After watching the film I am confused as to why the karnik Sena protested at all because frankly there is nothing that is objectionable , unless they have been cut by the censor board . And the violence and  the ban is unnecessary ..

usha manohar wrote:

After watching the film I am confused as to why the karnik Sena protested at all because frankly there is nothing that is objectionable , unless they have been cut by the censor board . And the violence and  the ban is unnecessary ..

I have always wondered as to why all films by so-called big makers become controversial a few months before their release and give us the feeling that these films would never see the theaters. But they always release on due date and do bumper business. Are these sponsored programs at the cost of public property and innocent lives?

I think the agitation is because the Rani Padmini decided to show herself ( albeit in a mirror) to Allauddin. Secondly, teh act of Jauhar to escape the Sultan show Rajputs followed defeatist practices. These are hurting to Rajput pride and hence the agitation by Rajputs. Others don't find the film objectionable.

The film is now banned in Malaysia. I find it so silly( this ban) when it is freely shown in other Muslim countries like UAE. In fact, I saw it in Abu Dhabi. The Malaysian ban is for showing Sultan Allauddin in a negative way How bigoted some can get !!

MG Singh wrote:

The film is now banned in Malaysia. I find it so silly( this ban) when it is freely shown in other Muslim countries like UAE. In fact, I saw it in Abu Dhabi. The Malaysian ban is for showing Sultan Allauddin in a negative way How bigoted some can get !!

So what do you think the movie should be banned in some countries for one reason and in others for a different reason? If you ask my opinion, I have just point - stop playing with the history for the sake of money and publicity. I repeat, censor board must have a uniform rule of rejecting everything that shows wrong historical facts especially in a country with so many religions, casts, faiths and ideologies.

The basic problem lay with Sanjay Leela Bhansali in calling it a historical film instead of fiction because whatever account they have of Rani Padmavathy is sketchy ..but for those who are directly connected it becomes a matter if pride . I am.sure all film makers would be careful in the future , being more sensitive of all cross section of the society rather than appease only a certain Community as has been done earlier.

I have studied and read a lot about Allauddin. In fact, I wrote two articles on him also. The character created in the film by Bhansali is totally wrong. He is a shown as a boorish man, little intellect and no sense of propriety.  This is not true, he was a great warrior and man who reformed the tax laws. Allauddin captured Chittor in 1303, but it was to establish his empire and not just for Padmani. The tale is mostly fiction. Allauddin was cruel by today's standards, but it was passe at that time and era. Alauddin should not have been shown as a boorish character who also devoured food like an animal. He was a more cultured man. I object to the portrayal of Allauddin in the film.

usha manohar wrote:

The basic problem lay with Sanjay Leela Bhansali in calling it a historical film instead of fiction because whatever account they have of Rani Padmavathy is sketchy ..but for those who are directly connected it becomes a matter if pride . I am.sure all film makers would be careful in the future , being more sensitive of all cross section of the society rather than appease only a certain Community as has been done earlier.

My concern is that why is all such kind of negativity reflected against Hinduism in all such kinds of films, historical or otherwise??? Be it PK, OMG, and now this - there is plenty of negativity, superstitious beliefs, antisocial elements in Islam as well as Christianity. The so-called liberal film makers never dare to make a single film showing negativity in those religions. All that kind of flak is directed towards Hindus, and if they choose to oppose it, why are Hindus then labeled as regressive and intolerant? If they really wish to portray the truth, then they can portray the characters to their true nature. They would not then glorify the cruel, intolerant and tyrant invaders as larger-than-life, do-gooder heroes like they normally do.

MG Singh wrote:

I have studied and read a lot about Allauddin. In fact, I wrote two articles on him also. The character created in the film by Bhansali is totally wrong. He is a shown as a boorish man, little intellect and no sense of propriety.  This is not true, he was a great warrior and man who reformed the tax laws. Allauddin captured Chittor in 1303, but it was to establish his empire and not just for Padmani. The tale is mostly fiction. Allauddin was cruel by today's standards, but it was passe at that time and era. Alauddin should not have been shown as a boorish character who also devoured food like an animal. He was a more cultured man. I object to the portrayal of Allauddin in the film.

That is a fair analysis, we cannot show anyone in poor light just to satisfy certain sections..however , I would be interested to read your articles, was it here on this site ? If so  please do post the links 

Kalyani Nandurkar wrote:

usha manohar wrote:

The basic problem lay with Sanjay Leela Bhansali in calling it a historical film instead of fiction because whatever account they have of Rani Padmavathy is sketchy ..but for those who are directly connected it becomes a matter if pride . I am.sure all film makers would be careful in the future , being more sensitive of all cross section of the society rather than appease only a certain Community as has been done earlier.

My concern is that why is all such kind of negativity reflected against Hinduism in all such kinds of films, historical or otherwise??? Be it PK, OMG, and now this - there is plenty of negativity, superstitious beliefs, antisocial elements in Islam as well as Christianity. The so-called liberal film makers never dare to make a single film showing negativity in those religions. All that kind of flak is directed towards Hindus, and if they choose to oppose it, why are Hindus then labeled as regressive and intolerant? If they really wish to portray the truth, then they can portray the characters to their true nature. They would not then glorify the cruel, intolerant and tyrant invaders as larger-than-life, do-gooder heroes like they normally do.

Kalyani , it s precisely because of what has been happening in the past  that Hindus have started revolting and at times they become over sensitive about minor issues and hit back strongly.