look news india
Have you ever seen that when directors like Vivek Agnihotri or Sudipto Sen or Aditya Dhar had to make films, before that they had to study a lot of history and delve into many details, but these precisions were never required to make a Mughal-e-Azam or a Jodha Akbar.
Vivek or Sudipto or Aditya asked him for historical evidence, documents and evidence for every small thing. Every incident, every dialogue, and every scene of these films was examined under a microscope. A storm of controversy was created, an army of fact-checkers was deployed, and debates continued in the media.
When Agnihotri made ‘The Kashmir Files’ (2022), he did research for almost four years. He interviewed more than 700 Kashmiri Pandit families, understood their pain, studied documents, and combed through old reports, newspapers, and government records. Most of the scenes shown in the film are based on real events – such as the murder of BK Ganju, the murder of Girja Tikku, and other gruesome atrocities.
Despite this, the film became embroiled in controversy as soon as it was released. A section of so-called intellectuals, historians, and media labeled the film as “propaganda”. Every incident was challenged, every data was questioned. Even the suffering of Kashmiri Pandits was described as “exaggerated”. Vivek Agnihotri had to repeatedly prove every claim of his film, present evidence, and stand in public hearing.
The Bengal Files depicts the Noakhali massacre and atrocities against Hindus during the Partition of Bengal (1947). As soon as the film was announced or there was talk of its production, controversies immediately started. Documentary evidence was sought from the filmmakers for every incident. The film was described as having a “communal agenda”. It was said that it was distorting history. Various political and social groups opposed it. Over 7000 research pages and over 1000 records were studied by the production team. More than 20,000 pages of documents and interviews with survivors and their families were collected. Extensively examined Indian, international, American and British newspapers of 1946. Months were spent visiting various towns and villages. Interviewed people, studied local culture and history, and tried to understand the root causes of Bengal’s violent history.
Agnihotri said that when he was examining the newspapers of that time, some images struck him deeply. He was also shocked to learn that about 40,000 people were killed in Direct Action Day in just two nights, and human bodies lay on the streets of Kolkata for more than a month because there was no one left to clean them, most of the sanitation workers having been killed. His team faced a lot of obstacles, including being detained in a hotel in Kolkata.
Sudipto Sen’s ‘The Kerala Story’ which tells the story of love jihad and ISIS recruitment in Kerala was quickly branded as “false” and “misleading”. The figures were disputed, and the filmmakers had to revise the numbers. Even more difficult than dealing with the criticism was the resistance to making the film. Sudipto worked for about 10 years in Kerala for research. This is an exceptionally long period which reflects their commitment. In 2018, Sudipto made a controversial documentary film ‘In the Name of Love – Melancholy of God’s Own Country’ on religious conversion and love jihad, which received the Best Film Award at the London Independent Film Festival. He traveled to every district of Kerala, and once had to go into hiding when he learned that his hotel might be attacked. Met real young women who had escaped religious conversion and were being looked after by Arsha Vidya Samajam Ashram. Sen shared a particularly poignant incident when he first met Shruti in a small village, where there was no electricity in her house because the connection had been disconnected. Whenever she went out to buy vegetables, people would snatch her bag. Sen had to interview her through a small window of her house because she was afraid to come out.
On 17th May, 26 courageous girls from Kerala were invited especially for the occasion at the Ranga Sharda Auditorium in Mumbai. Actress Adah Sharma revealed the horror of the video shown by the director in which girls and their children were being packed like piles of clothes in tankers for 16 hours without food, drink or any way to relieve themselves. By the time they reached their destination, some were dead and most were half-dead.
On the other hand, take Mughal-e-Azam. There is general consensus among historians that there is no reliable historical evidence of a court dancer named Anarkali. The story appears to have originated from folklore and later literature. Akbar’s contemporary historian Abul Fazal did not mention any such incident in ‘Ain-e-Akbari’.
The towers of Bani Mundo, the massacre of Chittor, and other brutal incidents that took place during Akbar’s reign were blatantly ignored in Mughal-e-Azam and the court culture was romanticized. The Mughal court was shown to be extremely grand and civilized, whereas the reality of that time was much more complex and harsh. Were the makers of ‘Mughal-e-Azam’ ever asked what was the proof of Anarkali’s existence? Did he have to prove that the incident of getting elected in the wall is true? No. The film was accepted in the name of “artistic freedom” and became a classic.
Jodha Akbar is an even bigger example of historical distortion. Whether Akbar’s wife’s name was ‘Jodha’ or not is highly controversial. Most historians believe that the name of Akbar’s Rajput wife was ‘Harka Bai’ or ‘Heer Kunwari’, who was later called ‘Mariam-uz-Zamani’. There is no historical evidence of the name ‘Jodha’. Akbar was shown as an extremely liberal, secular and progressive ruler, while the massacres and atrocities committed by him were completely ignored.
When the film was released, the Rajput community in Rajasthan and other states protested against it. He described the film as historically inaccurate. But the media and intellectuals labeled the protests as “intolerance”. The filmmakers did not need to prove their claims. If turning goalkeeper Negi into Kabir Khan is artistic freedom, then why is that freedom selective?
Ever notice that these days the non-Left is working with great study and the Left is stuck in its current catchphrases. The balance of the scales of intellectualism is changing. You may find it sarcastic that I say that in today’s era, it is only the leftist intellectual who believes Shankaracharya’s ‘Brahma Satya Jaganmithya’ to be true, with the difference that he calls his Brahman as Marx. But the world’s business, its realities, its truth are all false for this intellectual.
Now think, which is that psychology, which is that intellectualism in which some things are self-evident even though they are ahistorical and which is that psychology in which some things are propaganda even if they are historical?
