Images

Does Padmaavat do justice to the Sufi text it borrows from?

Does Padmaavat do justice to the Sufi text it borrows from?

  1. Ratan Sen is not dishonourably killed by Khalji, 2. Padmavati surrenders herself to sati, 3. she is not a Rajput
18 Feb, 2018

The fortunes of the fecund text Padmavat, on which the controversial Sanjay Leela Bhansali Bollywood film of this name is based, embody a fascinating irony of history. And more, here the irony is complex, manifold and intriguing.

But what is the Padmavat? It is an epic poem written by a South Asian Muslim, the Sufi Malik Muhammad Jayasi. The language of the text is an Indo-European bhasha called Awadhi, classified also as Eastern Hindi. In addition to India’s Awadh and the lower Doab regions of Uttar Pradesh, Awadhi is also found in Nepal and Fiji. And let’s note: while one does find later transcriptions of the Padmavat in the Devanagari script, it was originally written in the Persian Nastaliq.

The earliest extant manuscript of the text dates from 1675, copied in Amroha, containing interlinear Persian translations. Contemporary reports have it that the epic took the literary world by storm and one finds over the centuries numerous renderings, rewritings and adaptations — one of the most celebrated being the Shama wa Parvana, a reworking of the text in the mid-17th century by a governor of Aurangzeb.

Here, a few facts ought to be carved in our historical consciousness. First, that the Padmavat is a Sufi work of fiction, not of history. It has three main characters: the Turko-Afghan sultan of India, the much maligned and darkened character in the film, Alauddin Khalji; the proud Rajput ruler of Chittor, Ratan Sen; and, of course, Ratan Sen’s beloved wife, the queen Padmavati.

Now, the first two of these figures are indeed historical, but ironically, there exists a virtual consensus among historians that Padmavati’s character is apocryphal; in all probability she has no historical existence. Second, that the epic was written in 1540, more than 200 years after Khalji. And third, that the Padmavat is a mythic work, full of Sufi symbolism and allegories.

Jayasi’s story moves on the crest of a moral tide, a story in which the agency of a talking parrot, Hiraman, plays a crucial role. Hiraman is a friend of Rani Padmavati of the Singhal kingdom (modern Sri Lanka). Her father, being dismissive of this closeness, orders the parrot’s execution. The parrot escapes and ends up as a pet of Raval [Raja] Ratan Sen.

Now, it is this Hiraman whose descriptions of Padmavati’s beauty prompt the Raval to cross seven seas and visit the Singhal kingdom. Here, as Ratan Sen is desperately trying to win the heart of the famed beauty, the deities Shiva and Parvati induce him to attack the fortress of Singhal — which he does. Finally, through a confluence of events the Raval is married to Padmavati.

Note the symbolism: seven seas, counsel of the deities and a parrot with rational attributes. But more, there enters a down-to-earth element here.

Back in Chittor, the Raval’s first wife, Nagmati, is resentful and sends a message to him through a bird. So he makes his way back home, now with an inflated pride that he is returning with a bride who happens to be the world’s most beautiful woman. Again, Jayasi weaves his tales allegorically, integrating real human emotions with his powerful mythic symbolism. We are told that the Raval is punished for his pride by a sea storm, but is rescued by the Ocean whose daughter Lakshmi puts him through a test of his love for Padmavati; he passes the test.

One, Ratan Sen is not dishonourably killed by Khalji. Two, Padmavati surrenders herself to sati. Three, she is not a Rajput.

Jayasi then sets his scene in Delhi at the court of Sultan Alauddin Khalji — that crafty, indulgent, pitch-dark villain of Bhansali’s commercial film.

A banished Brahmin courtier of Ratan Sen informs the Sultan of the supreme beauty of Padmavati and induces him to claim her for himself. So incited, Khalji lays siege to that formidable stone structure that stands in its grandeur until this day — the Chittor fort. He demands Padmavati; Ratan Sen refuses and the Khalji siege continues.

Finally, following an understanding between the two rulers, the Sultan is invited inside the fort where he sneakily catches a glimpse of Padmavati in a mirror, captures the Raval and returns to Delhi.

But through clever trickery, Ratan Sen is freed by two of his vassals. Upon his joyous homecoming, he finds out that in his absence another Rajput ruler, Devpal, had been sending marriage overtures to Padmavati. Incensed, Ratan Sen decides to punish Devpal. A combat ensues and both rulers are killed. Nagmati and Padmavati then embrace death by sati, or widow’s self-immolation.

Note that by the time the Khalji army reaches the Chittor fort again, Padmavati is no more. Upon the Sultan’s victory, all the women of the grand fort end their lives by jauhar, or mass self-immolation.

Does Alaudin Khalji really win this battle? In a moral and Sufi posture, Jayasi makes us pause over an irony. Indeed, the Sultan captures a fort of ashes! This is what lust does — it only brings about defeat.

Here, three more highlights of the fiction ought to be singled out: One, contrary to what Bhansali’s film depicts, Ratan Sen is not dishonourably killed by Khalji, but by a fellow Rajput. Two, the non-historical character Padmavati does not commit jauhar after Khalji’s capture of her fort; indeed, she is a victim of the internecine warfare of the Rajput rulers themselves and surrenders herself to sati. Three, she is not a Rajput.

So if we examine the film Padmaavat, or if we attend to the rhetorical grounds of the violent Hindu nationalist acts against it, we see a multiplicity of ironies. They both betray Jayasi and they both betray history.

How strange that the fringe Hindu groups selectively consider Padmavati to be historical, but what about the talking parrot? The Ocean? Lakshmi? Placing bounties on the head of the actress who played the character, the fringe Hindu group Shri Rajput Karni Sena made the Archaeological Survey of India remove a plaque at the Chittor fort that declared the Padmavati story a legend. They also forced the removal of a mirror in which Alaudin Khalji was supposed to have caught the glimpse of Padmavati. The mind boggles...


The columnist is a professor and advisor of the social sciences and liberal arts programme at the IBA, Karachi, and visiting faculty at the University of Pennsylvania.

Originally published in Dawn, Books & Authors, February 18th, 2018

Comments

Jamil Soomro, New York City Feb 18, 2018 09:14pm
A good honest synopsis of the controversial Movie called Padmavati.
Recommend (0)
ahamed Feb 18, 2018 09:18pm
Brilliant!
Recommend (0)
Khushi Feb 18, 2018 10:57pm
It's history. Her palace, Jauharkund still exists in Rajasthan. Sufi poet wrote "his version poem" 200 yrs later the history of Khilji's attack on Chittor and her Jauhar. Just like Ramayana happened thousands years back, yet even today poets write new version poems with thier own story. Doesn't change history or fact.
Recommend (0)
RationalBabu Feb 19, 2018 03:01am
@Jamil Soomro, New York City : But how accurate is it?
Recommend (0)
sc Feb 19, 2018 03:28am
The movie clearly shows that Padmavati is not Rajput. She comes from Singhal. It is a movie remember. Just relax and enjoy.
Recommend (0)
sANA Feb 19, 2018 03:50am
The film clarifies that it is not history Secondly it was a fact that many Rajput women committed Jauhar or self immolation to escape from clutches of attackers who made them part of their harems The film is loosely based on Padmavat. The film clearly shows her being from Sinhal so you are not making a new point there
Recommend (0)
sANA Feb 19, 2018 03:50am
Great job by Deepika. Superb direction.
Recommend (0)
sANA Feb 19, 2018 03:51am
Khilji was known for his crazy behavior. Great job Ranbir Singh
Recommend (0)
sANA Feb 19, 2018 03:52am
Ranbir has clearly shown the savagery and craziness of the character he plays
Recommend (0)
sANA Feb 19, 2018 03:56am
Enjoy the movie all of you
Recommend (0)
sANA Feb 19, 2018 03:58am
Make your own movies Support your failing film industry
Recommend (0)
MB Feb 19, 2018 06:13am
The columnist is a professor and advisor of the social sciences and liberal arts programme at the IBA, Karachi, and visiting faculty at the University of Pennsylvania - does not know anything about history of Chittorgarh and has written a pagefull of his own hypothetical imagination.
Recommend (0)
Uday Feb 19, 2018 06:42am
Author is wrong in saying that Rani Padmavati was not a Rajput. Once she marries a Rajput she becomes a Rajput.
Recommend (0)
Vineeth Feb 19, 2018 07:12am
The author missed out on the greatest irony - that a supposed Rajput pride be hurt by a movie that valorizes them and demonizes Khilji. And the Karni Sena that adamantly refused offers to watch the film earlier, decided to do so right after the defeat of BJP in Rajasthan by-poll elections and withdraw their protest. The controversy over Padmaavat was never about hurt pride, it was all politics playing behind the scenes.
Recommend (0)
Shrihari Feb 19, 2018 07:35am
Johar indeed happened at that time . For what ? You know what would have been fate of those women survived ? Herum of sultans. So don't pick up some stuff like that commerical films are not documentaries
Recommend (0)
FAROOQ HUSSAIN Feb 19, 2018 08:06am
A well researched and balanced review of some aspects of the film. I am tempted to watch the movie
Recommend (0)
Duhhhh Feb 19, 2018 08:44am
@Jamil Soomro, New York City its padmavat actually.Atleast verify name before commenting.
Recommend (0)
sa Feb 19, 2018 09:00am
who cares for dead figures anyway, what is really disgusting is how jauhar is glorified and again honor tied to a woman's body , shame on bansali
Recommend (0)
SATT Feb 19, 2018 09:20am
Jayasi had its freedom and Bhansali has his freedom.For a true history make a time machine.
Recommend (0)
Aranya Feb 19, 2018 10:07am
That's why the disclaimer said that the work was inspired from the poem. And not a copy or replica of it. I think a more balanced view would hence been that at the end of the day, bhansali as a creative artist has complete right to interpret history or the myth in his own way and also hinduism in broad minded enough to totally allow our myths, scriptures, religious texts to have varied interpretations . You may or may not like it but you still have to respect freedom of speech he has. Rest fringe groups do what they have to do in every country and that's why they are fringe and do not represent views of majority or the country. even they have right to protest peacefully but who didn't do that, arrest warrants have already been issued against them
Recommend (0)
SAM2 Feb 19, 2018 10:33am
Beautifully written. Sufis have made the world better and their message of universal peace is what we all need to reflect upon.
Recommend (0)
Jay Feb 19, 2018 10:59am
Well written. It is really a tragedy that a work of fiction becomes a political issue. Please do remember that the great majority of Hindus do not support these fringe elements who just want some publicity. Ignore them ,that is the best way to handle them.
Recommend (0)
Rama Feb 19, 2018 11:12am
oh you thought that the film is depicting the real story? Don't spend to much time on the analysis of this movie:-)
Recommend (0)
Reader Feb 19, 2018 11:24am
The common people are caught between the three, the movie maker who wants to make money by any means, the media that loves to sensationalize, and the politician who wants create havoc to gain power.
Recommend (0)
Rkhan Feb 19, 2018 12:05pm
Just for knowledge auther shd've provided any reference at warfare between rawal ratan and devpal where the two rajas were killed. Being real character of ratan sen, it must be in history.
Recommend (0)
Ashwin Feb 19, 2018 01:49pm
First you yourself read Padmavat properly, then talk. In the novel the name of the queen is Padmini. I also think you should refresh your knowledge of History. Allauddin was the ruler of Delhi sultanate, not Ruler or Sultan of India.
Recommend (0)
Asad Hamza Feb 19, 2018 02:23pm
For heaven's sake it is a movie which, by definition, is a fiction. Unless stated otherwise. Even modern day book adoptions like Harry Potter is not 100%.
Recommend (0)
Jamil Soomro, New York City Feb 20, 2018 05:15am
@Duhhhh Let me remind you the Movie's name is Padmavati. The name was changed by the Director under duress.Rose called by any other name is still Rose?
Recommend (0)