[Reader-list] On Jodhaa Akbar (editorial from Hindu)

[Raheema Begum]

applause!

On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 5:36 PM, we wi <dhatr1i at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
>       I saw the movie. It was awesome.
>
>  Not going into the deep intricacies, Emperor Akbar was against for his
> son SALIM(later popularly known as JAHANGIR) marriage with slave girl come
> court dancer ANARKALI.  The only reason for this is mughalais were unhappy
> about AKBAR marriage with the HINDU princess (Jodhabai alias Mariam Zamâni
> ).  Due to this marriage SALIM borne and SALIM again interested to marry a
> Hindu girl Anarkali.  Hence being feared to face the aggression from own and
> rival communities and to avoid conflicts and fights, Akbar sandwiched
> Anarkali in brick wall.  This is the original story.  70% fiction is like
> the 2 questions that jodha putforth to Akbar at the time of her marriage,
> the songs in it etc., .  Rest is all for destructive criticism for vulgar
> comments.
>
> Regards,
>  Dhatri.
>
>  TaraPrakash <taraprakash at gmail.com> wrote:
>  Hi all. The editorial published in Hindu is really commendible. I wish
> the
> paper had taken such a stand on Taslima's tormentors, including West
> Bengal
> and central government.
>
>
> Culture of intolerance
>
> If we are too easily offended as a people, then we capitulate even more
> easily to those who take offence. The suspension of the screening of
> Ashutosh Gowariker's
> Jodhaa Akbar in Madhya Pradesh and two Haryana districts expresses the
> distressing tendency of governments and local administrations to appease
> the
> intolerant
> by banning films or books. The Hindi film -- an extravaganza in which a
> marriage of political convenience between the great Mu ghal emperor Akbar
> (Hrithik
> Roshan) and a proud Rajput princess, 'Jodhaa Bai' (Aishwarya Rai),
> develops,
> through many a fiery trial, into true love -- has evoked nasty protests in
> some States. Cinema halls in Rajasthan were coerced into not screening the
> film following threats of violence; a low intensity bomb went off at a
> hall
> screening the film in Maharashtra; and there has been some trouble in
> other
> States such as Gujarat, Bihar, and Delhi.
>
> The trouble over Jodhaa Akbar ostensibly stems from 'hurt sentiments' the
> film's ahistoricity caused among some groups claiming to speak for the
> Rajput
> community. There certainly "wasn't any historical character called Jodhaa
> Bai," as Irfan Habib, the eminent historian of Mughal India, points out;
> he
> clarifies
> that while it is true that Akbar married the Amber ruler Raja Bharmal's
> eldest daughter, "her name isn't mentioned anywhere ... and she was
> certainly not
> Jahangir's mother." (Some historians believe 'Jodhaa Bai' was emperor
> Jahangir's wife.) But then Jodhaa Akbar doesn't claim to be history and
> indeed its
> director has described it as "70 per cent fiction." It is significant that
> there was no protest when K. Asif's 1960 classic, Mughal-E-Azam, drawing
> on
> folklore and claiming no historicity, featured 'Jodha Bai' (Durga Khote)
> as
> the Rajput wife of Akbar (Prithviraj Kapoor). The involvement of
> politicians,
> cutting across party lines, in the current campaign of protest and
> intimidation suggests, in addition to political opportunism, a worsened
> attitude to
> freedom of expression. There is absolutely no warrant for banning films on
> account of a perceived or real threat of violence and thus flouting
> Article
> 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which safeguards the fundamental right of
> freedom of expression. The principle that "freedom of expression protects
> not merely
> ideas that are accepted but those that offend, shock or disturb the State
> or
> any sector of the population"; that law and order problems are no
> justification
> for suppressing freedom of expression; and that succumbing to threats of
> violence is "tantamount to negation of the rule of law" was firmly laid
> down
> by
> the Supreme Court in its landmark Ore Oru Gramathile judgment (1989). To
> suspend the screening of Jodhaa Akbar or turn a blind eye as bigots coerce
> cinema
> halls into pulling out the film is to surrender to the culture of
> intolerance and dishonour the Constitution.
>
>
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
> subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Looking for last minute shopping deals?  Find them fast with Yahoo!
> Search.
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
> subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>