Criticising the controversy over the Bollywood movie 'Jodhaa Akbar, a descendent of Mughal Emperor, Bahadur Shah Zafar, claimed that Akbar had indeed married Rajput Princess Jodha Bai and conferred the title of Malaika Maryem Zamanni Begum on her. In a statement in Hyderabad, Emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar's great grandson Y Ziauddin Tucy said, "It is indeed a specimen of sheer gaucher that certain vested interests are unnecessarily creating trouble without judging the realities."
Emperor Akbar married Jodha Bai to strengthen his forces and to extend his empire's boundaries. The brave Rajputs not only proved their sincerity but they did everything to support the Mughal empire.
Not only Akbar, but Aurangzeb also married a Rajput princess, he claimed while releasing two copies of rare paintings of Emperor Akbar and Jodha Bai. The recently-released 'Jodhaa Akbar,' directed by Ashutosh Gowariker, has been mired in controversy after some Rajput organisations protested the depiction of Jodha as Akbar's wife. They claimed Jodha was married to Akbar's son Jehangir.
Courtesy: planetbollywood.com
Showing posts with label Akbar. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Akbar. Show all posts
Thursday, February 21, 2008
A Jodha-Akbar museum!
A thing of beauty is a joy forever. Painstakingly crafted with a keen eye for detail, the sets of Jodha Akbar lent the much needed feeling of grandeur to the movie set around the prosperous Mughal and Rajputana empires. Now, that the movie has been released the sets that were built for the purpose can be dismantled. But the makers of Jodha Akbar seem to have something else in mind. After all it is not easy for anyone with a creative slant of mind to ruthlessly pull down a piece of art, that too one that has generated such a positive buzz wherever it has been shown on the big screen.
Yes, the magnificent sets of Jodha Akbar will not be pulled down, they will remain a testimony to the effort and time that went into their making. They will rightfully be opened up for the public get a first hand experience of how it looks. After all a 2 dimensional view on the big screen, however well shot cannot match the 3 dimensional experience of real life. The plans will be rolled out soon. Of course, the public will have to pay a nominal fee, but the perfection of the sets justifies that. The man behind the idea is the man who made the sets himself, Nithin Chandrakanth Desai of ND studios.
Hats off to him for turning the wheel of time to take us back to the times of Akbar and lets hope that this adds to the rich tourist attractions of our country.
Courtesy: Behindwoods.com
Yes, the magnificent sets of Jodha Akbar will not be pulled down, they will remain a testimony to the effort and time that went into their making. They will rightfully be opened up for the public get a first hand experience of how it looks. After all a 2 dimensional view on the big screen, however well shot cannot match the 3 dimensional experience of real life. The plans will be rolled out soon. Of course, the public will have to pay a nominal fee, but the perfection of the sets justifies that. The man behind the idea is the man who made the sets himself, Nithin Chandrakanth Desai of ND studios.
Hats off to him for turning the wheel of time to take us back to the times of Akbar and lets hope that this adds to the rich tourist attractions of our country.
Courtesy: Behindwoods.com
Monday, February 18, 2008
Ash on song
Filmmaker Ashutosh Gowarikar’s has a penchant for incorporating devotional songs in his films. This stems from the director’s love for classical and semi-classical music. After the soothing O paalan hare from Lagaan and the melodious Pal pal hai bhaari from Swades, Gowarikar has included a bhajan, Man Mohana in last weekend’s release, Jodhaa Akbar. Though the song has been rendered by Bela Shende, there is a twist in the tale.
A R Rahman, the music composer for the film, has revealed that Aishwarya Rai, who plays Jodha Bai in the film, was to make her singing debut with Jodhaa Akbar. Originally Gowariker wanted Rai to sing the song as he believed her voice suited the tune very well. Rahman confirms by saying, “Ashutosh strongly felt that Aishwarya could record the song in her own voice, as a bonus.”
However, Ash was extremely busy and did not find time to rehearse when Rahman was available. Eventually, when Ash was ready, Rahman was busy recording something else. The co-ordination for mutually suitable dates didn’t happen. So Bela Shende went ahead and recorded the song. “Man Mohana is a devotional song picturised on Aishwarya’s character, Jodhaa. The lyrics and the composition are inspired by the bhajans and poetry of Meera, the renowned poetess from Akbar’s era,” adds Rahman.
Ash, unlike many of her colleagues in the film industry, has not yet lent her voice as part of a song in any film.
The story of Jodhaa Akbar, based in the 16th century is not just a biopic of Akbar the Great, but narrates the story of what led him to become the greatest emperor of the Mughal era. Rai plays Jodhaa Bai and Hrithik Roshan in the lead character of Jalaluddin Mohammad Akbar in the movie.
Produced at a cost of more than Rs 40 crore, Jodhaa Akbar is perhaps the first big-budget film of this year. Apart from its cost, many factors have made expectations from the film sky high. Right from the many controversies surrounding it, to the fact that the film would directly be compared, to the earlier epic on the life of Akbar—Mughal-e-Azam—is the most important challenge that the film will face. Adding to the pressure is the fact this is Rai’s first film post her wedding into the Bachchan family and Roshan’s next after Dhoom 2.
Courtesy: ExpressIndia.com
A R Rahman, the music composer for the film, has revealed that Aishwarya Rai, who plays Jodha Bai in the film, was to make her singing debut with Jodhaa Akbar. Originally Gowariker wanted Rai to sing the song as he believed her voice suited the tune very well. Rahman confirms by saying, “Ashutosh strongly felt that Aishwarya could record the song in her own voice, as a bonus.”
However, Ash was extremely busy and did not find time to rehearse when Rahman was available. Eventually, when Ash was ready, Rahman was busy recording something else. The co-ordination for mutually suitable dates didn’t happen. So Bela Shende went ahead and recorded the song. “Man Mohana is a devotional song picturised on Aishwarya’s character, Jodhaa. The lyrics and the composition are inspired by the bhajans and poetry of Meera, the renowned poetess from Akbar’s era,” adds Rahman.
Ash, unlike many of her colleagues in the film industry, has not yet lent her voice as part of a song in any film.
The story of Jodhaa Akbar, based in the 16th century is not just a biopic of Akbar the Great, but narrates the story of what led him to become the greatest emperor of the Mughal era. Rai plays Jodhaa Bai and Hrithik Roshan in the lead character of Jalaluddin Mohammad Akbar in the movie.
Produced at a cost of more than Rs 40 crore, Jodhaa Akbar is perhaps the first big-budget film of this year. Apart from its cost, many factors have made expectations from the film sky high. Right from the many controversies surrounding it, to the fact that the film would directly be compared, to the earlier epic on the life of Akbar—Mughal-e-Azam—is the most important challenge that the film will face. Adding to the pressure is the fact this is Rai’s first film post her wedding into the Bachchan family and Roshan’s next after Dhoom 2.
Courtesy: ExpressIndia.com
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Debate continues over Jodha Bai
Who was Jodha Bai? That's the crux of the controversy that's dogging Ashutosh Gowarikar magnum opus Jodha Akbar that releases this week.
A section of the Rajput community opposing the film claims that it's historically incorrect to say that Jodha was Akbar's wife but historians themselves are divided.
Some historians say Jodhaa was Akbar's daughter-in-law, which is what school textbooks also say but others claim she was married to Akbar.
In fact she was not a Jaipur princess at all but from Jodhpur and wife of Salim or Jehangir.
They claim, the Jaipur Princess Akbar was married to, was called Harkan or Heera Bai but coming out in support of the film is none other than the royal families of Jaipur and Kishangarh.
The royal families say there is not much in a name. Akbar's consort was a Jaipur princess and Gowarikar only went ahead with the film once they cleared the script and if anybody has any objections it should be them.
While school children studying Satish Chandra 's NCERT text book are taught that Jodha Bai was the wife of Jehangir other historians claim that in fact if you look at primary sources there is no mention of the name Jodha at all.
In fact the name Jodha only crops up in the past 200 years when Col Todd in his annals and antiquities of Rajasthan writes that Jodha was probably married to Akbar. So the mystery deepens as to who was Jodha?
The Mughals came to India as invaders but it was Akbar who embraced Hindustan as his own. His marriage with the daughter of Rajput kings of Amber was a political alliance that turned the Rajputs from foes into friends.
But who was this princess who entered into the first Hindu-Muslim alliance in history?
Original records like Ain-I-Akbari and histories of the Amber kings confirm that in 1562 Akbar married Raja Bharmal's daughter at Sambhar about a 100 km from modern Jaipur but the name of this princess is far from clear.
"Our geneology, the documents of the Royal Family are the most authentic records, and in our records, different names appear. She is called Hira Bai and Harkan Bai and some historians call her Jodha. So he took the most popular name for the film," said Maharaja Brajraj Singh, Kishangarh Royal family.
But Ashutosh Gowarikar says the film should not be judged only in the context of the title but as an exploration of an inter-faith relationship.
"For me what became important was to get into the research. I read the Rajput history-some called her Harka Bai, Shahi Bai, Jodha Bai. I also read the history of Jaipur, where it mentions Uday Singh the Raja, who gave his daughter away to Jehangir but her name was Jodh. Both Jodha and Jodh are different I could have called my film Harka-Akbar or Meera-Akbar but I thought some historians might object to it so I kept the popular name," said Gowarikar.
So, how did the name Jodha become popular?
Some historians like Col Todd have called Akbar's wife Jodha and Films like Mughal-e-Azam, which picked up the name entrenched it in public memory.
But the Rajput community that's opposing the film says the time has now come to set the record straight. They claim Jodha was from Jodhpur and she was married not to Akbar but to his son Jehangir.
Prof Khangarot, Historian and spokespeson for the Rajput sabha said, "Do you have a right to make your own history or change history. Jodha Bai was the daughter of Mota Raja of Jodhpur, who wed Salim and became the mother of Shahjahan."
The Rajput Karni Sena has already started burning posters of the film. They say they won't allow it to be shown in Rajasthan. But the Jaipur royals, who support the film say Gowarikar's has depicted Rajput culture with sensitivity.
Maharani Padmini Devi, Jaipur royal family said, "We went through the script before he started the movie, the mahurat shot was taken here. We are the closest in relation to Jodha, therefore if there was anything objectionable we would have not endorsed it."
Some historians are of the opinion that the name Jodha does not figure in any original records of the time.
Infact, it is only in the past 200 years that the name begins to appear in historical narratives. So what is history?
There is no definite answer, there is recorded history and there are oral traditions, there are legends and myths. The the answers to who was Jodha probably lies in the matrix of our past.
Courtesy: Ndtvmovies.com
A section of the Rajput community opposing the film claims that it's historically incorrect to say that Jodha was Akbar's wife but historians themselves are divided.
Some historians say Jodhaa was Akbar's daughter-in-law, which is what school textbooks also say but others claim she was married to Akbar.
In fact she was not a Jaipur princess at all but from Jodhpur and wife of Salim or Jehangir.
They claim, the Jaipur Princess Akbar was married to, was called Harkan or Heera Bai but coming out in support of the film is none other than the royal families of Jaipur and Kishangarh.
The royal families say there is not much in a name. Akbar's consort was a Jaipur princess and Gowarikar only went ahead with the film once they cleared the script and if anybody has any objections it should be them.
While school children studying Satish Chandra 's NCERT text book are taught that Jodha Bai was the wife of Jehangir other historians claim that in fact if you look at primary sources there is no mention of the name Jodha at all.
In fact the name Jodha only crops up in the past 200 years when Col Todd in his annals and antiquities of Rajasthan writes that Jodha was probably married to Akbar. So the mystery deepens as to who was Jodha?
The Mughals came to India as invaders but it was Akbar who embraced Hindustan as his own. His marriage with the daughter of Rajput kings of Amber was a political alliance that turned the Rajputs from foes into friends.
But who was this princess who entered into the first Hindu-Muslim alliance in history?
Original records like Ain-I-Akbari and histories of the Amber kings confirm that in 1562 Akbar married Raja Bharmal's daughter at Sambhar about a 100 km from modern Jaipur but the name of this princess is far from clear.
"Our geneology, the documents of the Royal Family are the most authentic records, and in our records, different names appear. She is called Hira Bai and Harkan Bai and some historians call her Jodha. So he took the most popular name for the film," said Maharaja Brajraj Singh, Kishangarh Royal family.
But Ashutosh Gowarikar says the film should not be judged only in the context of the title but as an exploration of an inter-faith relationship.
"For me what became important was to get into the research. I read the Rajput history-some called her Harka Bai, Shahi Bai, Jodha Bai. I also read the history of Jaipur, where it mentions Uday Singh the Raja, who gave his daughter away to Jehangir but her name was Jodh. Both Jodha and Jodh are different I could have called my film Harka-Akbar or Meera-Akbar but I thought some historians might object to it so I kept the popular name," said Gowarikar.
So, how did the name Jodha become popular?
Some historians like Col Todd have called Akbar's wife Jodha and Films like Mughal-e-Azam, which picked up the name entrenched it in public memory.
But the Rajput community that's opposing the film says the time has now come to set the record straight. They claim Jodha was from Jodhpur and she was married not to Akbar but to his son Jehangir.
Prof Khangarot, Historian and spokespeson for the Rajput sabha said, "Do you have a right to make your own history or change history. Jodha Bai was the daughter of Mota Raja of Jodhpur, who wed Salim and became the mother of Shahjahan."
The Rajput Karni Sena has already started burning posters of the film. They say they won't allow it to be shown in Rajasthan. But the Jaipur royals, who support the film say Gowarikar's has depicted Rajput culture with sensitivity.
Maharani Padmini Devi, Jaipur royal family said, "We went through the script before he started the movie, the mahurat shot was taken here. We are the closest in relation to Jodha, therefore if there was anything objectionable we would have not endorsed it."
Some historians are of the opinion that the name Jodha does not figure in any original records of the time.
Infact, it is only in the past 200 years that the name begins to appear in historical narratives. So what is history?
There is no definite answer, there is recorded history and there are oral traditions, there are legends and myths. The the answers to who was Jodha probably lies in the matrix of our past.
Courtesy: Ndtvmovies.com
Monday, February 11, 2008
Controversy and Bollywood's versions of Indian history go hand in hand
Controversy and Bollywood's versions of Indian history seem to go hand in hand. HIMANSHU BHAGAT talks to some historians to find out why
Factually at least, they are on solid ground. Akbar never married Jodha Bai. It was his son, Prince Salim who did. Salim became Emperor Jehangir. And his son from Jodha Bai, Prince Khurram, succeeded his father as Emperor Shah Jahan. “All this goes to show that history is not settled business,” says Mahmood Farooqui, who is currently writing a book on 1857 but is better known as a dastango who has single-handedly revived dastangoi or the traditional art of oral storytelling in Delhi. “It is almost as if each generation has its own myths about the past.” “Those protesting the movie have two specific objections,” says Dilbag Singh, professor of Mughal history at the Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi. “That a different person was married to Akbar. And, that there was no love affair between the two.” Iqtidar Alam Khan, the noted historian and authority on Akbar who teaches at Aligarh Muslim University, points out that Akbar did marry a Rajput princess but she was Harka Bai, daughter of the Kachwaha ruler of Amber, Raja Bharmal. “The erroneous tradition that Akbar was married to Jodha Bai can be traced back at least to the 18th century. That is when we find the first written reference to it,” he says.
Shah Nadeem, who teaches history at Zakir Husain College in Delhi University, also points out that one of the palaces at Fatehpur Sikri, the city built by Akbar near Agra, is called Jodha Mahal, and is one reason why Jodha Bai is popularly believed to have been Akbar's queen. But why should getting Akbar's Rajput wife's name wrong touch a raw nerve? Is there some latent sense of communal grievance behind the protest? Singh can't see why the Rajputs should harbour any grudge against the Mughals. As he points out, the tradition of intermarriage among ruling families as a means to achieve political stability and forge new ties is an old one. Rajput princesses were married to Muslim sultans in Delhi and Gujarat during the pre-Mughal era. “The Mughals merely systematised this tradition. Akbar was the first Mughal emperor to marry a Rajput princess,” says Singh. “From the time of Shah Jahan, the practise of establishing matrimonial ties between the Mughals and the Rajputs declined. It is no coincidence that, around the same time, the Mughals had achieved a healthy degree of political stability.” And the Rajputs had no qualms about intermarriage with the Mughals. Khan feels people often forget that the medieval world was very different from ours, with different attitudes and outlook. “The Rajputs wouldn't have seen the Mughals as 'outsiders', for the idea of India as a nation didn't exist at the time,” he says. “In matters related to marriage, caste pride played a bigger role. The Rajputs, for instance, would never have married into communities they felt were lower in the caste hierarchy.” Whether it is a film based on the life of Mangal Pandey, or one on Bhagat Singh, or one that depicts the plight of widows a hundred years ago (Deepa Mehta's Water) - in India, films based on historical themes inevitably become controversial.
This also holds true for books on historical figures like Shivaji, Nehru or Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. Questions about Shivaji's parentage incense some; others object to a close examination of Nehru's relationship with Edwina Mountbatten or of Netaji's links with Hitler. Perhaps the phenomenon is an indicator of the fact that India is “a land of million mutinies” where castes, community and regional groupings feel the need to assert their identity for a number of reasons. And history is the key to identity.
“In England, there is the historical [Queen] Elizabeth [the First] and there is the popular Elizabeth. There is a consensus about her there,” says Mahmood Farooqui. “But there is no consensus here. If you make a film on Ambedkar or on Bhagat Singh supporters of Gandhi are likely to object. And it can go the other way round.” Singh points out that in India, group identities play a larger role in the individual's psyche as compared to the West. “Mughal court historians referred to Jats as plunderers and even today the Jat community resents that,” he says. “They were actually farmers - peasant proprietors and zamindars - who resisted Mughal power.” Farooqui feels that an artist must be mindful of these realities. His current dastan (story) is set during the Partition and features a street poem from a time that is very critical of Nehru. “There is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech,” he says. “You can go to certain extent but not beyond that.” What bothers most historians is the cavalier fashion in which films and television in India treat history. They appreciate that a film is meant to entertain and not serve as a history lesson.
But there are ways of going about it. “The television serial Prithviraj Chauhan, which is being aired currently is one hundred percent fiction,” says an indignant Singh. Shah can cite any number of instances where “Bollywood's fetish for love affairs” means that facts mean nothing. He points out that contrary to what the film Razia Sultana depicts, the real Razia - the only woman ruler of the Delhi Sultanate - did not fall in love with the Abyssinian noble Yaqut. He also cites the SRKstarrer Asoka as a poorly researched film littered with factual inaccuracies. “In case you don't already know, Ashoka didn't attack Kalinga because he was in love with a girl,” he says. There is a reason why he feels strongly about this. “Some accuracy and a basic adherence to facts are necessary because films and TV have a hold on the popular imagination and shape perceptions,” he says.
There are examples which filmmakers can learn from. “A good historical film is Satyajit Ray's adaptation of Premchand's novella Shatranj Ke Khiladi,” says Shah. “The tale of two chess-playing noblemen during the last days of Awadh is completely fictional. But the setting is authentic and historically accurate. The film gave a true picture of Awadh during the tumult of 1856 and its last Nawab, Wajid Ali Shah.” The mix of history, folklore and outright fantasy can make for good entertainment but a more discerning viewership, as well as one that is quick to take offence, will ensure that film directors think twice before they decide to set their next love story in the 16th century.
Courtesy: Indiafm.com
Factually at least, they are on solid ground. Akbar never married Jodha Bai. It was his son, Prince Salim who did. Salim became Emperor Jehangir. And his son from Jodha Bai, Prince Khurram, succeeded his father as Emperor Shah Jahan. “All this goes to show that history is not settled business,” says Mahmood Farooqui, who is currently writing a book on 1857 but is better known as a dastango who has single-handedly revived dastangoi or the traditional art of oral storytelling in Delhi. “It is almost as if each generation has its own myths about the past.” “Those protesting the movie have two specific objections,” says Dilbag Singh, professor of Mughal history at the Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi. “That a different person was married to Akbar. And, that there was no love affair between the two.” Iqtidar Alam Khan, the noted historian and authority on Akbar who teaches at Aligarh Muslim University, points out that Akbar did marry a Rajput princess but she was Harka Bai, daughter of the Kachwaha ruler of Amber, Raja Bharmal. “The erroneous tradition that Akbar was married to Jodha Bai can be traced back at least to the 18th century. That is when we find the first written reference to it,” he says.
Shah Nadeem, who teaches history at Zakir Husain College in Delhi University, also points out that one of the palaces at Fatehpur Sikri, the city built by Akbar near Agra, is called Jodha Mahal, and is one reason why Jodha Bai is popularly believed to have been Akbar's queen. But why should getting Akbar's Rajput wife's name wrong touch a raw nerve? Is there some latent sense of communal grievance behind the protest? Singh can't see why the Rajputs should harbour any grudge against the Mughals. As he points out, the tradition of intermarriage among ruling families as a means to achieve political stability and forge new ties is an old one. Rajput princesses were married to Muslim sultans in Delhi and Gujarat during the pre-Mughal era. “The Mughals merely systematised this tradition. Akbar was the first Mughal emperor to marry a Rajput princess,” says Singh. “From the time of Shah Jahan, the practise of establishing matrimonial ties between the Mughals and the Rajputs declined. It is no coincidence that, around the same time, the Mughals had achieved a healthy degree of political stability.” And the Rajputs had no qualms about intermarriage with the Mughals. Khan feels people often forget that the medieval world was very different from ours, with different attitudes and outlook. “The Rajputs wouldn't have seen the Mughals as 'outsiders', for the idea of India as a nation didn't exist at the time,” he says. “In matters related to marriage, caste pride played a bigger role. The Rajputs, for instance, would never have married into communities they felt were lower in the caste hierarchy.” Whether it is a film based on the life of Mangal Pandey, or one on Bhagat Singh, or one that depicts the plight of widows a hundred years ago (Deepa Mehta's Water) - in India, films based on historical themes inevitably become controversial.
This also holds true for books on historical figures like Shivaji, Nehru or Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. Questions about Shivaji's parentage incense some; others object to a close examination of Nehru's relationship with Edwina Mountbatten or of Netaji's links with Hitler. Perhaps the phenomenon is an indicator of the fact that India is “a land of million mutinies” where castes, community and regional groupings feel the need to assert their identity for a number of reasons. And history is the key to identity.
“In England, there is the historical [Queen] Elizabeth [the First] and there is the popular Elizabeth. There is a consensus about her there,” says Mahmood Farooqui. “But there is no consensus here. If you make a film on Ambedkar or on Bhagat Singh supporters of Gandhi are likely to object. And it can go the other way round.” Singh points out that in India, group identities play a larger role in the individual's psyche as compared to the West. “Mughal court historians referred to Jats as plunderers and even today the Jat community resents that,” he says. “They were actually farmers - peasant proprietors and zamindars - who resisted Mughal power.” Farooqui feels that an artist must be mindful of these realities. His current dastan (story) is set during the Partition and features a street poem from a time that is very critical of Nehru. “There is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech,” he says. “You can go to certain extent but not beyond that.” What bothers most historians is the cavalier fashion in which films and television in India treat history. They appreciate that a film is meant to entertain and not serve as a history lesson.
But there are ways of going about it. “The television serial Prithviraj Chauhan, which is being aired currently is one hundred percent fiction,” says an indignant Singh. Shah can cite any number of instances where “Bollywood's fetish for love affairs” means that facts mean nothing. He points out that contrary to what the film Razia Sultana depicts, the real Razia - the only woman ruler of the Delhi Sultanate - did not fall in love with the Abyssinian noble Yaqut. He also cites the SRKstarrer Asoka as a poorly researched film littered with factual inaccuracies. “In case you don't already know, Ashoka didn't attack Kalinga because he was in love with a girl,” he says. There is a reason why he feels strongly about this. “Some accuracy and a basic adherence to facts are necessary because films and TV have a hold on the popular imagination and shape perceptions,” he says.
There are examples which filmmakers can learn from. “A good historical film is Satyajit Ray's adaptation of Premchand's novella Shatranj Ke Khiladi,” says Shah. “The tale of two chess-playing noblemen during the last days of Awadh is completely fictional. But the setting is authentic and historically accurate. The film gave a true picture of Awadh during the tumult of 1856 and its last Nawab, Wajid Ali Shah.” The mix of history, folklore and outright fantasy can make for good entertainment but a more discerning viewership, as well as one that is quick to take offence, will ensure that film directors think twice before they decide to set their next love story in the 16th century.
Courtesy: Indiafm.com
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Now Nasik engages against 'Akbar'
Following the call of the Rajasthan Rajputs, Hindu community in Nasik, Maharashtra has emerged first non-Rajasthani crew to provide backup to the Karni Sena and Rajput Sabha of Rajasthan and demanded that the Censor Board of India appoint a Committee of Rajputs to screen the forthcoming Ashutosh Gowarikar movie Jodha Akbar before it is allowed to release.
In a warning pamphlet by Ratandeep Shisodia, Founding Member of Kranti Sanstha in Nasik, it has been stated that numerous facts have been distorted in the film. They want the film to highlight that there was no Jodhaa Bai wife of Akbar and that a Jodha was daughter of a slave girl in the harem of Akbar who was eventually married off to Akbar’s son Jehangir, implying that a Jodha Bai of the harem was the daughter-in-law of Akbar not his wife.
Notwithstanding which, they are planning to block Jodha Akbar starting from Nasik across Maharashtra also.
Courtesy: Ibosnetwork.com
In a warning pamphlet by Ratandeep Shisodia, Founding Member of Kranti Sanstha in Nasik, it has been stated that numerous facts have been distorted in the film. They want the film to highlight that there was no Jodhaa Bai wife of Akbar and that a Jodha was daughter of a slave girl in the harem of Akbar who was eventually married off to Akbar’s son Jehangir, implying that a Jodha Bai of the harem was the daughter-in-law of Akbar not his wife.
Notwithstanding which, they are planning to block Jodha Akbar starting from Nasik across Maharashtra also.
Courtesy: Ibosnetwork.com
Friday, February 08, 2008
´Jodhaa Akbar´ - Gowariker On The Historical Existence Of Jodha Bai
Some historians have questioned the very existence of a Jodha Bai and some are of the view that it was Jehangir who had one of the wives by this name. Ashutosh says he has heard of it. “The historians are divided over name not the person. Most of them agree that Akbar married the daughter of Raja Bharmal of Amber but differ over her name.”
He relates his research. “I started from the top. Abul Fazal’s ‘Ain-e-Akbari’ and ‘Akbarnama’ have no reference to Jodha Bai. The name also doesn’t find mention in Jehangir’s memoirs. Similarly, there is no mention of Jodha Bai in Bada’uni’s ‘Muntakhib-al-Tawarikh’.”
He also went to the Aligarh Muslim University, one of the biggest centres for the study of medieval history. “There also I was told that there is no historical reference to Jodha Bai. However, when you study Rajput history there is a mention of Jodha Bai in the works of K.L. Khurana, A.L. Shrivastav and Munni Lal. At the same time in ‘Kachchawon ka Itihas’ she is mentioned by the name of Harika Bai. In another book she is called Manmati and Shahi Bai.”
History also tells us that there was hardly any concept of a couple in Moghul royalty. Emperors had many wives, some to consolidate political alliances and others for physical needs. “The perception of togetherness keeps on changing with times. What we know for sure is Jehangir was born out of this wedlock,” argues Ashutosh.
On Jehangir having one wife with a similar name, Ashutosh points out what historian Jadunath Sarkar says. “Uday Singh of Jaipur married his daughter to Jehangir. Her name was Mira Bai but she was also known as Jodh Bai and not Jodha Bai.”
At the end of this historical discussion, Ashutosh says he appeals to the historians to appreciate the fact that he has used the name which is etched in the public memory.
Has it something to do with ‘Mughal-e-Azam’, where Durga Khote played Jodha Bai? “Not really. Go to Agra and every guide will tell you Akbar’s wife was Jodha Bai. If they are passing wrong information, why aren’t they removed? We have structures like Jodha Bai Ka Rauza in Fatehpur Sikri.”
Courtesy: Planetbollywood.com
He relates his research. “I started from the top. Abul Fazal’s ‘Ain-e-Akbari’ and ‘Akbarnama’ have no reference to Jodha Bai. The name also doesn’t find mention in Jehangir’s memoirs. Similarly, there is no mention of Jodha Bai in Bada’uni’s ‘Muntakhib-al-Tawarikh’.”
He also went to the Aligarh Muslim University, one of the biggest centres for the study of medieval history. “There also I was told that there is no historical reference to Jodha Bai. However, when you study Rajput history there is a mention of Jodha Bai in the works of K.L. Khurana, A.L. Shrivastav and Munni Lal. At the same time in ‘Kachchawon ka Itihas’ she is mentioned by the name of Harika Bai. In another book she is called Manmati and Shahi Bai.”
History also tells us that there was hardly any concept of a couple in Moghul royalty. Emperors had many wives, some to consolidate political alliances and others for physical needs. “The perception of togetherness keeps on changing with times. What we know for sure is Jehangir was born out of this wedlock,” argues Ashutosh.
On Jehangir having one wife with a similar name, Ashutosh points out what historian Jadunath Sarkar says. “Uday Singh of Jaipur married his daughter to Jehangir. Her name was Mira Bai but she was also known as Jodh Bai and not Jodha Bai.”
At the end of this historical discussion, Ashutosh says he appeals to the historians to appreciate the fact that he has used the name which is etched in the public memory.
Has it something to do with ‘Mughal-e-Azam’, where Durga Khote played Jodha Bai? “Not really. Go to Agra and every guide will tell you Akbar’s wife was Jodha Bai. If they are passing wrong information, why aren’t they removed? We have structures like Jodha Bai Ka Rauza in Fatehpur Sikri.”
Courtesy: Planetbollywood.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)