Rajputs have threatened to boycott Jodha Akbar fearing the film will perpetuate historical falsehoods. Their point is the fact that Akbar had not been married to Jodhabai as well as the film is really a slur on the city which stood against the might from the Mughals when everybody else had abandoned. They’re right, but only partially.

Rajputs do have a tradition of valour and sacrifice, which helped them rule large elements of India if they did. They did fight the invaders and made supreme sacrifices. Rajput women embraced death in order to avoid falling in to the hands from the enemy. History books are filled with stories of these exemplary courage.

But it can be true that Rajputs established, under whatever compulsions and in whatever circumstances, family ties with Mughal rulers. History books are vague concerning the Akbar-Jodha alliance. This myth was strengthened by that epic of the film called Mughal-e-Azam. In accordance with historical references, the closet we reach the Akbar-Jodha facts are that Mohammed Jalaluddin Akbar did marry a Rajput princess Hira or Harsha of Amer. Rajputs were refusing to blow right down to the Mughal power which martial alliance converted them into allies.

In accordance with Jaipur royal records, the marriage ceremony occurred at Sambhar, 100 km from Jaipur, on January 20, 1562. She was a daughter of King Bharmal and an aunt of Mansingh, who later turn into a confidante and commander of Akbar. For this reason the royal category of Jaipur does not have any objection towards the film. She was also given female name and is meant to possess influenced or moderated Akbar’s religious beliefs. This is actually the woman, experts say, we have been mixing up with Jodhabai. The true Akbar’s wayward son Salim (Jehangir). She was the princess of Jodhapur and therefore called Jodhbai. She gave birth to Jehangir’s heir Shahjahan.

So what will be the Rajputs objecting to? So how exactly does the film harm Rajput pride? Well, it generally does not. What’s inside a name, anyway, whether it had been Jodhabai or not? Films, even those considered historically accurate, take creative liberty and fictionalise facts for technical and financial reasons. The film is really a fictionalized account of history. This is a film.

Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments are closed.

Powered by WordPress