The vandalism the producers and professionals have faced is attributed to extortion and is a comment on the challenges the film industry faces.
The opposition to the movie Padmavati, based on a historical event in the 16th century, seems misplaced. No one has seen the movie yet outside the filmmakers and the censor board is expected to follow a number of guidelines when it comes up for certification. The vandalism the producers and professionals have faced is attributed to extortion and is a comment on the challenges the film industry faces. Also, historical tales become an easy prey as the differences between history and historical fiction come in handy to drive a wedge on the premise that a certain community is slighted and political parties then get into the fray. The point is that no one has the right to take the law into their own hands. Commonsense dictates that moviegoers can wait to watch the film and form their own opinion on it. And those who believe their sentiments, religious or otherwise, may get hurt by what they may see in the film, are most welcome to skip watching it.
The freedom of expression is not to be trammelled by this increasing sensitivity to all subject matters of some common interest, including films which, after all, are artistic interpretations of a subject, in this case of collective women’s bravery in the face of conquest and colonisation by an outside power. The Supreme Court’s reading of the issue was spot on, so too its refusal to stay the film’s scheduled release on December 1. It is a sign of the times that even presentation of the common man’s problems through the medium of films becomes a cause for disquiet thanks to rising insensitivity. Such a sign has implications for society and where it is headed. A greater tolerance of creative fields is called for and leaders must show the way rather than stir the pot for political ends.