02-02-2008, 07:52 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Prejudice and past
BB Kumar
Indian audiences don't usually take kindly to films that distort history. The Jodhaa in Jodhaa Akbar is pure flight of fancy, while the Akbar is a secularist's back-projected mahamanav
Indian history, especially of the medieval period, does not lack documentation. This has, however, not prevented several colonial and Marxist historians from distorting and whitewashing inconvenient facts. What is interesting is the tri-junction of interests promoted by the Imperialists, the Marxists and groups promoting Semitic religions in India at the cost of Hinduism. The gravity gets compounded when Bollywood is recruited by this Axis to attempt the conversion of lies into popular truths.
Bollywood has been making films on historical characters for many decades now. Often, directors neglect facts and merrily distort them by taking refuge in what they call "commercial compulsions". However, such insidious tricks end up hurting the sensitivity of viewers. For instance, Jodhaa Akbar, a mega-budget venture of director Ashutosh Gowarikar, with Hrithik Roshan and Aishwarya Rai in the lead roles, attempts to project the Mughal era as the 'golden' period.
This travesty of truth has sparked off protests in Rajasthan and the momentum may increase after its release. The leaders of the Rajput community maintain that Jodha was Jehangir's wife and not Akbar's, unlike what was shown in K Asif's Mughal-e-Azam earlier and is now depicted in Jodhaa Akbar.
As a matter of fact, nobody called Jodhaa has ever been associated with Mughal emperor Akbar. Abul Fazl, Badauni and Nizamuddin Ahmed never mentioned any Jodha. Similarly, the Tuzuk-i-Jahangir, the Ambar Raj Gharana Vanshawali, etc, are silent about Jodhabai as Akbar's wife.
History says that a Hindu princess called Hira Kunwari was the wife of Akbar. She was a daughter of Raja Bharmal of Amber, and was married to Akbar as a political contract. She was one of the three main wives of the Mughal ruler, and gave birth to Jehangir, though many do not believe so.
Gowarikar claims to have "hired a team of historians and scholars" to help him keep things historically accurate. After two years of strenuous exercise, he came out with the statement: "There was no reference in any book about what happened between Jodhaa and Akbar. I have taken extreme care to make sure viewers believe in the relationship." Thus, the director erred by making a 'historical film' without any historical basis. Second, he has given the movie a romantic angle, ignoring the fact that premarital contact, and that too between a 16th century Rajput princess and a Mughal ruler was not only impossible, but its mere suggestion could lead to mass jauhar.
Akbar was notorious for his glad eye. The sensuousness that prevailed in his royal court is recorded by his chief hack, Abul Fazl, who wrote in Ain-i-Akbari: "The dancing girls (from Akbar's harem) used to be taken home by the courtiers. If any well-known courtier wanted to have a virgin he should first have His Majesty's permission."
One of his motives behind waging war was to appropriate women for his harem. At the height of his power, the zenana at Fatehpur Sikri had about 5,000 women. But the Rajput women of Chittor preferred jauhar rather than be estimated by the Mughal's lecherous eyes.
Gowarikar, by highlighting a so-called marriage between a Rajput woman and Akbar, has added grist to the secular mill. Our 'secular' mercenaries, who often don the garb of historians, would like us to believe that everything was good during the medieval period. They put forth the idea that the accounts of destruction of Hindu temples by even Muslim chroniclers constitute nothing but flights of fancy. The Mughal era, therefore, was one of 'communal harmony'.
It needs mention that Akbar, at least in his initial days, was not as accommodating as secularists project. He indulged in massive massacres of 'infidels' (read Hindus) and destroyed quite a few temples. The secularists are strangely silent when asked why, despite 'marrying' Hindu women, they never gave their daughters to any Hindu prince?
Another uncomfortable question that meets with deathly silence is why the women were converted after 'marriages' and none of the children of such unions were allowed to follow the religion of their mothers.
Why is so much of greatness attached to Akbar? Maybe it's because he was the first Muslim ruler to open the doors of the state to non-Muslims. Yet this broadening of state administration was influenced by political considerations.
Akbar first attempted to restructure the nobility between 1560 and 1575 when revolts by Turani nobles severely compromised his position. No wonder it was during this period that he entered into matrimonial alliances with Rajput kings, besides abolishing the pilgrim tax (1562) and jizya (1564). Yet, the moment the clouds of uncertainty were cleared, he reverted to his old habit, which was most disdainfully seen at Chittor in 1568, when Akbar ordered the massacre of 30,000 peasants taking refuge in the fort. Seven years later, jizya was re-introduced.
Finally, Akbar turned 'secular' in 1580-81, when he faced existential crisis at the hands of his fellow religionists. Only Indian Muslim and Rajput nobles remained loyal to him during that period, while his foreign nobles -- Turanis and Iranians -- either revolted or remained non-committal. This understanding led to a definitive shift in Akbar's attitude, leading to the abolition of jizya for the second time in 1580.
But did the 'secularisation' of Akbar impact his administrative set up? It doesn't seem so. Power continued to remain the preserve of Islamic groups coming from West Asian countries. At least 70 per cent of the ruling class consisted of immigrants, primarily Turanis and Iranians.
As WH Moreland writes, in the course of 40 years of Akbar's regime, only 21 Hindus were recruited into the ranks of the upper nobility, of whom 17 were Rajputs. In the lower nobility, the Hindu representation was a paltry 37, of whom 30 were Rajputs.
Finally, does it pay to distort historical facts? If not, then what's the need for Gowarikar to do so? If one goes by the experience of the Shahrukh Khan-starrer, Asoka, making a movie on well-known historical characters is a risk, as it unnecessarily raises viewers' expectations. Asoka sank at the box office without any trace. Will Jodhaa Akbar follow suit?
-- The writer is editor, Dialogue, Quarterly
http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?m...t&counter_img=2
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
BB Kumar
Indian audiences don't usually take kindly to films that distort history. The Jodhaa in Jodhaa Akbar is pure flight of fancy, while the Akbar is a secularist's back-projected mahamanav
Indian history, especially of the medieval period, does not lack documentation. This has, however, not prevented several colonial and Marxist historians from distorting and whitewashing inconvenient facts. What is interesting is the tri-junction of interests promoted by the Imperialists, the Marxists and groups promoting Semitic religions in India at the cost of Hinduism. The gravity gets compounded when Bollywood is recruited by this Axis to attempt the conversion of lies into popular truths.
Bollywood has been making films on historical characters for many decades now. Often, directors neglect facts and merrily distort them by taking refuge in what they call "commercial compulsions". However, such insidious tricks end up hurting the sensitivity of viewers. For instance, Jodhaa Akbar, a mega-budget venture of director Ashutosh Gowarikar, with Hrithik Roshan and Aishwarya Rai in the lead roles, attempts to project the Mughal era as the 'golden' period.
This travesty of truth has sparked off protests in Rajasthan and the momentum may increase after its release. The leaders of the Rajput community maintain that Jodha was Jehangir's wife and not Akbar's, unlike what was shown in K Asif's Mughal-e-Azam earlier and is now depicted in Jodhaa Akbar.
As a matter of fact, nobody called Jodhaa has ever been associated with Mughal emperor Akbar. Abul Fazl, Badauni and Nizamuddin Ahmed never mentioned any Jodha. Similarly, the Tuzuk-i-Jahangir, the Ambar Raj Gharana Vanshawali, etc, are silent about Jodhabai as Akbar's wife.
History says that a Hindu princess called Hira Kunwari was the wife of Akbar. She was a daughter of Raja Bharmal of Amber, and was married to Akbar as a political contract. She was one of the three main wives of the Mughal ruler, and gave birth to Jehangir, though many do not believe so.
Gowarikar claims to have "hired a team of historians and scholars" to help him keep things historically accurate. After two years of strenuous exercise, he came out with the statement: "There was no reference in any book about what happened between Jodhaa and Akbar. I have taken extreme care to make sure viewers believe in the relationship." Thus, the director erred by making a 'historical film' without any historical basis. Second, he has given the movie a romantic angle, ignoring the fact that premarital contact, and that too between a 16th century Rajput princess and a Mughal ruler was not only impossible, but its mere suggestion could lead to mass jauhar.
Akbar was notorious for his glad eye. The sensuousness that prevailed in his royal court is recorded by his chief hack, Abul Fazl, who wrote in Ain-i-Akbari: "The dancing girls (from Akbar's harem) used to be taken home by the courtiers. If any well-known courtier wanted to have a virgin he should first have His Majesty's permission."
One of his motives behind waging war was to appropriate women for his harem. At the height of his power, the zenana at Fatehpur Sikri had about 5,000 women. But the Rajput women of Chittor preferred jauhar rather than be estimated by the Mughal's lecherous eyes.
Gowarikar, by highlighting a so-called marriage between a Rajput woman and Akbar, has added grist to the secular mill. Our 'secular' mercenaries, who often don the garb of historians, would like us to believe that everything was good during the medieval period. They put forth the idea that the accounts of destruction of Hindu temples by even Muslim chroniclers constitute nothing but flights of fancy. The Mughal era, therefore, was one of 'communal harmony'.
It needs mention that Akbar, at least in his initial days, was not as accommodating as secularists project. He indulged in massive massacres of 'infidels' (read Hindus) and destroyed quite a few temples. The secularists are strangely silent when asked why, despite 'marrying' Hindu women, they never gave their daughters to any Hindu prince?
Another uncomfortable question that meets with deathly silence is why the women were converted after 'marriages' and none of the children of such unions were allowed to follow the religion of their mothers.
Why is so much of greatness attached to Akbar? Maybe it's because he was the first Muslim ruler to open the doors of the state to non-Muslims. Yet this broadening of state administration was influenced by political considerations.
Akbar first attempted to restructure the nobility between 1560 and 1575 when revolts by Turani nobles severely compromised his position. No wonder it was during this period that he entered into matrimonial alliances with Rajput kings, besides abolishing the pilgrim tax (1562) and jizya (1564). Yet, the moment the clouds of uncertainty were cleared, he reverted to his old habit, which was most disdainfully seen at Chittor in 1568, when Akbar ordered the massacre of 30,000 peasants taking refuge in the fort. Seven years later, jizya was re-introduced.
Finally, Akbar turned 'secular' in 1580-81, when he faced existential crisis at the hands of his fellow religionists. Only Indian Muslim and Rajput nobles remained loyal to him during that period, while his foreign nobles -- Turanis and Iranians -- either revolted or remained non-committal. This understanding led to a definitive shift in Akbar's attitude, leading to the abolition of jizya for the second time in 1580.
But did the 'secularisation' of Akbar impact his administrative set up? It doesn't seem so. Power continued to remain the preserve of Islamic groups coming from West Asian countries. At least 70 per cent of the ruling class consisted of immigrants, primarily Turanis and Iranians.
As WH Moreland writes, in the course of 40 years of Akbar's regime, only 21 Hindus were recruited into the ranks of the upper nobility, of whom 17 were Rajputs. In the lower nobility, the Hindu representation was a paltry 37, of whom 30 were Rajputs.
Finally, does it pay to distort historical facts? If not, then what's the need for Gowarikar to do so? If one goes by the experience of the Shahrukh Khan-starrer, Asoka, making a movie on well-known historical characters is a risk, as it unnecessarily raises viewers' expectations. Asoka sank at the box office without any trace. Will Jodhaa Akbar follow suit?
-- The writer is editor, Dialogue, Quarterly
http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?m...t&counter_img=2
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->