Indian Movies Thread IV

Husky · (This post was last modified: 01-03-2008, 06:55 PM by Husky.)

Dhu's post above is more important.

On another topic, the first of a series of fantasy books called "His Dark Materials" by a Philip Pullman has been filmed (I've not been following recent films, so forgive if I'm months behind).
It's called The Golden Compass. It's said to be anti-christian and anti-church (the books are said to be more so, while they say the film toned down these anti-christian sentiments). I have not read it myself yet, but one friend who has read the book, said it did have some points to make about how christianism was a mind-control based cult.

QUOTE"With the Lord of the Rings they were so well known around the world that you could depend upon just the fandom to be this huge core demographic," Weitz told Reuters.

"So we knew that we needed to have a film that would appeal to families and children as well as to grown-ups and that meant handling some of the dark material carefully."

Even before the film's release on December 7, some conservative Christians in the United States have urged movie goers not to see it, basing their objections on Pullman's unflattering portrayal of the church, and specifically the Catholic faith.

In a storyline seen by many as an attack on religion, the church is linked with cruel experiments on children aimed at discovering the nature of sin and with attempts to suppress truths that would undermine its legitimacy and power.

Weitz rejects such criticism, although he did consciously tone down religious elements of the original story.

"Yes, it (the trilogy) deals with theology and it deals with religion, but I think it deals with it in a much more subtle way than the people who want to boycott the film are regarding it."

Kidman, who is Catholic, said she did not want to be involved in a movie that was anti-religious or anti-Catholic.

"I come from a Catholic family so that's not something that my grandmother would be very happy about, and I really don't think that that's what I'm involved in," she told a news conference.If it doesn't turn out to be one of those 'controversial yet actually pro-christian' stories like Da Vinci Code, then it might possibly even turn out to be decent viewing for unsaved kaffirs (if the film's good too, that is). If that were the case, hope the unconverted world at large would consider supporting its success by watching it in the cinemas. Maybe they'll then film the rest of the (3 book?) series, more people might read the books and some alternate views on christianism will come into the public consciousness and combat some of the christian brainwashing by media and schools. Of course this all depends on that first If.

Any here read the books? Or any who've watched the movie?

ramana · 01-03-2008, 11:43 PM

Book Review that provides insight into Bollywood.

Pioneer 3 Jan., 2007

QUOTEIt's not just about Omkara

Prerna Singh Bindra

Fantasies of a Bollywood Love Thief: Inside the World of Indian Moviemaking
Author: Stephen Alter
Publisher: HarperCollins
Price: Rs 295Â

Once there were snake charmers and elephants; but the latest toast of Indian exotica is Bollywood, which has caught the fancy of writers Indian, of Indian origin, and those rooted in foreign soils. The latest to catch Bollywood bug is Stephen Alter, who has previously crossed the border from Amritsar to Lahore and explored the world of the rare Asiatic Elephant, more so from a mythological point of view. One cannot fault the author and his wide spectrum of subjects, nor his thorough treatment and avid interest on the focus of his affection evident from his writing.

There have been a plethora of books on The Making of... (please fill in the name of the film) -- among the first one being Sholay, which, incidentally, was the most interesting of the lot with a fantastic tale to tell. The latest to join the list is the Making of Om Shanti Om, which I haven't read, but seems as glossy as the film itself. What's good about the book is that the narrator is not an insider, thus lending objectivity to the work.

Admittedly, Fantasies of a Bollywood Love Thief is amazingly obscure, but it conveys what it needs to the audience it is aimed at: The people of the West increasingly smitten by the quaintly bizarre world of Bollywood, so charmingly different from Hollywood, with its songs and item numbers and all-conquering heroes. Though that stereotyped Bollywood is turned upside down when we import the Bard and his Othello to the dusty environs of Uttar Pradesh, or rather a town called Wai some 300 km from Mumbai, where the film Omkara was staged due to convenience.

Not that the book excludes the Indian reader; just that the concepts and terminology associated with Bollywood have been tediously explained -- what is a 'masala' film? Or the fact that kissing was almost taboo not just in more 'puritan' days, but even when songs and their thrusting pelvic moves leave little to the imagination. It is irritating at times to be told that the Kapoors are the first family of Bollywood and other such stuff. It is obvious that the author succumbs to the image of exotica -- the "dark, tumultuous shapes of monsoon clouds represent passion and desire".

The book is about the making of Omkara; and, as the subtitle suggests, it also gives insight about movie-making in Bollywood. There are spicy tidbits about the making of Omkara, some that would have provided good fodder to tabloids -- Saif Ali Khan, for instance, preferred the wig to going bald -- or almost -- for his character, primarily because his lady love of the time, Rosa, preferred it. However, professionalism won over passion, and to everyone's relief he turned up for the shoot with his crowning glory shorn off. What would have been the film had it been called O Saathi Re, as Ajay Devgan wanted, as he was convinced that a title as bland as Omkara would fail to get the audience? What would have happened had the director stuck to his original idea of retelling Othello using the background of the Indian cricket team? What would have been the film had there been no Bipasha Basu, who titillated with Beedi Jalai Le, for there were doubts whether she could play the role of a rustic gangster's moll?

The book is peppered with interviews -- Madhur Bhandarkar, Dev Anand, Shekhar Kapur, Mahesh Bhatt -- which is frankly old hat to the domestic audience suffering from an overdose of Bollywood, thanks to a frenzied media obsessed with its denizens, though one does understand their merit, considering the fact that the ambit of the book goes beyond the 'making' of Omkara. The interviews provide a brief insight into the working of the directors' mind, thereby of the varied kind of films produced in the industry -- from low-budget slick flicks or rather 'erotic thrillers' as Alter terms them, to Madhur Bhandarkar's women-centric films like Chandni Bar or Page 3, which showed the not-so glamorous side of hi-society, besides the serious ones of Shyam Benegal and Govind Nihalni. 

What makes the book valuable is the focus on the amount of effort, time, energy and money that goes into what will be a three-hour show that might or might not pass the acid test at the box-office.

dhu · (This post was last modified: 01-07-2008, 12:28 PM by dhu.)

QUOTE(Husky @ Jan 3 2008, 06:47 PM)Dhu's post above is more important.

On another topic, the first of a series of fantasy books called "His Dark Materials" by a Philip Pullman has been filmed (I've not been following recent films, so forgive if I'm months behind).
It's called The Golden Compass. It's said to be anti-christian and anti-church (the books are said to be more so, while they say the film toned down these anti-christian sentiments). I have not read it myself yet, but one friend who has read the book, said it did have some points to make about how christianism was a mind-control based cult.
....
[right][snapback]76774[/snapback][/right]


I saw a really bad print of The Golden Compass off the net. Even without prior knowledge, I would have easily realized the anti-christian content, since the opening shot includes talk about the daeman souls existing outside the body and the machinating and stifling "magisterium" is introduced fairly early on. This is in contrast to I am Legend where I did not not realize the religio-political content until the 9/11 and "God's plan" reference at the end of the movie. Golden Compass requires Dialogue to move the action forward, in contrast to Legend where the "symbology" is more embedded and contextual. If Golden Compass is a reversion to Eastern/Heathen thought patterns (which I doubt), then this need for dialogue may be a sign. The Dialogue is empty and unnuanced and remains at assertion level; it does not act at the subconscious level as the symbology in Legend, possibly because Legend's Christian symbology resonates d/t familiarity while Compass' scientific/discovery symbology must necessarily start anew.

The gyptians (Eastern Gypsies) are shown as individualists on the sea, with minimal exotification. There is of course a perfuctory smirky individualist cowboy who rescues from the air. The fighting polar bear is possibly the native american personified, although native antagonists are also shown siding with the imperium. The Arabicized army fights on behalf of the Imperium. The imperium "laboratory" is located in the North; the deamons of the Imperium technicians are white lab rats. There is some confused dialogue about "free will" - supposedly embodied by the go-getter young girl protagonist. There is some posturing of the young girl as a Savior figure along with her father/uncle. Unlike in Heathen narratives, the imperium antagonists are shown as unconflicted (except in one instance where Kidman is shown assaulting her own daemon in anger). I suspect the Christian is most disturbed by the association of Animals with souls as well as the implications of the Imperium's experiments on children. Kidman's Daemon is mute. The girl protagonist is "meant to have" the compass of truth. The Imperium head appears a carbon copy of Ratzinger.

Of course, as has been noted, the entire science fiction genre falls under the religious configuration and is captivating solely for its entertainment value and not for any moral modeling that may be (feebly) attempted.

In summary, I feel that this movie is an atheist/scientific co-opting of the heathen narrative.

01-09-2008, 12:44 AM

Saw "Khosla ka Ghosla" on net
Free view full movie online link
http://rajshri.com/movies/nowplaying.asp?b...moviesComedy178

As usual religious punjabi Hindu is bad character and muslim is good.
Otherwise movie is okay.

ramana · 01-09-2008, 01:30 AM

My son tells me the Golden Compass series is a response to the Narnia series by CS Lewis which seek to indoctrinate the young about Christian theology. Apparently it is all well known in the critics circle.

dhu is right. The believers get upset about the animals. There was hue and cry about the Indian fables being taught in the middle ages.

dhu · (This post was last modified: 01-09-2008, 06:12 AM by dhu.)

It would be worth going into depth on the movie. The makers of the Compass series intuitively know what can get the believers truly upset, just as a muslim instinctively knows how to needle the hindu. Having a free-minded girl Savior is also very distasteful for the believer.

01-09-2008, 05:26 PM

There was a news item that Bolywood film makers are contemplation to make a film on Benazir. If a film on a legend had to be true account it must reflect his/her actions and speeches. We also know the Benazir was an Indian hater. Do our film produces will make us to view hard hitting speeches of Benazir? Is it an act of patriotism? Will be treated as expression of freedom? None of the media has reacted to this idiotic idea.

01-09-2008, 07:17 PM

The film-makers who are making the film are Mahesh Bhatt and and his brother Vikram Bhatt. Both are infamous for making B-grade films with cheap sex scenes and storylines borrowed straight out of Hollywood films with only the character's names changed.

Mahesh Bhatt is also notorious for going to Malaysia and buying a whole lot of pirated DVD's of Hollywood films at discount rates in the flea market there and then making his own films out of them.

When he ran out of storylines he made a film about an actress Parveen Babi with whom he had illicit relationship and then ditched her after she lost her mental balance.

Now this latest stunt by Hindu-hater Mahesh Bhatt is nothing but attempt to paint a Benazir as a saint who sponsored terrorist attacks against India and was responsible for the displacement of millions of Kashmiri Pandits from their land and the decade of violence in Kashmir.

01-09-2008, 08:30 PM

Shabana Azmi may enact the role Benazir Bhutto

(Admin note: Thread to be merged with the current Indian Movies thread.)

01-10-2008, 07:11 AM

QUOTE(Viren @ Jan 9 2008, 08:30 PM)Shabana Azmi may enact the role Benazir Bhutto

(Admin note: Thread to be merged with the current Indian Movies thread.)
[right][snapback]76943[/snapback][/right]


My question is "will Shabhana's dialogues contain anti India statements? Will it pass thro censor? Should we allow it?

01-13-2008, 10:00 AM

Advani praises Taare Zameen Par to the skyQUOTEAt a special screening of Aamir's directorial debut Taare Zameen [Images] Par in New Delhi, the senior BJP leader could not hold his tears as he watched the story of a dyslexic child recovering from his illness.

"For the first time, I saw Advaniji crying. He has a very fine sense of cinema. I think he would be a critic. He told me and he had seen Lagaan [Images] as well when it came out. So I was very happy to show him the movie because I was really keen to know his response," Khan said.

The Leader of Opposition praised Khan for his latest hit.

"Both the director and the script writer must be complimented. In many years, I have not seen such a film. I must express my gratitude to Aamir. It's a brilliant film in every respect. In spite of being a difficult topic, it has been presented so well that it touches the heart of the audience," Advani said.

The Bollywood actor organised the screening of the movie for the veteran leader at Prasar Bharti's Film Division auditorium.

Khan said the special show was held on the request from her aunt and former deputy chairperson of Rajya Sabha Najma Heptullah, who is a good friend of Advani.

Bodhi · 01-17-2008, 03:48 PM

Govinda slaps a man

01-17-2008, 07:57 PM

QUOTEAdvani praises Taare Zameen Par to the sky
I'd recommend it too.

dhu · 01-26-2008, 12:36 AM

QUOTEJodha wasnât Akbarâs
(Pioneer)

SirâThis refers to the report, âRajput body to protest screening of âJodha Akbarâ (January 22). It is documented in history that Mughal emperor Akbar had more than 100 wives, including a Christian woman called Mary (who was renamed Mariam). He had an additional 5,000 women in his harem according to Anwar Shaikh, a noted British scholar of Islam. But films and TV serials in India show only âJodhabaiâ â- it is disputed if anyone by that name was actually Akbarâs wife -â and not the other wives and concubines of the emperor, as this will show him in poor light.

Mr Ashutosh Gowarikar, producer and director of Jodha Akbar, claims that his film is based on âextensive researchâ. Can he throw light on the wives and concubines of Akbar with the help of his âresearch scholarsâ?

I am grateful to Rajputs because they fought to protect Hindu honour for centuries, not only from Muslim invaders for about 700 years, but also from the men of Alexander of Macedonia in the fourth century BC. The Rajput Sabha may, in fact, sue the producer of Jodha Akbar since their appeal has fallen on deaf ears.

One may recall that the royal family of Mysore had sued Mr Sanjay Khan, producer of The Sword of Tipu Sultan, for distorting history. As a result, the producer had to insert a disclaimer in the serialâs credits that it was a work of fiction.

SC Panda
Bhubaneswar

dhu · (This post was last modified: 01-26-2008, 08:03 AM by dhu.)

QUOTEExcerpt:
Though it is heavy-handed, I found this a powerful image, the putrid harpies enthralled by simple truths well told. Even the monsters in Pullmanâs world are attracted by innocence and truth. Even they are not beyond redemption, are in need of true stories. This passage reveals Pullmanâs philosophy of literature to be identical with the âtrue mythâ philosophy of Lewis and Tolkien. And if the Christian myth actually is true, you would expect a gifted storyteller trying to tell a true story to arrive at many Christian conclusions about the nature of the world we see.

The Christian myth has such a powerful hold over our narrative imagination that it is probably impossible to write a believable epic, especially one about the Last Things, without relying on it extensively. Pullman challenges the most fantastic and yet most persuasive parts of the Christian mythâCreation, the Fall, Sin, Death, Heaven, Hellâand one credits him for gumption. If his alternative were more compelling, I would recommend parents keep their children away. (Pullman has just signed to do a âreference workâ called The Book of Dust which will lay out the creation myth in full, and thus probably wonât be appropriateâor interestingâfor children.)

As is, I can fairly characterize His Dark Materials in this fashion: imagine if at the beginning of the world Satanâs rebellion had been successful, that he had reigned for two thousand years, and that a messiah was necessary to conquer lust and the spirit of domination with innocence, humility, and generous love at great personal cost. Such a story is not subversive of Christianity, it is almost Christian, even if only implicitly and imperfectly. But implicit and imperfect Christianity is often our lot in life, and Pullman has unintentionally created a marvelous depiction of many of the human ideals Christians hold dear.

Husky · (This post was last modified: 01-27-2008, 06:51 PM by Husky.)

And as usual Dhu is proven right again.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/72067
(From a link Acharya or another IF member posted in another thread.)
QUOTERELIGION
Reluctant Theologian
Some Christian groups see author Philip Pullman as a dangerous disseminator of atheist ideals. I see him entirely differently.
By Donna FreitasIt goes on to argue that the book is actually christianism. (OR it could merely be that christians are frightened out of their wits about 'evil atheism' and trying the old appropriation trick before it's too late.)
Though if Freitas is correct in her rather boring-to-read 'observations' (I say if, because my attention kept wandering from any points she may have attempted to make), it would merely be yet another example of how what the west understands as atheism tends to always turn out to be nothing more than christianism. Just as is the case with communism. Western society is so conditioned by christianism that it can only ever view anything from the christo perspective. They need to shake themselves completely free. Else it's just plain sad.

dhu · (This post was last modified: 01-27-2008, 02:01 PM by dhu.)

Husky,

It is impossible to evolve a Dharma out of a Religion. The religionists will have to made irrelevant. The prop is always needed -- the Good Book, the althiometer, the definition.

dhu · (This post was last modified: 02-02-2008, 08:39 AM by dhu.)

QUOTECultural assault (Pioneer)
Lookback: Udayan Namboodiri

Jodhaa Akbar is not a historical film, yet its makers are unapologetic about reopening old wounds by claiming it happened. Mischief, not love, is its central theme and it's time the Government did something about this odious trend

Setting off a pre-launch riot is a wearisomely familiar ploy deployed by Bollywood moghuls to ensure front-page space for products that would normally make only the Friday film column. It's as if nothing enhances a film's box office prospects more than a bus burnt or smashed furniture in a Legislative Assembly or, best of all, a bleeding boy in Baroda.

Jodhaa Akbar belongs to this perverse genre. The director must have known early enough that people from the martial castes of Rajasthan have issues with the hoary tradition of Akbar's "marriage alliances" with some 16th century Rajput potentates. Since conforming to facts is sacrilege in Bollywood, all that Gowarikar needed to do was use his artistic licence to flesh out the storyline with the Rajput perspective which, undoubtedly, would have set the cash registers ringing in the core market. And, if that was too much for his abilities, all that he could have done is introduce the words "the following film has no relation with historical facts".

Instead, the maker of Lagaan went gung-ho with crudity. The film's official web site, www.jodhaaakbar.com, has this to say about the storyline:

"Set in the 16th century, this epic romance begins as a marriage of alliance (sic) between two cultures and religions, for political gain, when King Bharmal of Amer giving his daughter's hand to Emperor Akbar. When Akbar accepts the marriage proposal, little does he know that in his efforts to strengthen his relations with the Rajputs, he would in turn be embarking on a new journey -- the journey of true love. From the battlefield where the young Jalaluddin was crowned, through the conquests that won him the title of Akbar the Great, to winning the love of the beautiful Jodhaa, Jodhaa Akbar traces the impressive graph of the mighty emperor and his romance with a defiant princess."

In this Saturday Special focus, BB Kumar (main article) and Anand Sharma (The Other Voice) have comprehensively eliminated the fiction about "Jodhabai" from whatever transpired in the sensuous corridors of Akbar's zenana in Fatehpur Sikri, which in the heyday of Mughal imperialism, was home to some 5,000 inmates. This is no 'saffronisation' -- even self-styled 'eminent' historians like Shireen Moosvi have gone on record with their disapproval with the culture of parodying history. Everybody who is semi-educated in Indian history has the right to feel a little disgusted by a Bollywood entertainer's sleight of hand for the truth.

Before long, the murmurs of protest already expressed in the Rajput community would spill over into the streets of Rajasthan's cities. There would be lathi-charges, cracked skulls and, who knows, even a martyr or two. Nothing, it would seem, would gladden Gowarikar more.

Apologists -- and there would be many before February is out -- would claim that much is sought to be made out of a little "oversight". There was no Jodhaa -- so what? Who can deny there was a marital alliance? Fine, but why make the admission after the damage caused by the original sin has caused so much trouble? Was it too much to expect Gowarikar to insert a qualification about Jodhaa Akbar's historical veracity? After all, KA Abbas had done as much in Mughal-e-Azam because contemporary historians had objected to the depiction of Anarkali as a historical figure.

It is strange that accumulated experience has not taught our Governments the necessity of protecting history as sacred. In the United States, nobody can make a film on any war fought by America without clearance from a department in the Pentagon whose sole job is to evaluate scripts. Even the Government of India has such a rule, but it pertains only to foreign filmmakers. The Censor Board should evolve a mechanism by which anticipated points of controversy are at least debated by the right people prior to certification. In Jodhaa Akbar's case, all that was necessary was to summon Gowarikar before a grand jury comprising Rajput community elders, the Rajasthan Government and historians, and ensuring that a minor adjustment or two is inserted. The scissors should be used only as a last resort.

The problem with India these days is its hyperbolic media. Generation of controversy is the summum bonum of self-preservation in this business. Suggestions of reining in artistic licence for maintaining public order are enough to send one shrill media madam into a rage over "cultural policing" and her competitor ranting blue murder over "Hindutva". In Jodhaa Akbar's case, watch out for more of the latter in the coming weeks. Secularist bombast is, after all, the leitmotif in media slogans raised to protect a MF Husain today, a James Laine tomorrow.

In 1990, one of the first acts of P Upendra, the Information Minister of the VP Singh Government, was to cancel the permission given by the Rajiv Gandhi Government to Roland Joffe to shoot City of Joy based on Dominique Lapierre's novel by the same name. The reason? Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, his counterpart in Calcutta, had decided that the book was racist; it degraded Calcutta which, contrary to the book, was such a 'socialist haven' and, generally, showed Indians in poor light.

The movie, made later after the right deals were struck, slipped into oblivion. But the need to recall that episode is important today. For, today's battleground for the descendants of Rana Pratap is the television studio. And they could use this bit of history as a useful incendiary to hurl back at the Liberals.

-- The writer is Senior Editor, The Pioneer

dhu · (This post was last modified: 02-02-2008, 09:24 AM by dhu.)

QUOTERajput sense of hurt is justified (Pioneer)
The other voice: Anand Sharma | Sahitya Akademi Award winning novelist and historian

The makers of Jodhaa Akbar could have avoided injuring Rajput pride by making some minor adjustments with historical facts

About two years back, Ashutosh Gowarikar contacted me. He said that he was preparing the final script of a movie on Akbar and Jodha Bai of Jaipur, then known as Amer, and wanted my inputs on it.

We talked about the historical background to that legend and specific events from that era. Then he mentioned that his film was to focus on the "love" between Akbar and Jodha Bai. My immediate reaction was to point out to him that though there was a 'marriage' between Akbar and a princess of Amer, events show that there was hardly any love affair to precede it as the two had not even met before that 'marriage' was held.

But, Mr Gowarikar did not react and only said that he would get back to me before finalising the script, which he said would be shot in and around the city that is now called Jaipur. However, that was the last I heard from him. If he had indeed spoken to me again, I would certainly have corrected his perception with some basic facts.

In the middle of 16th century, Raja Bharmal, who ruled over Amer (Jaipur), was under tremendous pressure from all sides. On the one hand, he was facing the threat of an attack from the powerful Meena chieftains, and, on the other, the ruler of Jodhpur was making determined efforts to snatch some of his territory, including the strategically located Sambhar.

In January 1562, Akbar, then 20, was on his way to Ajmer. He had camped at Dausa, about 50 km from Amer. Raja Bharmal went to see him with the hope that Akbar could help him. Historical records confirm the meeting had taken place. Akbar reciprocated to the friendship offer because he knew the value of making peace in the neighbourhood of Delhi. The young emperor hoped to solidify alliances by marrying into the families of the rulers of Amer, Bikaner and Jodhpur.

In the meeting, it was agreed upon that Raja Bharmal would offer to get his daughter, Heera Kanwar, married to Akbar. The official records of the Jaipur royal family show that on February 6,1562, Heera Kanwar's wedding was solemnised with the Mughal ruler at Sambhar. Naturally, this caused a scandal in the Rajput society. The ruling families of Mewar and Udaipur severed ties with Amer. They also advised the other Rajput royal families to follow suit as it was against their pride to marry their daughters to non-Rajputs. A Muslim groom was out of question.

It remains a mystery how this Heer Kanwar came to be known as Jodha Bai. The origin of the legend that Jodha Bai was the mother of Prince Salim, who later became Emperor Jehangir, is equally vague. Mughal records show that the woman who Akbar married in Sambhar was renamed Mariam Jamani. It is also believed, albeit without corroborating written evidence that Raja Bharmal passed off a daughter he had sired through a concubine as the princess.

Now, coming to the aspect of 'love' between Akbar and the Rajput princess, what is certain is that the proposal of marriage was mooted at Dausa in January when Akbar was on his way to Ajmer. However, he never entered Amer. So, by no stretch of imagination could love have blossomed between the 20-year-old Emperor and the mysterious woman in such a short time because the wedding was conducted in the first week of February, a matter of weeks.

Though I cannot rule out the fact that there was indeed a union -- later, with Heera Kunwar converting to Islam and adopting a new name, it became a proper marriage under Islamic Law -- I find it difficult to accept the love affair angle which Gowarikar has built his 'magnum opus' on.

Akbar stocked his harem with at least 10 other Rajput women, all of whom were described as "princesses" by contemporary court hacks. These were from Gwalior, Dungarpur, Jodhpur, Bikaner and Merta.

But the history of Jodhpur, known as Marwar Ri Khayat and written by the court historian of Maharaja Man Singh, mentions that there was indeed one Jodha Bai, an offspring of one Udai Singh, who was married to Akbar's son Salim. This took place in 1588, that is, 26 years later, and produced a son, Khurram, who later became Emperor Shah Jahan. This Jodha Bai's Islamic name was Taj Bibi.

But another historian, Shyamal Das, opines that Jodha Bai is a total concoction -- the real name was Man Bai. The name Man Mati was also in circulation. Anyway, this woman was indeed the mother of Khurram and she committed suicide in 1603.

Many Rajput organisations of Rajasthan are opposing the screening of Gowarikar's film. They believe, and rightly so, that it is a distortion of history and demand that the Rajasthan Government's Department of Culture look into the matter.

Such needless controversies could easily be avoided if the script had been submitted to a responsible body for whetting. Whenever a foreign producer wants to make a film on India or on the history of India, he must approach the Union Information and Broadcasting Ministry for permission. Such producers have to submit the script of the proposed film for clearance.

In a similar fashion, if anybody wanted to produce a film on the history of Rajasthan, he or she should get the permission from the State Government to ensure that history is not fooled around with.

---- As told to Lokpal Sethi

Bharatvarsh · 02-02-2008, 07:52 PM

QUOTEPrejudice 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

Login




Remember me Lost Password?