Is it fair to blame Mastani only?

Hello everyone!!!🤗This is just a general question.

The whole premise is shown in a faulty way in recent popular media.

Thanks to Bhansali's distorted version of the Bajirao story, this great man's legacy is reduced to a daily-soapish saga of pati, patni, aur woh. Bajirao was a great military strategist. In a less Western-centric world, his battle strategies would have been up there with Alexander's successful campaigns against Persia.

But it's not just Bajirao; Akbar and Ashoka were also reduced to weeping aashiqs in soaps whereas these great men's heritage is that they deployed statecraft to unite and rule over some of the greatest empires of the subcontinent. Akbar married another woman in the same year he married the princess of Amber and multiple women after that. Apart from his legitimate wives, he had a harem of thousands of women.

In that era, powerful men always had multiple wives. Powerful Maratha warriors too. Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj had five wives. Marriage was quite often a tool to secure alliances.

Bhansali turned Mastani into a stalker whereas by all accounts she was lawfully married to him in Chatrasal to cement a political alliance. The marriage with Kashi earlier too was arranged, again, in accordance with the times, to be mutually beneficial.

Not much is known about Kashi but from what's known she was a spiritual woman and a class act. She was disinterested in political intrigues of Radhabai. The conflict between Mastani and Radhabai was a power struggle. Radhabai was against Mastani not because of Kashi, but for the influence she wielded that diminished Radhabai's own power.

Daily soaps are love-story-centric. So Kashi is glorified and Bajirao and particularly Mastani are somewhat demonized. Kashi was noble, Bajirao one of the greatest military leaders, and Mastani was accomplished in both war and politics. But mass fiction insists on reducing them to labels. 

Originally posted by: skye

The whole premise is shown in a faulty way in recent popular media.

Thanks to Bhansali's distorted version of the Bajirao story, this great man's legacy is reduced to a daily-soapish saga of pati, patni, aur woh. Bajirao was a great military strategist. In a less Western-centric world, his battle strategies would have been up there with Alexander's successful campaigns against Persia.

But it's not just Bajirao; Akbar and Ashoka were also reduced to weeping aashiqs in soaps whereas these great men's heritage is that they deployed statecraft to unite and rule over some of the greatest empires of the subcontinent. Akbar married another woman in the same year he married the princess of Amber and multiple women after that. Apart from his legitimate wives, he had a harem of thousands of women.

In that era, powerful men always had multiple wives. Powerful Maratha warriors too. Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj had five wives. Marriage was quite often a tool to secure alliances.

Bhansali turned Mastani into a stalker whereas by all accounts she was lawfully married to him in Chatrasal to cement a political alliance. The marriage with Kashi earlier too was arranged, again, in accordance with the times, to be mutually beneficial.

Not much is known about Kashi but from what's known she was a spiritual woman and a class act. She was disinterested in political intrigues of Radhabai. The conflict between Mastani and Radhabai was a power struggle. Radhabai was against Mastani not because of Kashi, but for the influence she wielded that diminished Radhabai's own power.

Daily soaps are love-story-centric. So Kashi is glorified and Bajirao and particularly Mastani are somewhat demonized. Kashi was noble, Bajirao one of the greatest military leaders, and Mastani was accomplished in both war and politics. But mass fiction insists on reducing them to labels. 

Exactly.This entire business of distorting the historical characters is beyond my understanding.Either you have to he a completely white character or a pitch black character.There is no middle ground.

^Absolutely true. There are a lot of nuances in relationships.

I think it's also important to consider a historical context in this.

More than Mastani its Bajirao who is to blame. He was the one who took saat phere with Kashi, made those vows to her and he broke them for Mastani. SLB portrayed Mastani in a horrible light. SLB's Mastani was shown to be desperate pursuing Rao when he though attracted to her, wanted to maintain a certain distance. I donno how it will be shown in the show. Hope its not as bad. But my major complaint is that Mastani's entry could have been delayed.

Originally posted by: BeyondHorizon

More than Mastani its Bajirao who is to blame. He was the one who took saat phere with Kashi, made those vows to her and he broke them for Mastani. SLB portrayed Mastani in a horrible light. SLB's Mastani was shown to be desperate pursuing Rao when he though attracted to her, wanted to maintain a certain distance. I donno how it will be shown in the show. Hope its not as bad. But my major complaint is that Mastani's entry could have been delayed.

SLB's Mastani was pathetic to the core.She was shown as a stalker and almost psychotic🤢

Back in that era, polygamy was common and not considered wrong, so we can blame neither Bajirao nor Mastani for their marriage. It has become common in this day and age to view historical/mythological societies through a modern lens and judge them accordingly. Society was vastly different back then. A man was allowed to marry many times and women too were used to it, in fact expected it. It was unrealistic for a woman to expect her husband to practice monogamy with her. Whether it's right or wrong is not for us to decide, as that society was a different one. 

Originally posted by: --BlackSheep--

Hello everyone!!!🤗This is just a general question.

Many a times I have seen Mastani being blamed for coming in between Bajirao and Kashibai and causing immense pain to z Kashi. 

It's true to an extent.But is Mastani the only person responsible? Shouldn't Bajirao receive equal share of the blame?

Infact I believe that he was more at fault than Mastani.Okay Mastani loved him.But couldn't he realise that he is a husband and father himself?? That he has a loving and dutiful wife?? 

No external force can shake a monument if it's foundations are strong.With strong roots,trees survive the harshest of all conditons.But if there is a problem within then the tree will decay and die.Had Bajirao remained firm on his values then he would have fought his attraction for Mastani.

Some say that Bajirao was a man who could not control his desire for Mastani.

But let's imagine a hypothetical situation in which Kashibai had fallen for another man.She had more reasons to get attracted to another person than Bajirao.

But then society would have judged her in a worse manner.She would have been deemed characterless and a woman who cheated her husband.Her lover would have been conveniently ignored because he was a man.

Therefore is it justified to only blame Mastani for that love affair?? Mastani was younger any way but Bajirao had the choice of not encouraging those feelings and indulging them.

Infidelity is wrong.Therefore both the participants are equally responsible.If Mastani is a homewrecker then Bajirao too is a homewrecker since he wrecked his own home and broke Kashi's heart.

Please share your views.No offence meant to anyone.😊

Originally posted by: skye

The whole premise is shown in a faulty way in recent popular media.

Thanks to Bhansali's distorted version of the Bajirao story, this great man's legacy is reduced to a daily-soapish saga of pati, patni, aur woh. Bajirao was a great military strategist. In a less Western-centric world, his battle strategies would have been up there with Alexander's successful campaigns against Persia.

But it's not just Bajirao; Akbar and Ashoka were also reduced to weeping aashiqs in soaps whereas these great men's heritage is that they deployed statecraft to unite and rule over some of the greatest empires of the subcontinent. Akbar married another woman in the same year he married the princess of Amber and multiple women after that. Apart from his legitimate wives, he had a harem of thousands of women.

In that era, powerful men always had multiple wives. Powerful Maratha warriors too. Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj had five wives. Marriage was quite often a tool to secure alliances.

Bhansali turned Mastani into a stalker whereas by all accounts she was lawfully married to him in Chatrasal to cement a political alliance. The marriage with Kashi earlier too was arranged, again, in accordance with the times, to be mutually beneficial.

Not much is known about Kashi but from what's known she was a spiritual woman and a class act. She was disinterested in political intrigues of Radhabai. The conflict between Mastani and Radhabai was a power struggle. Radhabai was against Mastani not because of Kashi, but for the influence she wielded that diminished Radhabai's own power.

Daily soaps are love-story-centric. So Kashi is glorified and Bajirao and particularly Mastani are somewhat demonized. Kashi was noble, Bajirao one of the greatest military leaders, and Mastani was accomplished in both war and politics. But mass fiction insists on reducing them to labels. 

Edited by _goofyCat_ - 6 years ago

Nice to read some sensible and well researched comments from unbiased views. Unfortunately fictional Indian tv is very regressive in the sense that there are still rules and restrictions that limit a show from becoming true to its nature, value is given via aesthetic and the conceptual is pushed to one side- e.g instead of showing a realistic mature relationship between two individuals, we get a candy coated fabricated relationship that exists in all singing all dancing land where the individuals bear no real flaws. Indian tv has a long way to go, which is a shame because Indian history is so vast, rich and contains plenty of potential for epic retelling. Instead we are reduced to seeing the soppy romantic sides of the stories, because 'sex sells'?, even though ironically sex is non-existent in the Indian tv show in spite of its being about a man and a woman's relationship with one another.. hypocrisy of our age.