Padmavati Trailer

Thanks to Rooney

Advertisements

147 Responses to “Padmavati Trailer”

  1. good one although some punches are missing….but if ppl allow this to release without any hurdles….can be huge…..shahid looks a misfit though….DP and RS are rocking…….

    Like

  2. Looks like an easy box office success. Shahid is miscast though. Looks like a boy here, Ranveer (and I’m not a fan of his) is easily going to swallow him up. Looks to be the real deal here in any case.

    But here’s the really interesting thing here. It reminds me of an astute point Zizek made about 300 about the contemporary US being more like the Persians of the tale (all the craziness, the different identities on display and so on) rather than the more austere representation of the Greeks. Here in Padmavati this otherwise cartoonish Alauddin Khili looks exactly like the fantasy of the martial sadhu! This is what one wishes to become. The Rajputs are a bit too genteel by comparison. Put differently (and this is a point I’ve made before in various discussions) it’s not about whether you hate (from a Hindutva perspective) the Muslim invader or not. It’s about your secret desire to become exactly like him in reverse. It is about Hindutva’s reimagining of the classic Indian warrior as being more Khilji-than-Khilji or more Ghazni-than-Ghazni or what have you. It’s about this anxiety that if India really represents that sort of fantasy how was it ever conquered?

    Already this anxiety was apparent in some of the Bengali Hindu reform movements of the 90s. The idea that the Muslims and the British conquered India because of certain important reasons of monomania (as I would define it) and that reformed Hindu ideology needed to be more like this (Hindutva’s obsession with the Ramayana as the ‘central’ text of the canon and so on is a reaction to all of this and historically new in many ways.. ‘Hinduism’ is itself a British invention.. the significance and richness of all these Indian belief systems was precisely the fact of their diversity but this wasn’t something that those reform movements saw as a strength).

    And so getting back to Padmavati doesn’t Khilji here look exactly like many contemporary sadhus and babas (with or without the kinks.. and we know all about the latter in contemporary India!)? You despise the ‘barbarian’ (here Khilji) but he also represents your ultimate fantasy. Not just in a physical sense but also for his ultimate conviction (religious, political, whatever). You wish to defeat him by becoming like him, not by presenting this alternative of gentility and benign tradition and so on. Of course this will ‘literally’ happen in the film but that hardly matters. There are also these ‘secret’ codes to cinema. That which cannot be explicitly represented.

    Bhansali has never seemed to me the Hindutva sort of guy. He certainly feeds some of this discourse in the obvious ways, especially in these ‘historical’ films but again his real interest seems to be in the ‘invader’. Don’t think this is a film that will necessarily please the right-wing ideologues at the deepest levels. In any case, and even if cartoonish, even if a bit of a sicko (!), Khilji is who one wishes to be when one grows up and not poor Shahid Kapoor ‘s earnest Rajput! Dutta wouldn’t have dreamed of casting Shahid as a Rajput of any sort!

    Liked by 2 people

    • Re.-Khilji is who one wishes to be when one grows up and not poor Shahid Kapoor ‘s earnest Rajput!

      Remember Mani tried this with Raavan and failed miserably ..LOL !!!

      Like

    • There’s a good dialogue in an old movie, forgot which movie:

      Har garib aadmi amir aadmi se nafrat karta hai,
      lekin har garib aadmi amir banna chahta hai…

      Liked by 2 people

      • very true.. as someone said long ago the Marxist struggle itself is not the struggle for ‘equality’ but for ‘power’.

        Liked by 2 people

        • Very true for commies.
          Re. Khiljee
          Very good line by Sanjeev Kumar in Sholay-
          Amir/Gareeb aur Khiljee mein Shayad yahee faraq Hai !!!!!

          Like

        • Don’t want to mess this post with details but if you read what Khiljee did to Hindus – Ghinnn aa jaat hai !!!

          Like

          • actually a lot of what Muslim conquerors did to their Hindu subjects makes my skin crawl, a lot of what Muslim conquerors did to other Muslim subjects also makes my skin crawl, a lot of what Hindu kings did to other Hindus (let alone Buddhists) also gets the same reaction from me. I could keep extending this list with Christians and all kinds of religions and nations and what not. Once upon a time there were certain norms of war. they weren’t pleasant by and large but that was the deal. It’s like saying that the Japanese or Germans were terrible for bombing cities in WWII when everyone else was doing exactly the same thing somewhere else!

            Of course some examples are worse than others but that case must then be made. If I say that Khilji was terrible but then also say Akbar was no better I can’t be taken seriously (except by fanatics advancing that view). Conquest is never ‘nice’ for those who are conquered but the idea that all conquest is equally bad is simply absurd. I would rather be conquered by George Bush than Stalin!

            Like

          • LOL on the last line ..
            btw Bush one or two ??? lol

            Like

          • 2! would take 1 over 2 but 2 over Stalin!

            Like

          • Trump or Stalin ??

            Like

          • that’s a tricky one. ha! seriously though.. trump. Better survival rate!

            Liked by 1 person

  3. I have not watched the trailer yet, hope Bhansali has done justice to the Rajputs.

    Like

  4. What a trilogy SLB has done with Ranveer – put him in the land of Gujarat/Kutch in Ram Leela, made a very convincing Maratha out of him in Bajirao and now a menacing Mughal in Padmavati.

    Like

  5. tonymontana Says:

    I’ll take Bhansali’s vision, no matter how distorted or pretentious it is, over most of Bollywood’s so called masala blockbusters. At least he pours his passion into his filmmaking

    Like

  6. I like the trailer, this is a theater watch and looks amazing compared to everything this year.

    Like

  7. This looks epic. Not surprised as Bhansali’s major strength is in visuals and sets. Shahid looks bit miscast except that Rajput dialogue. Won’t matter much as his role will be supporting kind only while main focus will be on Ranveer and Deepika.

    Like

  8. This is a good trailer with grand visuals. May turn out to be the second highest bollywood grosser for the year after TZH with 200+ cr.

    I wonder how come Ranveer is not this impressive outside Bhansali’s films?

    Like

  9. Very good trailor. Looks to be a sure fire hit. Shahid Kapoor character seems to be in sync with the ‘docile’ nature of Ratan Sen..Ranveer looks evil…Deepika doesn’t look as fetching as she should be considering Khilji lusted after her….But then we don’t even know if Rani Padmavati even existed in real life…

    Like

  10. Brilliant trailer …

    Like

  11. The feeling of doom and sadness pervades this beautiful trailer. The trailer is lietrally lighted. It is somewhat like Baahubali genre and it may challenge Baahubali franchise.

    Awe inspiring trailer! So beautiful in a sad way.

    Like

  12. Am I the only one how finds this trailer underwhelming?

    When BM trailer came out, it blew me away. This one seems flat outside of the good visuals and sets.

    I do love how the back ground music was layered in the trailer, how it starts very silent and builds up as the trailer progresses.

    Like

  13. Bhansali’s cinema is quite different to Baahubali’s. The trailer, visuals and settings are pretty much reminiscent of Bajirao Mastani’s. In fact, I personally find this trailer a bit more appealing than Bajirao Mastani’s.

    Baahubali’s 500cr may be a tall order right now for anyone to reach. But, it does look like Padmavati will most probably rival TZH as the year’s highest grosser.

    Like

    • Baahubali 2 trailer was more massy, this one seems classy. Will be an achievement if Padmavati does 200-250 cr. TZH will again be more massy and will target 300+ cr.

      Like

  14. Come to think of it, if not for the goras and their inventions, we will still be fighting those wars and India would have completely become another country with another identity. Goras gave us a chance to breakout from those medieval lifestyles.

    Like

    • Gora inventions were financed with the loot from the Golden Sparrow. If there were no India, there would be no Venture/Seed Capital, no Unicorns of the 1600-1800s era, and there would be no Gora Inventions. Period.
      The Brits financed everything from Indian loot. The only thing that we Indians did fight ourselves to death, and allow them to come in and refree all those fights. Bandarbaat is what the Brits did.

      Liked by 1 person

      • but notice how your comment comes about in English..

        Like

      • Put differently the critique of colonialism can never be the end of the conversation. Firstly because that very critique comes about with tools given by the colonialist. Primarily language. Not just language in the basic sense but also one with a critical vocabulary that then enables the critique. The latter is a necessary task. the problem comes about when one thinks (naively) that one can simply switch off the lights and exit the room of colonial history. This is always a fantasy. The changing of names around the world (sites, cities, monuments etc) is always about such an anxiety. One can rename VT (station) but one cannot change its British history. One can expunge Mughals from the textbooks in Maharashtra or Rajasthan but one cannot change the ‘fact’ of Mughal rule. Of course one can introduce a deliberate ‘forgetting’ so that people grow up not knowing any of this history. This is about power more than anything else. But notice how this repeats the structure of that which one is critiquing. If one things the British deliberately changed Indian history to suit their ends one is doing exactly the same in another sense. The idea that one is simply ‘restoring’ things or pointing to the way things really were is the oldest form of right-wing (there are left-wing versions of the same in a different sense) fantasy. Of course if you remove the British or the Mughals from the history book it cannot even be said that this is just a return to the way things were. Because ‘the way things were’ for centuries is that Muslim rulers or the British were in control. Then there is the question of ‘the way things were’ when these guys weren’t around. There are all kinds of fantasies either way. My point simply is that one cannot replace British fantasies with more home grown ones. Yes India was one of the richest countries of the world before the British arrived, arguably the richest (though note how Muslim rule does not prevent India from being so!) and when they left it was in an impoverished state. At the same time ‘most Indians’ were still in an impoverished state even India was going through glorious stages of its history. It’s always a question of who one is counting. Just as the US is a superpower,economically and politically for a while, but even at its greatest post WWII peaks, African-Americans were experiencing (and still are) let’s say a rather different reality. The structure of caste oppression in the institutional sense is easily the longest such episode of human history (still ongoing). One could get to other subjects as well. Whether the historical record of Indian history prior to the period of Muslim conquest (or after it) has any similarity to the fantasies of Hindutva. One could go on and on. I know you’re not arguing any of this. I’m just responding comprehensively (as always) to the point on British colonialism. I agree completely with what you’ve said but just saying that is incomplete and even inconsistent.

        Liked by 2 people

        • Shashi Tharoor on colonialism….watch till 8 minute-mark and if interested, later on too…

          Like

        • Well Mughals were not much different from previous barbaric invaders. I was just going through Chittor Fort history. And found
          in Chittor fort itself, 3 major johar(self-immolation) happened, other than innumable in various parts of india when muslims attacked and captured india during their 800 years of invasion. After that, rani Karnavati performed jauhar when Bahadur Shah attacked the chittor fort in 1535. And third happened when so called nobel emperor (by libtards, in actual he same harami) attacked the chittor fort in 1567. Read chittor fort history for yourself-
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chittor_Fort

          Like

          • I don’t want to say the same things all over again. I’ve addressed many of these points many times. If one thinks the Mughals were barbarians one doesn’t know anything about history. Can’t put it more bluntly (or simply) than that.

            Like

  15. Akshay Kumar and Karan Johar join hands for #Kesari… Stars Akshay… Anurag Singh directs… Holi 2019 release… Official announcement:

    Liked by 1 person

  16. It is laughable that Britishers came to do charity. But unintentionally they opened doors which benefitted us in many ways. As long as they were rulers, they were hated. Once they left, they are remembered for giving us a new language, railways, technology, modern science etc. etc. They plundered our wealth and gave us something good unintentionally. What would we have done with all that gold and diamonds which would not have benefitted the common man but the rulers? While muslim rulers left only monuments . Both converted the locals. One with harsh measures and the other with inducements. The invasions brought cultural changes in a big way which cant be reversed.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hard to disagree here.

      Like

    • “While muslim rulers left only monuments .”

      Don’t agree with this at all. I won’t get into a long comment on this except to say that no rule of any kind, anywhere in history that lasts centuries could have such a minimal impact. Of course it must also be said that monuments are the result of an already important artistic impulse which is then reflected in other areas of life as well. Architecture is both a science and an art. A culture that produces this knows a lot of other things as well! I’d finally say (because this is an immense subject that would take too long to get into in terms of all the details and so forth) that sometimes that which seems to be most ‘native’ to us or most ‘intimate’ to us in terms of our cultural or national identity is that which has been the result of all kinds of ‘foreign’ influences . Two good ‘culinary’ examples. ‘Curry’, so synonymous with Indian cuisine, is more or less a British invention. Tea was never consumed in the subcontinent the way it has been since the British made it a daily drink. From the most mundane details to the most elevated examples that which we think is ‘native’ is already the result of a long history that involves lots of foreign ‘intervention’. This is so for every culture and nation in the world without exception. The tomato (still sticking to culinary examples) wasn’t known in tomato before the last 500 years or so. Today it seems impossible to imagine that Italian cuisine with all their tomato based sauces and so on could once have existed without the tomato. So it’s not just India, it’s every culture. But to your point I’d say the Muslim imprint (especially the Mughal one) is on more or less every aspect of Indian life.

      By the way if the Muslim rulers wanted to convert people by force a lot more than 11% of the population would have been Muslim! Most of the conversion in the subcontinent came by way of sufi figures, not conquerors. As a general matter conversion was very rarely the explicit policy of any Muslim conqueror anywhere in the world for the very simple reason that they collected tax from those who weren’t and they weren’t eager to lose that revenue source!

      Like

      • Re.-By the way if the Muslim rulers wanted to convert people by force a lot more than 11% of the population would have been Muslim! Most of the conversion in the subcontinent came by way of sufi figures, not conquerors

        LMAO, almost spilled my tea on my keyboard ..
        Kya Satyam , even Q bhai will not buy this (I hope) !!!

        Like

        • we would die before we convert! Commit Jauhar before we are abused. We would rather..

          Like

        • no it’s merely true. I’m not saying there were no conversions by force. But those certainly weren’t the vast majority. On that note the whole conversion-by-inducement angle attributed to Christian missionaries is also silly. Yes they did all sorts of things (incidentally in Christian history conversion by force is also much more common because they didn’t have the same tax incentives in place, among other things) but very many people converted because let’s say they weren’t getting the best deal in the existing setup anyway! This whole argument that Christians were simply ‘seducing’ people is another evasion. If you belonged to certain rungs of the caste structure ladder you’d have been happy to convert to just about anything!

          The problem is we all have this self-image with respect to our nations, religions, ethnicities etc. But it’s just that, a self-image. It never has any serious relation with the facts. It’s like the standard versions of US history that every politician (including on the Left) mouths and that has really very little to do with history. These are fairy tales. The same goes for Muslims everywhere. It’s just that certain currents of thought are dominant at certain points. So there’s a right-wing resurgence globally in today’s world. Stalinism or that kind of left totalitarianism isn’t a serious factor today in any country not called N Korea. Once it was the norm in very many. Today the Right-wing fairy tale has clones all over the world. You could just change the names a little bit and you wouldn’t have to change anything else. People from Russia and Poland and Hungary to Turkey to Burma and India saying exactly the same things! The same for many groups in the US or Western Europe or whatever. Exactly the same things. Just the names have to be accounted for.

          Like

  17. Satyam, I request you to kindly delete yours , mine and Smile’s and others’ comments.
    Let’s keep this thread Film related .

    Like

    • As long as things are kept civilized and as long as this doesn’t go on forever there’s no issue. Also note that this isn’t unrelated to the film. My comment initially was a direct response to the trailer. It’s at least partly a political film (even if in a cartoonish sense) and so it’s natural that some of the responses would have to be political. But yeah if this has been too much we can move on to Deepika’s dresses!

      Like

  18. How I wish GF or Salim or Saket or -I can’t remember the guy’s name ( He is from Bombay , was close to Sandy, and a very good writer ) write something on Kundan Shah’s movies !!

    Like

  19. Something about the story of padmavati has been disturbing me – it is the fact that the story glorifies mass suicide over subjugation. This movie will end up glorifying jauhuar. indeed, a woman does not lose honour if she gets raped. Accounts of jahaur, tales of heroic sacrifice, are valorized, to the extent that a woman’s worth is in and itself her body. but what of those who did not want to commit jauhar? what of those women who did get enslaved and raped, do we think they lost their honour because they got raped? what is the price of honour?

    While khilji was certainly an evil character, a vicious invader through and through, what i cannot understand is why slb chose the route of portraying him in a cartoonish manner. while certainly, RS looks like he has worked hard in his scenes, i am not convinced, judging by this short trailer, whether his scenes are impactful as a villain. i wonder how much more impactful khilji would have been as a villain, had the characterization been less caricaturish.

    Liked by 3 people

  20. TO Xyz:

    Although I empathize and appreciate your comment with regard to the situation/subjugation of women through centuries, it is important to consider historical perspectives, and more importantly, the differences when equating women’s subjugation in light of JAUHAR and SATI.

    SATI was an unpardonable, unbearable, and one of the dirtiest spots on the Hindu religion. The woman commits herself or is thrown onto the pyre AFTER the death of her husband, indicating that the purpose of woman is to LIVE as long as her husband, and nothing else.

    JAUHAR [jau literally meaning ‘jeev’ or life and ‘har’ meaning ‘to take’] was only practiced firstly, during times when wars were waged, and secondly, it didn’t discriminate per se between women and men. While the men preferred to be killed on the battle-field, women jumped into the ‘kund’ or fire-pit and then also left behind their tamarind-soaked finger-prints on the halls of the Jauhar room. And here’s the main difference, not only women, but even CHILDREN jumped into the fire-pit. Basically, the entire idea was to protect the honor of the warrior-clan/Rajputs all the way: There would be NO option left for the women except to be subjugated for life in harems if they were to be taken as captives.

    Another thing, Rajput women never/hardly committed JAUHAR when they fought each other; it was only against invaders, in these cases, mainly the Islamic invaders as the fate that awaited women was surely rape and the children, slavery or even worse things.

    The most important difference between SATI and JAUHAR is that SATI was practiced after the husband died, while JAUHAR was practiced when defeat at the hands of the invader was imminent [the husband/king might, or still might not have been killed]. It symbolized not just the ‘end’ of the woman’s life in a ‘roohani’ way but of the combined self-respect that a ‘clan’ commanded.There was no respite in the woman being saved or the child being saved. It was hell, for the ENTIRE clan/kingdom, and hence the subjects.

    When one considers the fate/atrocities that have befallen Yazdi minorities/women at the hands of ISIS, one might think a bit different about the practice of JAUHAR

    Liked by 1 person

    • To add to his comment, when we see how dead bodies are mutilated, even in current context, the Jauhar makes sense. To not just protect their honor when alive, but also when dead- to deadbody. Otherwise easier way wud be to poison oneself to take ones life, which is easily available and needs less bravery. Death is not the purpose here.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Any decision should be left to individuals than abetting or forcing one or many in the name of honour. Also method of ending one’s life should be an individual’s prerogative. Best way is to swallow lethal poison in some locked room. Or fasting in some remote place or even opting for watery grave. What horrifies one is children and attending staff going into flames. Men’s death in battlefield is different. They do it fighting. Jauhar is giving up and there is an element of coercion involved. Invading enemies will make them bonded labourers and those maybe used for construction activities or employed as slaves. That is also a choice. We should not forget that men made rules for women in those times.

        Khilji is caricatured because we cant expect nuanced film making from film makers who cater to masala.

        This film will surely generate uncomfortable questions because we are viewing it from today’s viewpoint.

        As for Satyam’s contention that conversion was almost voluntary. While some maybe so but majority of conversions took place because of coercion and for an easier life. Why conversion? It seems to be a political decision than religious one. It is easy to rule a homogeneous group than a heterogeneous group.

        Muslim rulers made India their home while Britishers always had another home away. The latter colonised and never tried to become part of the country.

        During those times, the King’s duty was not only protecting his domain but also expanding his rule. After settling they started wars to get more land, more taxes and more treasures. That was the norm.

        Like

        • I didn’t say it was voluntary in any easy sense of the word. But if one is using coercion and one only converts one tenth of the population one has been doing one’s job rather poorly! The other thing is that much like your jauhar example (with which I agree) a lot of individual decisions are dictated by various social pressures. And even where there is coercion or ‘seduction’ many who converted this way were already not leading lives of freedom, to say the least! Finally the religion that the sufis spread was something very different from the normative versions of Islam we see around us today (or then). The same sufis were often persecuted by Muslim rulers at different points in history precisely because their beliefs were considered heretical. This is again where one must be careful. Religions don’t remain static. One shouldn’t project one’s understanding of the present into the past. One shouldn’t be anachronistic in general and this applies to everything.

          Like

          • As conversion is more of a political decision, it would have been impossible to concentrate on conversion more than necessary. I feel if christianity and alien rule had not come to India, the conversion by muslim rulers would have been much more successful and would have been around 40 percent! This is only my assumption. Entire India was not under their rule. That saved local religions and customs. That time also had plenty of dacoits and other forest dwellers who also resisted outside influences. Not to forget interiors and villages. Even communists could not convert every person in their countries to communism! Most of the muslims must have died in never ending wars(muslims killing other muslims also a possibility) while hindu population grew as a passive force. That may explain the percentage to some extent. But one thing surprises me. Every village in India has muslims living for ages and that means Islam penetrated deeply. Talking about muslims in this way is not my intention to hurt but to place facts of history which could have happenend long back.

            Now Indian muslims are homegrown and more Indian than some hindus who slowly are becoming more western. Yet there is some uneasiness due to islam being misused by isis and other fundamentalists which is fuelling counter reactions. This counter reactions and reaction to this is becoming a circle going round and round. Adding more fuel to this is border disputes and territorial claims.

            There will not be permanent solution or peace. We have to live with fears, insecurities and mini wars.

            Like

          • Re: “I feel if christianity and alien rule had not come to India, the conversion by muslim rulers would have been much more successful and would have been around 40 percent! This is only my assumption.”

            With all due respect this is an unfounded assumption, and requires one to believe that the RATE of conversion was increasing over time, the closer one got to British rile. There’s no evidence for this. Stated differently, there’s no evidence that the rate was any higher in (e.g.) 1725 than it was in 1225, if anything one might argue the other way.

            Re: “Entire India was not under their rule. That saved local religions and customs.”

            Leaving aside the (problematic) assumption that Islam is un-Indian (India as we know it — and this is true of Hinduism as of Islam, of culture, language etc. — is a product of the encounter between Islams, Hinduisms, colonialism and so on), this doesn’t explain why the % of Muslims isn’t higher in areas where “their rule” was very long established. All the evidence suggests that the conversion of the vast majority of people was not the practice of these polities (it’s hard for us moderns, familiar with this or that fundamentalism, to grasp this in many ways; even harder for us to grasp the notion that “majority” and “minority” meant little to nothing to medieval mindsets — indeed some excellent work done on how, until the first colonial census, no-one knew who was in a majority in Bengal, or why that mattered: in feudal economies, such as those run by the Rajput states or the Mughals, land, revenues from agriculture mattered, and certainly the religious or cultural practices of the ruling families mattered, not whether 50.1% were of one faith or not). We also tend to conflate several different kinds of behavior that is unacceptable to us today: thus intolerance, oppression, war, forced conversion, all shade into each other, and we end up thinking of them as “the same thing”, but they are very different, i.e. it is un-historical to elide the differences…

            Like

          • actually, forget communism, there were Christian countries in history (spain at points for example) where it was impossible to be officially Muslim or Jewish. Many communist countries similarly made it impossible for anyone to be publicly (which also meant privately in these systems!) against the party line. The point is: if a government has those totalitarian impulses everything is possible.

            Like

          • Maybe 40 percent is an exaggeration. By the way, Pakistani and Bangladesh muslims were also once Indians. So they also can be counted. Some must have been converted like the bihari ones who dont get much respect there. Just like bengali muslims from Bangladesh. Sunnis not accepting shias. Except for their names, muslims are also not homogeneous as some think them to be.

            Like

          • yes fair point on Pakistan and Bangladesh.

            Like

          • Re: “By the way, Pakistani and Bangladesh muslims were also once Indians. So they also can be counted.”

            This is an interesting question: interesting in that the Muslim-majority areas of the sub-continent tended to be the areas where Buddhism had made the most impact; so one should explore the possibility that Buddhist ideas might themselves also tie into the acceptability of something like Islamic forms of belief in those areas.

            In general, Hinduism itself as a belief system is very different “post-Islam” than it was “pre-Islam”: something far too many fanatics do not appreciate; so when we speak about the preservation of local cultures and customs, that is not a static category or closed, but itself evolved with and under the influence of Islamic philosophy, thought and political influence (pre-Islamic Hinduism was also pre-bhakti Hinduism; pre-Tulsidas Ramayana Hinduism; and pre-many forms of Krishna devotion in North India — and I’m not even talking about more “popular” forms of cultural and religious practice). It couldn’t be otherwise: we shouldn’t succumb to the tendency (of orthodox adherents of a religion, then of colonial historians) to regard religions as hermetically sealed, and accord ultimate primacy to the orthodox self-image. Thus we speak of Islam “coming” to the Middle East, Persia, and India, but every encounter changed that which “came”; it doesn’t make sense to think of “Islam” and “Byzantium” as wholly distinct categories, when Islamic law and modes of thinking were so heavily influenced by the pre-Islamic in Mesopotamia, Syria, Persia etc. It couldn’t but be that way — so the sort of imbecile who fantasizes about “returning” to the “pure” Islam of the 7th century completely misses the point: were he (so often a “he”) to go back to the 7th century, he would find an Islam he could barely even recognize…

            Like

      • This “current context” is ahistorical, and only communalism helps bridge the gap across centuries: so to say that because ISIS did x and Pakistan army did y in Kargil, means that the Mughals must also have done x and y, only makes sense if one is so communal (in the sense of seeing everything through the prism of religious affiliation) as to believe that Muslims always do the same things everywhere. It’s a bit like me saying that if the Bajrang Dal does x then the Guptas must have been doing the same things two thousand years ago — it’s an absurd notion. (I’m not even getting into the fact of just how “Muslim” the Mughal armies were: for instance, by the the late 17th century Aurangzeb’s armies included more Marathas than Shivaji’s. The very fact of a multi-ethnic and multi-religious army shows that we are NOT talking about anything like ISIS here — it’s not a question of pro- or contra- the right frame needs to be used when talking about history.)

        Like

        • PS — this isn’t merely an academic point but of great practical import: there are certain political ideologies (they could be of the left or right) that always traffic in eternity, their whole notion of politics is of the SAME thing happening again and again. That is, they are not interested in practical politics much less history, but in using everything to establish the same pattern. One doesn’t need thought, debate, much less dissent if the pattern is “Hindus are always victims” or “Muslims are always victims” or even “Muslims and Hindus are always above all else Muslims and Hindus”, one simply needs to recognize the pattern and FEEL it. Personally I find this mode of politics extremely destructive, not only because it pretends to “do history” etc but because it cannot lead to a good end: there is simply nothing to DO if all we are supposed to do is spot the pattern and feel like we are living it.

          Like

          • “It’s a bit like me saying that if the Bajrang Dal does x then the Guptas must have been doing the same things two thousand years ago — it’s an absurd notion. (I’m not even getting into the fact of just how “Muslim” the Mughal armies were: for instance, by the the late 17th century Aurangzeb’s armies included more Marathas than Shivaji’s.”

            So I am assuming by that logic, MODI or BJP shouldn’t be equated to Hitler and gas-chambers/genocide right? Just asking..

            Like

          • Re: “So I am assuming by that logic, MODI or BJP shouldn’t be equated to Hitler and gas-chambers/genocide right? Just asking..”

            Um, that is utterly non-responsive to my comment. A better example would be if someone said “It’s understandable that the Goths’ and Vandals’ enemies did XYZ, after all, Hitler was pretty brutal 1500 years later” — the only “link” there is the notion that both are “Germanic” in some sense (and the even more insidious idea is the implicit notion that there is a Germanic essence and that it is expressed in pretty similar fashion across histoprical eras — classic example of the politics of eternity).

            Like

          • Here’s how I would answer this. What the Guptas were doing or believed has nothing to do with what the Bajrang Dal does or believes. However the Modi brand of Hindutva (he’s not the only one of course) belongs to the same ‘family’ of thought that also includes the Nazis. I’m not sure what’s even controversial about this when the RSS’s exercises and uniforms are even modeled on Nazi ones. An ideology can be shared by many political formations without manifesting itself in exactly the same way or to the same degree each time. Every communist ruler wasn’t Stalin, there were many milder ones but they belonged to the same school of thought. Similarly from Poland to Myanmar today there are many leaders around the world who belong to the family of fascism. But again this isn’t like the Guptas and Bajrang Dal because there I don’t see a connection whatsoever.

            Like

          • With all due respect as well, I am only implying a reverse-logic here:. If one’s wrong in tracing back the Bajrang Dal’s idiotics to Guptas, how is it ‘right’ [pun intended] that Modi or the BJP or whoever the hell is in charge of the ‘right’ is a direct descendent in terms of ‘actions’ and intentions and ideology?

            Like

          • Re: “how is it ‘right’ [pun intended] that Modi or the BJP or whoever the hell is in charge of the ‘right’ is a direct descendent in terms of ‘actions’ and intentions and ideology?”

            Note that this isn’t ME saying anything, but Modi himself, who has on several occasions extolled the greatness of the likes of Golwalkar, Savarkar, etc. Their views are pretty clear from their own writings, and meet the textbook definition of 20th century fascist. Heck, the PM’s twitter handle follows people (including that of the BJP’s head of IT) who have expressed a fair amount of sympathy for Godse (even after the appearance of news articles pointing this out, no-one seems to have been un-followed).

            Like

        • ” seeing everything through the prism of religious affiliation) as to believe that Muslims always do the same things everywhere. It’s a bit like me saying that if the Bajrang Dal does x then the Guptas must have been doing the same things two thousand years ago — it’s an absurd notion.”
          The holocaust of hindus continued for 800 years and it didn’t come with love and happy brotherhood or tying rakhis.
          Islamic imperialism came with a code–the Sunnah of the Prophet. read up on that.
          Do you know what Hindu kush stands for? Hindu Slaughter. It seems one is not very aware or familiar with history but the people of Chittor were. In the contemporary record – ‘ Taj-ul-Ma’asir’ by Hassn Nizam-i-Naishapuri, it is stated that when Qutb-ul- Din Aibak (of Turko – Afghan origin and the First Sultan of Delhi 1194-1210 AD) conquered Meerat, he demolished all the Hindu temples of the city and erected mosques on their sites.
          In the city of Aligarh, he converted Hindu inhabitants to Islam by the sword and beheaded all those who adhered to their own religion.” So the word “beheaded” appears back then too. Not just beheading but trampling by elephants, presenting cut-head and more gory stuff was common.
          On the little boys participating in Jauhar:
          Sultan Alauddin Khilji (r 1296-1316) had 50,000 boys in his personal service. Muslim historians record the ‘infatuation’ of sultans Mahmud Ghazni, Qutbuddin Aibak, and Sikandar Lodi –for handsome young boys! Sultan Mahmud was infatuated by his Hindu commander Tilak.
          Historian Firishta aka Muhammad Qasim Hindu Shah, born in 1560 and died in 1620, the author of the Tarikh-i Firishta and the Gulshan-i Ibrahim, says this about the medieval bloodbath over 400 million Hindus got slaughtered during Muslim invasion and occupation of India.
          going by the Muslim historians, koi shak?

          Like

          • this is a totally crazy, nearly unhinged comment as is the one after this. The discussion was fine so far till these comments showed up. Hope they’ll be the last ones. There’s a way to make one’s case without sounding loony. Even if on various social media circles such looniness passes off as normal. All religions, political groups etc have such comments online.

            Like

          • I have deleted two more comments from Smile after this. Won’t have such rabid stuff on the blog.

            Like

        • Hasan Nizami writes that after the suppression of a Hindu revolt at Kol (modern day Aligarh) in 1193 AD, Aibak raised “three bastions as high as heaven with their heads, and their carcases became food for beasts of prey. The tract was freed from idols and idol worship and the foundations of infidelism were destroyed.”
          Please note heads as in heads without the bodies! And see what happens to the body. This no Rajput would want done to their body. Why Rajput, no one would want this happen and prefer to jump in fire instead!

          Like

    • “it is important to consider historical perspectives”

      Indeed.. in all matters !

      Like

      • “Indeed.. in all matters !

        And that’s why I mention SATI being an unpardonable, vile blot…I am not interested in comfortably perching on the left or right..

        The whole exercise of my comment was to point out the ‘false’ equivalency that continues to exist…

        Like

        • But ‘sati’ is something specific. A good analogy would be with Japanese seppuku (or harakiri). These are very particular examples, not representative in any larger sense. Other cultures weren’t doing similar things. However, destroying cities or structures in war, while abominable is merely commonplace or was all over the world. Still is in many instances. Much as slavery was a fairly universal phenomenon practiced by most cultures at one point or the other. However apartheid was an unusual policy for a Western nation to have as late as the second half of the 20th century. In the same way making blacks sit at the back of the bus around the same time (as the US did) was also not something that was happening elsewhere in Europe. I can’t say all upper caste Hindus were terrible people for treating many lower castes worse than slaves in many cases. Because this otherwise terrible institution was the norm. It would be anachronistic to argue otherwise. However where such structures still persist one can have a different opinion. Or to get back to the older example destroying cities and their inhabitants in war is sadly a cliche in history. But this does not mean that it was ok for the US to drop atomic bombs on two cities that late in history. One must always contextualize.

          Like

  21. Satyam; On another note, i have emailed you a piece since I am losing all links when I paste it on a comment…

    Like

  22. Padmavati- The Untold Legend of Frida Kahlo, Thorin Oakenshield and Mr. Meera Rajput!

    Liked by 1 person

  23. “..the conversion by muslim rulers would have been much more successful and would have been around 40 percen..”
    I theorize (and this is just my humble opinion) as follows:
    The early Muslim invaders were only interested in winning a few wars and carting back vast loot, slaves, booty etc back to the regions they came from. They were not interested in understanding the Sanatani society as it existed back then. (Aside, I wil not use the word Hindu, because even the Hindus did not know they were “Hindu”. It was the invaders who tagged the people across the Indus as such)
    So anyway, in a couple of hundred years, the Muslims who stayed on in India, and tried to understand the Indian society, and especially the well entrenched Caste System, probably realized that this was such a vast complex work divided structure, that all they had to do was replace the warrior castes with themselves, and enjoy the perks that the warrior castes received in the Caste order of things. They also used various innovative ways to usurp the Warrior Slot in the caste system, such as marrying into the Rajputs, or forming alliances if necessary.
    There was a famous quote by Trump, about only trusting men in yarmulkes to count his money. By my own liberal extension, I believe that a Muslim monarch most probably relied on the Indian bean counting castes to do the job of accounting for the vast rich bounties offered by this rich agrarian land. This especially held true for the Mughals, who starting with Akbar, instituted various land reforms and taxes, aimed at easier revenue collection and accountability.
    Thus, it did not matter to the Muslim invaders whether the subjects were Muslims or not. Or if the Brahmins or Baniyas (Vaishyas) persecuted the Shudras. As long as the gravy train of revenues kept chugging along, they just kept enjoying it.
    In such a scenario, it wouldve been foolhardy for the Muslims to en masse and with force, convert all the productive local caste divided population. They just had to fit in to the Warrior Slot. And perhaps had it not been for Aurganzeb’s fanaticism, and attempts at upsetting the delicate mechanics of the gravy train, the Mughal empire might have survived on, and even withstood the British.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Interesting viewpoint.

      Like

    • And I am not saying that there was no persecution. Off course, there must’ve been an annual chop-the-heads quota, that they had to fulfill to satisfy the fanatics or ghazis. But by and large, it just would not have made any sense to upset a Five Thousand Year old revenue collecting system and society that worked beautifully. I am not in any way condoning the Caste System. It was by itself a Brutal edifice, suppressing and atrociously persecuting those at the lowest levels and even outcasting entire communities. But it served a purpose for the Monarchy.
      It was akin to a Company, a well oiled machine, solely aimed at allocating specific tasks to specific castes, and infused an Order into the system of Revenue Collection.
      It mandatorily forbade all the non Warrior castes from bearing arms, thus easily suppressing mass rebellions. The only way a King was deposed was by other warrior clansmen through conspiracy or war that did not harm all the other Castes. Only the Warriors shed blood, the rest kept doing what they had been alloted to do. So every new monarch inherited a Functioning Company. When the Muslims realized this, all they had to do was become the Warrior Caste. And its what they did.

      European Feudalism was not much different than the Indian Caste System. However, absent any external invasions, and with the advent of the Renaissance, they evolved into democracies. But the Indian medieval period did not go into the same direction, because there was a very entrenched religious/political well oiled Caste based machine that kept filling the Mughal coffers. Why disturb it through forceful conversion?

      Like

      • The European example is a good one. they had awfully repressive systems a lot of times. By the time you go east and get to Russia it was the absolute worst. The point once again stands. One doesn’t need to do it to the ‘other’. Most of these systems were quite happy to do it to their own people just as even today very many nation-states do a lot of unbelievable stuff to their own citizens. India is once again a good example.

        Like

    • Which also brings me back to contemporary India. Even after the Brits left, only Brahmins and affiliates ruled as Prime Ministers. Modi will become the first lower caste to complete a Five Year Term as Prime Minister (or Monarch).
      And then people ask, what is his special connection with the masses? Is it not obvious? He is not a ‘Hindu’ Hriday samrat. He is the First lower caste Indian Monarch since perhaps the birth of the Caste System. No wonder every Brahmin and higher caste presstitute, and politician is out baying for his blood, including people from his own party such as Sinha and Shourie.

      Like

      • You are wrong here. It is not about being lower caste. It is about not taking opinions of others before taking important decisions unilaterally.

        Rajiv Gandhi was no brahmin because his brahminism diluted so much when he was born to a parsi father and when he married an Italian. Sonia Gandhi is not a brahmin by any stretch of imagination.

        Nehru never encouraged brahminism or brahmins. Pandits never got any support from a pandit. It is all politics and viewpoint differences.

        Lower caste hindus are meat eaters mostly. They have more in common with other meat eaters from other religions than vegetarian brahmins because food is the most important factor in a person’s life whether we accept it or not.

        Like

        • Nehru was a Brahmin. Period. He was where he was because of his Brahmin roots. The INC was a party established by Brahmins, which is why they never really gave any primacy to Jinnah and alienated him. Nehru’s family were Brahmins. Rajiv may be half Parsi, but even laterly Rahul Gandhi has been calling himself a ‘Brahmin’, in the faint hopes of breaking the disillusioned Brahmins away from the BJP. Shastri, Desai, Vajpayee, PVN Rao were Brahmins.
          VP Singh, Chandrashekar were Rajputs (ie the Warrior Castes). IK Gujral was Punjabi Khatri, again a higher caste. And DeveGowda was a Vokalliga I believe, a higher caste as well.

          Modi is the first genuine lower caste. It is this very fact which has won him landslide elections, especially in places where the Caste System remains well entrenched.
          In Gujurat now, higher castes who have been stung with DeMon and GST, are seriously contemplating leaving BJP. They think that an uneducated (unpad ganvaar, mand budhi, nichla) lower caste cannot fathom economics and has no business being a PM. And it is this very entrenched upper caste mindset which will further make him attract all the lower castes. MSY well understood this, but was tied down by his son. Nitish understood it and hitched his wagon back over to the new BJP.

          Why will there not be heartburn when a Lower Caste forces the entrenched Upper Castes (who own everything), to start paying taxes, to rein in black money, and to use the Govt to actually distribute all the Taxes back to the poor who are by and large Lower Castes.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Modi’s victory just isn’t one of the biggest in Indian history. That’s all that I’m saying. Whatever people’s attitudes are about him is another debate. But for your thesis to work he needed to have the biggest victory in history. At least one of the biggest. As for the Brahmin issue itself yes Nehrue a true-blue one but what would Indian history be without the same true-blue Brahmins?! This is precisely part of the point I keep making. You don’t need Muslims to keep most of India down!

            On your last paragraph do you seriously believe all this? Really? Truly? With all due respect this is a fairy tale in every sense and it’s rather late in the day to keep believing it when so many who voted for Modi themselves don’t buy it. Anyway don’t wish to open up a different debate here but one must be careful with claims.

            Liked by 2 people

          • You forgot MMSingh who is a sikh and no brahmin. You are too stuck up with brahmins and their hegemony. Birth is an accident and people want to see results irrespective of who is ruling and who is not. Most of the brahmins are with RSS and with Modi. For them both are synonymous. The lower castes have their own leaders. You are trying to make it look like lower caste people supporting and brahmins opposing which is absolutely wrong. Brahmins are mostly after jobs and they are not bothered about note ban or GST. They are happy with private sector jobs as reservations have eaten up most of the jobs for them.

            Like

          • I am not only referring to his Lok Sabha victory. Just look at UP, the most caste entrenched state in India. How and where did all those votes come from? The BJP was nowhere in the last 4 state elections out there, and yet they won a monstrous mandate. They threw all caste equations out of whack, even they themselves did not expect it. The fact was simple. The erstwhile BJP was a Brahmin-Baniya party, especially so in UP. But Modi has totally destroyed that perception. Sure, they gave the CMship to a Rajput Mahant. But look at all the leaders under him.
            As for DeMon and GST, who has it hurt the most? 99% of cash came back, but it has left a large trail which is being slowly unearthed. Who does that affect most? In the past few months, I have met more disillusioned doctors, lawyers, traders, etc (all BJP folks btw), all so due to their loss of hard earned black money. Most of them had to pay upto 30% commission to bankers for depositing the money into benami Aadhar accounts. Now they cannot withdraw the 70% which has been deposited, because of fear of the Govt. The effect of GST has slashed entire swathes of middle men traders, whose entire model was making 1-2% commissions through large volume transactions. All these people were high on the BJP of pre 2014. Now they are all disillusioned. And they cannot fathom what to do, who to back next, because there are no alternatives in other parties.

            Like

          • Again anti-incumbency explains pretty much every single election result since he won. What happened in Bihar, at least before the unraveling of the alliance? The BJP got thumped. Laloo did even better than Nitish. One shouldn’t read too much into one election result, specially when there is a much easier anti-incumbency narrative. Caste mathematics in most of these states is an extremely complicated thing.

            Like

          • Sanjana. Re: MMS. Was he the PM? Or was he a remote controlled PM, just a Puppet controlled by who else but the Nehru dynasty.

            Like

          • Kavi, dont become so negative as to diminish MMSingh’s contribution inspite of being tightly controlled by the High Command. He convinced and contributed which is not an easy task. when his own party men disrespected and disregarded him.

            Like

          • by any reasonable analytic measure there is nothing Modi has done so far that has been anything but a continuation of UPA2. There are are any number of economic analyses on all of this. GST was the Congress brainchild which of course the BJP constantly blocked. As for the black money scam the less said the better. As for demonetization again there a number of analyses on this as well, most serious people would suggest that this was a political win but an economic failure. I don’t have a problem with one supporting whatever party one likes. ‘Magical thinking’ is another matter.

            Liked by 1 person

          • I do not disagree that most the ideas were Congress brainchilds. But who gave wings to those ideas?
            For 4-6 years, Nilekani conceptualized and created the infrastructure for Aadhar. Was he ever allowed to implement it? Ultimately, who pushed its implementation?
            Who planned the rapid creation of bank accounts so that Welfare scheme proceeds can be directly deposited?
            On GST I agree, it was never endorsed by BJP pre 2014. But again, who is the person to spend valuable political capital in implementing such a difficult structural reform?
            Were there ever public cleanliness drives with such a zeal before 2014?
            I can go on and on..

            Again, your opposition to the BJP, is clearly because it obviously is anti-Muslim. But you are missing out on a significant outreach that has been made to Lower castes, at the expense of the Upper castes, which has started rankling the latter. This metamorphosised BJP has startled them.

            Like

          • “Again, your opposition to the BJP, is clearly because it obviously is anti-Muslim”

            that’s like saying one is opposed to the Nazi party because one is Jewish. Or opposed to various Islamists because they’re anti-Hindu or anti-Christian. Or opposed to Trump because he’s anti-immigrant. Let’s say I am opposed to fascists of all kinds. I am opposed to fascism-lite as well. This doesn’t mean I like Stalinists. But those kinds of communist systems aren’t as a practical matter an issue anymore. At least outside of N Korea. If they were I would be totally against them too.

            On the rest I’d be repeating what I’ve already said (the BJP might have allowed GST to fly under UPA 2!). Incidentally even if it were true that this govt was performing well economically I wouldn’t support it. Just as I wouldn’t have supported Hitler in the 30s despite his economic ‘miracles’. Just as I don’t support Erdogan or Victor Orban or anyone else irrespective of their economic policies.

            In general I think Modi’s economic performance so far is totally a myth. Where they’re ok they’ve continued UPA policies, often under different names. Where they haven’t they’re not so ok. It would be too boring to bring up the economic analyses on all this from East to West (publications). And again saying they’re anti-Muslim is a bit like saying Hitler was anti-Semitic. Understatements of the century! For me personally any such government is morally unacceptable, irrespective of any economic debate. But unlike others I am not in favor of such governments when I’m in the majority and against them when I’m in the minority. I am against them in every situation.

            anyway more on this later. I won’t be able to respond for several hours.

            Liked by 1 person

          • As if lower castes dont own any businesses and there are not any doctors or professions in them. Thanks to reservations, lower castes have much larger share in businesses as well as lucrative professions. In businesses due to their inclination towards entrepreneurship. The people who are affected are those in informal sectors and that too as workers. They are from all castes and creeds. So your rant against upper castes wont work. I am fedup of these DMK kind of politics which segregates brahmins from the mainstream for political benefits.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Re: “Nehru was a Brahmin. Period. He was where he was because of his Brahmin roots. The INC was a party established by Brahmins, which is why they never really gave any primacy to Jinnah and alienated him. Nehru’s family were Brahmins.”

            To dismiss just about all of modern Indian politics, including partition/Jinnah etc., as “about” Brahmins “period” is an incredibly reductionist take on history. It also ignores that for the last several decades, in political life, Brahmins are nowhere near as dominant as they once were (starting in TN from the late-1960s, continuing with UP etc. in the 1990s and beyond), although obviously it’s a very prominent and powerful community — the idea that even ANTI-Modi sentiment is only to be viewed through the lens of upper-caste resentment of lower-caste folks is absurd.

            Like

      • I’d disagree with the last paragraph. The numbers don’t back this up. Check out the biggest electoral wins (nationally) in Indian history. Even otherwise I’d disagree. People were quite happy to give Brahmins lots of votes for years. This doesn’t mean Modi is not very popular. But one shouldn’t exaggerate his appeal. Even in the state elections that have been held since he became PM pretty much every result can be explained by anti-incumbency much more than by any other narrative. Again not denying the obvious. I don’t think he’ll be beaten next time around either. But there has been huge hyperbole surrounding his victory that is simply not borne out by the numbers.

        Like

      • Re: “He is the First lower caste Indian Monarch since perhaps the birth of the Caste System.”

        Um, Shivaji, anyone? He had to bring in priests from UP because local Maharastrian priests wouldn’t anoint him. There are several other examples too (including the remarkable Hemu).

        Like

        • My comment was qualified with a “..perhaps..”
          In any case Shivaji or Hemu were regional rulers, not pan India at all. Off course, one has to go deep into history in the early AD years for pan Indian rulers, and all of them were Kshatriyas or Brahmins.
          Post 1947, Modi is off course the first lower cast PM. I am not trying to discount all the various regional places where Brahmins had already started losing power . Post Mandal, that phenomenon had already accelerated. However, even though MSY, Lalu, Maywati et al tasted regional power much before Modi, he has become the first lower caste to hold power at the Center. All I am saying is that this has happened because of BJP outreach, and its slow metamorphosis from being just a Brahmin-Baniya-Kshatriya party to a bigger rainbow caste-coalition. And this transition has definitely upset the upper castes. I am not vilifying any caste here, merely pointing out what has been happening.

          Re: anti-Modi sentiment, the ones who were anti-Modi from the get-go will always remain so. But there are many Upper Castes who supported BJP irrespective of Modi, and have become disillusioned.

          Like

    • agree with a great deal here.. And again Muslim conquerors were not much more eager to convert people elsewhere in the world either because it again reduced their tax collections. But conversely it’s also true that many people for the very same privileges (taxes, other forms of social prestige and so on) were willing to convert.

      Incidentally don’t think the Mughals would have survived anyway but that’s a different debate.

      Liked by 1 person

      • “..But conversely it’s also true that many people for the very same privileges (taxes, other forms of social prestige and so on) were willing to convert…”
        It is probably the reason for the almost 100% conversion in Babylon, Persia, Turkey, etc. Most of N Africa too. But none of these places were as Agriculturally rich as India was, and none had the presence of a local highly efficient Revenue Collection system. And as you put up earlier, the Sufi influence was another major factor for conversions. Their syncretism was much more re-assuring than the puritanical brand of the invaders.

        Like

        • Yes but Muslims had their version of the poll tax (though not always evenly applied) for non-Muslims. they weren’t just dependent on local systems. Also some of the most repressive taxation regimes came about in British times. Not that I necessarily disagree with your point. In any case we are agreed that coercion wasn’t the dominant factor here.

          Like

        • Re: “It is probably the reason for the almost 100% conversion in Babylon, Persia, Turkey, etc. Most of N Africa too.”

          Tying into my other comment on Buddhism, note that many of these involved transitions from one form of monotheism to another (stated differently, Islam’s expansion as a belief system in the Middle East came largely at the expense of Christianity; not in Persia, although another monotheism held sway there), which is surely meaningful. It’s an interesting line of inquiry, and a fair amount of scholarship has focused on it, albeit not enough.

          Like

  24. Ram Guha style fake history on full display here !!
    # Runs !!!!

    Like

  25. NYKavi says- Again, your opposition to the BJP, is clearly because it obviously is anti-Muslim
    This is not true..most BJP supporters are not anti Muslims , however they are against blatant/naked Muslim appeasement , they believe in Sabka saath-Sabka Vikas !!
    Unlike MMS who clearly said that Muslims have the first right on Govt. Resources.

    Like

    • I never implied that most BJP supporters are anti-Muslim. But very clearly, BJP is not accepted by most Muslims. There is nothing wrong in that statement. However, if one calls the BJP a fascist party, then one has to call every Indian party the same. Because, each and every one of them, at one time or another, has pandered exclusively to one community at the expense of others. However, only BJP is labeled communal, whereas the rest are gifted secularism bouquets.

      Like

      • Re.-But very clearly, BJP is not accepted by most Muslims.
        This is very true.
        The good thing is Muslim women are supporting Modi .

        Like

        • It’s also obvious why it is true: members of the party openly vilify Muslims and try to present them as a disgusting other (for instance, the latest one https://scroll.in/article/853476/anti-muslim-remarks-by-bjp-mp-spark-debate-in-jain-community-about-minority-status), so how can we be surprised? In no way is “vote Bank politics” a sufficient explanation: vote bank politics is a normal part of any democracy, and is routine in India, with respect to multiple groups, but is only considered illegitimate if Muslims are involved. Heck major BJP leaders don’t even condemn offensive and hateful statements made by their party members, it’s clear they don’t WANT any Muslim support at all, nor do they feel they need it — indeed they worry about losing some of their core support probably if many Muslims did start to support them. In such circumstances let’s at least be honest with ourselves and not pretend that there is something strange or odd about Muslims not supporting the BJP. It’s like asking if Tamilians have warm feelings for Shiv Sena or North Indians in MUMBAI for Raj Thackeray.

          Like

          • I read that article about some jain making such remarks but other jains are not agreeing to what he said. Every community has fringe groups but these fringe groups attract more attention which is a worrying fact.

            Like

          • Well this fringe guy is a BJP member of parliament. My point was not about the Jain community but about how members of this party keep making hateful comments; when they are called out on these comments defenders say oh this is marginal, but these are not fringe elements: they are MPs, ministers, CMs etc., they are absolutely central.

            Like

          • PS — not suggesting you are a defender sanjanaji, I was referring to their defenders in the media etc.

            Liked by 1 person

        • Re.vote Bank politics” a sufficient explanation: vote bank politics is a normal part of any democracy, and is routine in India, with respect to multiple groups, but is only considered illegitimate if Muslims are involved.
          On the contrary people are apologetic questioning it.
          From Loudspeakers to Visarjan bans to different treatments for offensive posts re. different religions.
          Everyone knows it, but Troll.com. Virus.com etc. obviously peddle stories that suit their agenda.Just see the story headlines when the victim is a Muslim vs. when the perpetrator is a Muslim.
          Disgusting, I tell you …
          In Bengal TMC supporter says – Islam desh key oopar hai, Rohingaya Muslims ko koi nahee nikal sakta …No outrage !!!!!

          Like

      • Fascism isn’t about pandering to one group or another. It’s about a specific ideology. Not every communist leader was like Stalin vut they were cut from the same cloth.

        Like

    • Re: “Unlike MMS who clearly said that Muslims have the first right on Govt. Resources.”

      I believe what he actually said was that minorities and other “weaker sections” of society should have first claim on government resources.

      Like

  26. Like

  27. SLB films are starting to look the same. It’s as if he used the deleted scenes of Bajirao Mastani in this film. I’m intrigued nonetheless.

    Like

  28. History has lots of very brutal episodes, archives of great cruelty. But human nature being what it is these are spread out across all cultures, religions, ethnicities, nation-states, all points in time etc. One just has to read about Myanmar currently (many other similar things don’t even get reported, the horrors of Yemen for example). Problems begin when one starts thinking ‘my side is fine, your side did all of it’. This is usually an ignorant statement or a partisan one or both. And again in the same vein one must be certain that one is not being anachronistic when judging the values of another age. Western colonialisms were all bad but some were particularly brutal. One cannot understand history by way of an emotional fit! Similarly if one wishes to follow the ‘truth’ (to the extent possible) one must first be willing to shed one’s labels. If you believe that an account is more truthful because your government says it or your god says it or your community (whatever kind) says it you are definitely on the wrong path. It takes courage to question one’s own fictions first. Anyone can question those of others.

    Liked by 3 people

  29. Still waters run deep. He will rise on the 1st of December. Wait for it. #rajputpride

    A post shared by Shahid Kapoor (@shahidkapoor) on

    Like

    • He is complete misfit in the role. SLB’s pick was vicky kaushal from Masaan but producers wanted a star rather. I think vicky kaushal would have been perfect choice with his rajasthani looks ( good height, lean body and broad shoulders). He is very subtle and a good actor aswell. On the contrary, shahid with his tiny shoulder and small height looks confused. His stiff and expressionless face makes it even worse here.

      Like

    • the weakest link of the movie…..complete misfit

      Like

      • This is oing to be Deepika’s show through out.

        Like

        • a John Abraham or a Viduyt Jamwal would have been a better choice….

          Like

          • As per one media reports, Aishwarya for padmavati, SRK for Ratan sen were considered first as per media reports but srk refused as being female theme and title of the movie. Once srk opted out, aishwarya was replaced and whole cast was new because producers agreed for aishwarya only if srk comes on board too.
            Dont think John abraham and vidyut would have changed anything, SLB is not known for action. This is absolutely not an action movie, it will have just some war scenes here and there. It will be more of emotional drama, SLB already did opera on Padmavati in Paris in 2008. Story will be told in more earthy and historical way than a fantasy, anyone expecting baahubali here will be disappointed. Core is emotional drama with tragedy, its success will depend if people leave theater in tears.

            Like

          • **a John Abraham or a Viduyt Jamwal would have been a better choice….**

            Well Abraham Sir can barely act as John Abraham himself; forget enacting a character, that too a historical one like Ratan Singh…

            Like

          • atleast he can look like one Rajput king 😉 since when ppl expect him to act 🙂 leave it to SLB 🙂

            Like

          • Or Ranveer could have done a double role as the King as well as the antagonist so that SLB would have fulfilled the dream of making Deepika and Ranveer have some scenes together!

            Like

          • “.fulfilled the dream of making Deepika and Ranveer have some scenes together..”
            U mean like a 3some?
            🙂 j/k

            Like

    • As a boy prince, a very young, cute, innocent couple, this can work really well. Lets watch the movie and then decide. I would have personally cast at least someone taller to suit the Rajput prince role of a tall princess, Deepika.

      Like

  30. Looking forward to this & Bhansali is one of few who really cares for a good soundtrack plus making it look good onscreen.

    Like

  31. Awesome and Blockbuster. December will work big time for this movie.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s