As a society, we often fail to distinguish between fact and myth. And the row around Sanjay Leela Bhansali's Padmavati and the alleged misrepresentation of the apparently fictional Rajput queen Padmini in it, is a great example of the same.
It is meaningless to argue whether Padmini existed or not. It is equally pointless to argue if her representation in the film (which none have seen) is inaccurate or offensive. She is a well-regarded icon for some and a mere myth for others. It is, however, important to consider what the objections to Padmini's portrayal have to do with privilege, power and politics of a certain kind.
Let's consider the primary objection to the film from the Rajput community. Their charge is that it insults the 'memory' of Padmini, who they celebrate as a pious Hindu woman, a courageous and beautiful queen who did not submit to the desires of a Muslim invader. They argue, without seeing the film, that the filmmaker's treatment maybe turning Padmini's tale of courage into a shallow titillating love story where a queen dances and might even romance the Muslim invader i.e. Alauddin Khilji in an imaginary sequence. For them, this is unacceptable, as she represents an iconic Rajput woman.
They argue, without seeing the film, that the filmmaker's treatment maybe turning Padmini's tale of courage into a shallow titillating love story.
The objections reveal the regressive deep-seated privilege of this community. What it also reveals is selective outrage. This is not the first time Padmini has been represented on screen. Nor is this the first Rajput story to be told on film. The filmmaker has clarified numerous times that nowhere is Padmini romancing Khilji.