Those sitting in Delhi need to understand that Diya Kumari’s Opposition to Padmavati Is Not Parochial
- In Current Affairs
- 12:00 PM, Nov 20, 2017
- Avin Chhangani
Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s upcoming movie, ‘Padmavati’, has attracted much ire for its ostensible distortion of history, and trying to normalize even a well-documented barbarian like Alauddin Khilji. In attempting to do so, Bhansali has demonstrated scant respect for not just the legacy of the brave men who fought valiantly against Khilji and his horde, but also historical accuracy. The manner in which the character of Khilji is being projected (in promos and photoshoots) and efforts are made to make him appear as ‘cool’ would suffice to infer that the underlying aim behind the making of this movie is quite dubious, to put it mildly. In fact, even the CBFC chief, who is widely respected in Bollywood circles, has subtly impugned Bhansali’s motives, in light of the intriguing private screenings arranged by him for media outlets. Understandably, all of this has attracted much ire from the Hindu community.
In this backdrop, Mrs. Diya Kumari – a BJP MLA from Rajasthan and a member of the illustrious Jaipur royal family – has also expressed her opposition to the movie. She has stated – in no uncertain terms - that a movie of this nature, which ostensibly rides roughshod over historical accuracy, is morally unacceptable. In this piece, I will endeavor to highlight the true import of her opposition, and significance thereof, in the context of the broader battle against leftist distortion of our history.
From a careful reading of Mrs. Kumari’s statements to the press, it emerges that her primary objection to the movie is twofold: a) Its obnoxious portrayal of Khilji as an innocuous romantic, and b) not highlighting the courage deeply embedded in the brave act of jauhar, in which Rani Padmavati was joined by thousands of women. In this piece, I will advert to both those objections, to establish that there is immense merit in her opposition to the movie.
To begin with, it needs to be acknowledged that Mrs. Kumari has not couched her central argument – against the movie – in terms of caste pride. Au contraire, she has invoked women’s pride to drive home the undesirability of such blatant distortion of history. She needs to be applauded for adopting this approach, because Rani Padmavati is nothing short of a feminist icon, as far as the women of Rajasthan – across the caste spectrum – are concerned.
Those trained in quintessential feminist theory may struggle to digest it, but Padmavati is deeply revered by Rajasthani women for committing jauhar, the ultimate act of sacrifice. She was an iconic figure who did not hesitate one bit to make the right – and courageous – choice when barbarians were at the gate. Her decision to opt for jauhar, along with thousands of women, also ended up liberating their husbands; who were able to fight with everything they had, once their wives had decided to end their lives. The jauhar-kund, in which the brave women of Chittor jumped and laid down their lives, still exists in the Chittor fort, and serves as a testimony to their indomitable spirit.
Now, ideally, this incredibly courageous step by the great Rani would not warrant much elaboration, but, a society in which radical leftist ideology has gained dominance is anything but ideal. Consider this: a mainstream leftist site did not shy away from peddling the nonsense that glorifying jauhar demeans the women who committed it. Then, there is this stand-up comedian – who, like most modern day comedians, suffers from delusions of grandeur – opining that Padmavati, who made the brave choice of her own volition, was “conditioned” to believe that committing suicide – as an act of last resort – was the right thing to do.
As if this didn’t suffice, there is this “intellectual” who displays colossal indifference towards the plight of women who have been victims of gang rape, and opines that a woman’s decision to avoid that trauma – which men like him cannot even fathom – tantamounts to supporting patriarchy! In other words, modern-day Indian leftists believe that Padmavati would have better off had she been captured by Khilji, and, by extension, been subjected to horrible atrocities! It goes without saying that the consequences of the said atrocities would not have been limited to physical abuse alone, but would have taken an enormous mental toll on her (or anyone else, for that matter). It also bears noting that while opining this, leftists fail to address the aspect that the decision to commit jauhar was not foisted on her by her husband. It was a conscious decision that she herself made, which demonstrated the content of her character. Therefore, while Padmavati’s glorification may be puzzling to leftists, the average woman derives a ton of inspiration from the path on which Padmavati treaded.
Thus, it hardly comes as a surprise that the bubble dwellers who can’t see the jauhar committed by Padmavati for what it actually was, are getting uncomfortable with the forceful intervention made by Mrs. Kumari. While commentators sitting in Lutyens Delhi might not concur, the fact is that it is incumbent on politicians to articulate the legitimate concerns of their constituents. Politicians are not put into positions of power so that they can dine with and appease the power brokers of Lutyens Delhi. Any politician who cannot summon the courage to act as the voice of his/her voters would be failing in their duty. In light of this, it is heartening to see Mrs. Kumari not get rattled by the usual suspects, operating out of Lutyens Delhi.
She was one of the first public figures to come out and strongly oppose the movie, and for this, she has earned tremendous goodwill in Rajasthan. It bears noting that she was resilient even in the face of cheap slander/libel and a concerted effort to smear her. If her detractors felt that would be able to bully her, it is clear that they failed to do their homework; for, she is a woman who has an extensive history of championing the cause of women. For the uninitiated, well before she entered into electoral politics, she had been working for the betterment of women, through PDKF, i.e., Princess Diya Kumari Foundation. Through the said foundation, she has been working towards empowering – in the true sense of the term – women, by imparting valuable skill sets to them, which they can put to use in the real world.
Under her leadership, the terrific work done by the foundation has been well-documented, and will withstand the toughest standards of scrutiny. It is imperative to highlight her history and work in the realm of women’s empowerment, considering the fact that her critics have questioned her credentials. Even as the brand ambassador (in Rajasthan) for the ‘Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao’ campaign, she has spread a lot of awareness. In fact, even as an MLA – from Sawai Madhopur – she has made a lot of strides in regard to the cause of women’s empowerment, and consequently, earned a lot of goodwill in her constituency, especially from the female voters. In this backdrop, her opposition to Padmavati is a logical extension of her long crusade for women’s empowerment and protecting the dignity/honor of women. She has always been outspoken about her passion to advance the cause of women, and as she has established by standing up for the legacy of Padmavati, she is always willing to back up her words with tangible action.
In two respects, particularly, her intervention has been heartening: a) Using the descriptor ‘barbarian’ for Khilji, and b) Highlighting the innate heroism of jauhar. Before she stepped into the scene, not many public figures – of some standing – were willing to come across as politically incorrect by using the opposite adjectives for Khilji. (That labeling Khilji as barbarian could possibly be construed as politically incorrect is itself something that points to a sad state of affairs!) Thus, when she made her first intervention, and used the accurate descriptor of ‘barbarian’ for Khilji, it gave substantial comfort to right-thinking Indians; in that, someone was finally willing to stand up and explain/articulate history in accurate terms.
Secondly, the common theme that emerges in the various interviews she has given, is her portrayal of jauhar as a courageous move. By doing this, she ruffled up leftists’ feathers, but struck a chord with the (silent) majority of women. In light of the aforementioned attempts of leftists at divorcing jauhar from its contemporary context, it was extremely important that someone stood up and expose the bunkum peddled by them. While filmmakers are entitled to cherry-pick things they want to highlight, the fact that there has been so little talk - from the makers of the movie - regarding the heroism ingrained in the act of jauhar definitely qualifies as a cause for concern.
To establish that the issue concerns the Hindu community at large, it needs to be recalled that some time back, when an adventurous employee of the Rajasthan government, who was managing the Twitter handle of Rajasthan tourism, had tried to paint Khilji as a harmless romantic, Hindus – across the caste spectrum – got (justifiably) enraged, and consequently, the tweet itself had to be deleted. For far too long, Hindus have committed the fatal mistake of inhabiting caste silos even when they are battling religious bigots, who are determined to bend Hindus to their will. Therefore, it is somewhat of a silver lining that large sections of the Hindu community have understood the importance of not adopting a parochial attitude, as far as distortion of history is concerned.
Finally, in what would have definitely sent the intended message to Lutyens liberals and Bollywood filmmakers, she opined that while dismissing the concerns of the average Rajasthani may be easy for those sitting in Delhi and Mumbai, it is not desirable. It may be a cliché, but when your audience (Lutyens liberals and Bollywood filmmakers) is practically deaf, you need to repeat such points ad nauseam. Academia has always been the stronghold of leftists, and they have frequently used that arena to peddle their fiction, masquerading as history. However, when even pop culture – which is consumed by millions of impressionable minds – starts parroting their motivated lies, it becomes imperative to stand firm, and hope that it would have some sort of deterrent effect. Thus, seeing Mrs. Kumari step in and advance thoughtful arguments is quite refreshing.
The reason I felt compelled to write this piece is because the English-language media has made a disingenuous – and concerted - effort to paint her as a parochial caste leader. NDTV and their ilk were glad to put all sorts of label on her, without showing the same generosity to Congress leaders, who belong to the same caste and have made broadly similar points. It does not take rocket science to fathom why they never showed the same intensity when it comes to, say, Jyotiraditya Scindia. Why then, it is worth asking, was she singularly targeted and made to look like a feudal spoilt brat? The answer is pretty clear: she is a rising political star, as anyone who has spent a fair amount of time in Jaipur/Sawai Madhopur would testify.
The liberal ecosystem is well aware of her potential, and thus, it was understandable that they made a colossal effort to mislead impressionable minds. What else would explain their mischievous attack on her for using the term ‘Princess’, without delving deep into the truly terrific work that she – and her family – has been doing in Jaipur for decades. Apart from the great work being done by her foundation - which has been alluded to hereinabove - her family opened the first girls’ school (Maharani Gayatri Devi Girls’ school) in Jaipur, an institution of excellence, which has stood the test of time. If she really had a feudal mindset, as TV anchors operating out of Delhi would have us believe, her credibility among the people of Sawai Madhopur – her constituency – would not have been so high. Therefore, it would not be wrong to conclude that the ad hominem attacks on Mrs. Kumari are a deliberate ploy to divert attention away from the innate strength of the points made by her, and her solid track record in the realm of women’s empowerment. It must be borne in mind that she consistently maintained that Padmavati is an icon for all Rajasthani women, and this needs to be treated as a women’s issue. Now, since liberals would have us believe that they are the greatest champions of women’s empowerment, they have gotten demonstrably uncomfortable after seeing her shaping the narrative in terms of women’s empowerment.
Therefore, it would be quite unfortunate if the import and significance of her intervention in the current discourse is lost even on those whose political orientation is right-wing. To my mind, there are few things more honorable than standing up for a female icon like Padmavati and exposing Khilji as the barbarian and religious bigot that he was. The average Rajasthani/Indian does not seek liberals’ stamp of approval, when it comes to Padmavati’s legacy. Padmavati’s place in the pantheon of historical legends will always be intact, for she did not allow Khilji to devour her soul.
Post script: Being a libertarian, I am a free speech absolutist, but I have long held the view that selective invocation of the right to free speech causes as much damage to its cause as frenzied mobs who do not think much of the said right. I also detest violence, in any way, shape or form. Thus, I sincerely believe that those threatening violence are doing the greatest disservice to the cause they claim to fight for. However, while we should condemn miscreants and allow law to take its own course, we cannot let liberals hijack the discourse by making this the main talking point.
Comments