Padmavati: How this unseen film is dividing India

In the Friends of Voltaire, Evelyn Hall wrote the phrase: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." It's a saying that has been paraphrased and credited to people as diverse as Voltaire himself, Winston Churchill and George Bernard Shaw.
It is not just about freedom of speech. It is about freedom of all expression, the oxygen of the arts and the right of every human being to have a thought and share it, running the risk of being accepted or rejected.
Keeping this in mind, it is tough to find any redeeming feature in the current hostility towards the release of the film Padmavati in India.The Shri Rajput Karni Sena -  a hardcore Rajput group formed in 2006 - is behind the violence and the rage over a film they say distorts their history and places their 'queen' Padmini in a derogatory light.
The leader of this aggressive pack Lokendra Singh Kalvi, a bushy-browed man who has not yet seen the movie insists he is in the right to defend his turf.
In fact, none of those protesting the film, placing a bounty of $250,000 on star Deepika Padukone's nose and promising a greater spike in gratuitous violence have seen the film or even part of it.This basic fact is of no consideration in the mix and is a mere technicality making no difference to his belligerence.Reality does not come in the way of the crusade.
Consequently, the anger is an absurd pastiche of rumour, conjecture and self-propulsion, a chemistry that is today rife in India. With social platforms ruling the mind of 1.4 billion people and television shrilly invading privacy, the desire to grab the limelight, however sour, is overwhelming.As a result what was once drawing room chatter and social gossip of the 'psst, have you heard' genre has now become news material and the call for evidence made secondary.
Rebels without a cause, it is easy to enlist young people into these senas (armies) ostensibly to save Indian culture, protect the faith, guard the gates against the invasion of evil influences per se. So everything is fair game. How women dress, what you eat, what you say, your private life, these gangs have become predators. Who are they? Mostly disgruntled, unemployed youth and largely illiterate and poor but consumed by a need to be needed and ready to fight the good fight even if they do not know what it is for. A bit of destruction changes the monotony of their grey, drab lives of not so quiet despair. If no one else needs them at least religion and tradition does. Pick up the banner of piety and run amok with it.
Amour, Amour!
So, what is the beef actually and what has happened to a nation that once was secure enough to laugh at itself and enjoy a robust sense of earthy rural humour?
A rumour was spread that the Rajput Queen Padmini is depicted in this film as having a relationship with 14th century dynasty king Alauddin Khilji in northern India. The amour incensed puritan Rajputs. This rumour fuelled the initial gust of violence when the sets were damaged in Jaipur and the film-maker Sanjay Leela Bhansali was slapped and manhandled.
Titillating little whispers of dalliance, dance and the inevitable dream sequences by the queen kept the anger on the front burner and even the political firmament including the Opposition said nothing.
In the interim, armchair intellectual India came up with a fresh dimension saying there was no proof that Queen Padmini ever existed. That, of course, got the sena into another twist and Mr Kalvi promptly marketed himself as the 37th generation descendant of the royal personage, rhetorically shouting, "If she did not exist, what am I, a ghost?"
What can one say about a film no one has seen? The fury now is that Bhansali deliberately spread these insidious rumours about the provocative nature of the theme to generate controversy and milk the box office.
Any contention, that now that the misunderstandings have been cleared, let's just stop with the attacks, is being ignored.Two aspects stand out. One, that historical films in India are dangerous waters. Films like Jodha Akbar, Udta Punjab (dealt with the drug problem in that state) and Lipstick Under my Burkha have all invited protest born in semi-ignorance.
The other very relevant point refers to public censorship by vested interests and how it feeds intolerance. Today movies, tomorrow books and the next day, even thought.
A former Editor of Khaleej Times, Bikram loves to make people think hmmm, he has a point.
Excerpts from the interview with Lokendra Singh Kalvi, chief of the Karni Sena
Some historians have questioned whether Rani Padmini even existed?
What am I then? Am I a ghost? (Kalvi claims to be part of the 37th generation to have directly descended from Rani Padmini and Maharaja Rawal). I'm 6'4'', 118 kg. You can go to Haridwar and ask a pandit to give you the names of your ancestors from 50 generations before - it's all recorded there. Then how can anyone even question the existence of our family?
In the future, if Padmavati releases, what will you do?
If people want to watch the film, then you'll have to suffer and in your suffering, lies my pain, too.Is this a threat?God only knows. The film has gained a lot of publicity because of the Sena. The makers have saved Rs20-25 crores ($5 million) which they would have spent on promotions. Now, if I, being the founder of the Sena, do not inflict a loss of Rs100 crore ($20 million) then what kind of a founder am I? If the ministers are in favour and if the government is blocking the theaters, then what can we do (sic)?
You have to know that such kind of callous language and statements don't work in our country. Wouldn't you at least condemn that?
The question of condemning comes if we were not provoked in such a way. Now, if this Deepika Padukone will go out in public and make statements such as - Padmavati will release no matter what, by hook or by crook - then what else can be expected? That's probably because it is her film, her passion and something she's devoted a lot of time and effort to. She's taken her money. Now she should go home. The film may or may not release like it's being said now, but what is the need to provoke us in such a manner?
Have you seen the film?
I don't need to. Ranveer Singh told a journalist in January that even if one or two intimate scenes are shown with Deepika, it should be okay. Well, then I wouldn't call him a villain, I'd call him something worse. And no one has condemned it yet. No one has talked about the statement's interpretation.But the film's team is clarifying all these doubts now.
So why isn't the Karni Sena believing them?
The biggest thing is that the movie hasn't been passed by the CBFC yet. If you and I see the movie before the film has been passed by the Board, what's the guarantee that the movie you and I have seen will not change by 50, 60, 70 percent? Sanjay Leela Bhansali is known for this. It's in his character. He has betrayed people multiple times. What happened during Bajirao Mastani? All of Maharashtra was in havoc. That Bajirao didn't lose a single war in his life - what is this portrayal of him as a degenerate alcoholic who is losing?
- Interview courtesy Firstpost