Their names seemingly rhyme, but two Bollywood films, ‘Padmaavat’ and ‘Pad Man’, vying for public attention in India and abroad, send vastly different messages. One has grown deeply controversial, the other has mercifully not. ‘Padmaavat’ is about the beauty, valour and sacrifice of a queen who lived, if at all, seven centuries back, but has some people drawing swords, both symbolically and literally, in the 21st century. Meant to entertain, it has ended up reviving perceived historical wounds. ‘Pad Man’, about a man who sells sanitary pads propagates their use by Indian women that, like most traditional societies, often fight shy of tackling a very private matter that is nevertheless, a health issue. It is contemporary. It appears confident of leaving a deeper, quiet and healthy imprint on the audiences. Its theme also could have angered custodians of public morality who abound these days. But another film, “Toilet: Ek Prem Katha” that playfully tackled open defecation, another private issue of public shame, seems to have chastened the vigilantes. Or, has ‘Padmaavat’ deflected their attention? ‘Padmaavat’ entered cinema theatres this week armed with, two Supreme Court verdicts, but still nervous about its actors and crew, the cinema halls and the filmgoers being targeted by hooligans claiming to uphold their perceived honour. The film opened wherever it could to encouraging critical and audience response. But the vigilantes indulged in violence in four states where theatres were terrorized into no-show and attacking even school buses targeting innocent children. Police were deployed, but the guardians of law do take their cue from the politicians. In India, the much-touted freedom of expression comes under a political shadow each time there is an election. Even otherwise, every issue these days risks being politicized. Last year, ‘Udta Punjab’, depicting evils of drug trafficking, allegedly by influential politicos, and its consumption by the young, had made many in the state nervous about its possible impact on the state assembly elections. Equally nervous and under tremendous political pressure at the central and state levels, the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) itself sought a stay on the film’s release citing that the themes dealt with in the film were “too vulgar for the general audience.” After much media outcry it allowed the film but after 84 cuts and modifications. ‘Padmaavat’ came under the heat spell during the Gujarat elections and with elections due in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and other states, it refuses to calm. Violence and threats by vigilantes of the Rajput/Kshartiyas in these states, conveniently blamed on “fringe groups”, have been openly bolstered by ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) politicos, including ministers and lawmakers. It began a year back with the film’s set being vandalized and crew and director Sanjay Leela Bhansali being attacked. The attackers have gone scot-free and emboldened by politicos fanning their “hurt sentiments”. No other film in Indian cinema’s 120-year history has been banned even before it is certified by the censors, called Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). The Cinematograph Act is clear that once certified, a film must be shown and the state governments must enable its peaceful exhibition. Four BJP-ruled states, all election-bound, however, persisted even after the film was certified and following the Supreme Court’s verdict, still looking for a legal escape. If the vigilante groups insisted on “informal ban”, the state governments want the right to ban the theatres from showing the film. The Supreme Court said a big NO. The highest court has warned that “when creativity dies, values of civilisation corrode.” Its reiteration of the freedom of expression and the observation that states have “guillotined creative right” implicitly captures the blood thirst inherent in some BJP leaders’ bounty for anyone beheading Bhansali and Deepika Padukone who portrays the queen in the film. And now, senior lawyer Harish Salve has been threatened for defending the ‘Padmaavat’ maker in court. The film is about Queen Padmavati or Padmini of Chittor in the present-day Rajasthan being coveted by Delhi’s Sultan Alauddin Khilji (1250-1316 AD). On Ratnasen, her husband and the king, being defeated and killed, she immolates herself. There is an implied Hindu-Muslim angle. But in medieval India, it was common for women of the vanquished in any war to escape abduction, rape and slavery by burning themselves. Whether fact or fiction, Padmavati or Padmini has for generations been part of South Asia’s folklore that celebrates her beauty and bemoans her sacrifice. Khilji is the villain in the many plays, books and movies that have been made on this theme. Historians have differed on her existence and assuming she did, on what compelled her to mount the pyre along with other women. The account of Colonel James Todd, a British officer posted in Rajputana has been disputed by fellow-Britons and later, by Indian historians. It gained popularity as part of the revivalist politics of the 19th century. Bhansali insists that his film is essentially a piece of fiction and is based on the epic poem of a 15th century Sufi Muslim poet Malik Mohammed Jayasi. The poem’s title is ‘Padmaavat’ the name the Censors have insisted the film should take to escape being considered historical. But that has not doused the fire of protests. It is difficult to differentiate between folklore and history, especially if and when politicians use both expediently, placing ‘shraddha’ (faith) above everything else. As for the elections, do democratic processes enable healthy discourse with all-in participation? Only partially, if at all, in India, given the rising toxicity in the recent years that has made the election season, a couple of times each year, a nightmare. The mix of history, folklore, cinema getting with politics feeding past prejudices seems to linger on. It remains to be seen if the Rupees two billion film will recover the costs or climb the pyre of financial funeral. Besides threat to freedom of expression in a democratic society, the bigger loss is that of governance. The intent, integrity and the capacity to govern are often challenged when the state comes into conflict with collective interests and worse when it is perceived as being sympathetic to the latter. In such a situation, the message, like that of ‘Pad Man’ risks being blurred, if not totally lost. // ]]>
Both Sanjay Leela Bansal and Prasoon Josh are happy about Padmavat, and they hope this compromise is acceptable to Narendra Mod and Rahul Gandh.#Padmavati— Ramesh Srivats (@rameshsrivats) December 30, 2017 The decision was taken after an examining committee meeting was held on Thursday in presence of CBFC chief Prasoon Joshi. The special panel consisted of Arvind Singh from Udaipur, Dr Chandramani Singh and professor K.K. Singh of Jaipur University. According to the CBFC, the film was approached with a “balanced view keeping in mind both the filmmakers and the society”. The board asked for several cuts, and a name change, before giving the film the certification for showing in theatres in India. According to some reports, 26 cuts were ordered.
(IANS) // ]]>
(IANS) // ]]>
Rangeela Rasool that showed the Prophet as a worldly man given to ordinary pleasures. The publisher of the book, Mahashay Rajpal, was tried on the basis of complaints filed by Muslims but was acquitted two years later in 1929 because there was no law on the statute book, the Indian Penal Code, to specifically deal with promoting enmity or hatred between communities. Rajpal was murdered soon after his acquittal by a zealous young Muslim who was then executed after trial. The significance of this episode is that the British rulers of the time were pressured to add a section to the IPC that made insulting the leaders of any religious community a crime punishable with imprisonment. In other words, hate and hate crime made it to the statute book, imposing a considered restriction on what we now call freedom of speech and expression, or FoE as it is known in cyberspace. Cut to 1950. India had given itself a constitution incorporating —via Article 19 Clause 1a—freedom of speech and expression in its section of fundamental rights of citizens. The right to free expression was not absolute; it did have restrictions. At the time the Constitution was adopted, Clause 2 of Article 19 read: (2) Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it relates to, or prevents the State from making any law relating to, libel, slander, defamation, contempt of court or any matter which offends against decency or morality or which undermines the security of, or tends to overthrow, the State. Meanwhile, Hindu-Muslim riots had shaken up East Pakistan, and refugees streamed into India. Syama Prasad Mookerjee of the Hindu Mahasabha was in Prime Minister Nehru’s Cabinet at the time; the organisation was pretty vocal about its dreams of an Akhand (unified) Bharat. In April, Nehru made a deal with his Pakistan counterpart, Liaquat Ali Khan, to secure the peace. Part of the deal was clamping down on any propaganda for war between the two new nations. Two days before the pact, Mookerjee resigned over Nehru’s Pakistan policy. From then on he called for a war to reunite the two nations once again. Meanwhile, two Supreme Court decisions of the same year had overturned a ban on a left-leaning journal and pre-censorship of a right-wing journal. Nehru and Sardar Vallabhai Patel corresponded with alacrity over these developments, and it all came down to the first amendment of the Constitution which added ‘public order’ and ‘incitement to offence’ to Clause 2 of Article 19. Significantly, the restrictions that the amended clause introduced were ‘reasonable’, leaving the door open to judicial review of any related action by the executive. The clause now reads: (2) Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. Films— like the unreleased Padmavati is alleged to—can threaten public order, decency and morality. The last word on this is with the Central Board of Film Certification, a statutory body established in 1951. Padmavati has not yet been cleared by the board which only last year did not allow the release of a film called Mohalla Assi because it offended Hindu sentiments. On November 28, the Supreme Court refused—for the third time in November—to ban Padmavati, saying it is the prerogative of the censor board to review the film and make a decision on whether it is suitable for screening. The court also rebuked persons holding public office—read chief ministers of states who have spoken against the film—for their comments on the film. “When the matter is pending the consideration of the CBFC (Central Board of Film Certification), how can persons holding public offices comment on whether CBFC should issue certificate or not? That will prejudice the decision of the CBFC,” the court said. And there the matter rests. For now, that is. This means that if the CBFC clears the film, with or without cuts and/or changes, it can be due for nationwide release sometime next month. Therein lies the rub. State governments have the option to invoke their duty to uphold public order, decency and morality and ban the film. The BJP-ruled states of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh have already indicated so. Congress-ruled Punjab may just follow their cue, as can others like Bihar. Sectarian politics can yield results that overpower any agency of the state. Even if state governments do not block the film, theatre owners can refuse to screen the film for fear of violence by fringe groups, as was the case with Jodhaa Akbar in Rajasthan nine years ago. That time, it was the same Rajput Karni Sena that had taken to the streets with the all-too familiar complaint of ‘distortion of historical facts’. Thirty theatres in Rajasthan did not screen the movie that year because members of the Karni Sena sent them threatening letters written in blood. Street politics, too, can sometimes beat the state and the operation of the law of the land. Certified fit for public viewing or not, it is likely that Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s Padmavati will not make it to screens across more than half the country. But the legend of Padmavati that has inspired the protests against the film will live on. Padmavati is dead, Long Live Padmavati!
By Nardeep Singh Dahiya // ]]>
Former CBFC Chairperson and producer Pahlaj Nihalani is shocked by a Parliamentary Committee’s decision to question director Sanjay Leela Bhansali on Padmavati before the censor board can view the film. He claimed the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting had also “bullied” him during his tenure.“By all means, the Parliamentary Committee has every right to question Bhansali or any other filmmaker. But only after the Central Board of Film Certification views and certifies the film. “By questioning him before the censor certificate, you are challenging the authority of the CBFC as the final arbitrary body to decide the fate of a film,” said Nihalani. Nihalani feels the CBFC seems to have lost its authority. “During my tenure, I was bullied by the I&B Ministry into taking decisions. “Now it’s a free-for all. Any and every governing body can question a film. Where does that leave the CBFC?” As for Padmavati, Nihalani wonders where the film’s persecution stops. “To how many committees is Bhansali answerable? And where does this end? “Why is one of India’s best filmmakers being made to explain himself over and over again? And why is the CBFC not taking steps to clear the air once and for all,” questioned Nihalani, whose own tenure as the CBFC chief was dogged by controversies. (IANS) // ]]>
Padmavati director Sanjay Leela Bhansali and lead actor Deepika Padukone. Then he spoke of ‘breaking the legs’ of another Padmavati actor, Ranvir Singh. The he turned his sights on West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee for saying the film was welcome in her state, saying she would lose her nose like Surpankha in the Ramayana. On Wednesday, he quit the party. Haryana BJP leader Surajpal Singh Ammu has resigned as the party’s Chief Media Coordinator in the state, sending his resignation to Bharatiya Janata Party state chief Subhash Barala through a WhatsApp message.
In his resignation, Ammu said he was upset with Chief Minister Manohar Lal Khattar’s “attitude towards the Rajput community”. The chief minister, according to him, was surrounded by “a few unwanted people and keeping himself away from loyalist party workers”. Ammu said he would pray to God so that “good sense” prevails on Khattar and requested that he be relieved of the party post’s responsibility.
Gentle Reminder: National Commission for Women has yet not summoned BJP leader Suraj Pal Amu who put a bounty on Deepika Padukone even while putting Shashi Tharoor on notice for a joke! #Padmavati— Samar (@Samar_Anarya) November 29, 2017
A delegation of Rajput leaders led by Ammu on Tuesday visited Haryana Bhawan in Delhi to meet Khattar and request him to fulfil their demand of announcing a ban on Padmavati in the state but the Chief Minister refused to meet them. Rajput leaders said they felt insulted by Khattar.
My take on #notice send to #SanjayLeelaBhansali to come & explain his stand on #Padmavati.A victim is summoned but the perpetrators of violence are let Free. #Sad.#WeSupportPadmavati pic.twitter.com/o0IUiuLTjE— Ashoke Pandit (@ashokepandit) November 29, 2017
And Mulayam’s daughter-in-law does the Padmavati danceEven as the controversy over Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s Padmavati is yet to die down, a dance by Aparna Yadav, a daughter-in-law of Samajwadi Party leader Mulayam Singh Yadav, on the movie’s song has created a political furore. Aparna Yadav danced to the ‘Ghoomar’ song of the yet-to-be-released movie while celebrating her younger brother Aman Bisht’s engagement ceremony at a five-star hotel in Lucknow on Saturday, raising the hackles of elements opposed to the film. In a video clipping which has since gone viral on the social media, Aparna Yadav is seen leading a group of women dancers on stage at the family function. The song has been picturised on Bollywood actor Deepika Padukone in the film. “It is sad that a prominent political family’s member has chosen to behave in such a fashion. It is as if she is trying to tease us and rub salt in our wounds,” a leader of Karni Sena, which is bitterly opposing the movie’s release without changes, said. The Karni Sena is particularly miffed at this particular song which, it contends, shows Rajput women dancing in public, which is not a depiction of the reality of the past. Aparna Yadav, who is married to Mulayam Singh’s younger son Prateek, has spoken her mind openly on many political issues and ruffled feathers in the past.
On November 21, Ammu was booked for issuing threats to Bhansali and Deepika over their movie. But he stood by his announcement of Rs 10-crore reward for “beheading” them. Ammu said he gave the statements as a “Rajput” and not as a BJP leader.
So what happened to the guys who put rewards on the heads/noses/legs of the Padmavati team? Were they imprisoned ???— Jaaved Jaaferi (@jaavedjaaferi) November 26, 2017
Read at Lokmarg
Ammu also threated to break the legs of actor Ranveer Singh, who plays the role of Delhi Sultan Alauddin Khilji in the movie. The movie centres around the valour of Rajput queen Padmavati. Asked if he had received any notice from the BJP for his statement, Ammu told IANS: “No notice has been received. I’ll answer if I get one. I am ready to do anything for the welfare for my community.” Police officer Sunil Kumar said the accused would be served a notice soon to join the police probe. (Reproduced tweets do not reflect Lokmarg editorial policy) (with IANS) // ]]>
Padmavati, saying these breached the principle of rule of law. In the melee that the controversy has now become, the apex court’s comments came on a day that Bihar joined Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh in banning the film. Adding to the mix was the call for a nationwide ban by the Shri Rajput Karni Sena, a caste-based organisation that has spearheaded—sometimes with violence and threats of violence—the movement against the film for its alleged ‘distortions of history’. A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud said: “We are governed by the rule of law. When the matter is pending before the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) for grant of certificate, nobody holding a responsible position should comment as it would amount to violation of the principle of the rule of law.” Taking exception to comments by leaders cutting across the political spectrum, the court said, “When a matter is pending for consideration before CBFC, how can persons in public authority comment on whether CBFC should issue certificate or not? It will prejudice the decision of CBFC.” “They are violating the principle of rule of law”, the court said further observing, “We say nothing more, nothing less for the time being.” The court also junked a petition by lawyer Manohar Lal Sharma objecting to the offshore release of the film Padmavati. Taking exception to some portions of Sharma’s petition, the court said it was “unwarranted and scurrilous”. Senior counsel Harish Salve, who appeared for Padmavati director Sanjay Leela Bhansali, had pointed to the objectionable portion of the petition by Sharma. On November 20, the court, while rejecting Sharma’s plea for the blocking the release of Padmavati within the country, had said: Padmavati has not yet received certification from CBFC. In view of this, our interference will tantamount to pre-judging the matter. We don’t intend to do so.” Karni Sena ups ante to nationwide ban The Rajput Karni Sena, an organisation of the Rajput community, on Tuesday urged a nationwide ban on Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s Padmavati. “Six states have already announced that they will not release the film in their states. We welcome it. Till the new release dates are announced, we want at least 20 CMs to do it. Nationwide ban is in the jurisdiction of government of India as per a section in the Cinematography Act. The Centre can ban a film even before or after clearance by the censor board,” Lokendra Singh Kalvi, founder-patron of the Rajput Karni Sena, said in Jaipur. “We request the Prime Minister to intervene and ban the film,” he said. Kalvi also demanded a high-powered and thorough probe into the death of Chetan Saini, whose body was found hanging on the outer walls of the Nahargarh Fort here on Friday morning, with messages against the film Padmavati scribbled on nearby rocks. “Whether it was a suicide or a murder, I am not interfering into that… But it was very sad. I want to point out two more points… Who wants to disturb communal harmony of Jaipur and second, a direct threat to Karni Sena that “Hum putle nahin jalate… latkate hain” (We don’t burn effigies, we hang them)… All this seems to be an attempt to divert attention from the Padmavati issue,” he said. Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar on Tuesday ordered a ban on Padmavati in the state. The Chief Minister ordered concerned officials to ban the release after BJP MLA Neeraj Kumar Bablu demanded it in a letter. The ban on would be in place “till controversy surrounding it gets over”. The ban by Bihar, ruled by a JD-U-BJP coalition, follows that by BJP-ruled Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. Several groups, mainly Rajput, have been demanding a ban on Padmavati, starring Deepika Padukone with Ranveer Singh and Shahid Kapoor in key role The film was earlier scheduled to be released on December 1, but it has been deferred.
Rajputs protesting against Sanjay Leela Bhansali.. Sanjay Leela Bhansali protesting against Film Certification Board.. Karni Sena protesting against Padmavati.. Today Film industry has also started its protest against Karni Sena.Democracy ka asli maza to Indians hi le rahe hain — Paresh Rawal Fan (@Babu_Bhaiyaa) November 26, 2017
CBFC Chairperson (2011-15), Leela Samson, known for her proximity to the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty didn’t clear the Malayalam film “Pithavinum Puthranum” (based on two nuns) for years, saying it will hurt the sentiments of Christians. The same Congress is cornering CBFC on Padmavati. pic.twitter.com/cKkPyaXelL— Sonam Mahajan (@AsYouNotWish) November 28, 2017
Today, Filmmakers do not shoot for 15 mins over Padmavati row. Will Media do same for only 1 min over Threats against @sardanarohit? Its shocking that Liberals, Journalists & Intellectuals who call themselves an Ambassador of FOS & FOE are in Coma now. Shame on them. Hypocrites !— Anshul Saxena (@AskAnshul) November 26, 2017
Considering their latest portfolio of work. Why not let the NIA investigate if Padmavati is real or based on fiction?— ? Comrade Nambiar? (@Soviet_India) November 28, 2017
The knowledge and discretion in the country is that the films are assumed to be the history. Have to understand that film doesn’t not have the history indeed. Fiction made Khilji a villain, while history tells a few more.#PadmavatiRow— Altamash Ali (@BeWithAli) November 28, 2017
(IANS) // ]]>
Amid a raging row over “Padmavati”, Vice President M. Venkaiah Naidu on Saturday said that nobody has the right to take law into their hands, but at the same time nobody has the right to hurt others sentiments. Speaking at the inaugural session of the Times Litfest, Naidu emphasised that inciting violence or unlawful activities as a way of protest such as announcing bounty on some people’s heads was “unacceptable”. “Now this new problem has come related to some film. Some people feel that it is hurting the sentiments of this community or that community and then they protest. Some of them go out of the way and announce rewards. This is not acceptable,” he said, without naming anyone. “You have a right to protest in a democratic manner. Go to appropriate authorities and complain to them. Take the recourse in a democratic way but you cannot physically obstruct. And you cannot give violent threats,” he said. “You don’t have a right to take law into your hands. At the same time you don’t have the right to hurt the sentiments of others. That is a reality,” he said, adding that some people are quite “selective” in their criticism. He said respecting others’ sentiments and feelings is the “essence of our culture”. A controversy has been raging over Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s period drama “Padmavati” with several organisations, mainly from the Rajput community, opposing release of the movie on the grounds it “distorts history”. Fringe elements have also announced rewards on the heads of actress Deepika Padukone and film director Bhansali. The Deepika Padukone, Ranveer Singh and Shahid Kapoor starrer was scheduled to be released on December 1, but it has now been deferred. Referring to an article in a newspaper, Naidu said in the past too films have faced bans and obstructions and mentioned “Aandhi” and “Garam Hava” as some examples. “Aandhi” (1975) whose protagonist had striking similarities with the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, was banned after 26 weeks of release. “Garam Hava” was held up by the censor board for eight months.” Speaking on Parliamentary democracy, Naidu said that it was not important as to how many days Parliament meets, the important thing was for how many days “it functions”. Naidu said people have a right to disagree but first they “must learn to respect the majority and the people’s mandate”. Naidu also said that while dissent was agreeable, “disintegration is not acceptable”. “That is the bottom line and any attempt to undermine integrity and unity of India by forces inimical to growth of India must be nipped in the bud,” he said in reference to last year’ Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) controversy.(IANS) // ]]>