Jump to content

Bhansali slapped by protestors for alleged distortion of history,Anurag Kashyap calls it Hindus Terrorism

Malcolm Merlyn

By Malcolm Merlyn
in Chit Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

Muloghonto Mentor

Muloghonto

Posted
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, mishra said:

Now read your own post

http://www.indiancricketfans.com/forums/topic/99172-bhansali-slapped-by-protestors-for-alleged-distortion-of-historyanurag-kashyap-calls-it-hindus-terrorism/?page=2#comment-3358936

 

Also re-Read my metaphorical statement about Linux. DO some google cos you dont look like  IT.

 

 

My original post is about the same thing i posted in the post you quoted. 

here is a simplified view:

 

a) No mention of Anarkali in Akbar's biography

b) No mention of Anarkali in Jahangir's autobiography

c) British merchants visiting India during that time, mention one Anarkali, a woman Jahangir loved intensely, fought over his dad briefly to marry and married her. Mentions, she is buried in Lahore, in Anarkalis tomb.

d) In Lahore, there is a tomb called Anarkali's tomb. The commemoration on the coffin states that she is the daughter of a noblewoman, wife to Salim (Jahangir) and bore him a few children.

 

 

These are the raw facts we have. From where you think this 'Mughal-e-Azam' style Anarkali story is true, is beyond me.


Mughal-e-Azam, like 99.99999% movies about history, are historical FICTION. It means you have a movie/book that is loosely based on history. Ie, some real history, some cooked up stuff to make it 'a good read'.

Example: Gladiator, Mughal-e-Azam, Jodhaa-Akbar, Braveheart, Titus Andronicus and many, many more.

 

So whats the big deal if we add one more historical fiction to the pile ?

 


PS: I get your IT analogy. Except it is false analogy. Because no-matter how well researched Rutherford's work is, he himself admits that it is historical fiction. It isn't a historical analysis. If you read history, you will find that modern day analysis of history, by professional historians are often highly controversial, with half the history community saying its trash, the other half accepting it. So if thats what happens with scholarly works on history, a fictional work deserves no quotation as a 'historical source', seriously.

 

Edited by Muloghonto
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mishra Mentor

mishra

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

My original post is about the same thing i posted in the post you quoted. 

here is a simplified view:

 

a) No mention of Anarkali in Akbar's biography

b) No mention of Anarkali in Jahangir's autobiography

c) British merchants visiting India during that time, mention one Anarkali, a woman Jahangir loved intensely, fought over his dad briefly to marry and married her. Mentions, she is buried in Lahore, in Anarkalis tomb.

d) In Lahore, there is a tomb called Anarkali's tomb. The commemoration on the coffin states that she is the daughter of a noblewoman, wife to Salim (Jahangir) and bore him a few children.

 

 

These are the raw facts we have. From where you think this 'Mughal-e-Azam' style Anarkali story is true, is beyond me.


Mughal-e-Azam, like 99.99999% movies about history, are historical FICTION. It means you have a movie/book that is loosely based on history. Ie, some real history, some cooked up stuff to make it 'a good read'.

Example: Gladiator, Mughal-e-Azam, Jodhaa-Akbar, Braveheart, Titus Andronicus and many, many more.

 

So whats the big deal if we add one more historical fiction to the pile ?

 


PS: I get your IT analogy. Except it is false analogy. Because no-matter how well researched Rutherford's work is, he himself admits that it is historical fiction. It isn't a historical analysis. If you read history, you will find that modern day analysis of history, by professional historians are often highly controversial, with half the history community saying its trash, the other half accepting it. So if thats what happens with scholarly works on history, a fictional work deserves no quotation as a 'historical source', seriously.

 

Thanks for taking a complete U turn from your post 64 but dont do a Kejriwal style lie. I am not interested in this discussion anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Muloghonto Mentor

Muloghonto

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, mishra said:

Thanks for taking a complete U turn from your post 64 but dont do a Kejriwal style lie. I am not interested in this discussion anymore.

At what point did i ever say Mughal-E-Azam was 'true' and not historical fiction in this thread, for it to constitute a U-turn 

?!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mishra Mentor

mishra

Posted
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

At what point did i ever say Mughal-E-Azam was 'true' and not historical fiction in this thread, for it to constitute a U-turn 

?!

 

Finally you forced me to google. Wiki page if not untrue says that she was concubine(uses term salve). Now some facts in book which you call fiction:

1 how harem looked

2. where the slave could have come from (specially Anarkali)

3. How Akbar got various concubines 

4. In case Concubines would have son and Khwazsara was the one responsible to date and decide every sexual encounters between emperor and concubines

5. What was punishment for disobeying

6. Where was Salim sent for bedding Akbars concubine.
 

Quote

 

Anarkali (Urdu: انارکلی‎ (Shahmukhi); Anārkalī ) (pomegranate blossom), born as Sharif un-Nissa,[1] and also known as Nadira Begum, was a legendary slave girl.

 

William Finch and Edward Terry. William Finch reached Lahore in February 1611 (only 11 years after the supposed death of Anarkali), to sell the indigo he had purchased at Bayana on behalf of the East India Company. His account, written in early 17th-century English, gives the following information.

Anarkali was the mother of prince Daniyal (third son of Akbar) ( and she had an affair with Prince Salim (Jahangir). Upon the notice of the affair, King Akbar caused the lady to be enclosed within a wall of his palace, where she died

..

Basing his analysis on the above two Britishers’ accounts, Abraham Eraly, the author of The Last Spring: The Lives and Times of the Great Mughals, suspects that there "seems to have been an oedipal conflict between Akbar and Salim." He also considers it probable that the legendary Anarkali was none other than the mother of Prince Daniyal.[citation needed]

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarkali

 

 

Now you can keep on with your version of history

Edited by mishra
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mishra Mentor

mishra

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

At what point did i ever say Mughal-E-Azam was 'true' and not historical fiction in this thread, for it to constitute a U-turn 

?!

 

You said Mughal-E-Azam historical fiction , Not a historical distortion, and then added to it that how Salim took his love further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
coffee_rules Grand Master

coffee_rules

Posted
Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Why ?

What is wrong with historical fiction, seriously ? Nobody in the west gets bent out of shape when Julius Caesar is portrayed wrongly from historical records, why is it ok for Indians to do it ?

 

 

Why did the India liberal media  get their knickers in a twist over a book that indicated Mahatma Gandhi lived with a man in UK for a year and had a weird non-plutonic relationship. It is for the same reason why this fringe Rajput group is up-in-arms defending what they believe is picturing a historical figure in a bad way. 

Edited by coffee_rules
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mishra Mentor

mishra

Posted
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

historical fiction *IS* historical distortion. Thats what the term 'fiction' means....

 

 Read your comment again. Whatever you stated as fact was only to further support the Bollywood fiction. And that was exactly I was trying to impress upon. That even educated people who think they know most are easily fooled into believing Bollywood

Now Since you out-rightly reject Alex Rutherford, Read his sources, else simply refer Wikipedia. No need to bring Akbarnama in this.

 

Fact:

Anarkali was slave came as Turkish gift who was supposed to stay as concubine to be used in accidental sowing of Royal oats had sex with young Selim and ended up in a wall while Selim was exiled to his relative somewhere on Afghan border.

 

PS: I am not doing Akbars or anyones character assassination as son or no son, If you look at emperors concubine, you could also look upon his throne. So Akbar was forced to screw Selim for disobeying him.

 

Edited by mishra
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Muloghonto Mentor

Muloghonto

Posted
Posted
55 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

 

Why did the India liberal media  get their knickers in a twist over a book that indicated Mahatma Gandhi lived with a man in UK for a year and had a weird non-plutonic relationship. It is for the same reason why this fringe Rajput group is up-in-arms defending what they believe is picturing a historical figure in a bad way. 

Was the book on Gandhi intended to be a lesson in history & was it false ? If so, I can see reason to get knickers in a twist.

But this is bollywood. Ie, pure entertainment. No reason to get knickers in a twist, since nobody in hollywood is peddling movies as intended history.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Muloghonto Mentor

Muloghonto

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, mishra said:

 Read your comment again. Whatever you stated as fact was only to further support the Bollywood fiction. And that was exactly I was trying to impress upon. That even educated people who think they know most are easily fooled into believing Bollywood

Now Since you out-rightly reject Alex Rutherford, Read his sources, else simply refer Wikipedia. No need to bring Akbarnama in this.

 

Fact:

Anarkali was slave came as Turkish gift who was supposed to stay as concubine to be used in accidental sowing of Royal oats had sex with young Selim and ended up in a wall while Selim was exiled to his relative somewhere on Afghan border.

 

PS: I am not doing Akbars or anyones character assassination as son or no son, If you look at emperors concubine, you could also look upon his throne. So Akbar was forced to screw Selim for disobeying him.

 

The bolded part isn't fact. its rumour. Please learn to differentiate between historical facts & folk tales. It would be factual if Jahangir mentioned her in his autobiography. But he didn't. Meaning, the whole 'loved her so much that he went against his father & rebelled' is pure masala.

 
What you think i am stating as 'fact', is the only reasonable conclusion of who the heck this Anarkali was. If the source is British traders visiting India and they say she is buried in Lahore, well then the tomb that 'happens to be' the one in Lahore called Anarkali's tomb, contains the real historical person this myth/folktale is built on. Who happens to be a noble lady married to Selim and died after bearing him children.


PS: I am not doubting his sources.I reject Rutherford not because of his sources, but because he is a FICTION writer. Meaning, he will invent things and put it in midst of facts, to weave a story. Thats what historical fiction is and it seems to me, you are unfamiliar with the genre. Better research gives historical fiction greater accuracy & detail but does not stop it from being FICTION. No amount of research into Shivaji, for example, would stop me from inventing the idea that Shivaji had an affair with a visiting Chinese woman, if I so chose to do. Because that is the whole point of historical fiction. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mishra Mentor

mishra

Posted
Posted (edited)

^ Bhai, I know you have read all the autobiographies.

Historical fictions are not pure masala but have solid basis. Dialogues, pompisity and things like values of democracy et all superimposed on Heroes character are masala. If you cant understand what is masala what is not then no point in reading them.

  But while reading that masala, its not difficult to find out ingredients of that Masala.

 

Just Cause, You cant find Budhhist stupas in Afghanistan doesnt mean Afghans werent once peace loving Budhists. Does that makes sense? Or Do British traders account have to be either 100% right or 100% wrongs?

 

Edited by mishra
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mariyam Grand Master

Mariyam

Posted
Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, Vilander said:

 

1, The muslims ruler is basically scum who killed and raped.

2, The hindu queen immolated herself did not have hot romance with the scum.

3, Bansali took creative liberty in an insensitive way, he could have called her some other name. Or clarified what his movies actual story is.

4, Slapping him around was totally wrong.

5, But he is not without any errors here.

6, We do not know if the people who assaulted him do not know this.

I haven't commented on khilji or the movie yet.  Tibarn also started with " your support for the movie/khilji". Given his lack of English comprehension skills one can understand his outburst. But why are you quoting this to me? You know me better than that. I do not support Khilji or Taimur or their ilk. There is nothing I share with them except for my faith. 

 

I simply haven't commented on the movie or Khilji AT ALL. 

 

I said the attack on Bhansali is despicable. And the fact that people can condemn a movie they are making assumptions about, whose script they do not know (and made false assumptions on as it turned out),  but not an assault that actually took place is also shocking. That shows an extremely parochial outlook.

 

For the 'history buffs' crying over the distortion, I'm surprised I didn't see you around when Mohenjodaro was released. I'm sure the attire in the Indus Valley Civilization didn't include a head dress wider than Farah Khan's torso. I'm also quite sure that there weren't flying crocodiles back then. Lets not kid ourselves why the 'history buffs' are here only now.

 

Anyways, this is Bhansali's statement. (my first comment on the movie)
http://www.india.com/showbiz/finally-here-is-the-official-statement-from-sanjay-leela-bhansali-on-attack-in-jaipur-1791806/

Relevant excerpts

Quote

 


SLB had directed the opera ‘Padmavati’ to packed houses in Paris and earned worldwide praise for it. He was inspired by the beautiful and courageous queen and is making a feature film on the story.
We clarify that there is no dream sequence or any objectionable scene between Rani Padmavati and Allauddin Khilji. We have been carefully researching and making the film… The attack on the shoot and crew was uncalled for and was extremely damaging to the image of the beautiful city of Jaipur.

So basically they beat up SLB and damaged his equipment over nothing. Rajput Karni Sena must also be a graduate of the MNS school of extortion and creating public nuisance.

Edited by Mariyam
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mariyam Grand Master

Mariyam

Posted
Posted

This was trending on twitter

 

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/anurag-kashyap-trolls-twitter-sanjay-leela-bhansali-padmavati/1/868566.html

 

  1.  Jan 27

    MC kuch gundo ki vajah se tum aaj Hindu.. bol rahe ho Islamic terrorism bolne me * phatti hai TUMHE gundai n terrorism me fark nahi pata

    Hindu extremists have stepped out of twitter into the real world now.. and Hindu terrorism is not a myth anymore
    17 replies134 retweets319 likes
     
     
     
     
     
     

Black Friday tere baap be banayi thi na, kiraye ke deshbhakt

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vilander Mentor

Vilander

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Mariyam said:

For the 'history buffs' crying over the distortion, I'm surprised I didn't see you around when Mohenjodaro was released. I'm sure the attire in the Indus Valley Civilization didn't include a head dress wider than Farah Khan's torso. I'm also quite sure that there weren't flying crocodiles back then. Lets not kid ourselves why the 'history buffs' are here only now.

 

No one argues it is because Kujli was a timurid rapist ruler and Padmavati was a Indian queen who immolated herself to escape exploitation. The point here is simple. If there is no distortion of truth in the form of Padmavati ( a cultural icon of sorts for Rajputs) being shown as to be having a romantic relation with Alauddin Khulji in the movie then SLB was slapped around despicably for no reason. If there is such a scene then SLB was slapped around despicably but pretty predictably. If SLB has not released this statement then SLB was slapped around despicably but he probably had it coming. 

 

And Jaipur will continue to be the beautiful place that attracts tourists inspite of SLB being slapped around in all probability, the beauty and the history of the place is beyond all this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mariyam Grand Master

Mariyam

Posted
Posted (edited)

@Vilander

Difficult for Khilji to be a Timurid rapist because he predates the latter.

 

This is his official statement. I posted it earlier too. There *is* nothing in the movie that the Rajput Karni Sena claims.

 

Quote

“Sanjay Leela Bhansali has shot two films in Jaipur and despite his love for Rajasthan, for the safety of his crew, we have decided to stop the shoot and leave the city post the shocking incident where miscreants damaged property and misbehaved with the crew on the shoot of ‘Padmavati’. SLB had directed the opera ‘Padmavati’ to packed houses in Paris and earned worldwide praise for it. He was inspired by the beautiful and courageous queen and is making a feature film on the story.

We clarify that there is no dream sequence or any objectionable scene between Rani Padmavati and Allauddin Khilji. We have been carefully researching and making the film. In spite of this, the attack on the shoot and crew was uncalled for and was extremely damaging to the image of the beautiful city of Jaipur. We are grateful to the authorities at Jaipur who responded promptly and limited the damage on shoot. We are confident that Mewar will be proud of the film made on their revered queen. We do not want to hurt any sentiments and would appreciate if the local people support us in making this film and making their queen revered by the world.”

 

Much gundagardi over nothing.

 

 

Edited by Mariyam
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MechEng Proficient

MechEng

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, Mariyam said:

This was trending on twitter

 

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/anurag-kashyap-trolls-twitter-sanjay-leela-bhansali-padmavati/1/868566.html

 

  1. Indian Retweeted Anurag Kashyap

    MC kuch gundo ki vajah se tum aaj Hindu.. bol rahe ho Islamic terrorism bolne me * phatti hai TUMHE gundai n terrorism me fark nahi pata

    Indian added,

    Anurag Kashyap @anuragkashyap72
    Hindu extremists have stepped out of twitter into the real world now.. and Hindu terrorism is not a myth anymore
    17 replies134 retweets319 likes
    Reply
     
    17
     
    Retweet
     
    134
     
     
    Like
     
    319

@DeshbhaktRaj Black Friday tere baap be banayi thi na, kiraye ke deshbhakt

I never liked Anurag Kashyap, he's good at his work but comes across as a negative personality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Muloghonto Mentor

Muloghonto

Posted
Posted

Now, we should prosecute these Goondas. 


Until we Indians learn that regardless of your PERSONAL FEELINGS, an act of crime needs to be met with legal consequences, we will amount to nothing more than playing catchup to the west- and no amount of chest-thumping India-giri will change that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
coffee_rules Grand Master

coffee_rules

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Now, we should prosecute these Goondas. 


Until we Indians learn that regardless of your PERSONAL FEELINGS, an act of crime needs to be met with legal consequences, we will amount to nothing more than playing catchup to the west- and no amount of chest-thumping India-giri will change that.

 

Yes, they should be taken to task. But the film folk should register a FIR/complaint to the police to take action. Instead, he chose dramebaazi by going to press crying hoarse and on social media. The police will not read tweets and take action.  You need to give a formal complaint or complaint to the court if government is not taking action. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...