Culture of Intolerance

Sent to THE HINDU on March 1 2008

A lot of Protest was made and law and order disturbed in response to some historical inconsistencies in the film "Jodha Akbar" released this month. The ban has been lifted which is certainly an appropriate decision. The methods used by the people to put forward their concerns and rage over the issue were indeed wrong but was the agitation totally baseless ? The protests were criticized holistically by the various readers citing reason that the Director Ashutosh Govatrikar never claimed the movie to be a "historical account" and that no fingers were raised on the very same issue when "Mughal-e-Azam" was released in the 60's which depicts the increasing intolerance among the people. Both the statements appear to be very convincing and leave a sense of sympathy for the director and repulsion towards the agitators, but before we pass our verdict we need to really consider the other viewpoint of the matter.
The first point of the "movie not being a historical account" is invalid in its very first place. If there was to be no resemblance tothe real history and consistency with the life of Akbar and Jodha Bai why was it named after them in the first place instead of using fictious names, does'nt naming the movie after the legendary mughal ruler and the Rajput princess by itself attaches the strings of peoples reverence and emotions and coerce them expect some "historical integrity " from the movie. The magnitude of the anomalies in Jodha-Akbar may be too small to arise the issue of "historical mutilation" but the justifications given can be produced in more severe cases.
Just to cite as an example if there were a movie being made about the early 19th century and the director would potray "The Hindu" as a communal instrument in the movie which of course is totally incorrect, wouldn't each and every individual associated with "The Hindu" (including the readers and the staff) be offended. Would they care about freedom of expression or the declaration of the director as it not being a "historical account".
Further the time from the 60's has changed the population has increased over four-fold, the affordability of movie shows has increased we have people from all age groups visiting cinemas nower days. Do we consider the impact of the movie on a small child who goes to the movie show for the first time and gets introduced to "Badhshah Akbar" and the "Rajput Kings" there wouldn't it leave an indelible imprint on the perception of the tender minded child.Just to cite as an example Isnt the strength of Mighty Rajputs undermined in the film which is bound to give him a wrong impression. We speak volumes of our glorious past, and here we deliberately harming it.
Consider the two movies show the one in the 60's and the one recently, the first one shows "Akbar" opposing the love of Salim and shows him as a stern ruler opposed to the notion of love and romance in contrast with the the recent movie which shows him patronizes the love of Jodha Bai and depict him as a romantic and loving personality.

A last point to mention is that just to create dramatism in the movie and increase viewership a little amount of melodrama is pumped into every movie , strongly demarkating a Hero from a Villian. Hollywood does present some examples that do not resort to melodrama but still maintain the grandeur, consider Troy a movie that shows the clash between the two main leaders Hector ( Prince of Troy ) and Achilles ( Warrior from Greece ) both are judiciously portrayed with their own short comings and Strengths. A justice is done to both the characters Why can Hollywood maintain such subtle intricasies while we have to resort to presenting a Good guy and a Bad guy in the movie.
The anomalies of Jodha-Akbar were indeed petty and were not worth stoning theaters and causing a public havoc but the reasons given to justify even the little discrepancies were inappropriate. Movie directors and other in the business should recognize their responsibility and act in a more conscious way.