[With many Indians fearing that “Padmaavat” has all the ingredients that could lead to riots, the police are already planning extra security. The film hits two of India’s sorest sore spots: Hindu-Muslim relations and perceived assaults on tradition.]
By Jeffrey Gettleman and Hari Kumar
 |
|
A
protest against the coming movie “Padmaavat” in Mumbai, India. Credit Divyakant
Solanki/European
Pressphoto Agency
|
MUMBAI,
India — They stormed a film
set. They pulled the director’s hair. They burned movie posters. They even
threatened to behead the lead actress — or at least cut off her nose.
Hindu extremists in India have played just
about every trick in their book to block the release of “Padmaavat,” a lavish
Bollywood film about a 14th-century Hindu queen.
But none of it worked, and this coming week,
the most potentially explosive Indian film in years will open across the
country.
With many Indians fearing that “Padmaavat”
has all the ingredients that could lead to riots, the police are already
planning extra security. The film hits two of India’s sorest sore spots:
Hindu-Muslim relations and perceived assaults on tradition.
The story centers on Padmavati, a legendary
Hindu queen who killed herself rather than submit to invading Muslims. For
centuries, Hindus in India have lionized Padmavati and paid tribute to her
unyielding honor.
But today, with Hindu supremacy rising and
tensions growing between India’s majority Hindus and minority Muslims, the
queen’s story seems to have become yet another wedge to stick between Indians
of different religions and castes.
Even though few people have actually seen the
entire film, rumors of offensive material have circulated on social media,
leading to all sorts of objections — and the violence during production.
Some Hindus were convinced there were scenes
showing Padmavati in less than an honorable light, which the filmmakers
strenuously denied.
India’s Muslims, on the other hand, have
remained largely quiet, despite the fact that the film portrays the Muslim
conquerors as specialists in destruction.
A handful of chief ministers, a state-level
position similar to a governor, tried to ban the film in their states, saying
that feelings were so raw and anxieties so high that major violence could
erupt. Disappointed artists said the politicians were simply feeding off — and
stoking — the growing intolerance.
“It’s a shame, actually,’’ said Shyam
Benegal, a well-known filmmaker. “These politicians are trying to look for
votes. It has nothing to do with principle.”
India’s Supreme Court, as is often the case
these days on divisive social issues that elected politicians either do not
want to or cannot settle, was called in as referee.
After hearing extensive arguments, the court
ruled on Thursday that “when creativity dies, values of civilization corrode”
and that the show must go on.
The film is expected to open at hundreds of
theaters across India. “I think a lot of people are going to see it just to see
what all the fuss is about,’’ Mr. Benegal said.
The fuss began a year ago, when a band of
thugs barged onto a set and pounced on the film’s director, Sanjay Leela
Bhansali, one of Bollywood’s most acclaimed. They slapped him and yanked his
gray hair.
In March, vandals struck again, ransacking
more sets and burning expensive costumes.
By fall, the outrage grew more serious. A
fringe Hindu group, representing members of the Rajput caste — Padmavati was
believed to be a Rajput — said someone should cut off the lead actress’s nose.
A few days later, a state-level official with
the Bharatiya Janata Party, India’s governing party, offered a bounty to behead
the actress and director. Again, the grievance was the perception that the
movie had somehow tarnished the reputation of the Rajputs’ celebrated queen.
The Rajputs are a powerful voice in India,
tens of millions strong, historically a warrior caste. Analysts said some
politicians were exploiting the film in an attempt to unite the Rajputs into a
bloc and win their votes.
The filmmakers said they tried to be
sensitive to the concerns. They postponed the release date. They made a few
changes to the final edit. They put a disclaimer on new movie ads, saying the
film was “an ode to the famed valor, legacy and courage of Rajputs.”
The Rajput activists were not impressed.
“Our stand is the same,” said Lokendra Singh
Kalvi, head of Shree Rajput Karni Sena, a Rajput group. He denied making
violent threats but said his group would impose a “people’s curfew” on the
film, or the equivalent of a boycott.
Despite all the concern with protecting
Padmavati’s honor, there’s an interesting wrinkle: The queen might not have
even existed. Her legend is rooted in a long poem, “Padmavat,” written by the
Sufi poet Malik Muhammad Jayasi in 1540.
Over the years, this complicated epic has
become like the “Iliad” for Rajputs, with Padmavati playing the role of Helen
of Troy. It is a tale of a Hindu queen (also known as Padmini) so beautiful
that an opposing Muslim ruler becomes obsessed with her and besieges her entire
kingdom.
But Saiyid Zaheer Husain Jafri, a history
professor at the University of Delhi, said that he had carefully studied
historical sources from that era and could not find “any reference to Padmini.”
Several other scholars agreed. Although
Alauddin Khilji, the leader of the Muslim invasion depicted in the film, and
the Rajput king at the time, Ratnasimha, known as Ratan Sen in the movie, were
historical figures, Padmavati, his queen, is a blank page.
Perhaps revealing was Jayasi’s signoff to his
poem.
“I have made up the story and related it,”
are the last words of his epic.
Jeffrey Gettleman reported from Mumbai, and
Hari Kumar from New Delhi.
A version of this article appears in print on
January 21, 2018, on Page A5 of the New York edition with the headline: Recipe
for Ruckus: Queen’s Honor, a Film And Indian Politics.
