Rangoli Chandel’s Tweets Against Karan Johar's Takht And Sexualisation Of Historical Figures Is Shamefully Regressive And Uninformed

Rangoli Chandel, actress Kangana Ranaut’s sister and manager is definitely not new to controversies. Her frequent explosive tweets against various Bollywood celebrities often add colors to the entertainment section in newspapers and websites. 

While everyone is entitled to their opinions and freedom to express them in public spheres, virtual or real, it becomes an ethical responsibility to call things out when they surpass every modicum of regressive and uninformed behavior. Recently her series of tweets taking a jibe at her favorite target Karan Johar regarding sexualisation of historic characters in his upcoming film Takht is one such occasion where an intervention has become necessary.

Firstly, it is hard not to pick on the personal bias when an argument about Babur and Ram in history books suddenly pirouettes to a Karan Johar film that is not even in production yet and the hypothetical offensive sexualisation of historical figures in it. For someone who represents a person related to art, putting down someone else’s art without even laying eyes on it or having any idea about it, just based on hypothetical notion is seriously immature behavior.

However, even though that is some disturbing behavior that is not what merits a discussion here. What is, is the incredibly regressive insinuation that making a film on Mughals is somehow in conflict with respecting Lord Rama, it is somehow incriminating to sexualize historical figures and of course, crying for democracy and freedom of expression bring about ‘international shame to the country’. Let us tackle all these arguments one by one for the sake of clarity because god knows we need some.

Firstly, let us talk about the conflict between Babur and Ram. If it feels like an odd pair of names to be pitted against each other, well you are not alone. Rangoli has questioned why we study the bloodline of Mughals as history while Ram is considered a myth. Well, we are hardly qualified historians to understand the nuances of things here, but the problem is no one has ever questioned the real existence of Mughals. There are tangible proofs that they existed and the discipline of history requires us to study the ones who ruled our country for more than 300 hundred years. The quality and contribution of that rule can be subjected to debates and discussion but its existence cannot be. While a part of us would like to believe that Lord Rama was historical to have some faith left in goodness and humanity, unless the historians are sure it cannot be taught to young minds as tangible history.  This debate is and has been political, but one cannot deny that it is a debate and as responsible citizens of this country some amount of spirit of questioning and curiosity only proves that the intelligentsia in the country is still not in a vegetative state.

Now let us come to the ‘sexualisation of historical figures’. Can we seriously stop pretending that sex is not a part of history or for that matter our epic and holy mythology that emanates from the contemporary history of the time when it is written. From Caligula of Rome who was known for orgies and the explicit manuscripts of Egypt and Japan, just like any other human behavior and activity sex has also been a major pointer in shaping the history of humankind. India is no different and the important historic events that shaped up the country is not free of any sort of sexual discourse. So while telling historical stories, the topic of sexuality cannot remain untouched. In fact forget history, even mythology is not as PG 13 as most people would like to believe. But since there has been enough discussion about Kamasutra, Ajanta paintings, Khajuraho temple it seems like a stale point to make standing in 2019. Also, since the question has also been raised about Aurangzeb’s hypothetical abs in the film, forget historical even deities from different religions are often depicted with what we now know as six packs. Any picture of any Hindu male deity would confirm the thesis. Asking why an actor would have six pack in a historical film is like asking why was Kangana Ranaut while playing an 18th Century queen had access to lipsticks, eye shadows and eye liner, it is extremely juvenile and puts forward idea that a criticism is being thrown around just for the heck of it.

Now, let us come to her appeal of filmmakers submitting scripts before making films and the claim that ‘crying for democracy’ or freedom of expression leads to bringing international shame to the country. Well, the situation is quite on the contrary. A country that forces its artists and intelligentsia to go through a process of total censorship is the one that is looked down upon in the international sphere. The generally human tendency and that of art is to break free and there are currently countries which are shedding blood to realize this freedom. It is not just insensitive but also incredibly regressive to encourage censorship of this kind, especially from someone who is so vociferously protective of her freedom of expression.

Questions pertaining to history, mythology, sexualisation of those or censorship are serious political monikers that have the potential to offend or even induce violence. People who are the first to call out celebrities for their role and responsibility in the public sphere should probably exercise some sort of caution before putting out such inflammatory statements. We can surely continue our tirade about pandering to a certain mindset and applaud this behavior as ‘vivacious audacity’ but can we please stop pretending that it is acceptable.