Padmavati quip; Jauhar or Jihad?

We watched Padmavati last night (I have a longer post on that) but I thought I would share this funny story.

I was reading up on the history of the Chittor Fort (where Padmavati is centred):

Beginning in the 7th century, the fort was controlled by the Mewar Kingdom. From the 9th to 13th centuries, the fort was ruled by Paramara dynasty. In 1303, the Turkic ruler of Delhi, Alauddin Khalji defeated Rana Ratan Singh’s forces at the fort. In 1535 Bahadur Shah, the Sultan of Gujarat, defeated Bikramjeet Singh and took the fort. In 1567 Akbar defeated Maharana Udai Singh II‘s troops. The fort’s defenders sallied forth to charge the attacking enemy but yet were not able to succeed. Following these defeats, the women are said to have committed jauhar or mass self-immolation. The rulers, soldiers, noblewomen and commoners considered death preferable to the dishonor of surrender.[1]

I made the slightly off-colour joke to my wife that Jauhar seemed to be the best strategy of Chittor.

Her immediate quip back: “in the 13th century Hindu women were commuting Jauhar, in the 20th century Muslim men are committing Jihad so you tell me Zach which culture is more advanced?”

Touché!

0

9 Replies to “Padmavati quip; Jauhar or Jihad?”

  1. Maybe the Suicide bombing (like LTTE women) would have made more sense.
    I guess no bombs then but maybe wrap in much cloth doused in oil and fling yourself on the invading army. If you are planning to kill yourself create as much mayhem for the invaders.

    0
  2. But you’re not Muslim, so why was that her comeback?

    Jauhar and Jihad are both pretty messed up to be frank.

    Is this movie worth watching as entertainment? I’ve read a lot about it and obviously it’s ideologically very problematic. But as a movie is it worth sitting through 3 hours? Deepika and Ranveer are both gorgeous but is that enough to sustain a movie?

    I’m actually most interested in the gay slave (historically accurate as far as I know).

    0
    1. To paraphrase Benazir, “I’m Muslim enough.” Haha

      I’ll write up a proper review on Padmavat.

      Ranveer’s over acting really got to me; so did Jim Saurab (Malik Kafur)..

      0
      1. I don’t get why since you’re not a Muslim man you are expected to take flak for what Muslim men do 🙂

        I look forward to reading the review of the film.

        I think Ranveer is Bhansali’s current muse (not that there is anything wrong with that).

        There is a scene where Malik Kafur is in the bathtub with Khilji, right? A friend of mine here in Lahore was like “but homosexuality didn’t exist in the 13th century” and I was thinking “array bhai where do I start with this”. We were in a Careem at the time so I shut up.

        0
        1. Homosexuality is a new concept (as per Ahmadinejad) but of course homo-eroticism & relations is a tale as old as time itself. Ghazni & his slave (was it Mamluk?)

          It seems a very Greek influence; the ancient Aryans (Iranians & Indians, Romans even) were super strait-laced. But somewhere or the other Islam picked up the Greek affections and it became an integral part of the High Culture..

          0
          1. “Homosexuality” as a term and the “homosexual” as a distinct type of person emerged in 19th century Europe (as per Foucault). Before that they just did it. Certain acts were criminalized (sodomy) but people as such were not criminalized.

            You are thinking of Mahmud of Ghazni and his slave Ayaz. Mahmud gifted him the throne of Lahore (nice gift right?). Allama Iqbal wrote a couplet about this (he was going for the brotherhood of man in Islam): ” Eik hee saf main kharay thay Mahmood-o-Ayaz/ Na koi banda raha, na koi banda nawaz”

            The ancient Indians were straight-laced? What about the Kama Sutra with its entire chapters on how to properly have sex with transgenders and lesbianism? I swear to god I am not making this up.

            0

Comments are closed.