I am writing this to appeal to
urge you to stop the telecast of the recently launched serial "jodha
Akbar" being aired on Zee TV as it can have a negative impact on the
society. To begin with, the serial itself runs on the disclaimer that it lays
no claim to any historical event. This disclaimer came after there were
protests from the Rajput community and from some historians against the
inauthenticity of the story being presented. The main argument is that there
was no mention to "Jodha Bai" in the historical sources. This debate
was also raised for the movie "Jodha Akbar" starring Hrithik Roshan
and Aishwarya Rai. It is important for the producers to state the historical
source of the story. It should be binding for them to mention the exact
historical accounts as history, we know and have seen, is not just the past. It
has or is made to have serious implications in the present. One of the most
shameful example is that of the demolition of Babri Masjid and the communal
riots.
As stated previously, the
producers of the serial "Jodha Akbar" has "negotiated" with
the protestors and now there is a disclaimer before and during some scenes in
the serial stating that the serial does not have any historical backing. The
question then is, why is there a need to telecast such a serial? Why is there a
need to use the names? Even if Jodha may not have ever existed, Akbar did.
Where is the need to demonise him? It is shocking that this has been allowed in
a communally-sensitive country. India is threatened with the forces of hindutva
which claims the country to be the ancestral and "rightful" property
of only Hindus, negating the claims of all other religious groups. It also
demonises muslims and have used (or misinterpreted) history to serve their
purpose. Even a "liberal" Hindu will agree to this baseless nonsense.
The fact is that history is too
hazy. There is so much that can be said about these things. The fact that can
be safely established is that religion was not a big deal when the rulers
invaded the "country" (which did not exist at that time) in 14th-15th
century. Also, desecration of temples was a political statement than a
religious one. Historian Richard Eaton has talked about conquest mosques which
were built by desecrating the earlier monument because it is quite a rule that
an invading ruler establishes throne by destroying the symbols of the previous
ruler. The fact is that the word "muslim" in a religious sense for
the rulers did not emerge in the historical sources before 16th century. For a
native in a kingdom in the now-Gujarat, a ruler from rajasthan was as much a
foreigner as a turk. There is so much written on these issues. There is
literature on how it were the British who had divded the history into hindu and
muslim. But nothing has been read because the historical truth is not in line
with the political motives. The historical truth negates Hindutva as baseless. One
major point is that V D Savarkar, the founder of the ideology of Hindutva, had
himself written in his book on Hindutva that whatever he is writing is for a
political reason. Yet, nothing has been read. People have carried the biased colonial
legacy and as a result, thousands of innocent people have lost their lives.
Thankfully, the forces of
Hindutva seem to be resting with BJP focussing on "development" and
the recent unpopularity of other Hindu fundamentalist groups. Some years back,
the court had also passed a "secular" verdict on the ayodhya issue
which was, thankfully, welcomed. But this serial seems to revive these forces
as it re-iterates the baseless stereotypes about mughals. Akbar is shown to be
this demon. He is shown to be a "Muslim" ruler. It is historically
incorrect to use terms like "secular", "conservative" or
"liberal" for rulers as these terms are of recent origin but if I do
commit the sin, just for this time, I will not be wrong to say that Akbar is
popular for being "secular". He is known for Din-i-ilahi, for
rejecting the teachings of the ulama, for rejecting conservative Islam and for
rajput-mughal alliances. If we read the history, we will know that this
happened for many reasons. But according to the serial, it was Jodha, a Rajput
princess who forced him to become "good". Jodha had swore to some
goddess that she will behead Akbar and throw the head on the feet of the
goddess, bringing a very strong religious angle. It is also historically inauthentic.
But a more important concern is the dangerous effect that it will entail. The
serial re-iterates the notions about "muslim" rulers who invaded,
discriminated, dishonoured women and tried to destroy the "hindu"
culture.
Therefore, I appeal that this
serial should be banned from being telecasted on the grounds that it is
historically inauthentic, demeaning and has the potential to revive communal
tensions in the country.
No comments:
Post a Comment