Swara Bhaskar's insensitive remarks on Jauhar scene from Padmavat- Page 2

Although I'm not able to read MsWhiskerson's posts, I guess the content...

Since humans descend from animals, it is worth looking at the animal world, as sexual violence or coercion against females by males of the species occurs there as well. However, animals possess no moral or cultural concept of "shame," "honor," or "guilt.", so the social ostracism or stigmatization of victims of sexual violence - which unfortunately occurs in human societies - does not exist in the animal kingdom. If a female becomes pregnant or gives birth following forced mating, she continues to be treated as a full member of the group; indeed, in many socially complex animal societies, the community responds not with exclusion, but with support for the affected female.

I do not ask myself why the male side of society continues to arrogate to itself the 'right' to rape girls and women (after all, it is not without reason said that they 'turn into animals' in the process); rather, I ask myself why culture, morality, and knowledge tend to ostracize/stigmatize the victims of rape.

The women those days did what they felt was right instead of being tortured all their lives but it doesn't mean it serves as an example that this is what every woman should do if she feels she's going to face a similar situation.

Is she pagal vagal kya?? SLB should go and change history or what?

What option did women in that era even have? Were there courts to go and appeal to? Its like saying anyone depicting inquisition history of Spanish woman on screen should change the outcome.

Swara doesn't have guts to criticize the concept of 'Maal e Ghanimat', which literally pushed these women to take such an extreme step, so she is using her twisted logic to criticize woman who committed jauhar to save themselves from repeated rapes a torture... Does taking women and young girls hostage to be distributed as war booty not reduce a woman to a vagina...

We have examples of how women were treated during Bangladeshi genocide, the Yezedi genocide, the Kashmiri Pandit genocide and these are not the examples from 1303.. These are just some of the many examples of what happens to women and children in societies where the modern day legal protection fails terribly and the entire swath of land falls into the hands of peaceful terrorists. Swara is judging women for choosing death by burning themselves instead of getting raped, sold and passed on to be raped again, give birth to unwanted children and die someday out of all the physical injuries, psychological trauma and diseases...

What is she trying to say? the women who have committed Jauhar should have let the men rape them? Is she retard?

Originally posted by: MsWhiskerson

What are you talking about?

Those who committed Jauhar are not victims of sexual assault

Teach us about lives of sex slaves, those women who were sold in markets of Persia, tell us how do you want them to continue living " despite whatever that might happen"?

Do you even understand the torture those women went through? You'd rather those women were assaulted and killed by their "owners" than deciding to end their lives?

How insensitive

I know this is ragebait ,I get what you're doing here but I'm biting anyway.

You pretend to care about the plight of women who faced the prospect of abduction rape and lifelong slavery yet your biggest concern is what would have been done with their corpses ? Are you insane ? Certain situations in my life put me at a great deal of vulnerability and once in a while I do worry about sexual assault even when I'm not travelling and the least of my concerns is what anybody would do to my corpse. I would gladly make arrangements for my corpse to be handed over to necrophiles or cannibals ,whoeever would have it. Get real !!

Slavery and other post war bruralities were very much a problem but it's not your place to sit in the safety of your home and decide mass suicide was better for all the women who committed jauhar in Chittorgarh than the life of a mistress or domestic servant which were what female prisomers of war who were taken as slaves ended up being. Saying that an ' honourable ' death is better than the prospect of these experiences adds to the shaming victims of such things go through. It was for each woman at the fort to decide for herself what she wanted to do with her life . Which brings us to whether or not they did it voluntarily.

What are the odds of hundreds of women of different ages, personalities , life experiences and living situations all coming together as a monolith and saying " Let's kill ourselves because that's better than waiting to see if there's some other means of escape " ? How exactly do we say for sure that not even a dozen of them wondered if the tables might turn, if some Rajput leader with the help of neighbouring kingdoms might change the course of things . There are countless stories of Western women who were captured and kept in basements for years , routinely raped and abused in every which way , who waited and waited and waited ,with no contact with the outside world whatsoever , hoping to escape one day . And they did. They talk of horrific abuse for years , some got pregnant from their rspists ( in some cases their own fathers ) ,gave birth in captivity and ended up getting out after decades. If theres one thing you can learn from that , it's that people have the desire to survive ,and live. even if they are women . For so many women to kill themselves en masse it takes a great deal of coercion and indoctrination ,and that doesnt happen without coward shaming and honour mongering. They weren't victims of sexual assault , but they were taught to think and behave like one. They were pressured to preempt rape ,which they were told was the worst thing that could happen to not just them as women but also to their men because duh ,they were the belongings of those men.

You cannot pretend at least a few of those women chickened out and said no I can't do this. What happened to those women? Were they dragged? Were they pushed ? Did those women have the option of saying " I 'm scared , I would rather stay alive and deal with each day as it comes "? NO. So just stop romanticising it already. Hoards of women being conditioned to kill themselves to avoid rape arent anybody's tickets to pride.

Nobody is judging those women from history who ended up taking that awful decision. It's Sanjay Bhansali and other pride mongers who are judged for glorifying engineered suicides.

Chittorgarh was under military seife for months . That means scarcity for food , distuption of trade and logistics , disruption of communication, lack of manpower and so on. We see nothing of those hardships in the movie , of what women went through ,how they dealt with it , how they hoped to survive it. Instead the movie is about Khiljis wild goose chase for Padmavati's unattainable vagina. In the climax scene when the guard comes in and says " Rani Sa Shahid down " Deepika acts like her butt is trying to bite her from within. They she launches into a speech about honour. She says " Jo hamare badan ke bhooke hain woh humhe kabhi nahi haasil karenge. Hum jalke raakh kyun na ho jaaye , rajputon ka abhimaan amar rahega ". Not one woman says " I have kids, I cannot kill them ". In the next scene which is disgusting , you see all these women in sychronised walking shots ,including a oregnant woman' , all walking smack dab into the fire with not even the little girl hesitating. You see very few children because they arent pretty enough for the aesthetics. of Sanjay's fetish. There's no Bhuvan Chaudhary this time but the doors are banged shut. Khilji falls on it just like Paro and nope tough luck ,he ain't getting any. The voiceover says it was his biggest haar. FFS ! How sick do people have to be to say they get " goosebumps " watching it ,not out of fear or disgust or pity , but pride. And to think Padmavati was most likely imagined and never even existed.

Originally posted by: WormikaGrubby

I know this is ragebait ,I get what you're doing here but I'm biting anyway.

You pretend to care about the plight of women who faced the prospect of abduction rape and lifelong slavery yet your biggest concern is what would have been done with their corpses ? Are you insane ? Certain situations in my life put me at a great deal of vulnerability and once in a while I do worry about sexual assault even when I'm not travelling and the least of my concerns is what anybody would do to my corpse. I would gladly make arrangements for my corpse to be handed over to necrophiles or cannibals ,whoeever would have it. Get real !!

Slavery and other post war bruralities were very much a problem but it's not your place to sit in the safety of your home and decide mass suicide was better for all the women who committed jauhar in Chittorgarh than the life of a mistress or domestic servant which were what female prisomers of war who were taken as slaves ended up being. Saying that an ' honourable ' death is better than the prospect of these experiences adds to the shaming victims of such things go through. It was for each woman at the fort to decide for herself what she wanted to do with her life . Which brings us to whether or not they did it voluntarily.

What are the odds of hundreds of women of different ages, personalities , life experiences and living situations all coming together as a monolith and saying " Let's kill ourselves because that's better than waiting to see if there's some other means of escape " ? How exactly do we say for sure that not even a dozen of them wondered if the tables might turn, if some Rajput leader with the help of neighbouring kingdoms might change the course of things . There are countless stories of Western women who were captured and kept in basements for years , routinely raped and abused in every which way , who waited and waited and waited ,with no contact with the outside world whatsoever , hoping to escape one day . And they did. They talk of horrific abuse for years , some got pregnant from their rspists ( in some cases their own fathers ) ,gave birth in captivity and ended up getting out after decades. If theres one thing you can learn from that , it's that people have the desire to survive ,and live. even if they are women . For so many women to kill themselves en masse it takes a great deal of coercion and indoctrination ,and that doesnt happen without coward shaming and honour mongering. They weren't victims of sexual assault , but they were taught to think and behave like one. They were pressured to preempt rape ,which they were told was the worst thing that could happen to not just them as women but also to their men because duh ,they were the belongings of those men.

You cannot pretend at least a few of those women chickened out and said no I can't do this. What happened to those women? Were they dragged? Were they pushed ? Did those women have the option of saying " I 'm scared , I would rather stay alive and deal with each day as it comes "? NO. So just stop romanticising it already. Hoards of women being conditioned to kill themselves to avoid rape arent anybody's tickets to pride.

At some point, someone has to respond to this garbage, so allow me

and excuse my French, but what the f#%+

Jauhar was not a TED Talk about chastity. It was not a family honour killing. It was not a rape survivor being told to die. It was women looking at a breached fort and an incoming force whose habit, on the record, was to convert the women of a defeated court into harem stock. Kamala Devi of Gujarat did not "move on." She was taken. Deval Devi was taken later and passed through that court like loot with a pulse. That is the second room in the house you keep deleting so your question can sound holy."Does a rape survivor not deserve to live after rape?"Yes. In 2026. With a phone, a statute, a court, a hospital, a city to run to. Congratulations on discovering the Indian Constitution. Now explain what that sentence has to do with women who had already lost the state. There was no FIR against Khalji. There was no Delhi to escape to. There was no climax dance where the vice-chancellor gets shamed and the credits roll. The state was the rapist. You are comparing a woman who can still leave the room to women whose room was the last room.You shouted "chii" at a pregnant belly and decided the film was saying a girl child should not be born because a Muslim king might rape her. That is not analysis. That is you stuffing your column into someone else's uterus. The shot is a woman who knows the child will not be born into a family. It will be born into inventory. You turned a funeral into a communal talking point and called the funeral the problem.Then you asked what we are choosing to glorify.Fine. Let's use your scale.You spent a career demanding that cinema stare at female sexuality without flinching. In Veere Di Wedding the country was asked to sit through you with a vibrator while your on-screen husband walked in. You defended it. You said it should shock people into laughter, not disgust. You said women are more than their private parts, in the same breath as the scene that made your private parts the poster. When you put sex on screen, it is agency. When Rajput women refuse to hand their sex to the men who just killed their city, you felt "reduced to a vagina." That letter was not a theory of personhood. It was a tantrum about which vagina the camera is allowed to serve.You keep saying the film tells survivors they are cowards for living. No. You are telling dead women they are cowards for refusing a harem. That is the inversion. A survivor who lives today is not a coward. A woman who walked into fire rather than become a concubine of the man who sacked her fort was not a coward either. Both things can be true because they are not the same event. You flattened them on purpose. A flattened event is easier to moralise. It is also a lie.Nobody is asking modern India to revive jauhar. The film carried a disclaimer. History is allowed to be shown as history. What you want is a rule that the only permitted female death on screen is the kind that flatters your politics, and the only permitted female sex is the kind that flatters your brand.So here is the actual simple question, since you asked for one:When the choices are ash or a lifetime as sexual property of the men who just finished the massacre, and some women choose ash; who is the barbarian? The women in the fire, or the commentator in Delhi calling them a bad message for rape statistics?You don't get to loot their context, rename their refusal "chastity culture," and then pose as the only adult in the room who cares whether survivors live. Survivors should live. The women in that scene were trying not to become the next consignment. If that distinction is too fine for you, the problem is not Padmaavat. The problem is that you need history to be a poster.

P.S. Yeah this was not about your fantasy role play in our bedroom with you having cuffs on for a few hours.

Originally posted by: roni_berna

The women those days did what they felt was right instead of being tortured all their lives but it doesn't mean it serves as an example that this is what every woman should do if she feels she's going to face a similar situation.

Precisely and how can we even compare ourselves with them?

Why do we fight for laws, system and reforms? The basic concept of every change is Justice

When they lived, their rulers had system of sex slaves, the institution was selling and torturing them

Even today, people are fighting in court for Euthanasia when they think, they don't see a life with dignity

I am really surprised that people are questioning women instead of the system

Originally posted by: TorinoPasta

Is she pagal vagal kya?? SLB should go and change history or what?

What option did women in that era even have? Were there courts to go and appeal to? Its like saying anyone depicting inquisition history of Spanish woman on screen should change the outcome.

They want to change history because they love the abusers, imagine, you see victims and perpetrators, then you decide to shame those victims and question them instead of questioning why they had to do what they did