By Ananya S Guha
The recent ongoing controversy on the film ” Padmavati” is an eye opener once again on the current discourses prevailing on historical tensions in the country. Here, it is perhaps not so much a question of reworking history, but a parallel narrative on historical facts. The issue here is that the film has touched sentiments and angered the Rajputs. Now the question is to what extent can fact and fiction work at tandem in cinema, or in a work of art? Or is it only strict adherence to history, in so called historical films? Secondly the controversy started raging even before the film was released. It was apparently shown privately to some groups, something which the Film Censorship Board objected to, stating that the papers on the film were incomplete.
Now, what is a historical fact and what is fiction? The crux of the protest is the objection to Padmini and Allaudin Khilji’s relationship, apparently depicted in the film, which makes the committing of Jauhar meaningless. Hence the protesters say that this is distortion of a historical truth. However the actor Deepika Padukone maintains that no such relationship is shown.
Hurting sentiments can be accepted. But can death threats, putting a price on the head of the director and actor be tolerated? Is this not a sign of primeval brutishness, in a contemporary, modern society? And most of us including politicians are silent. Fixing overhead prices like auctioning using actually the word ” head” or ” price” is shamelessly atavistic and brazenly hateful. Yes, to correct history we are rewriting the past, because this was the custom in medieval or ancient times. Although some actors have protested strongly, hardly any mention has been made in the ongoing Goa Film Festival, of such bizarre threats. And one of them has been made by a sitting Member of a Legislative Assembly.
The entire point is that at this juncture, how many have seen the film? Interpretive analysis is fine, but can we be come to conclusions prior to viewing the film? Can we comment on a book without reading it? Again is the theory that is now floated, that politics and coming elections in some states of the country are the genesis for this? This is a possibility, because politicians are digging noses into everything from history to culture. But what is evident is that once again an issue has taken place because of a Hindu- Muslim entanglement. And that is what some people want; that the sparks must continue, the atmosphere vitiated so that we are not free from the clutches of hatred, vitriol and perverse animosity.
To make this discussion a little more academic: what is history, or what is a historical fact? A historical fact is something which changes course of events, ushers in the new, a cataclysmic battle or downfall of a powerful or turbulent empire, the founding of a kingdom, the invasion of territory or country. Padmini’s committing Jauhar may or may not be of historical inclusion. It may have been a fact, but the point of the matter is whether it is historically inclusive, as portent for turn of events. Was the lust of a King for a Queen a part of history, or was it a privately induced happening? What exactly goes down in the annals of history? So when an episode of ‘ love’ is exclusively taken into a making of a film, is it a historical movie, like say a movie on the building of Rome, or on a Caesar? Distorting facts may not be distorting history. History is a configuration of forces, changing destiny, bringing or introducing new eras, it is culture, literature and architecture. Did Khilji’s falling in love with the Queen determine the forces of history? The praxis of history is change, laws of determinants taking further course into the future- it is futuristic. It is past as well, because of moments, past, present and future. If we make an episode exclusive without neatly weaving it into a fabric of a whole, we have only fragmented versions of history; historical views bludgeoned only with sentiments to nurse or assuage.
So, once again when we are enmeshed in fragile history, religion and clannish sentiments, we gruel history with the most difficult question- what is it? The politics part of this furious debate cannot be ruled out. Rajputs are major stakeholders in the polity of many states apart also from Rajasthan. But what rankles are two things: murderous assault, dire threats and the movie not yet being released. Rumours may have a basis, but they also can be specious. What is tragic is the verbal attack on some, the physical attack on the producer of the film and the overall hate tirades. Amicable discussions across the table are certainly a thing of the past. But that, obviously is Not History.