Swara Bhasker bashes Sanjay Leela Bhansalis Padmaavat in an open letter

29 Jan 2018

With Padmaavat creating history, as it managed to release amidst a series of chaotic conditions, many actors have raved it. With filmmakers considering it as a victory to their freedom, the film has gained a lot of positive reviews from colleagues who have also appreciated the performances of actors. However, Padmaavat doesnt seem to have found fans in everyone from the industry. In fact, when Swara Bhasker was asked about her opinion, the actress unabashedly maintained that she felt like she reduced to a vagina only after watching the film. Swara Bhasker, recently took to writing a column piece about Padmaavat , where she expressed her opinion about the film. She said, Perhaps it is because of this attachment and concern that I had for the film that I am SO stunned having watched it. And perhaps that is why I take the liberty and have the temerity to write to you. I will try and be concise and direct though there is much to say. Women have the right to live, despite being raped sir. Women have the right to live, despite the death of their husbands, male protectors, owners, controllers of their sexuality.. whatever you understand the men to be. Women have the right to live independent of whether men are living or not. Women have the right to live. Period. Although Swara appreciated the magnum opus and the brilliant performances of her co-actors like Deepika Padukone Ranveer Singh and Shahid Kapoor , Swara actually was disappointed with the regressive plotline as she further went on to explain her feelings about this particular story. Sir, thats what I felt like at the end of your magnum opus. I felt like a vagina. I felt reduced to a vaginaonly. I felt like all the minor achievements that women and womens movements have made over the years like the right to vote, the right to own property, the right to education, equal pay for equal work, maternity leave, the Vishakha judgement, the right to adopt children all of it was pointless; because we were back to basics. We were back to the basic question of right to life. Your film, it felt, had brought us back to that question from the Dark Ages do women widowed, raped, young, old, pregnant, pre-pubescent do they have the right to live? Stressing on the fact about the existence of Sati and how the film glorified it, Swara expressed her objection over the concept of Rani Padmavati doing jauhar. I understand that Jauhar and Sati are a part of our social history. These happened. I understand that they are sensational, shocking dramatic occurrences that lend themselves to splendid, stark and stunning visual representation; especially in the hands of a consummate maker like yourself but then so were the lynchings of blacks by murderous white mobs in the 19th century in the US sensational, shocking dramatic social occurrences. Does that mean one should make a film about it with no perspective on racism? Or, without a comment on racial hatred? Worse, should one make a film glorifying lynchings as a sign of some warped notion of hot-bloodedness, purity, bravery I dont know, I have no idea how possibly one could glorify such a heinous hate crime. Surely Sir, you agree that Sati, and Jauhar are not practices to be glorified. Surely, you agree that notwithstanding whatever archaic idea of honour, sacrifice, purity propels women and men to participate in and condone such practices; that basically Sati and Jauhar, like the practice of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and Honour Killings, are steeped in deeply patriarchal, misogynist and problematic ideas. A mentality that believes that the worth of women lies in their vaginas, that female lives are worthless if the women are no longer controlled by male owners or if their bodies have been desecrated by the touch of ; or even the gaze of a male who doesnt by social sanction own or control the female. Practices like Sati, Jauhar, FGM, Honour Killings should not be glorified because they dont merely deny women equality, they deny women personhood. They deny women humanity. They deny women the right to life. And that is wrong. One would have assumed that in 2018, this is not a point that even needs to be made; but apparently, it does. Surely, you wouldnt consider making a film glorifying FGM or Honour Killings! Sir, you will say to me that I am over-reacting and that I must see the film in its context. That its a story about people in the 13th Century. And in the 13th century thats what life was polygamy was accepted, Muslims were beasts who devoured meat and women alike, and honourable Hindu women happily jumped into their husbands funeral pyre, and if they couldnt make it to the funeral, they built a pyre and rushed into it in fact, they liked the idea of collective suicide so much that they gleefully discussed it over their daily beautification rituals. Verisimilitude you will say to me. No Sir; Rajasthan in the 13th century with its cruel practices is merely the historical setting of the ballad you have adapted into the film Padmaavat. The context of your film is India in the 21st century; where five years ago, a girl was gang-raped brutally in the countrys capital inside a moving bus. She didnt commit suicide because her honour had been desecrated, Sir. She fought her six rapists. She fought them so hard that one of those monsters shoved an iron rod up her vagina. She was found on the road with her intestines spilling out. Apologies for the graphic details, Sir, but this is the real context of your film. A week before your film released, a 15-year-old Dalit girl was brutally gang-raped in Jind in Haryana; a crime bearing sinister similarities to the rape of Nirbhaya. You do know that acts like Sati and raping women are two sides of the same mindset. A rapist attempts to violate and attack a woman in her genital area, penetrate it forcibly, mutilate it in an effort to control the woman, dominate her or annihilate her. A Sati- Jauhar apologist or supporter attempts to annihilate the woman altogether if the genitals have been violated or if her genitals are no longer in the control of a rightful male owner. In both cases the attempt and idea is to reduce women to a sum total of their genitals. The context of art, any art is the time and place when it was created and consumed. And thats why this gang-rape infested India, this rape condoning mindset, this victim blaming society is the actual context of your film, Sir. Surely in this context, you could have offered some sort of a critique of Sati and Jauhar in your film? You will say that you put out a disclaimer at the beginning of the film claiming that the film did not support Sati or Jauhar. Sure Sir, but you followed that up with a two-hour-45-minute-long paean on Rajput honour, and the bravery of honourable Rajput women who chose happily to sacrifice their lives in raging flames, than to be touched by enemy men who were not their husbands but were incidentally Muslim. There were more than three instances of the good characters of your story speaking of Sati/Jauhar as the honourable choice, your female protagonist epitome of both beauty, brains and virtue sought permission from her husband to commit Jauhar, because she could not even die without his permission; soon after she delivered a long speech about the war between Satya and Asatya, Dharm and Adharm and presented collective Sati to be the path of Truth and Dharm. Then in the climax, breathtakingly shot of course hundreds of women bedecked in red like Goddess Durga as bride rushed into the Jauhar fire while a raving Muslim psychopathic villain loomed over them and a pulsating musical track that had the power of an anthem; seduced the audience into being awestruck and admiring of this act. Sir, if this is not glorification and support of Sati and Jauhar, I really do not know what is. I felt very uncomfortable watching your climax, watching that pregnant woman and little girl walk into the fire. I felt my existence was illegitimate because God forbid anything untowa