Some background before I begin the post: I was actually anticipating this movie and defending it vehemently before the reviews came out, but I still ended up watching it yesterday in order to see if the misgivings that some of the film critics had about it were true. To my disappointment, it was indeed true. This film is quite backwards with its Islamophobia, homophobia, and misogyny. I'm going to try to explain it in detail, and there will be some spoilers.
1.
Let's start with the Islamophobia. Please note that I am not in any way trying to say that the real Alauddin Khilji (yes, he actually existed. Padmavati, on the other hand, most likely didn't.) was a good person or that any of the things he did were right. I am well aware that he was a cruel invader. That is not my issue with the film. My irritation is that the movie fabricated a few aspects of him in order to emphasize that he was a "Muslim savage". Here are some examples of the harmful/stereotypical inaccuracies:
- His appearance. The real Alauddin Khilji was a Turkic-Afghan king who looked something more like this, according to paintings/drawings:
![Image and video hosting by TinyPic]()
The film, however, chose to make him look like this:
![Image and video hosting by TinyPic]()
He looks more like Khal Drago, and is given longer hair and
heavy surma (eyeliner). It is done intentionally to make him look menacing and unkempt.
- Eating food like an animal. In the film, Khilji is shown to have eaten roti and meat like a feral dog. Historians have said that this wouldn't have been accurate:
"Mr Bhansali's Khilji, played by Ranveer Singh, has kohl-rimmed hungry eyes, a scarred face, a gym-toned body, wears furs when he is not bare-chested and rips meat off the bone with his teeth.
Historian Rana Safvi believes that Khilji was anything but savage. It was under his rule the Delhi Sultanate heavily drew from Persia, one of the oldest and most sophisticated civilisations of all time, she said.
"The rulers followed the exact code of conduct and etiquette as in Persia. It would have been very formal - the eating, dining and sartorial choices," Ms Safvi told PTI."- The maniacal hyena-like laughter
![Image and video hosting by TinyPic]()
The gif above is pretty much how Khilji laughs throughout the film.
- The crazy eyes complete with trance-like rolling. It is apparent in the song/dance sequence, "Khalibali".
- The ferocious stomping and making facial expressions like the joker when dancing. Again, this is shown in the song, "Khalibali".
Basically, my question is what was the point of adding in these inaccuracies by savaging up his character like this? If Bhansali wanted to convey Khilji as a bad person, then he could have done it accurately and still would have made his point. There was also absolutely no nuance as to how Khilji was written, he was basically a cartoon villain. A few of the film critics' reviews have expressed that this film adds fuel to the fire to the paranoia that right-wing Hindus have about Muslims, and I agree with that. This is especially evident in the way the movie portrays Rajputs in contrast to the Muslim characters. The Rajputs are deified and there is frequent dialogue in the movie about how they are a people of integrity, honor, valor, and courage.
Furthermore, there is also a double standard between how Khilji and Ratan Singh's actions are shown. When Khilji is unfaithful to his wife, Mehrunissa, it is rendered as awful and reprehensible. On the other hand, Ratan Singh already has a wife, Nagmati, when he falls in love with Padmavati and marries her. Nagmati demonstrates many times that she is not ok with her husband having a second wife, and yet the relationship between Ratan Singh and Padmavati is supposed to be romantic and a love story for the ages.
2.
The homophobia. Alauddin Khilji was documented to have been bisexual in real life and may have had a sexual relationship with Malik Kafur. The film does hint at this. So, what's the problem, you might ask? The problem is the way Bhansali tries to make Khilji's bisexuality seem like a negative and comical thing. It is seen as one more reason as to why Khilji is a lesser person than the Hindu king, Ratan Singh, who is straight. For example, in one scene, Ratan Singh's courtiers refer to Malik Kafur as Khilji's "begum" (for those who don't know, "begum" is a title usually given to married Muslim
women in Central and South Asia). It is a homophobic remark and yet it is played up for laughs because bisexual/gay men are basically women, don't you know? *rolls eyes* Also, Malik is shown as a caricature as well with his flamboyance.
3.
The misogyny. I understand why the Rajput women committed jauhar (mass self-immolation) at the end, it's just that entire sequence and the dialogue before it makes it seem as if it should be glorified. At one point in Padmavati's speech before the jauhar scene, she says something along the lines of (I'm paraphrasing) "our men who died on the field today are like Gods and whe should do this (jauhar) in order to honor them." Why is the onus on the women to uphold the kingdom's honor, dignity, and pride? And by such a slow and torturous death as well? As Padmavati walks into the fire, the screen fades to black and there is a voice-over saying that the sacrifice that she and the Rajput women made would ensure that they will forever be remembered in history, and that they saved the Kingdom of Mewar's "honor" by doing so.
Before Ratan Singh goes into battle with Khilji, Padmavati asks him to give her the ok to commit jauhar and says, "I can't even kill myself without your permission."
SOURCESOURCESOURCESOURCESOURCESOURCEI had to get this off my chest and rant about the film. The more I think about the movie,
the more it makes me mad. Did anyone else see it or is planning to see it?![Image and video hosting by TinyPic]()
