The freedom of speech and expression has died a slow death with the makers of the film, Padmavati , deferring its launch (“Padmavati to miss Dec.1 release date amid furore”, November 20). In this season of elections, the stand taken by some politicians is what has aggravated the situation. Had the protesters been concerned about the “tampering of history” or alleged tasteless depiction of the legendary queen, they could have sought legal remedy. Instead, by issuing threats and placing rewards to cause bodily harm to the actors cast in the film, they have taken the first step towards the Talibanisation of our society. The government must not give in to these pressure groups. It should provide the necessary security to the actors and the theatres concerned, and deal with those threatening to unleash violence with patience and reasoning. Democracy cannot be held to ransom in order to ensure political and electoral gains.
Nishant Choudhary,
Ajmer, Rajasthan
It is quite baffling to see extremely dramatic forms of protest, vandalism and speculation over scenes in a still-to-be released film. The film-makers have already clarified that there are no scenes between the characters of Rani Padmini and Allauddin Khilji, yet members of certain organisations and other allied wings have resorted to threats and demands that are unlawful and ridiculous. They have changed their initial stance of having an issue with “potentially objectionable scenes” to now having an issue with the entire film itself. It is important to note that when a television series on Rani Padmini ran successfully on private channel there was not even an iota of protest from any quarter. If those championing Rajput pride showed the same zeal in protesting against female foeticide, low female-literacy rates (Rajasthan ranks low), and honour killings, which are still rampant in Rajasthan, the State would have progressed by leaps and bounds.
Hiranmayi Narayanan,
Thiruvananthapuram
The row around Padmavati is also representative of a lack of integrity on several fronts,, the first being the presents a sheear loss of integrities on multiple fronts, making this issue an embodiment of hypocrisies. There are many examples. TheFirst. the issue of women’s dignity. The attack on one woman, the actor who Attacking the dignity of a woman versus so-called saving the dignity of another woman. The disgraceful attacks by the Karni Sena on the actor playing the character of Rani Padmini must be contrasted with the defence being mounted in the name of womExample, spewing disgraceful venom on Deepika Padukone ,by Karni Sena in name of ( so called)upholding the dignity of the queen. Rani Padmini. The second is about the the case of stance of politicians and those in the Rajasthan government. even government elements ( Rajasthan C.M.). There have been no efforts to uphold the Cherishing freedom of speech and expression. Instead, there has only been no response to calls to silence to (Article 19 of Constitution, as everybody owes allegiance to Constitution) versus seek a ban on the film. Obviously, the pursuit of votes is more important. nasking for a ban on Padmavati for petty vote banks. The third issue is about the integrity of the film-maker. Integrity of Bhansali. His “promise” to screen the film for ovie to representatives of the Karni Sena earlier this year must be seen against his as against his refusal now to versus his refusal to do so. now. Though it is his prerogative to decide what he wants to fo, why did he make this what he liberty to choose what he wants to do, why did he make this promise earlier?act in his own way, but then why he made a false promise? This has only stoked the issue further. further added fuel to the this whole row. Finally, there is the subject of the The fourth is about the real intentions of the Karni Sena —. Issue of masking their emotions in an attempt to try and become a versus a desire to become a strong political force.
Example even after many assurances about no offensive scenes in the film, reckless protests continue.
Jashan Kang,
Chandigarh
Even epics such as the Ramayana and Mahabharata have different versions in different parts of the country. Tipu Sultan is hailed as a hero by some sections and criticised by some others as being anti-Hindu and anti-India. Perceptions about history vary from person to person depending on how he views the piece of history offered to him, which has many versions. The hi-tech younger generation of today hardly evinces any interest in history. Pictures of historical importance such as Padmavati could rekindle an interest in them in exploring the country’s glorious past. It is difficult to avoid some distortions in any film based on history. It is a pity that hardcore elements are now being supported by politicians for some political gains over the issue. It is advisable that the sides sort out the issue by taking the advice of expert historians. Creativity should be encouraged and respected.
V. Subramanian
Chennai
Where are we heading? Is our country becoming a jungle raj with offers being made for the heads of artistes and film personalities only because fringe elements are running riot in the country?
Whether the movie distorts history or not can be decided only after the film is screened. But to prejudge its contents and encourage attempts to provoke the masses in the name of defending ‘Rajput pride’ is condemnable. The actor only portrays the character he or she is asked to act out.
The fact the established artistes are not expressing their opinion and protesting only shows the fear that is taking hold of the film industry. No one is willing to stand up to these monsters. We are clearly becoming a banana republic with the government either turning a blind eye to these fringe elements or playing in tandem with them in order to polarise and gain brownie points. What is suffering is the image and pride of a nation known for its tolerant and all-inclusive stance across the world. What is being affected is the image of a nation known for its all-inclusive stance.
Varghese George,
Secunderabad
