Swara Bhaskar's insensitive remarks on Jauhar scene from Padmavat- Page 3

Originally posted by: WormikaGrubby

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

This just shows you are arguing in bad faith, you misrepresent women who did Jauhar as victims of sexual assault and were asking them to live "despite whatever might happen" when called out, you decided the topic about women having two options is "Rage bait"

Continue finding excuses for the system, I see how people question women when they are in love with men who are the abusers, it is a pattern

What did I read?

I would gladly make arrangements for my corpse to be handed over to necrophiles or cannibals ,whoeever would have it. Get real !!

🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️

I really am astonished at lengths people are going to excuse abusers

Saying 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

So cat's out of the bag, sex slaves were just "mistresses" and "domestic servants"

Downplaying the atrocities, supporting sex slavery showing how it was nothing more than a man having a mistress or being a domestic server

She is doing this for her Abdul. I don't think anyone take her seriously.

Defending her are swara bhaskar 2, 3, 4 etc.

Originally posted by: DevilsDex

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.

This!

I don't want to get in a debate again but some points in this post as well as some other posts are very well put. 👍

Some people need to be remember that it's good to be open minded but not to become so open minded that your brains fall out (if there are any).

Swara basically saying to those women - why were you so egoistic as to not wanting your corpses to be r*ped? Why were you so proud that you would prefer dying once instead of dying everyday by becoming sex slave of Barbarians?

Out of the many ' responses ' to me from different IDs that belong to the same person who has been continuously harassing and stalking several members of the forum, one post that begins as a rant to me but then has an identity crisis and addresses Swara in betweem comes back to me and says this at the end " This is not about your fantasy roleplay in our bedroom where you have handcuffs on for a few hours " . A moderator called Devasree has upvoted this post. And we wonder why this forum is dying. Tch tch.

Reading through the posts, I now have a clearer understanding of what is at stake and grasp the crux of the debate: the cinematic portrayal of the decision to escape enslavement through self-immolation. By burning themselves, the women actively evade the power of the conqueror Alauddin Khilji and deny him his victory trophy.

Although this decision was staged in a 'grand' manner - cinematically resembling a moment of triumph - it fails (imo) to depict the agonizing mass death of hundreds of women cornered within a fortress. Through visually pleasing aesthetics, Bhansali romanticized the brutal and desperate reality of death by fire, causing that reality to recede entirely into the background. While I was impressed, I harbored emotional reservations about the way Bhansali - in my view - 'instrumentalized' the women; it struck me as being more about Khilji, who is denied the coveted 'possession' of Padmavat. The tragedy of their self-immolation is used, so to speak, to frustrate Khilji: no Padmavat for him, no women for his warriors (with a specific focus on their bodies).

Are there any scenes showing a woman hesitating, weeping, panicking, or questioning the hopelessness of the situation? Was it not portrayed less as a desperate, autonomous act of resistance and more as a religious-patriotic duty fulfilled without complaint? To me, the scene felt more like the 'celebration' of a cruel ritual than the tragic, last resort of desperate women.

Despite my own impressions, I am certainly not a 'fan' of Swara Bhaskar and find much to criticize in the things she says. And I'm reminded of the heartwrenching scene in Imtiaz Ali's movie MVA which in a completely different way shows this desperate decision taken by women even in 'modern' times.

She had a baby recently