The furore over Padmavati has ended for now. Controversy raged for a few weeks over the Viacom 18 Motion Pictures’ production which was to be released on December 1. The release is said to have been deferred voluntarily. The studio would soon announce the next release date. It claims that it has the highest regard for the law of the land and the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). As a law abiding corporate citizen, it is committed to follow the established procedure and convention. CBFC chief Prasoon Joshi slammed the filmmakers for trying to release the film before getting a certificate from the CBFC. It is difficult to understand how Bhansali could think of releasing the film without a certificate under the present system. The decision of the producers could not in any case be otherwise. What is a pity is that a film which was not expected to make international rounds aroused such a loud protest from Rajasthan to South India. The Supreme Court ruled that artistic freedom should not be curtailed by Puritanism. But every specific case should be judged on its own merit.
What is wrong is not that the film deviated from historical accuracy for requirements of cinema which can be justified. It seems objectionable that the film produced a hodgepodge of historical and non-historical material for no reason at all. Director Bhansali said that the conception of Padmavati was inspired by a Sufi poet and reference was also made to Amrapali, a film on the Buddhist period. Why then was Padmavati portrayed as Padmini, the Rani of Mewar whose self-immolation for the kingdom is a historic legend? Why was the name Padmavati chosen and not Padmini as she was always in the history books. At the same time Alauddin Khilji was thrown in unnecessarily with his real name. The Muslim community in India is not likely to like it much. Departure from reality cannot be buried in a Wellsian time-machine.