Deconstructing the Sanjay Leela Bhansali and the Dholkal Ganesha issues.
We woke up to two pieces of news this Saturday. The first: public-outcry on Sanjay Leela Bhansali for misrepresenting Rajput history. The second: of a 1,000 year old Ganesha sculpture in Chattisgarh being destroyed by Naxals.
Film director Anurag Kashyap, who isn’t really known for his investigative-abilities as much as he is for his imaginative fiction-writing; magically root-caused the Sanjay Leela Bhansali issue to “Hindu Terror”. The Naxals’ destruction of the Dholkal Ganesha though, was an “act of frustration that comes from exclusion”.
Sanjay Leela Bhansali – The “Victim”
Here’s some proverbial crystal-gazing, which I’m guessing will come true this weekend.
Very soon, the Lutyens media will crowd around Sanjay Leela Bhansali and make a victim out of him.Very soon, the Lutyens media will forget the Dholkal Ganesha. Oh! Wait a minute! They already have.
Very soon, TV anchors from their air-conditioned studios, will set up “debates” on right-of-expression and artistic-freedom. Token historians will opine that Khilji was just a “romantically-inclined” ruler and that after all he was human. Token legal-experts will argue that Bhansali’s film comes with a ‘fiction’ disclaimer. Token victims from Bollywood will claim how they feel trolled and abused. This assorted panel will conclude that intolerance is spreading in the country.
Token journalists, conducting these debates will sprinkle liberally (pun intended), the broad-spectrum-refuge-of-journalistic-incompetence: “allegedly”, “reportedly”, “it is felt” and “many people believe”.
All this will happen forgetting two fundamental facts. That Bhansali is (a) trapping Padmavati in a patriarchal narrative; and (b) is romanticising Khilji, a serial rapist.
In the end Bhansali walks away with free publicity, which he so needs after box-office flops like Guzaarish and Ram Leela.