Now, ‘Padmaavat’ comes with section 144 in a movie hall near you
“What’s in a name? that which we call a rose…By any other name would smell as sweet.”
The great ”Bard of Avon” might be turning in his grave, for what a name could do in the world’s largest democracy- India.
Putting William Shakespeare’s famous quote on the reverso mode- the name changed ”Padmaavat” is still battling it out to reach theaters, with the pride attached to the name ”Padmaavati’ evoking protests, forcing magistrates to impose Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
Latest is in Gurugram, hardly a hour’s drive from National Capital.
Earlier, District Magistrate of Gautam Budh Nagar also imposed Section 144.
This is happening with barely two days to go for the release of the controversial Bollywood name changed film ‘Padmaavat’. Last few days have seen protests taking place against the screening of the film in many Indian states including Rajasthan, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh.
Gurugram District Magistrate Vinay Pratap Singh, in a statement, said, “Direction under section 144 is necessary to impose restrictions on the presence of persons carrying firearms and other articles capable of causing injury, raising slogans and exhibiting placards within 200-metre radius of cinema halls/multiplexes under Section 144.”
“Order to continue being in effect till January 28,” he said.
If any person is found guilty of violating the order, he will be liable to be punished under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Singh said.
The step has been initiated to avert any disturbances by the anti-social elements outside the cinema halls/multiplexes. Many protest were reported in various other states even people threatening to commit suicide if the film is released.
A Supreme Court bench earlier had dismissed the applications filed by Shree Rashtriya Rajput Karni Sena, which has been staging protest in several states against the release of the movie and Akhil Bharatiya Kshatriya Mahasabha. The apex court had earlier restrained other states from issuing any ban orders on the movie.
The Supreme Court had ordered for the nationwide release of ‘Padmaavat’ on January 25 by staying the ban on the screening in states of Gujarat and Rajasthan
The release of the film was delayed as it was protested by the Rajput community and others across the country alleging that the Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s ‘ movie showed Queen Padmavati in low light.
Padmaavat’ starring Deepika Padukone, Shahid Kapoor and Ranveer Singh will finally be released on January 25.
Who is ‘Padmaavati’ aka ‘Padmavati’ aka ‘Padmaavat’?
Lets take a quick glance through Wikipedia.
“Padmavati,, also known as Padmavati, was a legendary 13th–14th century Indian queen (Rani). The earliest source to mention her is Padmavat, an epic fictionalized poem written by Malik Muhammad Jayasi in 1540 CE.
The text, which features elements of fantasy, describes her story as follows: Padmavati was an exceptionally beautiful princess of the Singhal kingdom (Sri Lanka). Ratan Sen, the Rajput ruler of Chittor Fort, heard about her beauty from a talking parrot named Hiraman. After an adventurous quest, he won her hand in marriage and brought her to Chittor. Alauddin Khalji, the Sultan of Delhi, also heard about her beauty, and laid siege to Chittor to obtain her. Many events occurred during the period of the siege, till the fort was finally taken. Meanwhile, Ratan Sen was killed in a duel with Devpal, the king of Kumbhalner, who was also enamoured with Padmavati’s beauty. Before Alauddin Khalji could capture Chittor, Padmavati and her companions committed Jauhar (self-immolation) to protect their honour. After her sacrifice, the Rajput men died fighting on the battlefield.
Several subsequent adaptions of the legend characterised her as a Hindu Rajput queen, who defended her honour against a Muslim invader. Over the years, she came to be seen as a historical figure, and appeared in several novels, plays, television serials and movies. However, while Khalji’s siege of Chittor in 1303 CE is a historical event, the legend of Padmini is supported by little historical evidence. Most modern historians have rejected its authenticity,”