Why is freedom of artistic expression always at the expense of Hindu sensibilities

After Bajirao Mastani, director Sanjay Leela Bhansali is making another period drama film, Padmavati, this time about Rani Padmini, the queen of Chittorgarh, and Alauddin Khilji, the ruler of Delhi. According to media reports, the film will feature a love story between Padmini and Khilji.            

On Friday afternoon, members of the Rajput Karni Sena assaulted Sanjay Leela Bhansali. The attack occurred on the sets of Bhansali’s period drama Padmavati in Jaipur’s Jaigarh Fort. Scores of Rajput Karni Sena protestors breached the private security of the set before proceeding to assault the director and vandalise the film’s set. As usual the entire Bollywood fraternity, Several “liberal” columnists have expressed anguish at this Their defence of the film-maker and demonization of the protestors involves the following ‘liberal’ arguments such as;

1. Cinema is a form of creative expression and artistic license permits historical reinterpretation, even if devoid of historical merit.

2. What about freedom of expression? If you don’t like the movie, do not watch it, or just make your own movie on the subject.

Here lies the hypocrisy and double standards of  Bollywood  and  the liberals, see how Shabana Azmi exposes herself , here she strongly defends SLB and calls the mobs as goonda etc. I agree with her here. But she immediately changes her defence and stand when it comes to AR Rehman; He was supposed to compose the music for the movie "Muhammad: The Messenger of God" and then a fatwa was issued post which he had to succumb to this pressure and give in. In this case the goondaism and open threat to  AR Rehman  from these Mullhas is completely fine because “that is inflammatory and would hurt sentiments of Muslim community”.

The analysis of each of these positions reveals the problematic nature of contemporary Indian “secular-liberal” discourse, its bias, duplicity, mendacity and lack of sensitivity, while exploring Hindu culture, history and traditions. Every Islamic tyrant, fanatic and mass murderer from Khilji to Tipu to Aurangzeb is being glorified under d label of 'artistic rebelling' but my question here is, Why is freedom of artistic expression always at the expense of Hindu sensibilities? If SLB or any other director in Bollywood makes anti-Muslim films he would have been dead by now and not just thrashed.

The history about Padmini is far more complex than the rude and vulgar “secular” fictionalization of a legendary figure whose sacred memory is alive in the hearts and minds of millions of Hindus. In the land of Chittor, century old temples and shrines dedicated to the memory of the legendary princess continue to be active sites of devotion. Therefore, there is clearly an element of traditional religiosity in the Padmavati saga, which has over time acquired a graceful sanctity.  Any attempt, to apparently violate the sacred memory of Padmavati built through centuries of cultural memory and oral tradition through a reckless act of commercial Bollywood cinema could be interpreted as an act of perversion, at least by those who believe and identify with her.

The same “secularists” who demand historical evidence enthusiastically while considering respect for tradition fulminate against the idea of historical evidence documenting large scale pogroms, genocides, forced conversions and temple destructions during the medieval age by Islamist invaders.

Nevertheless, purely from a historical perspective, it is true that there is no contemporary account, which corroborates the legend of Padmini, the beautiful Rajput princess who along with thousands of other women defied the will of the Muslim ruler, Alauddin Khilji through the act of Jauhar (mass immolation) and frustrated his designs of possessing her. This significant omission was observed by the preeminent historian of medieval India.

Anyway this is an opportune time to re-visit our history and set the perspective right about our history and rich heritage. Let me walk you through the history of  Khilji.

Alauddin Khilji the Sultan ascended the throne by murdering the emperor Jalauddin Khilji. His expeditions against Hindu kingdoms resulted in at least three instances of Jauhar or mass immolation by thousands of Hindu women in order to protect their honour both in life and death. At Chittor, Amir Khusrau found the emperor to ‘have cut the Hindus like dry grass’ by ordering a general massacre of the population, a feat, which was replicated by the great Mughal emperor Akbar almost two centuries later.  During his tyrannical rule, Alauddin was barbaric as other Muglas was also very ambitious. He expanded his kingdom across India and during this expansion he attacked on Chittor in 1303 CE to capture the queen of Chittor, Rani Padmini, the wife of Rawal Ratan Singh and the subsequent story have been immortalized in the epic poem Padmavat, written by Malik Muhammad Jayasi

Jayasi wrote this poem almost 237 years after Khilji's attack on Chittor. The literature of that era is full of highly imaginative narratives, and poets were known to gleefully use metaphors, alliterations and imaginary personifications. There is also a reference in Padmavat to a sorcerer called Raghav Chetan, who is believed to have been personified as a parrot.

According to Jayasi’s poem Rani Padmavati of Chittor was the wife of Raja Ratansen (a name invented by Jayasi with no reference in Mewar history) of Chittor during the reign of Allauddin Khilji. The correct name of Chittor's then ruler was Rawal Ratan Singh, the thirty-fourth descendant of Bappa Rawal.

What Jayasi’s poem says.

There were many talented artists in the court of Ratansen, one of whom was a musician named Raghava Chetan. He was a sorcerer who used his magical powers to target rivals. Once, he was caught red-handed while trying to invoke evil spirits, after which Ratansen banished Raghava from the kingdom after blackening his face. Raghava ran away to Delhi and decided to take revenge by provoking Khilji to attack Chittor.

Raghava knew of a forest near Delhi where Khilji went hunting. One day, he played his flute while Khilji was out hunting. The alluring notes emanating from his flute attracted the attention of Khilji, who then asked his soldiers to fetch the flute player. Thus, Raghava was taken to Khilji's court.

After reaching Delhi, Raghava told Khilji about the unparalleled beauty of Rani Padmini. That prompted Khilji to attack Chittor, ( quite a lust full character ) but he found the fort to be heavily defended. So he laid siege to the fort and forced Ratansen to negotiate with him.

Desperate to capture the beautiful Padmini, Khilji sent a word to Ratansen about him wanting to meet her. The Raja asked Padmini, who flatly refused. However, on being persuaded by her beleaguered husband, Rani Padmini agreed to let Khilji see her in the mirror.

The sex maniac that he was could not control his lust and cunningly went ahead and ordered his army to storm Chittorgarh. However, the army could not break into the fort. Due to a prolonged siege, food supplies for the troops were running out. So Ratansen opened the fort gates, and Rajputs rode out to fight. They were overpowered, and achieved martyrdom. Rani Padmini and wives of thousands of warriors preferred jauhar (fire is lit, and women jump into the flames) over losing their honour to Khilji's army. When Khilji entered the fort, all that he found were ashes of these brave women.

Credits: India Facts.com, Swarajya Magazine,Wikipedia.