In the past, the dispute over the movie “Padmavati” has once again underlined the brittleness of our identity. It has unfolded the discontent of discontent, which constitutes our spirit; Our society has once again reinforced the elements that have been crippled; We have exposed the elitism of intellectual illusions that have taken place on our law and have exposed the lack of constitutional persistence among our politicians. This is the reason why India still seems unsuitable for rights such as independence.
As far as law and liberty are concerned, debating on history seems irrelevant. While some historians did not believe Padmini as a historical fact, it has only made the discussion of the country inevitable as the imagination of the other. They have accepted accepting it as a cultural memory. His argument does not seem to be more than a trap. There are three reasons.
We are living in a time when state governments are presenting history in an odd form. In such a way, we need to save some of the most authentic proofs of history. Despite all this, we must admit that in India the historical consciousness and the nature of historical evidence, it is much more complicated than the holders of historians. It is true that sometimes the evidence is preserved in the form of a historical memory. Along with this, we also carry freedom of expression, which can debate these evidence of historical memory.
The second deleter of history versus cultural-memory is visible. If one of these two is forced to choose, it can be clearly stated that do not disturb history in disputes so much. Cultural memory is fine. It can also be questioned that there is such a thing of dignity in history that it can not be brought into controversy. Whether you respect Padmini or condemn it, it is a sign of your right to freedom.
Some historians, like their communal counterparts, are also trapped in the trap of connecting the contemporary project of citizenship from the past. Both classes look similar on one side that the people of India have the right to keep some stories or facts about medieval India. One class wants to make it an integral part of Indians’ ability to assimilate themselves, while the second class wants to present it as a movie of communal disputes and atrocities, in which the Padmini is merely a puppet. Through this, both sides want to fit the cultural memory of cultural memory in Chapra of their politics. Actually, whatever nation keeps its future in debate debates on medieval history, its development is impossible. We have interrupted history and citizenship so much that their nature has deteriorated.
Where there will be millions of people, there will be something that will not be good if we waste something there. Some of them will deliberately work to offend or shock others. The effect of their action is determined by our response. Most of the leaders play with our emotions. They are doing this even by inciting our emotions through the film. So they want to control us. The first to grab people’s freedom is their feelings.
The sad fact is that this entire episode presents such a sad show of chief ministers, in which they display fears of cowardice, their greediness and their disregard for constitutional duties.
The softness of our community identity, the rage of indignation in them, is giving rise to the politics of intolerance today. To harm someone’s property, to reward the reward of cutting a nose of a performer has become a sign of courage and bravery today. Before criticizing Bhansali, those communities and chief ministers should evaluate themselves, who are scaring their associates by scaring the constitutional values. Such stupendous cowardliness for India is unfortunate.