The protests against the film Padmavati have been snowballing. It is a movie that is yet to be seen by anyone apart from those who have made it. The law of the land has already been tested by the kind of tactics employed by the opponents of the film. The critically acclaimed director and producer, Sanjay Leela Bhansali, has been attacked physically on the sets and extremely provocative threats have been made against the lead actor Deepika Padukone. She portrays Rani Padmini in the period drama film starring a queen who is said to have defied a ruler of Delhi who had laid siege to the Chittor fort in order to capture her. The arguments over whether it is a film based on history or fantasy are endless and the ill-informed have been subjecting it to their own interpretation. It stands to reason, however, that the issue is about artistic licence that is getting mixed up with a lot else, including religious sentiments.
The protests have taken an ugly turn with a bounty being offered for the heads of Bhansali and Deepika. The hate campaign is being fuelled by the fringe outfit Shri Rajput Karni Sena, which has stepped way beyond the acceptable in its opposition to the film. This cannot be termed to be a mere part of the trend of Bollywood becoming a soft target for self-appointed censors who have brooked at nothing to whip up opposition. Far from supporting the rule of law, the Uttar Pradesh government has recommended to the I&B ministry that it consider deferring the certifying of the film as its release in this surcharged atmosphere would be a threat to law and order. So shrill have been the protesting voices that it might take a major effort on the part of the governments of certain states to ensure the movie is displayed without causing disruptions to normal life.
Providing security to the lead players is a simpler task and it is being addressed already. The Centre must act in time to stop this charade from becoming a challenge to authority. It may appear illogical that a film must become the focus of the nation facing far more serious issues of economic growth, poverty alleviation, healthcare and education. The irony is clear as the top court has been ruling consistently that once a film is certified by the censor board it cannot be stopped from being displayed because of objections by so-called aggrieved parties.
To uphold the sacrosanct nature of the right of freedom of speech and expression is right. The choice before those who object to a film is clear. They are not compelled to view it and can give the move a miss if they believe they will be offended. If people do not have the breadth of vision to handle what may be raised by thought-provoking films or books, cartoons or paintings they can exercise their freedom of not supporting the arts.
