Furore over film ‘Padmavati’ mired in ignorance

B K Karkra
I may perhaps begin with explaining my locus to speak on the raging agitation over the mega movie—‘Padmavati’. I happen to be the author of the book, ‘Rani Padmini—The Heroine of Chittor’. Mr. Bhansali has procured the adaptation rights for this book for his film. The book deals with the historicity of the celebrated queen and is a product of extensive research over a number of years. The fact that the producer has paid a sizable amount to use my book, makes me believe that he is keen not to deviate from history in any significant way in his movie, which otherwise is semi-fictional.
Rani Padmini or Padmavati, indeed, sits on our psyche as a sort of national heroine. The public perception about her is that, besides being a superlative beauty, she was a virtuous, brave and wise lady. Her image etched in our minds is that her body had the fragrance of a lotus and Sultan Ala-ud-din Khalji lusted for it. She, however, preferred pyre to the privilege of his harem and thus, died a death which many would envy, but few dare. Flames of the Rajput ritual of ‘jouhar’ seem to have put a permanent halo round her memory. Jouhars by the young Rajput ladies had been a regular practice to safeguard their virtue during the Muslim depredations. The practice stopped when the Muslim rule ended in India. The fact to take note here is that none of these sacrifices caught as much public imagination as that of Padmini in 1303 AD— not even that of the teenaged princess of Deval Devi of Ranthambhor around two years earlier. Obviously, Rani Padmini had some added attributes about her— her unworldly beauty being the most spectacular among these.
Time now to proceed to examine the justification behind the controversy being stirred up in people`s mind over the movie. The most serious objection against the movie is that it does violence to history. Some historians, among who are some highly respectable names, assert that Padmini is only a fictional character fathered by Malik Mohammad Jaisi of village Jais near Amethi in his epic, ‘Padmavati’ composed in 1540 AD. However, Padmini finds mention in Narain Dass`s ‘Chhitai Charitra’ written in 1526 AD. The mention has also been made in such a manner as would suggest that the writer believed that Padmini then was a household name. This should be enough to put these reputed historians on the wrong foot. Obviously, these illustrious scholars have worked on a very wide canvas of history and could not pay adequate attention to the Padmini episode.
My relentless search for the truth relating to Rani Padmini made me leave my government  job prematurely, sleep for about a fortnight in the Chittor fort, interact with the Archaeological Survey of India and some people close to the royal Mewar family at Udaipur and took me to a host of archival institutions and museums, like the National Archives at New Delhi, Rajasthan State Archive, Bikaner, Royal Asiatic Society at London and all sorts of weird places even remotely connected with Rani Padmini. After rummaging through a plethora of Persian, Sanskrit, Arabic, Hindi and English texts, I have come to the conclusion that enough circumstantial and even some direct literary, archaeological, epigraphic, numismatic evidence  exists to prove that Rani Padmini is a historic reality.
Unfortunately, the bare history is such as would not please the Rajputs. In that, it is a confirmed historical fact that Rani Padmini`s husband, Rawal Ratan Singh had surrendered before Sultan Ala-ud-Din Khalji in great panic. Amir Khusrao, the poet laureate of the Sultanate, who was an eyewitness on the spot records in his “Khazainul Futuh” that his face then looked like brass and, as Hindus believe that brass attracts lightening, the lightening of the Islamic swords would have certainly struck him, if the Sultan had not granted him refuge. Another near contemporary Muslim historian, Isami, confirms this fact. A Jain book “Nabhinandana Jinodhara Prabandh, records that he was moved like a monkey from city to city. The word ‘coward’ in an inscription of 1460 AD on a stone slab put up by a Mewar ruler at Kumbhalgarh (since shifted to the Udaipur museum) also seems directed at none other than Rawal Ratan Singh.
Rawal Ratan Singh, in fact, was an adopted son of Rawal Samar Singh. His brief rule lasted just about an year and his lineage came to an end with his disappearance and his son`s death in the battle. The present Mewar royal family are the descendents of Rana Lakshman Singh who carried on the fight after Rawal Ratan Singh`s surrender. Their ancestry boasts of some highly illustrious names like Maharana`s Hamir Singh, Kumbha, Sangram Singh and shiniest of them all, Maharana Pratap Singh. Ratan Sigh also was certainly not a coward, but not brave enough by the high stands of the Mewari`s. They, therefore, tried to cull him out of their history. Even Lt Col James Tod, an authority on the history of Rajputana, who spent years among them in the early nineteenth century at Udaipur was made to believe that Padmini was, in fact, the wife of Bhim Singh, a chieftain. History could, however, not be kept under wraps and the royal Mewar family have now reluctantly owned Ratan Singh.
Rani Padmini, of course, is an icon of our honour, but how one wishes that same thing could be said about her husband too. Now this part of the history would certainly not be to the liking of our agitating public. I, therefore, suggested to Mr. Bhansali that Rawal Ratan Singh may have surrendered to save the lives of his garrison and the thirty thousand inmates of the fort, so that they might be able fight on another day. Rajputs used to sit in groups after hard battle of the day to have opium laced drinks, while the cobblers stitched their wounds. They often got excited during their conversations and blood started oozing out of their stitched wounds. Ratan Singh could be shown to have mooted the idea of his personal surrender during one of these gatherings. He could have further clarified that this would mean his certain death and Padmini would also commit the time-honoured ritual of jouhar. This way, a possibility of saving thousands of precious lives could open up. This would have meant only a minor deviation from history.
I am, however, not sure how Mr. Bhansali has taken this suggestion. Anyway, the history part of it is that when Padmini did not surrender along with Ratan Singh and rather immolated herself and the battle also resumed under Lakshman Singh, the Sultan flew in to rage and ordered general massacre and acute humiliation of the Rawal.
Another objection being thrown on the movie is that it is based on Jaisi`s ‘Padmavat’ which is not history. It is true that ‘Padmavat’ is only 10 % history and 90 % fiction. But it has been fondly read for nearly five hundred years without raising any objection. What could be the objection to making a film on this now, even presuming that the film ‘Padmavati’ is actually based on this theme.
The fuss about history, thus, looks unwarranted and so is the objection over the ‘Ghoomer’ that is a graceful dance form—it is certainly not in the genre of the dance over the film songs like, “Nazar laagi raja torey bungley pe”. Padmini was an adorable beauty and not  a dumb one either. This fact deserves to be suitably highlighted along with her sense of virtue and valour. One cannot expect a film producer to put her in a ‘burqa’. Nonetheless, enough is enough now. Our feelings have duly gone home to the CBFC. We should now, as our Supreme Court has wisely suggested, let the CBFC do their work in a dispassionate atmosphere.
(The author whose book has been adopted for the film—‘Padmavati’)
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here