In the last two pieces published in this column (The Contours of Critical Thinking, Lawyers Update, Vol. XXX Part 6 & 7), I talked about the conversation I had with an educated girl, where she repeatedly failed to critically examine her ideas and opinions in the light of known facts. But that conversation emerged as a subplot to a brief WhatsApp exchanged I had had with the father of a longtime friend of mine, who had shared a video in which Manoj Muntashir, the well-known Bollywood lyricist extolled Padmavati as the “true and real lover” (or beloved) and Chittorgarh as the true symbol of love, contemptuously dissing Taj Mahal as “aiyyashi ki nishaahi” as opposed to the “pyar ki nishani” (symbol of love) it is widely celebrated as. The word “aiyyashi” may loosely be translated as “immoral indulgence”, or “indulgent debauchery”, to capture the pronounced sexual connotations of the expression.
In this old video clip forwarded to me, Manoj Muntashir — Manoj Shukla, his real name — holds forth atop a stage, pacing up and down, passionately throwing his hands around, calling upon the Hindus to take charge and employing provocative poetry in the service of what is essentially hate speech.
While Shukla’s vitriol is outrageous and deplorable, what shocked and disappointed me was the fact that it was forwarded by a retired major of the Indian Army, who is — apart from being the father of a very close friend — an educated, well-read and intelligent person. How did he fall for such maliciously fabricated crock of hateful bunk? But I guess I know how — by picking facts and fiction to prop and pad one’s prejudices. Incidentally and amusingly, that’s exactly what the girl also did in the patriarchy exchange, which happened to occur in the context of the same video of Shukla’s vitriolic speech. Shukla refers to Padmavati as “hamaari maa” (our mother) and I wondered aloud why Shukla, a Brahmin, keeps calling Padmavati, who would be a Rajput (Kshatriya) queen if she were real, his mother.
My wondering aloud was meant to draw attention to the opportunistic and convenient identity shift that is the hallmark of all kinds of chauvinism and all stripes of identity politics. But well, the girl flew along a very different tangent, trying to explain why Shukla might be identifying with Padmavati. “Maybe there was a break in the lineage… there may have been a Rajput ancestor somewhere in his lineage,” she had theorized, failing to note that caste identities are patrilineal in origin, which led to the patriarchy exchange I talked about in the last two pieces.
She, too, much like Major Uncle, seemed to be consciously or subconsciously distorting plain facts in the service of her deep-rooted prejudices, the only differences being that she saw evil patriarchy, Major Uncle an evil people. Nature of prejudices aside, both ignored incontrovertible facts. So much for education and intelligence. Such failures to see the world for what it is and has been are so common and frequent as to make it appear like we were going through an epidemic (or pandemic?) of unreason.
Padmavati, as a matter of fact, is a fictional character in Malik Muhammed Jayasi’s epic poem Padmavat composed in 1540 CE, over 200 years after the first Siege of Chittorgarh in 1303 CE. Also, Ratan Singh (or Ratnasimha) never had a queen by the name Padmavati, nor did the discord between Ratan Singh and Alaudin Khalji had anything to do with any woman, Padmavati or not. Khalji’s siege of Chittorgarh was purely political and was aimed at gaining control over it, which is the same reason for which Chittorgarh Fort was besieged by Bahadur Shah, the Sultan of Gujarat, in 1535 and then by the Mughal Emperor Akbar thirty-two years later in 1567. Those are plain, incontrovertible historical facts. But let’s ignore the facts for a moment because even educated people might not be as well-informed though google and wikipedia are just a few clicks away. Let’s take on face value what Manoj “Muntashir” Shukla states, howsoever far from truth it might be.
Assuming there was one Padmavati who performed collective self-immolation (Jauhar) together with tens, if not hundreds, of other women to prevent capture by enemy forces and subsequent humiliation and misery, where exactly is Padmavati’s “love” for Ratan Singh in any of this? Was Jauhar — the occurrence of which in 1303 CE is not historically disputed — even a real choice one could afford to not make, the alternative being potential slavery?
And how is Taj Mahal a symbol of “aiyyashi”, given that it is not a real palace (Mahal) but an Mausoleum commissioned by the Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan in 1631 in the memory of his deceased wife, Mumtaz Mahal, who had died in the same year, giving birth to their 14th child, named Gauhar Ara Begum? Shah Jahan had as many as 14 children with her while he had one child each with each of his other two wives. Mumtaz Mahal was betrothed to Shah Jahan (then Prince Khurram) when she was 14 and he 15, and they were married when she was about 19 and he about 20.
Shah Jahan had those many kids with Mumtaz Mahal because she remained by his side on his military campaigns as a prince and also during his later rebellion against his father, and such prolonged marital company in the pre-contraception era could only result in a series of pregnancies, one of which led to Mumtaz Mahal’s demise. See no “love” in a magnificent Taj built in the memory of a beloved wife, and “real love” in a fictional tale?
…to be continued
