Some thoughts on the Padmavati Controversy

Some thoughts on the Padmavati Controversy

By RAZIUDDIN AQUIL | 2 December, 2017
Alauddin Khalji was a strong ruler who warded off several Mongol invasions from the north.
Making sense of contested historical legacies at times of widespread ignorance and suspicion is a difficult proposition. The Sufi poet Malik Muhammad Jayasi identified with the Chishti tradition, wrote many long narrative poems in Awadhi. Sufis and other poets of the period wrote in different registers in a range of genres and a variety of Indian vernaculars. The Awadhi Premakhayan, the poetry of love, was a well-recognised genre in which Sufi poets expressed their ideas of mystical love and the material desires that mystics or lovers of God would steer clear of. Jayasi’s Padmavati is an excellent example of such Premakhayans, which also included Mulla Daud’s Chandayan, Manjhan’s Madhumalti, and Qutban’s Mrigavati. Jayasi was a well-known figure in his time, writing on themes understandable to Hindus and Muslims alike and, as typical of most Sufi compositions, in a language intelligible to the common person. He avoided Arabic, though he was well-versed in Arabic Islamic tradition; he also avoided Persian, the language of power and elite intellectual discourse. Sanskrit was also an exclusive language—Sanskrit classics themselves were being adapted in Braj and Awadhi.

By the 14th century, the Chishti tradition had established itself firmly in almost the entire Indian subcontinent. The Chishtis were devoted to God, and their songs of love were presented to the people as an essential form of worship; since God created everything, they believed, one should love and respect the whole of His creation, and this included people of all creeds, castes, and ethnicities. Sufis established their hospices not only in the big cities, but also in many qasba-kinds of towns, in Awadh, Punjab, Bengal, and the Deccan; in this way they created a spiritual following over a vast geography of the Indian environment, embracing people who had or had not formally converted to Islam. What poets like Jayasi and others wrote and performed was widely acceptable in their time. Modern-day ignorance about the past and communal bigotry and politics have led us to a situation where our historical legacy is now violently contested.

Early 16th-century north India, the period in which Jayasi flourished, witnessed a variety of developments. On one hand there was the vibrant religious and cultural impact of the Sufis and Bhakti saints, on the other hand a fluid political context charged with possibilities was emerging. Babur’s attempts to establish his Timurid or Mughal dynasty here in India, would be followed by Afghan resistance, especially the one led by the formidable Sher Shah Sur. Though Rajputs were still emerging in the early 16th century, the “Hindu” subjects may not have felt disenfranchised under the Afghan or even the earlier Turkish rulers—just as they would not under Akbar or the other Mughals.

Historians of medieval India do not know how to handle the literary masterpieces of their period; and literature scholars have little understanding of medieval history; as a result, false assertions mar discussions in the public domain. False history has become an ideological weapon. Whatever little we know of medieval India, and it is not insubstantial, has not been used to inform, interest, and educate the public. In fact, we do not have a tradition of popular history of the kind that exists in the West.

Modern-day ignorance about the past and communal bigotry and politics have led us to a situation where our historical legacy is now violently contested.

The Padmini legend has spread over almost five centuries to large parts of upper north India, Bengal, Arakan and of course Rajasthan. Rajput sentiments must undoubtedly be respected in a political context in which they do not enjoy much power. Any depiction of Rajputs unable to save their women will be considered as a statement of their inability to safeguard their honour. It is the time of khap-panchayats and honour-killing, notwithstanding the modern state’s claims to establish its own rule of law—but in some cases vacating its rights to uphold the law, unleashing violent mobs as a political statement.

Though we are not sure if a Rajput princess called Padmini existed, but Alauddin Khalji was a historical figure with a massive amount of information available on him. He was a strong ruler who warded off several Mongol invasions from the north, and an able administrator, no more harsh and violent in his methods than rulers of the same period in any other part of the world. To portray him as an ugly barbarian and foreign invader, as in the widely circulating trailer of Bhansali’s Padmavati, is playing to easy stereotypes in our troubled times, and is also perhaps opportunistic. Demonisation of medieval Muslim rulers does not provoke the same ire or outrage and continues to feed into the myth of the “dark” medieval ages and a millennium of degradation.

There are 2 Comments

A highly interesting article based on a well researched analytical view. Unfortunately ignorance and communal bigotry like the writer says has eclipsed the powerful meaning and glorious chapters of Indian history. The urge to seek knowledge is dead. Instead a narrow minded approach to India's dynamic past has destroyed the beauty and power of Indian hybrid culture. The present day ruling politicians should be held criminally responsible.

Raziuddin Aquil and the commentator Razi Ashraf brush away the culture of Dhimmitude and Jaziyah , supported by the Sword. They ignore the fact that before the arrival of the first Islamic horde in India, after the last foreign invasion, the Hindu-Buddhist-Jaina Indian civilisation had been experiencing more than four centuries of peace. With the arrival of the Muslims India, which had everything - Philosophy, Religions galore, Fine Ats, Music, Painting, Sculpture, Urban Planning, Laws, a prosperous Social Structure - acquired the novelty of Intolerance, and the demonisation of everything non-Islamic and this according to the revelation by Allah as contained in black and white letters in the Quran. Nowadays it has become a fashion to flaunt the Sufis, as if the Sufis are the essence and the substance of the Muslim UMMA. There is no trace whatsoever of sufism in the Quran and the Hadiths. None in the life story of the Prophet. Sufism - with its songs, dances, musical forms - are direct influences of Hindu Bhaktiism. And the so-called moderate, liberal Muslims who now discover the virtues of harmony, broad-mindedness etc, still maintain their exclusiveness in not acknowledging the borrowings from Hinduism and Hindu culture. Though the evidence is there for everybody to see: every Muslim singer of Khyal is a descendant of the gharana founder who was a Hindu, Brahmin by caste. Muhammad never heard a musician, or a singer of Khyal, he did not see a painting, or a sculpture. There is no mention of Music or of a Fine Art in the Quran. Allah is all anti-Art and intensely pro-Iconoclasm. The Muslim today in Pakistan and in Bangladesh is what he or she is because of the Hindu influences. The Pakistani or Bangladeshi as a Muslim is as good as a Boko Haram, or as a Chinese Muslim. But culturally he or she owes everthing cultural to the Hindus. Why do they refuse to own it? If Aquil and Ashraf are serious, then why would they not talk to the AIMPLB to curtail their iconoclastic denial to the Hindus of their freedom to worship as they had been doing for millenials before Muhammad was born? The poets mentioned in Aquil's blog all wrote in a largely Hindu environment. Their literary openness is Hindu.

Add new comment

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.