Are the hero and heroine Bajirao and Mastani flawed and immoral? - Page 6

Originally posted by: Chameli_billi

Key word here is cultural relativism. Polygamy was a fact of life back then. For that day and age, their life style was well within the societal norms. Now of course, it's immoral. Then again, there are cultures till this day where cousin marriages are a norm, where open marriages, polygamy and even polyandry is a common phenomenon. Who's to say what's immoral. If it works for them, more power to them.

There is a reason Ram-Sita are idolised as the ideal couple, because even though he was a king and even though his own father had several wives, Ram only had one. He chose not to marry anyone else. Even though that was the accepted practice.

Originally posted by: hedwig_fawkes

I think people are mixing up two concepts. There is a difference between what was "accepted" in society and whether or not it was moral. Also just because woman were forced to deal with their husband having several wives, it doesn't mean that they were happy about it. The word "sautan" has always had a negative connotation for a reason. The king's wives were almost always unhappy, most palace plot involved succession disputes between children of different wives, in fact Shivaji was killed by his second wife over the same issue. I have seen some people say that Pinga makes sense because wives were always happy to accept "sautans" and that is the opposite of the truth. Also there is a difference between Akbar and the Mughals and the Marathas, polygamy under hinduism was only allowed under special circumstances and only for the rich and the elite, and in the case of kings that generally meant political obligation. But the understanding was that it would be treated as a duty. Romance never entered into the picture. Still extremely misogynistic, but can help explain why Bajirao favouring Mastani who was essentially a political gift (ugh) caused a furor. To add insult to injury, she was a Muslim.

Also I think the question is not just about whether it is right to question Bajirao for practices that were common in his time. It is probably not. He was only human. And a great warrior at that. And he is revered for that. But when you make him into a romantic hero, obviously polygamy comes into the picture. Because let's face it, he was no romantic ideal. He didn't have to be, he was meant to win wars and the misogyny in society then was not conducive to allow kings to become romantic heroes and that is fair. But then don't project them as such. Because if you talk about Bajirao the great conqueror, one can let the polygamy issue slide. But if you are going to sell a love story, then it becomes an issue. Because how true was his love for Mastani if he fathered a son with Kashi around the same time as he did one with Mastani? How noble was he if he decided to bring Mastani into the court knowing it would hurt his first wife? You can't choose who you fall in love with but you can choose whether or not to act on those feelings. Why is this selfish love story one worth rooting for?

There is a reason Ram-Sita are idolised as the ideal couple, because even though he was a king and even though his own father had several wives, Ram only had one. He chose not to marry anyone else. Even though that was the accepted practice.

Don't get me wrong, I think it is a very compelling story and am sure the film will be great, but I don't buy them as romantic ideals.

^sorry, I wasn't talking about Islam or any religion in general but as I mentioned in my post I was talking about Mughal emperors vs other Hindu kings in India. I never mentioned Islamic practices or Islam in my post, I only said Mughals. Akbar and other Mughal kings had more wives than a traditional Hindu king which could also be because they had more sovereign power.

Originally posted by: hedwig_fawkes

^sorry, I wasn't talking about Islam or any religion in general but as I mentioned in my post I was talking about Mughal emperors vs other Hindu kings in India. I never mentioned Islamic practices or Islam in my post, I only said Mughals. Akbar and other Mughal kings had more wives than a traditional Hindu king which could also be because they had more sovereign power.

I don't think they are meant to be romantic ideals...I think their love story is meant to be epic. Idealism is most definitely Ram and Sita. However, Love stories are not that all interesting for this particular medium of cinema if there isn't some kind of flaw. Some kind of inner conflicting turmoil that is experienced with the characters. They have repeatedly stated that this is Historical Fiction, not History. It's an adaptation, doesn't mean that it is true, it could be, but it could be not true.
The movie is not promoting polygamy, it is showing the inner conflict a man faces when he falls in love with another woman. Should that happen? NO, but does it happen? YES. Duty, vs. Love, vs. Family, etc. We all face these conflicts on a day to day basis, and although not exactly relatable in terms of multiple wives, we know that these general themes highlighted within the movie, highlight certain aspects of our lives...this is cinema, and that is why we watch a FILM. So that an alternate world can help us come face to face with our personal issues, or allow us to escape where perhaps we don't want to relate. Please understand films, and the process of filmmaking, before saying that any Bollywood film is promoting immorality. Because then we can point a finger at each film. Thats a request to everyone. These sort of discussions bring out the best explanations, glad it was done.

Judging past with current values is one important thing, which a historian should never do. That's where, I find this argument flawed (to some extent movie too).

Originally posted by: flipfl0p

Judging past with current values is one important thing, which a historian should never do. That's where, I find this argument flawed (to some extent movie too).

One does not have a count of how many wives Akbar had. Even Shivaji had a second wife. Lot of alliances in past were made for political reasons.

I am speaking about a fiction drama, written 2000 years ago (not Ramayana or Mahabharata). A kingdom whose ruler is a devoted husband is under threat. Minister realises, unless the king makes an alliance with another powerful Kingdom, he cannot save his. But he knows, king will not oblige. He approaches the queen. Queen (for the sake of Kingdom), goes missing and spread the rumours that she got killed in a fire accident, reappears after the second marriage of the king.

Another marriage was totally ethical THEN. But whether it is this post or the movie, both portrays Mastani like the other woman. That's why more people empathise with Kashi. But in real (at that time), problem with Mastani was only her religion.