Horrific in this day and age . . .

[Owlswing]

Why, oh  why, do people seem to think that such actions can be justified by politics or religion?

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/bounty-offered-head-bollywood-actress-deepika-padukone-171000078.html

[jeremyp]

Religion spoils everything.

[Owlswing]

Religion spoils everything.

You know the real embuggerance about it?

Religion does it with no effort whatsoever!

[Walter]

Religion spoils everything.

even other religious people ( which I find hard to have sympathy for)

[Sriram]

This has nothing to do with religion.

Padmavati is a legendary queen in the region of Rajasthan during the 13 century. There are clear historical links but no direct evidence for specific events.

Their kingdom was invaded by a muslim king called Allaudin Kilji (historical),  largely because he had heard of the beauty of the queen Padmavati and he wanted to possess her.   This was quite a common occurrence during those times especially with muslim invaders.  Could be a fact.

When the Rajput king and others were defeated in the battle and Kilji was advancing towards their fort...the queen Padmavati and the other women in the palace are said to have committed suicide by burning themselves in a pyre. This was to avoid being taken prisoner and getting raped by Kilji and his soldiers.

Since then, Padmavati and the other women are revered as chaste women by the people of Rajasthan.

A film is being made on this subject....but there were rumors that the producer/director (Bhansali) had deliberately included a dream sequence in which Kilji dreams of romancing with Padmavati.....in which Padmavati is shown in intimate scenes with Kilji.

This was clearly a mischievous touch to an otherwise good film. Whether Bhansali actually intended such a scene or not is not known...but it has racked up a controversy. Bhansali could have cleared up the matter by denying any such sequence but he probably liked the publicity he and his film were getting. 

The film has thereby become a matter of  controversy in Rajasthan and in the heat of the moment, some idiot has asked for the head of the actress who is playing Padmavati. Since Muslims clerics normally get away with such fatwas...some other fanatics also think it is ok to make such dramatic and idiotic demands. Nothing serious really. 

There is no religious issue here at all. 

[Robbie]

It's certainly good publicity for the film, sririam, which will be a sell out!

[Rhiannon]

It can’t be a sell out as some states are banning it. Publicity for a film that won’t be shown is pretty pointless.

Of course the fact that the queen is Hindu and her lover/king is a Muslim is totally irrelevant. Not about religion at all...

And no nutter has ever decpaitated someone on the say so of another nutter. So nothing to see here...

[Robbie]

Good points.  When something is banned or creates controversy it usually becomes more popular because people want to see what all the fuss is about (quite often, nothing much).

Stunning actress from the look of her.

[Rhiannon]

Yeah but if a film is banned it makes viewing it difficult except by piracy - something the production company won’t benefit from. And no doubt there will be baying mobs outside the cinemas that do show it intimidating people into not going.

[Robbie]

Probably. People might buy it on DVD which I expect will sell well over here!  Seems like a silly issue for people to get worked up over.

[jakswan]

This has nothing to do with religion.

From the article.
He said: "How can a Muslim aggressor be portrayed as the real hero and the Hindu king and queen as victims? This is factually incorrect."

You can justify anything with religion.

[Sebastian Toe]

This has nothing to do with religion.

..then why did you mention "Muslim" - 3 times?

[jeremyp]

Good points.  When something is banned or creates controversy it usually becomes more popular because people want to see what all the fuss is about (quite often, nothing much).

It's called the Streisand Effect. Barbara Streisand tried to sue a photographer to stop him publishing a photo of her house. When she sued, only six people had ever downloaded the photograph. The case generated enough publicity that over 400,000 people downloaded the photo the next month. Now, the photo is visible to all on the Wikipedia page about the Streisand effect.

As a result of this, more people will see the film. Oops.

[jeremyp]

There is no religious issue here at all.

Apart from  all the stuff about Muslim kings and Hindu queens.

[Sriram]

The point is about invaders and tyrants.... about rape, brutality and plunder.....not about Hindu-Muslim relations.

Many Muslim kings such as Akbar, Jahangir and Shah Jahan, in the 1500's,  had formally married Hindu princesses. These kings were well loved and respected by the people.

I wonder if Prince Harry could marry a Muslim even under today's 'liberal' circumstances!!

At any rate, the present controversy is about a film showing a respected legendary queen in bad light.   Not about Hindu Muslim conflicts.

[Owlswing]

The point is about invaders and tyrants.... about rape, brutality and plunder.....not about Hindu-Muslim relations.

Many Muslim kings such as Akbar, Jahangir and Shah Jahan, in the 1500's,  had formally married Hindu princesses. These kings were well loved and respected by the people.

I wonder if Prince Harry could marry a Muslim even under today's 'liberal' circumstances!!

At any rate, the present controversy is about a film showing a respected legendary queen in bad light.   Not about Hindu Muslim conflicts.

Honestly Siriam, you are, without doubt one of the most blinkered posters here.

I will give you your due for sticking to your guns, but your inability to see anything, even the most minute detail, outside your self-imposed blinkers is mind-numbing.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

The point is about invaders and tyrants.... about rape, brutality and plunder.....not about Hindu-Muslim relations.

Many Muslim kings such as Akbar, Jahangir and Shah Jahan, in the 1500's,  had formally married Hindu princesses. These kings were well loved and respected by the people.

I wonder if Prince Harry could marry a Muslim even under today's 'liberal' circumstances!!

At any rate, the present controversy is about a film showing a respected legendary queen in bad light.   Not about Hindu Muslim conflicts.

I think the controversy at this end is reading about the threats of beheading, cutting off of noses, burning alive of the lead actress from a member and activist of a leading political party. That doesn't happen in the UK as far as I know.

The Hindu-Muslim thing may well be a lesser issue than the Queen in sex scenes with the invader in a dream sequence. But given the actual threats are from an extremist member of the right-wing Hindu nationalist party, I would think the invader being Muslim and the film being supposedly based on a Sufi poet's text might be part of the issue for the extremists. Muslim extremists issue similar violent threats to people - what with tolerance not being seen as a virtue by extremists.
 
The director seems to be denying that such a dream sequence scene exists.

He says in an online video,"I've made this film 'Padmavati' with a lot of sincerity, responsibility and hard work. I have always been inspired by Rani Padmavati's story and this film salutes her valour and sacrifice. But because of some rumours, this film has become a subject of controversy....Through this video, I am reiterating that in our film, Rani Padmavati and Alauddin Khilji have no such scene together which will hurt anyone's sentiments.” 

[Sriram]

I think the controversy at this end is reading about the threats of beheading, cutting off of noses, burning alive of the lead actress from a member and activist of a leading political party. That doesn't happen in the UK as far as I know.

The Hindu-Muslim thing may well be a lesser issue than the Queen in sex scenes with the invader in a dream sequence. But given the actual threats are from an extremist member of the right-wing Hindu nationalist party, I would think the invader being Muslim and the film being supposedly based on a Sufi poet's text might be part of the issue for the extremists. Muslim extremists issue similar violent threats to people - what with tolerance not being seen as a virtue by extremists.
 
The director seems to be denying that such a dream sequence scene exists.

He says in an online video,"I've made this film 'Padmavati' with a lot of sincerity, responsibility and hard work. I have always been inspired by Rani Padmavati's story and this film salutes her valour and sacrifice. But because of some rumours, this film has become a subject of controversy....Through this video, I am reiterating that in our film, Rani Padmavati and Alauddin Khilji have no such scene together which will hurt anyone's sentiments.”

No...

1. The strong indignation is against liberal values and the tendency to make light of such things as chastity, sacrifice and sexual morals.   Padmavati has been compared with Sita and many people have argued whether Sita could be shown romancing with Ravana who had imprisoned her for a year.  Ravana was a Hindu king.   

2. Just some time back Deepika acted as Mastani, a muslim girl, whom Baji Rao (a Hindu brahmin king) marries much against the wishes of his Hindu wife and mother. He even dies yearning for her. The public did not react about that Hindu -Muslim marriage. Jodha Akbar was another very successful film in recent years where Akbar (Muslim) was shown romancing Jodha (a Hindu princess). No one objected to that!

3. Deepika and Bhansali are Hindus not muslims. Targeting them is not targeting Muslims.

4. Also, there have been half a dozen films on Padmavati over the years right from the B&W era. None of them produced  any reaction among the public nor are they even remembered. It is clearly a ploy of Bhansali to fan the flames and publicize his film.  The Supreme Court has today refused to ban the film. He will be laughing all the way to the bank!

[jeremyp]

I wonder if Prince Harry could marry a Muslim even under today's 'liberal' circumstances!!

Probably not, but the reason why not is religion.

[Rhiannon]

Probably not, but the reason why not is religion.

Well H could marry whoever he wanted. The question is whether he could keep his place in the succession.

[Robbie]

That wouldn't bother him so no problem for him any more than anyone else (except publicity).
Many people marry someone of another religious tradition and it works alright as long as neither party is particularly religiously observant.