I thought I would share this important comment on Alauddin Khilji in light of the Padmavat defamation. I haven’t seen it yet though but I’ve heard it’s very anti-Alauddin..
I thought I would share this important comment on Alauddin Khilji in light of the Padmavat defamation. I haven’t seen it yet though but I’ve heard it’s very anti-Alauddin..
I don’t understand why Muslim, especially Indian Muslims, get offended when someone criticizes despotic rulers like Alauddin and Aurangzeb.
Alauddin Khilji introduced market reforms to maintain a large army. He also imposed two new taxes: a grazing tax on all milch cattle and a house tax. The argument that he saved India from Mongol invasion is answered here
https://swarajyamag.com/politics/the-myth-of-the-cruel-mongol
And lastly, the Delhi Sultanate was not highly sophisticated and urbanized. On the other hand, they destroyed cities and temple. If anybody today wants to know what they did to Hindus, they just have to visit Qutub Minar Complex or read Barani’s Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi. Even the hardcore Marxist Historians considers Sultanate rulers despotic.
Good comment / people get sensitive about their ancestors I guess
That happens, but most Indian muslims are not descended from the Turks or Afghans of the slave dynasty, or from the Persians fleeing the mongols during that period. So it is not really ancestors that they are being sensitive about but, a perceived ancestry that masks a common indian desire for higher status, by tracing one’s lineage outside of ancient India.
I keep hearing about this ” … a common indian desire for higher status, by tracing one’s lineage outside of ancient India.” but have not really seen it in action among the many various groups of non Muslim Indians I known for over the years.
The desire for higher status is always there, but it is based more on the caste’s standing in Indian / ancient India rather than some mythical foreign origin. Obviously there are exceptions, like supposedly the Jats (but in their case the recent 1500 yr old foreign origin is plausible).. Even Southern Brahmins base their superiority on being “aryans” etc, and yes they might link the Aryans to Central Asian arrivals from 4000 years ago, but are not claiming superiority based on their Central Asian ness.
Superiority based on foreign origin is really a Muslim thing, not an Indian Indic thing…
but have not really seen it in action among the many various groups of non Muslim Indians I known for over the years.
nasrani xtians do it. if you want hindus and sikhs, jatts and kashmiris do it.
but you are right it is ubiquitous among muslims.
The Delhi sultans were a murderous lot, and the evidence for that comes mostly from their own court historians. You should not rely too much on what you read in the press.. these are mostly arguments about politics in modern India (Hindutvadi versus Islamicate or Liberal or Marxist) and less about what actually happened in history. The version argued by liberals is as fake (and in a surprising number of cases, MORE fake) than the one argued by Hindu nationalists. If you wish to take a tribal position in favor of “your people” (the Islamicate North Indian elite with which you identify) that is your right, but it is not an argument that has much to do with history (anyway, why argue without having seen the movie or read the history?).
First the movie was being attacked by Hindu nationalists for being pro-Alaudin (they had not seen it), now it is being attacked by Liberals and Marxists (and to a lesser extent by Islamists) for being anti-Alaudin. Neither attack has much to do with history.
My apologies for butting in, but really, the section you quoted above was hard to ignore. I hope you don’t mind 🙂
It’s ok I’m glad you fell for the trap Lol
Regular readers know enough to know that this statement is an eyewash 🙂
+1
@ Omar Ali: “First the movie was being attacked by Hindu nationalists for being pro-Alaudin (they had not seen it), now it is being attacked by Liberals and Marxists (and to a lesser extent by Islamists) for being anti-Alaudin. Neither attack has much to do with history.”
Due to all this publicity the movie has become a big grosser across the globe. The producers must be laughing all the way to the bank. Considering the character Padmavati is fictious with no historical evidence, the whole controversy looks like a blind man shooting in a dark room at a black cat that is not there.
I was encouraged by the action of the Pakistan censor board.
“‘Padmaavat’ has been declared fit for public exhibition in the cinema houses without any excision by Central Board of Film Censors (CBFC),” Mobashir Hasan told IANS via social media from Islamabad. The movie has been given ‘U’ certification.
According to some distributors in Pakistan, there were apprehensions over the movie given the negative portrayal of Alauddin Khilji.
Asked about it, Hasan said: “CBFC isn’t biased in arts, creativity and healthy entertainment.”
He said that for the film’s certification, the CBFC co-opted Professor Waqar Ali Shah, Chairman, Department of History, Quaid-e-Azam University as per rules.
Good job Pakistan
In the end, Khilji wins, the Rajputs are defeated, and their women commit suicide. What’s there to not like from a Pak nationalist perspective? I even read this justification from Pakis on a couple of forums.
The real test was with Bajirao Mastani, where the Muslim princess falls for a Hindu ruler. That movie was banned in Pakistan. Pakistan failed the real test 🙂
A very problematic movie on many counts. The depiction of Alauddin is only one of them. In the current Islamophobic India, it is definitely very insensitive to show the Muslim king as the height of barbarism (he even eats meat like an animal). I think he may have been shown as a rapist too (not really sure about the details, but he definitely sleeps with some other lady on his wedding night). The only saving grace would be if he is not shown to be barbaric because of his religion, but because as a person he is barbaric.
The more problematic aspect is the sati/jauhar. An Indian actress, Swara Bhaskar, wrote a long article about this. Padmavati has to ask permission from her husband to commit jauhar (she can’t even decide to end her life on her own) and the movie spends twenty minutes on all the ladies dressed in red marching towards the pyre. Quite regressive. As Bhaskar argued in her piece, women have the right to life even if they are raped.
Some reviewers did note however that Khilji, Mehrunissa, and Malik Kafur are by far the most interesting characters in the movie as compared to the rather inspid Rajputs who are always going on and on about their “usools”. Not sure whether that was really Bhansali’s intention.
Personally, I am only tempted to watch this movie because of Malik Kafur’s love for Khilji. Otherwise, a three hour commercial for sati seems to not be worth it.
Razib: nasrani xtians do it. if you want hindus and sikhs, jatts and kashmiris do it.
With nasrani’s it is not just the foreign origin. They claim to be originally Brahmins of Kerala and very indigenous.