Swara Bhaskar's insensitive remarks on Jauhar scene from Padmavat- Page 12

https://x.com/kkstau/status/2095153287628734757?s=20

The fact that it would be clear to anyone with brain but what they are trying to do is shame women who refuse to be sex slaves, their ultimate goal is glorification of it and submission of women

See, in leftist circles, you'd find they hesitate reporting sexual assaults because they don't want the perpetrators to face repercussions because the perpetrators belong to a section of society, they believe are oppressed

They hate that women didn't submit like they would

Women across globe have chosen death over being fodder for barbarians but instead of questioning their men, who made women choose death over life with them, they are hating on women

https://x.com/IndiaToday/status/2095715984695083251?s=20

https://x.com/Aabhas24/status/2095720553428726106?s=20

Originally posted by: Krinya

Its a shame we could not protect them !

And it's a much bigger shame when the male winners of violent battles almost never had the grace of winners but acted like animals...

I got triggered by the posts where I sense the Hindu vs Muslim theme to write this:

It is historically accurate that Jauhar became far more prevalent during foreign invasions, as the threat of mass enslavement and sexual violence was undeniably horrific. However, if we analyze the broader history, the tragic truth is that the capture and trafficking of defeated populations was a universal feature of medieval conflict regardless of religion, rather than an issue exclusive to one faith.

In fact, many prominent Mughal rulers treated Hindu noblewomen with immense grace, protection, and respect; emperors like Akbar the Great not only integrated Rajput princesses into the royal court with full religious freedom but also actively deployed imperial guards to prohibit and physically stop forced Sati and Jauhar rituals.

Conversely, historical records show that even in internal conflicts between local factions, such as the aggressive expansions of the Hindu Chola empire where palace women were seized as war booty, or the brutal civil wars documented in Kashmir's Rajatarangini where queens chose self-immolation to escape rival domestic rulers, women were routinely treated as the spoils of war.

My goal here is not to diminish the specific atrocities committed by invaders, nor to alter history, but rather to analyze the structural mindset behind the response to these dangers and how it persists today.

A perfect example of this survival is how modern media, like the film Padmaavat, frames these events; it romanticizes Jauhar as a dignified, heroic "triumph" of female agency to protect the body even from necrophilia, whereas historical realities involved extreme panic, horror, and children being cast into fires.

While the external threats in medieval times were very real, glorifying mass self-immolation as a victorious "choice" only proves how deeply embedded the patriarchal ownership of women's bodies still is in our collective consciousness. By studying this, we are not judging the past through modern morality, but tracing how these exact same foundational concepts of tying a woman's worth entirely to her physical purity have managed to survive and shape modern social norms, prejudices, and cinematic narratives today.

Originally posted by: Clochette

Only quote the relevant part = bold

Like in the other thread you seem to be unable to exactly understand what I've written... you twist the content of my posts so that it fits in your Hindu vs Muslim mindset.

I'm neither Muslim nor Hindu nor Christ nor whatever religious person, but I know history better than you...

Historically, Muslim women-and sometimes their own families-prevented capture through several documented means... During the medieval and Mughal eras in India, the cultural concept of jauhar crossed religious lines. When under siege by rival forces, some Muslim commanders ordered the execution or self-immolation of their own female relatives.... The biiiig difference between Padmavat and the following examples = in the movie, Jauhar (or killing themselves) is depicted as the decision of women and not of men (in Islam, self-killing is considered a sin and is forbidden):

- Facing imminent defeat against regional rebels, the Mughal governor Qasim Khan and his soldiers beheaded their own wives and female relatives to guarantee they would not be captured or degraded by the enemy (Siege of Dhaka, 1617)

- During a fierce battle against the forces of Sher Shah Suri, a prominent Muslim nobleman named Khan-i-Jahan ordered his wives to perform jauhar to keep them out of enemy hands.

- Mughal commander Mirza Nathan explicitly documented that he instructed his camp followers to execute all the Mughal women in his camp if he fell in battle, a directive that was later adjusted to a command for them to perform jauhar.

In more recent history, large-scale conflicts have driven Muslim women to mass suicide when facing invading forces or rival militias using sexual violence as a weapon of war (examples = Sudan conflict, Algerian Independence war.

While the tragic outcome was the same, the framework differed significantly between the Hindu Jauhar and the actions taken by Muslim women, former being a highly ritualized, institutionalized collective ceremony (Saka-Jauhar) celebrated as an act of nobility and spiritual purity while latter were desperate, situational acts of survival or honor preservation mostly done/ordered by men.

I'm a far cry away from judging one of those proceedings as I never was in a respective situation... the only thing I judged was the cinematic rendition according to my impression.

At the end of the day what you think is what you are. You have been critical of jauhar and none of the hindus on here agreed to surrender. You put entire blame on hindu male patriarchy and hindu society for women committing jauhar but had no problems with Islamic way of treating women in a manner that they d rather commit suicide. Those barbarians following 7nth century cult was the only reason women thrown themselves into the fire but you went on n on about how regressive hindu society was that their women commied suicide on being simply raped...(no big deal..ehh?) That was the tone of your argument.

Now coming to the other thread you mentioned here in which you were glorifying halala as some spiritual philosophy or protection of women or noble practice and what not...it is simply pukeworthy. I wouldn't find a single moderate muslim support halala in any shape n form whatsoever whereas you were advocating for it as a spiritual and divine practice..anyone who knows how to read will understand how positively you were trying to portray that disgustingly perverted idea..

It is there for everyone to read unless you deleted it...I haven't checked again..it was really vomit inducing writing in favor of halala.

Now you can blame me for twisting your words as usual but your intentions are very clear for writing so much garbage in support of halala. You literally seemed as if tryinh to pleasing your mullah husband who might be reading your essays on here. That writing is directly lifted from madressa syllabus. Such deep knowledge you have on islam for someone who claims to be a white European.

As for your knowlgege on history its all muslim history...not even once you mentioned about hindu kings history here and their treatment of women...

I have no interest in knowing any further about your kasim wasim.. teach them to your madressa students.

And kindly atop spreading pro islam pti muslim propaganda here ...it was acceptable as long as you kept it till hating on hindus and india but now you are going too far...and you need to be stopped trying to lure hindus into converting on india forums with halala n all those nasty but lucrative deals...I am sure hindu men aren't going to fall for your tricks so plz do not even attempt conversion on an open forum.

A special note to any hindu men reading this person's propaganda on halala in CA forum...plz beware. That's all I had to say.

Originally posted by: Clochette

And it's a much bigger shame when the male winners of violent battles almost never had the grace of winners but acted like animals...

I got triggered by the posts where I sense the Hindu vs Muslim theme to write this:

It is historically accurate that Jauhar became far more prevalent during foreign invasions, as the threat of mass enslavement and sexual violence was undeniably horrific. However, if we analyze the broader history, the tragic truth is that the capture and trafficking of defeated populations was a universal feature of medieval conflict regardless of religion, rather than an issue exclusive to one faith.

In fact, many prominent Mughal rulers treated Hindu noblewomen with immense grace, protection, and respect; emperors like Akbar the Great not only integrated Rajput princesses into the royal court with full religious freedom but also actively deployed imperial guards to prohibit and physically stop forced Sati and Jauhar rituals.

Conversely, historical records show that even in internal conflicts between local factions, such as the aggressive expansions of the Hindu Chola empire where palace women were seized as war booty, or the brutal civil wars documented in Kashmir's Rajatarangini where queens chose self-immolation to escape rival domestic rulers, women were routinely treated as the spoils of war.

My goal here is not to diminish the specific atrocities committed by invaders, nor to alter history, but rather to analyze the structural mindset behind the response to these dangers and how it persists today.

A perfect example of this survival is how modern media, like the film Padmaavat, frames these events; it romanticizes Jauhar as a dignified, heroic "triumph" of female agency to protect the body even from necrophilia, whereas historical realities involved extreme panic, horror, and children being cast into fires.

While the external threats in medieval times were very real, glorifying mass self-immolation as a victorious "choice" only proves how deeply embedded the patriarchal ownership of women's bodies still is in our collective consciousness. By studying this, we are not judging the past through modern morality, but tracing how these exact same foundational concepts of tying a woman's worth entirely to her physical purity have managed to survive and shape modern social norms, prejudices, and cinematic narratives today.

Again stop glorifying mughals in front of indians...it's as insensitive as glorifying Hitler in front of Jews. Be mindful what you write on india forums.

Mughals maybe your heroes ..but not for indians and it's a shame that you areallowed to spew so much garbage agaisnt indian kings and in favor of mughals. You read a paragraph or two about Indian empires and come here to shiiit on Indian history...knowing very well you can easily get away with all your nonsense..

You make one comment agaisnt the invaders and hundreds agaisnt indian rulers in an attempt to monkey balance...your constantly spread disgusting propaganda agaisnt anything indian and still claim yo love everything indian...not once have you written what is it that impressed you about india in your entire history of being here.

You have put even hard-core india hating pakistanis to shame and yet you are so proudly nd shamelessly roaming around as india's well wisher...

Like seriously women have you not any shame? Who do you think you are fooling here? Clearly you are writing for some agency who is paying you to peddle so much agenda agaisnt india and indians..otherwise somebody else in your place would have stopped doing what you are doing after being called out by so many members..it seems as long as you are getting paid for your nonsense you will keep writing shamelessly regardless of your zero credibility in the forum...papi pet ka sawal hai tere ..but trust me there are better ways to earn money than humiliating yourself constantly and being where your presence is unwelcomed by the natives. You are truly a shameless character never seen before!! Hats off!!

You know, already the beginning of your second line shows me "what you think is what you are": "You have been critical of jauhar"... No, I was critical towards the depiction in the movie... I stated more than once that I don't judge the proceeding as I didn't live in that situation... You conveniently didn't want to consider both as you have already made up your mind about me... So, dear, I just skipped the rest of whatever you wrote then, because there will be lies about me I may be tempted to report... I guess you are a certain member already banned multiple times but just coming back to repeatedly spread your opinion about me... so yes, to quote you again with your "what you think is what you are", you have hateful thoughts about me, so you're a hater of someone you don't even know personally and deliberately misconstrues my writings or even lies about what I actually wrote.

Originally posted by: Clochette

You know, already the beginning of your second line shows me "what you think is what you are": "You have been critical of jauhar"... No, I was critical towards the depiction in the movie... I stated more than once that I don't judge the proceeding as I didn't live in that situation... You conveniently didn't want to consider both as you have already made up your mind about me... So, dear, I just skipped the rest of whatever you wrote then, because there will be lies about me I may be tempted to report... I guess you are a certain member already banned multiple times but just coming back to repeatedly spread your opinion about me... so yes, to quote you again with your "what you think is what you are", you have hateful thoughts about me, so you're a hater of someone you don't even know personally and deliberately misconstrues my writings or even lies about what I actually wrote.

Stop lying..you have clearly blamed hindu male society for women committing jauhar as well...

Calling me a hater doesn't exonerate you as being a india hater and hindu hater...

Always blame others for misinterpreting for what you write and escape the argument...

Like I said you are very well versed in al taquiya....as being a madressa teacher and husband being a maulana you make a very good use of your skills on us kaffirs...

But let me assure you you are fooling no one here...if you think people are falling for your sugarcoated hate filled anti india anti hindu vitriol you are highly mistaken...yes you have your islamist lobby in your suppprt where you get the courage to spew so much nonsesne

After all internet is also a good enough medium one can carry any sort of jehad on kaffirs and kaffir land...so you think you are at the right place.

And you have successfully conquered this place with your al tequila skills...getting rid of anyone pro india pro hindu chutkiyo mein ....that's the kind of power you have on here...so gain kudos...you have infiltrated the system smoothly..who can stop you now

Which is why you are now unabashedly advocating for something as cheap and disgusting as halala as being a divine practice...the guts!!!!

You are something else woman...one of a kind!!! Level of shamlessness never seen before.

So... I googled Rajtarangini and queens self immolation. And this turned up

In the first ss it mentions Sati which we all know was performed in India since ancient times for reasons often different than Jauhar.

The second ss actually proves that point in the social context that it was about wifely devotion, royal honour, patriarchal norms, socio-economic restrictions, and societal pressures placed on royal widows.

I, however, see no, or atleast, very less similarity with Jauhar which was primarily to escape s3xual violence, s3x slavery, nud3 parades, and selling of captured women in markets like commodity that the Islamic barbarians did.

Didnt need to search about the chola context After this result.. cos i can guess the similar pattern would be there too. In Mahabharata too Maadri performaned sati on Pandu's death by her choice while Kunti didn't, again by her choice.

P.s - i can clearly see the attempts of equating Rajput jauhar, of medieval times, against Muslim barbarians with sati tradition coming from ancient times, done for often different & varied reasons, which may or may not involve avoiding sexual violence which was the central theme in Jauhar.

I must say the intent of bringing Rajatarangini and Chola dynasty to generalize the barbarity done by Islamic invaders, doesn't seem honest and is at the very least suspicious.

Pps - dont want to comment on Akbar 'the great' either. Those who know know.

• the second battle of Panipat (1556) he shot an arrow to the eye of Hemchandra Vikramaditya Bhargava, the great Brahmin military general from Rajasthan & then severed the head of unconscious Hemu with his sword to hold the title "ghazi" (killer of Hindu infidels).
• Hemu's fleeing army and captured 1500 elephants and a large contingent. THERE WAS A GREAT SLAUGHTER OF THOSE WHO WERE CAPTURED and IN KEEPING WITH THE CUSTOM OF HIS ANCESTORS TIMUR LANE AND CHENGIZ KHAN, AKBAR HAD A VICTORY PILLAR BUILT WITH THEIR HEADS. Peter Mundy, an Englishman travelling Mughal empire some 75 years later (during Jahangir and Shah Jahan's rein), found such towers were still being built. HEMU'S AGED FATHER WAS CAPTURED AND ON REFUSING TO ACCEPT ISLAM, WAS EXECUTED.
• On February 24, 1568, Akbar (the great) called for a pogrom and brutal massacre of 30,000 defenseless Hindus of Chittorgarh, Rajasthan who had refused to convert to Islam. Abul Fazl, Akbar's court chronicler justified this slaughter.
• Unlike what false history books & movies like "Jodha-Akbar" would imply, in reality countless Rajput women committed 'Jauhar' instead of being taken by muslim kings.(13,000 kshatriya women leapt into the raging flames)
• Sir Thomas Roe, an Englishman who visited Chitod some fifty years later, found the fort deserted. Rana Pratap Singh of Mewar, son of Rana Uday Singh, kept the Rajput resistance to Akbar alive and tried to reclaim the glory of Chitod.
• According to the biography by Vincent Smith, Akbar had 300 wives & enjoyed 'a harem consisting of 5000 women, mostly Hindus'. But even today many people are celebrating the 'immortal' love of Jodhaa-Akbar as a Valentine's Day-era makeover!