Thinking beyond religion!
One Bollywood movie made by a filmmaker known for opulence in his movies has drawn the attention of India for all of November. ‘PADMAAVAT’ has been among the most controversial films in the recent times. In spite of everything looking remarkably glittering in the movie, right from Ranveer Singh’s outstanding depiction as Alauddin Khilji to Deepika Padukone’s portrayal of Rani Padmini, the movie has been facing a lot of trouble from the beginning of the shoot.
The protestors have given a hard time to the movie crew. According to them, the Director of the movie has portrayed the queen in a bad light. They had a problem with the Queen’s attire, also the sad part is the said a queen is not supposed to dance.
One of the obvious changes, apart from the name, of course, has been the use of VFX to cover up the Deepika’s exposed midriff in the song ‘Ghoomar’, to make it ‘Sanskari’. I accept that the Queen dancing in front of the courtiers may challenge the queen’s dignity. But have they not noticed that there are no men other than her husband during the dance?
Can’t a woman love dancing with other women of her family? Does dancing really make a person uncultured?
What is so wrong with Ghoomar? We all know that dance is a way to express feelings. What is so wrong for a queen to express her happiness to her husband?
And these protestors say dancing of a woman is against Rajputana culture. Are they really proud of that? Ghoomar doesn’t hurt our Hindu sentiments. It can no way hurt us. Lord Shiva and Goddess Parvathi dance to express feelings. They do Aanantha thandavam when happy and Rudra thandavam, when angry. Most of the gods we worship Shiva, Parvathi, Durga, Krishna loved dancing. Dance has its roots tangled in our culture. How can this hurt our Hindu sentiments?
The fact that Rani padmaavati had to perform Jauhar, to protect her chastity and pride is what hurts Hindu sentiments.
The irony is that even as Rajasthan continues to suffer among the worst sex ratio in the country, the protestors choose to valorize a questionably historical part fictitious person, for her death by fire as a proof of her devotion to her husband, an act that reduces women to mere sacrificial lambs in the name of honor.
In the present era, women are physically and verbally abused almost every other day. Instead of protecting women, they are ready to chop off the nose of a female artist, thinking that would make them look patriotic and manly. Where were these people when an 18-month-old girl was raped to death?
Instead of trying to safeguard the dignity of a deceased historical figure in their perspective, whose existence is still in the frame of questions, it would be better if they could actually focus on ensuring the safety of women who is a fellow breathing human being. It would be something worth fighting for.
If they want to fight at least fight for the right cause, in a way by which people don’t get hurt. No religion or culture preaches to hurt people.
Think beyond Religion!
Because Religions are made for people and not vice versa.