By D N Singh
So much is being read into the film ‘Samrat Prithviraj’ or its release.
Not questioning the past and the valor those emperors like Prithviraj Chauhan had demonstrated in defending India from the invaders, it can also be said that, again an art form is given to derive its importance by political narratives. Rather than coming anything from the people and critics in the field or art.
The recent buzz is about who are all the political leaders going to watch the film and place their take on the film.
Uttar Pradesh chief minister Yogi Adityanath not only to watch the film but he played a kind promotional role appealing to people to watch it.
Does the significance of a film recreating the past glory require the political inputs from leaders of politics?
Actor Akshaya Kumar, essaying the character of Samrat Prithviraj, goes gaga that, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat is going to watch the above film.
Who Writes History?
The bigger issue is History is some thing written by the victors and is re-written by historians and that too, in different times. But why an actor is so overwhelmed by their certification on the film.
In which, an artist appear to imply more leaning towards views from politicians or people directly or indirectly associated with politics, rather than waiting for the people or the cine-goers.
Some historians hold the view that Prithviraj Chauhan sparked with bravery from his early days, when he ascended the thrown at the age of 11 only. And soon he proved his worth as an emperor by pulverizing the intents of invaders to conquer India.
However, his fight with Mohammed of Ghori was perhaps one battle which history recorded as one of the best an emperor could do to protect his motherland.
Mohammed Ghori died in 1206 AD March whereas Prithviraj died in 1192 AD in the the Battle of Tarain.
So there is a contradiction in history over the Indian emperor killed Md. Ghori. Even when he was made blinded after the defeat. But a leaf from another history has the mention that, Prithviraj killed Ghori even being blinded.
But one thing is apparent that there a tremendous bias had been played in re-writing Indian history where the writers over-mentioned the roles of invaders, whether Mughals or Britishers, while ignoring or under-playing the valor of Indian kings or rulers.
It is necessary to say, by what could be gathered from the history, India must salute the valor of kings like Samrat Prithviraj Chauhan or Maharana Pratap for their incredible strength of mind and dare in protecting India.
