Do you remember the scene from House of Cards, where Frank Underwood urinates on his father's grave? I thought that was an obscene but subtle scene to show his unremorseful character, not knowing there are more pernicious scenes to come later in the show.
In season 3 of the show, amidst fighting for his presidency and the controversies surrounding it, Frank Underwood visits a church for guidance where he has the conversation with Bishop. Unconvinced by the response of Bishop that "Using fear will get him nowhere", he asks for a moment alone in the church. He looks directly in the eye of Jesus and says," Love? That's what you are selling? Well, I don't buy it." Then he spits in Jesus's face and later when he goes to wipe Jesus's face, the whole statue of Jesus crumbles down in pieces on the floor. Out of all pieces, he picks up a broken piece of Jesus's ear and says, "Well, I've got God's ear now."
Although anything in this sacrilegious scene does not necessarily concern me (as I identify myself as a Hindu Atheist), still defiling of statue disturbed me to the core. I wondered how this scene was received by the public in the USA? I searched and did not find any big violent repercussions except some Christian conservationists expressing their discontent.
To understand this scene, it requires maturity to know that the scene was not directed towards Jesus but to effectively show the ruthless, malignant, self-centered and Machiavellian nature of a politician who believes that, "For those climbing to the top of food chain, there can be no mercy. There is but one rule. Hunt or be hunted."
You must've guessed the purpose of telling this story. Yeah, right- the recent controversy surrounding Padmavati and Deepika Padukone. Surely, the purpose is not to give sermons of civic virtues from selective western example (as if they are any better) but the idea of society we want to live in and examples from anywhere should be welcomed to reflect upon ourselves.
The thing which really disturbed and compelled me to write this article is the threat given by Rajput outfit Karni Sena to chop Deepika Padukone's nose. Even metaphorically used statement, this shows how we use threats as a means to stop freedom of expression. If we want fatwas to be banned, such statements also need to be strictly dealt with. I cannot support the ban as ban itself is a contradiction to freedom of expression. Another reaction from Subramaniam Swamy that 'Deepika is not Indian citizen and funding for the movie coming from Dubai' shows the same attitude in a sophisticated way to curtail freedom of expression. As an admirer of Swamy does not make me blind about his irrational statements for a political cause.
The second thing which constantly disturbs me is apologist argument after every bad incident. Deepika reacted to the controversy by saying it is appalling and we are regressed. Surely, such generalized statement was uncalled for by her, as the film is receiving wide support from the majority of people and people like me are eagerly waiting for 1st December. But defensive reactions and open letters to her statement saying- 'She should not paint all with the same color', is I feel worrisome. Same arguments have been used by communities to even distance themselves from terrorist actions and not openly condemning it. I feel this is a selfish argument to save our own skin (Oh! We aren't part of that) but not out-rightly rejecting the evil. The argument that 'small fraction do not represent the whole' is blatant hypocrisy as the even significant number of people in India will always remain a minute fraction in percentage terms because of our burgeoning population.
So the elephant in the room is - what are the reasons for such virulent reactions?
First, the real reason is not the story of the movie (as hardly anyone knows what is actually in the movie and Bhansali also cleared the air by saying that there is no 'dream sequel' in the movie between Rani Padmini and Khilji) but the problem with characters played by the actors. It’s a failure to differentiate between real and reel characters of actors. Deepika and Ranveer are in a romantic relationship in real life which is making it difficult to digest their role as Rani Padmini and Allauddin Khilji. After their sizzling chemistry in Ramleela and Bajiraon Mastani, it is getting difficult to differentiate for some their real and reel roles, that seems to me the real reason for controversy. Had Shahid played the role of Khilji, would we still have gotten the same reaction?
The third reason is politics. Any violent action is beneficial for political parties as it consolidates their vote bank. Cultural nationalism gives votes to BJP, minority appeasement to Congress.
The problem I feel, is not the government, as both the national parties share wide consensus of 'regressive' attitude towards movies. Problem is our attitude of distancing ourselves from confronting problems. Today it is about the so-called Rajput pride and dignity, imagine a movie made on the symbol of your community where you feel 'historical facts' are altered, and still you show the liberal attitude towards the movie and protest (if need be) with legal and legitimate means, that time will come when Voltaire's soul will rest in peace.
Peace.
#DeepikaPadukone #Padmavati #HouseofCards #FrankUnderwood #KevinSpacey #RanveerSingh #ShahidKapoor #India
--Digvijay Sanjay Patil
.jpg)
