Fact Fiction and Freedom

There are times I wonder about the purpose of art. There are multiple perspectives on what art is supposed to achieve, the most accepted being a tool for making life worth living. Art could do this in two ways – either transporting one through a portal beyond reality or painting his mind using complex tools to reveal the harsh truths on life using different forms as reality is not hard hitting. Art has always seen challenges and the recent protests to prevent the screening of the movie Padmavati is only an extension of what it has faced since time immemorial.

The protesters claim that the movie is disrespectful to the Queen Padmini. The irony lies in the fact that she never existed. The earliest fictitious account was by Malik Muhammad Jayasi which is dated to the 1540s, more than 200 years after Alauddin Khilji, the emperor of the Delhi Sultanate passed away. There is no historical account that Alauddin Khilji decided to conquer Chittoor lured by the beauty of Padmavati, who was the fictitious wife of Chittoor king Ratansen. Khilji never captured Padmavati as she according to the story commits Sati on the funeral pyre of her husband.

At times one is bewildered how history could be distorted when the account itself is essentially fictitious. Then there is the usual question of disrespecting people’s emotions and sentiments, the ever going debate on the idea of tolerance, the threat to artists, yet no solutions exist for situations like these.

Padmavati Movie Poster

Primarily the problem arises from the ignorant and enigmatic citizenry who fail to separate fact from fiction. This ignorance is fertile land for communal and opportunistic elements. One cannot expect better when the political class creates a ruckus about two dialogues in a film but does not care about the death of 60 children in the real world. Ignorant minds and opportunistic wolves are a nightmare for any artist it does not matter whether you are a writer, a director or a painter.

The Creator cannot do much when protesters ask for banning the movie before seeing it. Currently, there are possibilities of selective screening leading to the release of the movie. But in practical terms film business is extremely complex. It involves not just the actors but the distributors, theatres and most importantly the audience. Looking at the magnitude of the protests, any theatre owner would be captivated by the genuine fear of protecting his screen than a temporary movie which plays on it. The age of Heckler's veto has always been there but should not we make progress?

The concept of Freedom is founded on the fact that the neighbour is not interfered with. But what can one do when the neighbour is offended even without one’s intention. There is always the option of personally boycotting the movie if one feels it goes against his beliefs and values but it is more than barbaric to lay a price on a person’s head just because she/he does not subscribe the same views as one. This wouldn’t be the first time for art, will never be the last.