Shivraj Declares Ban In MP, Didi Supports Film
THE TIMES OF INDIA (November 21, 2017)

Punjab chief minister Captain Amarinder Singh on Monday became the first Congress CM to oppose Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s ‘Padmavati’ even as his BJP counterpart in Madhya Pradesh Shivraj Singh Chouhan declared that he would not allow the controversial film to be screened in his state.

However, ‘Padmavati’ received backing from Congress-ruled Karnataka and Trinamool-ruled West Bengal, with the former even assuring security to Deepika’s family. Karnataka CM Siddaramaiah said: “These sort of threats, especially towards women, are yet another sign of growing intolerance and bigotry in the country. I condemn the culture of intolerance and hate perpetuated by BJP.”

But the Punjab CM said cinematic licence could not be used to distort historical facts.

Didi condemns ‘super emergency’
With Amarinder and Shivraj joining anti-‘Padmavati’ bandwagon, a total of four state governments have opposed the film so far. BJP-ruled Rajasthan and UP governments have already opposed the film’s release in its current form. Amarinder Singh, the scion of the erstwhile royal family of Patiala whose family members are also married to other royal families in the country, chose to sing a tune different from the Karnataka CM. “I have myself studied history and even been to Chittor. Cinematic licence does not give anyone the right to twist historical facts. Those feeling hurt by distortion of facts had the right to protest. The protests were a justified recourse in a democratic system,” he said.

Hailing Maharani Padmavati as ‘rashtramata’ (mother of the nation), Chouhan said a memorial would be established in Bhopal to display her ‘valor and sacrifice’.

“People working for the betterment of women will be conferred with #Rashtrmata-PadmavatiPuraskar,” said a tweet from the twitter handle CMO Madhya Pradesh, which was re-tweeted by Chouhan.

Chouhan, who met a delegation of Rajputs, said he would not allow the release of Bhansali’s magnum opus in Madhya Pradesh. “An Indian woman can turn herself into ashes to protect her honour. And a film on a character which is worshipped by people should not be distorted. If the character is fictional then there is no resistance, but if facts get mutated, it will not be tolerated,” he said.

The CM, who faces elections in the state and cannot afford to upset Rajputs who number around one crore, insisted that “corrections” in the film will have to be made as per public demand as Bhansali is not “dealing with a fictional character”.

“The film includes distorted historical facts. Rani Padmavati is the reflection of Indian women. For her pride and honour, Rani Padmavati performed ‘jauhar’ (immolation) and made the ultimate sacrifice. A film that distorts historical facts will never be tolerated,” said Chouhan.

West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee said the ‘Padmavati’ controversy was a “calculated plan of a political party to destroy the freedom to express ourselves. We condemn this super emergency”.

Meanwhile, two days after Rajasthan CM Vasundhara Raje wrote to Union I&B minister Smriti Irani not to screen ‘Padmavati’ without changes, her government sought legal opinion whether a film can be banned before it is cleared by the CBFC.

“Since many people are protesting against the film and demanding a ban on the film, I sat for a review of law and order situation with senior officers of my department. I suggested to find out if in a legal framework we can ban a film before it is cleared by the CBFC,” said home minister Gulab Chand Kataria.

The anti-Padmavati brigade also received support from National Conference (NC) MLA Devender Rana on Monday.

He wrote to J&K CM Mehbooba Mufti demanding a ban on the film in the state whenever it is cleared by the CBFC.

Times View: The ‘compromise’ reached on the ‘Padmavati’ issue is one that has really been forced on the filmmakers by the circumstances they find themselves in. With several chief ministers showing little inclination to back their right to artistic expression or to enforce the law against those handing out threats to them, they have obviously decided that it is better to be safe than sorry. It is a shame that matters have come to this pass. Indeed, it is becoming a depressingly common phenomenon — some group raises a shindig over a book or film and makes belligerent statements threatening violence, the state refuses to take a tough stand against such elements, and the artist decides to back off while the those making the threats continue to roam free, further emboldened by the course of events. It is time governments showed some spine and respect for democratic values. Prompt and severe action against those threatening violence is the only thing that can give artists the confidence to unleash their creativity.