Much ado about nothing

A contemporary of Amir Khusrau, Ziauddin Barni remarks in his famous ‘Tarikh-i-Ferozshahi’ (1375 AD) that there were poets in the reign of Sultan Allauddin Khalji, "such as had never existed before and have never appeared since. The incomparable Amir Khusrau stands unequalled for the volume of his writings and the originality of his ideals; for, while, other great masters of prose and verse have excelled in one or two branches, Amir Khusrau was conspicuous in every department of letters. A man with such mystery over all the forms of poetry has never existed in the past and may perhaps not come into existence before the Day of Judgement..."

No poet would have flourished, that too of such excellence, under the rule of a barbarian. Sanjay Leela Bhansali, a film maker, anyway is not known to honour or respect history. His film ‘Padmaavat’ is in fact not just a distortion of history but a deliberate disservice to the nation, not vis-a-vis the portrayal of Rani Padmaavati, but in presenting Allauddin Khalji as an animal.

Historical accounts and Amir Khusrau's works never give one an impression that Khalji was such a savage. He could have been that to his enemies and to the peoples of the kingdoms he conquered, but that is what every victor had done to the vanquished.
Even a rudimentary knowledge of Khalji's times tells us that he had far less time to run after women or force wars due to women. That is why modern historians have long been rubbishing claims of some that he waged a war for the sake of Padmaavati.

No time to run after a ‘raani ‘
Khalji was proclaimed Sultan in Delhi on October 21, 1296 after staging a coup against Jalaluddin, whose daughter he married.

On 21 October 1296, Alauddin was formally proclaimed as the Sultan in Delhi. But, he had to spend several years consolidating his position and power. He had to balance the power between the officers appointed by the Mamluks, those appointed by Jalaluddin and his own appointees. His authority in the Punjab region was limited as it was in the areas beyond Lahore. 

Multan was controlled by Jalaluddin's son Arkali, who sheltered those who rebelled against Khalji. He also had to face Mongol and Khokhar invasions and rebellions. All the while, he had to constantly replace existing centres of power with his own friends and followers. It was as if a thousand mutinies and rebellions were staring at his face always and he was constantly on his toes. Between 1297 AD and 1306 AD he was busy planning and handling the Mongol invasions and northern conquests. But for his ruthless slaying of Mongols, the Northern India could have come under the Mongol raids and far greater brutalities would have been inflicted on the populace, perhaps.

After 1306, Allauddin became busy with Marwar and Southern campaigns till 1313 AD. His invasion of Chittor happened during the first leg of these wars, before 1306 AD. If he had killed Hindus in large numbers after his invasions, he also killed Mongols in greater numbers and as many Muslims from day one. When and where did he have time to dream about the Rani of Chittor?  "Amir Khusrau writes in his works "for the building of the new fort of Dehli, and the repairs of the old one as it is a condition that in a new building blood should be sprinkled; he, therefore, sacrificed some thousands of goat-bearded Mughals for the purpose.”

The members of Karni Sena who declared their valour to the world recently and the hooligans who threatened the 'Padmaavat' crew with attacks and sought stopping the release of the films should read history properly, at least to understand their past properly. 

Duplicity of Congress
The Congress which sought a ban on Madhur Bhandarkar's ‘Indu Sarkar’ recently and threatened the country with violence if it was released made its associates join hands with Karni Sena on one hand, while on the other, criticised the BJP-led governments for their inaction. Of course, the oldest party's duplicity was always well-known.

The Congress, instead, should have questioned Bhansali's falsification of history, as it is any day a minority-oriented party. Khalji was known for his large-scale reforms if only to maintain his large army and to weaken those capable of revolting or organising revolts against his rule. 

If Allauddin subjugated Hindus and took away their wealth, "to render them weak and to make them spend their time in earning a livelihood,” then he also stripped his Amirs and Wazirs of all wealth to reduce them to the stature of daily labour. Historian Satish Chandra points out that Allauddin's reforms were based on his conception of fear and control as the basis of good government as well as his military ambitions, the bulk of which were designed to centralise power in his hands and to support his large military.
Land reforms were his primary reforms and as landed Hindus were scheming rebellions, he struck them with reforms taking away all landed properties including those of his courtiers, nobles and cancelled revenue assignments which were henceforth controlled by Central authorities.

Historians and authors like Kishori Saran or La Font or Jean-Marie, Rehana have kinder words for Khalji than Bhansali. Amir Khusrau's ‘Tarikh-I 'Alai’ or ‘Khazainu-L Futuh’ contains an interesting account of Khalji's rule, but it rarely gets quoted anywhere for reasons not known. 

That so much of nonsense is being said about the character portrayed of the Rani without anyone watching it is a sad reflection of one's ignorance. Well, even if it were a distortion of history, it is the film maker's liberty. No one expects one to learn about either history or culture from such producers. It is just 'time pass yaar' kind of a work.

Still want to criticise the film? Well, go ahead and do so for the insanity with which Khalji was portrayed not because of Padmaavati. Vandalism of medieval and ancient conquests is understandable, not the modern day's.

It is good to see the millions rushing to watch the film soon after its release. If the governments cannot rein in the fringe, then the ordinary Hindus would do so in this country because they cherish the ideals nurtured by the democracy. This was proved decisively to the Hindutva forces in the past and it shall be proved in the future to those who want to dismember and segment the society for political gains. Why is the tail wagging the dog?