Sir, you agree that Sati, and Jauhar are not practices to be glorified. Surely, you agree that notwithstanding whatever archaic idea of honour, sacrifice, purity propels women and men to participate in and condone such practices; that basically Sati and Jauhar, like the practice of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and Honour Killings, are steeped in deeply patriarchal, misogynist and problematic ideas. A mentality that believes that the worth of women lies in their vaginas, that female lives are worthless if the women are no longer controlled by male owners or if their bodies have been 'desecrated' by the touch of ; or even the gaze of a male who doesn't by social sanction 'own' or 'control' the female.

Practices like Sati, Jauhar, FGM, Honour Killings should not be glorified because they don't merely deny women equality, they deny women personhood. They deny women humanity. They deny women the right to life. And that is wrong. One would have assumed that in 2018, this is not a point that even needs to be made; but apparently, it does. Surely, you wouldn't consider making a film glorifying FGM or Honour Killings!

Sir, you will say to me that I am over-reacting and that I must see the film in its context. That it's a story about people in the 13 th Century. And in the 13 th century that's what life was- polygamy was accepted, Muslims were beasts who devoured meat and women alike, and honourable Hindu women happily jumped into their husbands funeral pyre, and if they couldn't make it to the funeral, they built a pyre and rushed into it - in fact, they liked the idea of collective suicide so much that they gleefully discussed it over their daily beautification rituals. "Verisimilitude" you will say to me.

No Sir; Rajasthan in the 13th century with its cruel practices is merely the historical setting of the ballad you have adapted into the film Padmaavat. The context of your film is India in the 21st century; where five years ago, a girl was gang-raped brutally in the country's capital inside a moving bus. She didn't commit suicide because her honour had been desecrated, Sir. She fought her six rapists. She fought them so hard that one of those monsters shoved an iron rod up her vagina. She was found on the road with her intestines spilling out. Apologies for the graphic details, Sir, but this is the real 'context' of your film.

A week before your film released, a 15-year-old Dalit girl was brutally gang-raped in Jind in Haryana; a crime bearing sinister similarities to the rape of Nirbhaya.

You do know that acts like Sati and raping women are two sides of the same mindset. A rapist attempts to violate and attack a woman in her genital area, penetrate it forcibly, mutilate it in an effort to control the woman, dominate her or annihilate her. A Sati- Jauhar apologist or supporter attempts to annihilate the woman altogether if the genitals have been violated or if her genitals are no longer in the control of a 'rightful' male owner. In both cases the attempt and idea is to reduce women to a sum total of their genitals.

The context of art, any art is the time and place when it was created and consumed. And that's why this gang-rape infested India, this rape condoning mindset, this victim blaming society is the actual context of your film, Sir. Surely in this context, you could have offered some sort of a critique of Sati and Jauhar in your film?

You will say that you put out a disclaimer at the beginning of the film claiming that the film did not support Sati or Jauhar. Sure Sir, but you followed that up with a two-hour-45-minute-long paean on Rajput honour, and the bravery of honourable Rajput women who chose happily to sacrifice their lives in raging flames, than to be touched by enemy men who were not their husbands but were incidentally Muslim.

There were more than three instances of the 'good' characters of your story speaking of Sati/Jauhar as the honourable choice, your female protagonist - epitome of both beauty, brains and virtue sought permission from her husband to commit Jauhar, because she could not even die without his permission; soon after she delivered a long speech about the war between Satya and Asatya, Dharm and Adharm and presented collective Sati to be the path of Truth and Dharm.

Then in the climax, breathtakingly shot of course - hundreds of women bedecked in red like Goddess Durga as bride rushed into the Jauhar fire while a raving Muslim psychopathic villain loomed over them and a pulsating musical track - that had the power of an anthem; seduced the audience into being awestruck and admiring of this act. Sir, if this is not glorification and support of Sati and Jauhar, I really do not know what is.

I felt very uncomfortable watching your climax, watching that pregnant woman and little girl walk into the fire. I felt my existence was illegitimate because God forbid anything untoward happened to me, I would do everything in my power to sneak out of that fiery pit- even if that meant being enslaved to a monster like Khilji forever. I felt in that moment that it was wrong of me to choose life over death. It was wrong to have the desire to live. This Sir, is the power of cinema.

Your cinema particularly is inspiring, evocative and powerful. It can move audiences to emotional highs and lows. It can influence thinking and that, Sir, is why you must be responsible as to what it is you are doing and saying in your film.

It was with great difficulty that a group of reform-minded Indians, and the provincial British Colonial governments and Princely States in India abolished and criminalised Sati in a series of judgments between 1829 and 1861. In independent India, The Indian Sati Prevention Act (1988) further criminalised any type of aiding, abetting, and glorifying of Sati. Your act of thoughtlessly glorifying this misogynistic criminal practice is something you ought to answer for, Sir. As your ticket- buying audience, I have the right to ask you how and why you did this.

You must be aware that modern Indian history has recorded some more recent Jauhar - like acts. During India and Pakistan's bloody Partition some 75,000 women were raped, kidnapped, abducted, forcibly impregnated by men of the 'other' religion. There were numerous instances of voluntary and assisted suicides by women, in some cases husbands and fathers themselves beheaded their wives and daughters before men of the 'other' religion could touch them.

Bir Bahadur Singh, survivor of the riots in Thoa Khalsa in Punjab, described a scene of women jumping into the village well to commit suicide. In about half an hour, he recalled, the well was full. The women on top survived. His mother was a survivor. Singh, recalls author Urvashi Butalia in her 1998 book The Other Side Of Silence, was ashamed of his mother for living for the remainder of her life. This is among the darkest periods of Indian history and ought to be remembered with shame, horror, sadness, reflection, empathy, nuance; not with thoughtless sensational glorification. These sad tales of the Partition, too, are a less obvious context of your film Padmaavat.

Mr. Bhansali, I will end in peace; wishing that you make many more films the way you want to, and are allowed to shoot and release them in peace; that you, your actors, your producers, your studio and your audiences remain safe from threats and vandalism. I promise to fight trolls and television commentators for your freedom to express; but I also promise to ask you questions about the art you make for public consumption. Meanwhile, let's hope that no zealot member of any Karni Sena or some Marni Sena gets the idea to demand decriminalisation of the practice of Sati!

Sincerely,

Swara Bhasker
Desirous of Life

Swara Bhasker is an award winning actress in the Hindi film industry whose filmography includes the critically acclaimed Anaarkali Of Aarah (2017), the critical-commercial success Nil Battey Sannata (2016); superhit blockbuster films Prem Ratan Dhan Paayo (2015), Tanu Weds Manu Returns (2015), Raanjhanaa (2013) and Tanu Weds Manu (2011).

She is also an occasional writer and columnist and her short stories and articles have appeared in The Little Magazine, Seminar, The Himal Southasian, The Hindu and the Indian Express.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'At The End of Your Magnum Opus... I Felt Reduced to a Vagina - Only'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dear Mr. Bhansali, At the outset Sir, congratulations on finally being able to release your magnum opus 'Padmaavat' - minus the 'i', minus the gorgeous Deepika Padukone's uncovered slender waist, minus 70 shots you apparently had to cut out.. but heyyyy! You managed to have it released with everyone's heads still on their shoulders and noses still intact.

# data[].attributes.body
Academic Sources:

Banerjee, S., 2005. Make Me a Man!: Masculinity, Hinduism, and Nationalism in India, State University of New York Press.
Banerjee, S., 2018. Inventing a Muscular India: History, Masculinity, and Nation in Mangal Pandey: The Rising. In: Mulholland, J., et al. Gendering Nationalism, pp.49-66.
BBC, 2018. Padmaavat: India clashes as controversial film opens, BBC News, [no pagination].
Chatterjee, P., 2018. Women and nation revisited, South Asian History and Culture, 9(4), pp.380-387.
Desai, J., 2003. Bombay Boys and Girls: The Gender and Sexual Politics of Transnationality in the New Indian Cinema in English, South Asian Popular Culture, 1(1), pp.45-61.
Dhavan, R., 2018. Padmavati: How censorship is dragging India back to the middle ages, Daily Opinion, [no pagination].
Khatun, N., 2018. 'Love-Jihad' and Bollywood: Constructing Muslims as 'Other', Journal of Religion and Film, 22(3), pp.1-36.
Mubarki, M., 2018. Body, masculinity and the male hero in Hindi cinema, Social Semiotics, pp.1-29.
Qureshi, B., 2018. The War for Nostalgia: Sanjay Leela Bhansali's Padmaavat, 71(4), pp.46-51.
Rajadhyaksha, A., 2003. The Bollywoodization of the Indian Cinema, Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, 4(1), pp.25-38.
Shaheed Soherwordi, S., 2013. Hindu Nationalism and the Political role of Hindu Women: Ideology as a Factor, A Research Journal of South Asian Studies, 28(1), pp.39-54.

Multimedia Sources:

Bhasker, S., 2011. At The End of Your Magnum Opus... I Felt Reduced to a Vagina – Only, The Wire, [no pagination].

Filmy TV, 2018. Padmaavat JOHAR Scene. [online video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks9T9lpBuMk&t=12s [Accessed 5 February 2019].

NDTV, 2018. Padmaavat Violence Made Me Angry "Beyond Control": Ranveer Singh. [online video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yu3WdQ2A0cw [Accessed 5 February 2019].
Sharma, B., 2018. Padmavati Was Never A Role Model For These Rajput Women, And Now She's A Curse, Huffington Post India, [no pagination].

T-Series, 2018. Padmaavat: Binte Dil Video Song. [online video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aoUpCXY7uk [Accessed 5 February 2019].

Pictures:

Controversies picture:
https://www.peoplesreview.in/art-cinema/2018/01/riots-padmavat-shows-bjps-will-supreme-india/

All other pictures are screengrabs from the movie or the movie poster itself.

# data[].attributes.body
Alauddin Khilji is by far my favorite character in Padmaavat, and one of his main songs, “Binte Dil”, is particularly mesmerizing. The cinematography is truly beautiful, from the use of rotating mirrors to the obscured romantic encounter behind the translucent black curtain. I found Ranveer Singh’s portrayal wonderfully wicked.

When comparing “Binte Dil” to the “Holi” scene, one can see the stark differences. “Holi” uses bright colors and flowers in a cream colored room to depict the meaningful and lighthearted love between Ratan Singh and Padmavati. Their movements are fluid and tender, and at the beginning of the scene Ratan Singh swings in soft motions that contrast against Khilji’s nearly convulsive dancing. The couple is very chaste in this scene, unlike in “Binte Dil”, and its setting during a Hindu festival adds an additional layer of positive portrayal of Hinduism. This scene is bright, loving and wholesome, and “Binte Dil” is dark, sharp and sordid.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Padmaavat: Binte Dil Video Song | Arijit Singh | Ranveer Singh | Deepika Padukone | Shahid Kapoor