Padmaavat: Fictional account of a Fiction

Disclaimer: This is a review of the Movie Padmaavat, which is a work of fiction, which is based on Jayasi’s Padmavat, which is also a work of fiction (or so they say).
Disclaimer: This review does not intend to glorify the practice of movie reviews.
Disclaimer: No sentiments were hurt while writing this, however, some may be hurt on reading this review.

Disclaimer (Rant Disguised as a Disclaimer): All those decrying Feminists view on this movie, please pause to think. Whose view would you rather take? Steve Bannon's?
When Malik Muhammed Jayasi wrote “Padmavat” in 1540, almost 200 years had elapsed since its central characters Allaudin Khilji and Ratnasimha (the character after which Rana Rawal Ratan Singh so stoically portrayed by Shahid Kapoor is based) lived and fought.
Padmaavat directed by Sanjay Leela Bhansali is based on the poem Padmavat written by Jayasi. Historians remain divided about the historical accuracy of this work, with mostly Rajasthani historians claiming that Rani Padmavati indeed existed, whereas many others argued that she was actually a work of fiction. However, the non-fictional or fictional nature of the characters is the topic of discussion for another day.
Sanjay Leela Bhansali's vision is larger than life indeed, and this is evident in the very first frame of the movie itself. The rich blue hues of the Singhal Kingdom where Padmavati played by Deepika Padukone hunts with such dexterity and grace and accidentally hurts Rawal Singh with her arrow (literally, and perhaps figuratively as well), sets the scene for the introduction of the characters. That this very brave, independent soul, will be on the path of self-immolation only three hours from now, is something, one can’t fathom.
As the pair falls in love, and Rana Rawal Ratan Singh manages to propose to our protagonist – and bring her to Chittor where she promptly transforms into a ghoonghat clad bride from a warrior princess.
Not to mention the little detail that our Rana is already married. But Rana Rawal Singh is God personified who can do no wrong – from the beatific smile on his face, to his Rajputana code of honour, to his luscious locks and the moustache on point.
His first wife, Rani Nagmati portrayed by Anupriya Goenka looks on with subdued anger as the procession makes its way into the fort. Of course, I would be pissed too, but that character arc is left essentially unexplored, apart from a few scenes where we see smidgens of anger and jealousy. I wish these strains had been explored a bit more, but then again that would detract from the main narrative.
The voyeuristic Raghav Chetan (the priest) played by Aayam Mehta, is the devil incarnate who when banished from Chittor, manages to ensnare our Khilji played devilishly by Ranveer Singh, with his poetic description of Rani Padmavati.
The rich tapestry of the cinematographer's vision – the rich red of the Ghoomar song or the sunburnt orange of the Rajasthani landscape, soon give away to the depiction of barbarism and debauchery in Khiljis Delhi – where he rapes his wife, kills his father-in-law and laughs maniacally, in no particular order.
Khilji soon attacks Chittor to catch a glimpse of this fabled Rani Padmavati, and what follows is a back and forth which seemed as pointless as the scene where Khilji douses a slave in itar and then rubs the slave all over him. We get it, Khilji = evil, and Rana Rawal Singh = God. Now, every movie needs a villain, and in this narrative that villain is Khilji, so everything is done to vilify him. With scenes alluding to his bisexuality – the slave Malik Kafur (delectably played by Jim Sarbh) singing a paean while Khilji cosies up to a lady in a camp outside Chittor to the large chunks of meat he devours with much anger, no doubt remains in the mind of the viewer as to the integrity of this character. To tell the truth, Ranveer Singh has managed to embody the director's vision for Khilji in a way only Ranveer can. He is believable, so believable, that you love his barbarism, his reality, and his madness. His presence engulfs the screen, amidst characters that seem lacklustre and unidimensional.
The movie trudges on in the second half, where one starts to wonder if Rana Rawal Singhs code of honour is possibly getting in the way of his intelligence. As Rana goes for the final battle, our Rani Padmavati seeks permission to perform Jauhar (self-immolation) in the event he does not make it back. As I said earlier, the transformation of this warrior princess to this subservient patriarchal minion seems incomplete and contrived.
The battle scene between Khilji and Rana is unimpressive, where Rana Rawal Ratan Singh is impaled by multiple arrows in his back. One would expect to feel sadness at the death of the main character such as his, but by this point, all one feels is relief, as the impending doom and the subsequent closure is around the corner. Finally, the end is nigh.
True to her promise, our Rani on learning of her beloveds death, goes on to give an impassioned speech to hundreds of women, that how even in victory Khilji will stand defeated since he will not be able to capture them and the sequitur that they will go to their deaths with honour.
Ceremonies are performed, a pyre is lit, and then in what entails a sordid scene that should not have lasted more than 1 minute, we are shown in slow motion the determination on Rani Padmavati's face as she inches towards the fire, her tresses billowing in the dry breeze.  No anger, no conflict, but a peaceful determination. Some may choose to call it brave, but really it is a glorification of an act that should remain relegated to the history books as a cautionary tale. Instead, we have Jauhar being depicted as a symbol of bravery, as we see Rani Padmavati and hundreds of women self-immolate themselves. And just before we see any flesh being burnt or witness the horror of humans burning alive, the screen goes dark, with an endnote and a voiceover that reminds us how women are revered for their bravery in committing Jauhar, to this day.
I’m not suggesting this be erased from our collective conscience, but rather that artists use platforms to tell better stories, and set better narratives. In a country like India, movies impact the masses and impact the social milieu. Projecting something grotesque as valour, when it stands for regressiveness in its purest form is not a creative expression that our society needs to extol. All art is political, so let us remember to make better art.

-->

A Short Tale of Tresses

Naked.

That’s how I feel without my hair. No, it’s not all gone, but most of it is. I now have what people In India call a “boy cut”, people in the west “a pixie”, and what some right-wing individuals in the subcontinent refer to as “JNU-Feminist-Lesbian” type haircut. No, I am not making this up.

In an age where freedom of choice is so ubiquitous (for the most part), its surprising that chopping off one’s hair – only for females though – is synonymous with a statement – either a feminist, lesbian, or a power statement. 

I have been so used to hiding behind my full hair, using it to hide a spot or a blemish, or just myself, tucking myself under it, for comfort, when the world gets rough or too much to handle. Not having this cover, this curtain of sorts, takes getting used to.

My fat cheeks have nowhere to go but face the world head on, my freckled nose, or my unkempt eyebrows, have no recourse.  They have to be there, all the time.  Then there’s my ears, which have lost their sheath of sorts, and stand at guard now, without the layer of hair.

I can’t hide my face when it confronts me in the mirror anymore. This is the reality, high time I lost the facade.

Minority Report

Painting by Kalyani Vani

According to the 2011 Indian census there are 623 million males and 586 million females in India. That offers a very messed up sex ratio of 940 females to 1000 males. As the story goes, the reason for this is mainly female feticide and infanticide. It’s sad that a girl starts experiencing discrimination before her birth in India. Yes, there are some other countries where is there is a pronounced preference for male child (mainly in Asia) but this account is focused on India in particular.
There are a large facets of life where women
in India face obstacles, the explicit instances being of course feticide, rape, bride burning, acid attacks, sexual harassment on the street – known as eve teasing or molestation, and dowry to name a few. However there are certain forms of conditioning that make women susceptible as well. Worse yet, many women themselves perpetuate such conditioning. The expectation that women should dress in a certain way to not attract attention from men, to keep the mens “libido” in check, since the onus of that lies on the woman doesn’t it? (Sarcasm alert!). To make sure she is obedient, servile to her parents and later to her husband – women who speak up are often dubbed as “out of control”, or “fast”. A married woman is expected to cook and clean, fast for the longevity of her husband, adopt her in-laws as her own parents, whilst not expecting her husband to do any of the above. If a woman is more educated than her husband she is constantly expected to manage his ego and expectations with tact. Having said all of this, women should be “cool” and “easy going” as well.. A woman who likes to have “fun” but also respect Indian traditions and religious mores. A woman who can get drunk in a bar but then be praying at the temple the next day as well. And if she is only at one end of the said spectrum? No that won’t fly. A woman who only likes drinking – nope she isn’t “homely” enough and a woman who only wants to visit temples? Nope, she isn’t fun enough. And needless to say, women try and fill up this expectation to the best of their ability without stopping to think about their individual wants and needs. I am not admonishing those who wish to do either, or both, only highlighting that perhaps thinking about what we want rather than doing what is expected and building our self-perception based on that should be avoided. First think then act, rather than the other way around.


We hear about the rights of the minorities, we debate about having an inclusive social policy, and a government that supports holistic development, not favouring any religious groups. While the number of men and women in India is different by 35 million (men in excess of women, 2011 Census), definitely considering the limited freedom and human rights enjoyed by women, they should be considered a minority group. Let us use a simple example to prove this. The various social ills that exist in the society that work to making the overall position of women in the society worse are roughly as follows:


Female Feticide
Eve teasing
Bride Burning
Dowry
Rape
Glass Ceiling
Unequal Pay for Equal Work
Conditioning/Social Expectation



This list is in no way exhaustive and can be expanded easily. However for the sake of argument, I will assume these 7 issues deprive women of freedom, human rights and reduce their overall social, political and economic well-being in the society. If I assume that each of these 7 issues reduces the equality of women to men in the society by 5% each:

So we have

7 x 5 % = 0.35;

If the number of women is X then (X – 0.35 X) would give us the net equivalent number of women factoring in the rights and freedom available.

So we have;

The number of actual women in India = 586 mn – 586 mn x 0.35 = 331 mn.


These assumptions and calculations basically are a simplified way of demonstrating that the social norms in a society can reduce the women population to half – for example, if there is no safety for women or rampant sexual harassment you will see less women in workforce which will translate to fewer women in social, economic and political domains. The idea is not to say that a woman is reduced in half, but rather her voice is curtailed due to the lack representation in various spheres, subjugation, conditioning and other patriarchal motives.

While the world average pay gap is 24% and Indian figure is similar (The Progress of the World’s Women 2015-2016 report, and http://www.movehub.com/blog/global-gender-pay-gap-map), what is important is the narrative that prevents women from joining the work force ( 27% workforce pariticpation in 2012, UN gender Statistics and http://qz.com/238484/indias-record-in-womens-participation-in-the-workforce-is-depressing/)

To begin with, girls are always indoctrinated in being able to do housework, be nurturing, and are socialised into adopting the role of a caregiver and nurturer by virtue of being married eventually. Yes, studies and professional education is encouraged, but it is usually done to substantiate the womans credentials for attracting a potentially well-educated and economically endowed groom, or not at all (whereby you see family's dwindling interest in their daughters career paths). It is expected and acceptable for women to sacrifice her job, and pay, if the need may arise, to relocate near her husband. Now someon emay add that if she were to do this willingly, making a choice, and not out of coercion, can we still make the same argument? Yes, we can. The process of conditioning works like magic here. How is one to know what is right/wrong if the lens used to evaluate that right/wrong is broken? Another way to put it, if you are not endowed with skills to evaluate a certain issue because said issue is always a given – a constant, how would you know what is the converse of the issue at hand? If all I see when growing up are women cooking, cleaning, quitting their jobs to stay at home, being subservient, how am I to have any other metric for evaluating or doing otherwise even?

Let me perhaps conclude, if it is possible to bring such a discussion to a conclusion or a fruition – by saying that it is time for women to speak up. It has been too long that the identity of a woman, and her narratives as an individual have been secondary,secondary to her role as a daughter, wife, mother. But it time now for women to first understand and accept themselves as more than just people fulfilling a socially constructed concept (that of gender norms and expectations). .

It is time for the voices of women to be heard, for a new discourse laden with inquisitiveness and independence, and not just with words that have been heard before.

The Truth Will Set You Free

July 2003: My first day of college at Delhi University. The first day I sat in a private bus. The first day I faced blatant molestation. The first day I encountered real fear.

I sat in the private bus going towards Badarpur border; several passengers boarded the bus, which was scheduled to start in a few minutes. A man sitting in front of me turned around in his seat, and continued to stare at me. I shifted uncomfortably in my seat and looked away. The man on the seat next to me stared at my ankles. I wore jeans that left my ankle exposed to such salacious scrutiny.

I looked back in the front, and the man continued to stare. He took out his tongue and licked his lips. I mustered all the courage I could in my 17-year-old self, and shouted “Bhaiyya, aage dekhiye.” Brother, look in the front. The man smirked, yet thankfully turned around. I bowed my head, praying to become invisible as the whole bus stared at me.

August 2008: I wake up from deep slumber on my window seat in a flight from Delhi to Guangzhou. I feel something near my back. As I move to figure out what it is, the man next to me jumps, and moves his hand. Turns out the foreign object I felt near my back, on the very small portion of skin that becomes exposed when you wear jeans and a tee-shirt and sit on a chair, yes that little sliver of skin, was the hand of this man who sat next to me. I was rendered speechless. I couldn’t believe that the man had touched me while I was sleeping. I didn’t confront him for I did not want to be in the same cylindrical airtight tube for five hours with a man who had felt comfortable enough to slip his hand on to my back, post an argument. I quietly retreated to the back of the empty plane, and wrote a furious article about how violated and angry I felt. The minute I got off the plane I called my friends back home and told them this sordid tale.

Why am I telling you this? For I have a feeling that you may not like what I am about to write next. And I need to establish my ability to empathize before I commence.

I am writing this because I think I owe it to everyone to put it out there. The recent CNN iReport by a University of Chicago student about her nightmarish stay in India became one of the most read iReports on CNN (it presently has 1,154,294 views). It highlighted once again how India continues to be the epitome of hell for women. Of course this struck a chord with many of us. Myself included. I am an Indian woman. I have been molested often number of times to know what it feels like to be violated.  I have had long passionate discussions with friends, and written scathing articles about the sexist, patriarchal, and repressed ways of the Indian society that promote this behavior of men, leaving women as a prey to their advances.

So no wonder when this undergraduate American girl wrote her story, the world was furious, India was furious, and yes, I was furious for the pain this girl had suffered. The fear that she had encountered could be felt by every Indian woman who might have ever ventured out on a dark street alone at night or driven home from work after dinner.  So appalled was I, that I wanted to read more about this woman who had suffered. I read whatever article I could find, saw whatever news item I could lay my hands on. Until I stumbled upon her YouTube channel.  She had many video logs about her stay in India, and of course intrigued as I was, I started to devour them one after another.

In one particular portion of her iReport on CNN she writes “Do I tell them about our first night in the city of Pune, when we danced in the Ganesha festival, and leave it at that? Or do I go on and tell them how the festival actually stopped when the American women started dancing, so that we looked around to see a circle of men filming our every move?”

So of course when I saw a video named  “First Day in Pune (or How to get kidnapped by a festival)” I thought it would shed more light about the horrifying nightmare she experienced. Now I wish I had written this earlier, because the said videos have been taken down, but in this specific video she talked about how she and her friends had danced in Pune on Ganesh Chathurthi and how everyone had stared at her and that had made her feel like a celebrity.

Nowhere in the video does she talk about feeling violated or uncomfortable at the stares or filming she alleged in her blog as unnerving. On the contrary she was excited, and smiling in the video. I am not sure that is how one expresses feelings of fear or anger. I know what it is like to be stared at, and as most women would agree with me, my reaction would be of anger or fear, not the ego boost that comes from feeling like a celebrity. These may sound like big words coming from someone who doesn’t have any evidence. Particularly since Michaela Cross’s YouTube channel doesn’t have these videos anymore (which makes me even more suspicious). But what possible reason could I have for bringing this out in the open but If not to tell the world what I did see, and what I did think after seeing the videos. I am not entirely sure or confident that I want to conjecture any duplicitous motivations on the part of RoseChasm, but yes I am very curious as to the discrepancy between the two accounts. One that was reported right after the alleged event (Ganesh Chathurthi) and one that came to us in the form of the CNN iReport almost a year later.

I did see other videos by her as well. Some of them have her talking about the sari she is wearing, and how she intends to use it as a tablecloth, the abysmal Internet service in India, and other jovial, rhetorical encounters of her stay in India. None of those videos present a picture of a woman living in fear, a woman who is being sexually assaulted or harassed on a daily basis

I am not ordained to justify that a persons experience is less or more painful than what it should be. For how can we ever compare pain experienced by two different people? Neither am I insinuating that India is a safe haven for women, and sexual harassment is not rampant. However, when there are some inconsistencies between what you see and infer and what is told to you, my integrity shouts at me to reconcile that information. So this is my attempt at reconciliation. All I want to know is, are we getting ahead of ourselves in this hoopla of declarations, chastising Indias abysmal safety record (which is valid) based on an account that to me at this moment, seems shaky at best?

Perhaps she did not want to share this trauma at the time, perhaps the videos don’t broach this issue for another reason altogether. Before we jump to any conclusions or make allegations, I want to know why those videos were removed.

This is a question you might not want to hear, but this is an answer I need.

Here is the link to the Youtube video which I had posted on my Facebook Timeline on August 25, which has now for reasons unbeknownst to me, been removed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPu2GmF4Y44