The Leftist Propaganda on Rani Padmavati

The last few days have proved to be very eventful. And I am not talking about the ascension to the throne of the Congress Party. That was a given. The protests against the movie, ‘Rani Padmavati’ too was a given. What surpised me was the way the ‘Liberals’ went all out to talk bad about the Rajput clans in general, trying to portray them as corrupt, cowardly and without valour.

This is what Sanjiv Bhatt, a man who despite being sacked from the IPS still proudly portrays himself as one, put up:

Javed Akhtar went on to reveal to us the fact that AlauddinKhilji was not a ‘Mughal’. He also advised us commoners to treat it as a fictional story. What he carefully failed to mention is that there was a Raja RatanSen who fought against AlauddinKhilji and that Khilji did lay siege to the Chittor fort, invaded it & unlike other Islamic rulers, was not able to take any women as sex slaves from this fort. I wonder why this did not happen??? Did the women magically disappear from here???

Then we had a lot of leading newspapers educating us about how AlauddinKhilji was a great military strategist and economists. Here’s one link – even a casual read will make the reader wonder who paid for this article – especially noteworthy is the linking between the steps taken by Khilji& present day government / institutional machinery …

http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/beyond-padmavati-row-5-things-alauddin-khilji-did-for-the-economy-117112000438_1.html

If all of the above was not enough to prove to us how regular citizens of Bharat are presumed to be stupid, one had to just read this article …

https://www.siasat.com/news/india-grateful-alauddin-khilji-1262285/

This articles states in a very ‘knowledgeable’ tone how AlauddinKhilji really protected Bharat and more than that – Hindus, from Mongol invasions and how we should be eternally grateful to him. The writer mentions that Mongols were known for destroying libraries & cities, for ‘taking away women as slaves and killing men’ and that they were known as the “scourge of God”. Hmmm … just exactly why should we Bharatiya Hindus not call all the Islamic Invaders by the same term (Scourge of God) then? It is a fact that all Islamic invaders did just that in Bharat too (Remember Nalanda University?). So how exactly did Khilji save us & from what?

Phew, a whole machinery exists to hold on to the historical myths that were thrust on us in the last few decades. Even if we were to presume for one minute that all those who are protesting are doing so in vain, because apparently the story of Rani Padmini was a fictitious one, how is it justified that those opposing the protesters foist fictitious stories of AlauddinKhilji being a great ruler on us? How is it justified when these ‘intellectuals’ want us to believe that the Islamic kings were brave but the Rajput rulers were a pathetic bunch?

When Hitler is quoted as cruel & sadistic, NO Christian feels offended; no Christian feels that it is an assault on their religion or culture. But when an Islamic Invader / King is quoted as being cruel, sadistic or ruthless, why do Muslims in Bharat feel offended? Why do the Muslims and other Hindu apologists feel compelled to prove that those brutal rulers were actually good? Those who were converted for various reasons, including fear of torture, cannot and should not feel indebted to these rulers. Loving their religion and God cannot and should stop them from accepting factual History and denouncing the wrongdoings of those rapacious kings. And why should any Hindu feel that the only way he can do his duty to protect his Muslim brethren is :

• by denouncing those Hindu rulers who fought against such invaders or
• by shaming Hindus who want to protect the memories of those Rulers who fought against conversion & oppression.

Another absolutely bizarre comment that one read, was by Devdutt Pattanaik, who claimed this:

and then this :

Without for one minute thinking that sexual slavery is much more than just rape, this ‘intellectual’ went on to link support to Jauhar as support to marital rape, patriarchy and macho behaviour. He also suggested that these proud women should have selected life and ‘thrived’ on instead of killing themselves. When such a famous commentator on the ancient scriptures as DevduttPattanaik, sees the atrocities of the past, through the lenses of the present, it comes as no surprise that he considers our ancient history to be ‘MYTHS’. What those women in the past faced cannot in anyway be compared to a rape of today. Yes, a rape survivor today needs all the support to overcome her anguish and live life with dignity; the shame has to be on the rapist and not on the victim – this is a fact. But in those days, it was not about one rapist and one rape victim – it was about a horde of rapists and a whole region/clan of women, their pride and self-respect and the prospect of being abducted, jailed, traded and forced into sexual slavery. Protecting one’s honour cannot be called as a patriarchal compulsion. Comparisons, especially in such situations, are odious!

To conclude, whether the film deserves a view or not, is a different matter from whether malicious History should be peddled to make or support a film. We have already had enough of malicious and cooked-up history being shoved down our throats through educational institutions. Let us for once, insist on having factual history being taught, respected and prided on. Jai Hind!!!

Comments

comments