In a heated but decorous conversation, Aurangzeb patiently inquires why Shivaji stormed out of his court. Shivaji angrily tells him that as a king, it is beneath his dignity to be seen at par with noblemen. To this, Aurangzeb states that he understands his sentiments and does not want to make an enemy out of the Marathas. He urges Shivaji to remain a part of the Mughal kingdom while promising to recognise his coronation as the Maratha king. Shivaji, furious with the humiliation of this proposition, remains firm on establishing independence from the Mughal Empire. Ultimately, the negotiation falls through as both the rulers refuse to arrive at a compromise. Fuming, Aurangzeb sends Shivaji away from his sight.
The scene—from Shyam Benegal라이브 바카라 Bharat Ek Khoj (1988-1989), Episode 38—has veteran actors Naseeruddin Shah and Om Puri essaying the roles of Maratha ruler Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj and Mughal emperor Aurangzeb, respectively. An episodic historical drama that takes a look at 5000 years of the Indian subcontinent라이브 바카라 history, Bharat Ek Khoj is based on Jawaharlal Nehru라이브 바카라 book The Discovery of India (1946). Shorn of any melodramatic slow motion and camerawork or theatrical background music, the scene refuses to demonise or deify either figure in the moment and simply presents the exchange between them for what it is—a bid for political power.
That was more than three decades ago. Today, finding cinematic sensibility that can look at historical events for what they were, without using them as pretexts to perpetuate violence in the present times, has become a rarity. A slew of films—from the most recent, Chhaava (2025), to earlier films like Samrat Prithviraj (2022), Tanhaji: The Unsung Warrior (2020), Kesari (2019), Panipat (2019) and Padmaavat (2018)—have inundated the silver screen in the past decade, which have used history to propel a right-wing political agenda in their narratives.
While the historical figures that these movies focus on may vary, there are some common aspects in their overall structure. For one, most of these films are set during the medieval period of the Indian subcontinent라이브 바카라 history (barring Kesari). A significant motive of right-wing forces in the recent times has been to de-legitimise historical facts whenever Muslim rulers have presided over the subcontinent. In response, Hindu kings from various regions have been propped up as heroes to counter these narratives—righteous and democratic in their reign, these kings become ‘saviours’ not just of women figures but also of the metaphorical mother, “Bharat Mata”, who seemingly needs protection from foreign invasion. This is why the villain in all these films is inevitably the Muslim figure. In Chhaava and Tanhaji, it is Aurangzeb; in Samrat Prithviraj, it is Muhammad Ghori; in Panipat it is Ahmad Shah Abdali and in Padmaavat it is Alauddin Khilji. In Kesari—based on the battle of Saragarhi—the war is between the Sikh regiment of the British army and Afghan tribesmen. Though the battle is held at the behest of the British, the film moulds the narrative to show that while the Sikh Regiment is fighting to safeguard their ‘motherland’, the Afghan tribesmen are fighting as the aggressors in the region.
These films do not just stop at casting the Muslim man as the antagonist—a studied investment within these films goes into depicting their barbarism and cruelty, especially towards the women figures. With kohl-lined eyes and a cunning smirk, the Muslim in these films is treacherous and has animal-like meat-eating habits, alongside an insatiable appetite for women. In some films like Padmaavat, a queer dimension is added to their personality to further villainise their sexuality.
Another interesting dimension to these films is that the history that is depicted in them is continuous, right from the medieval times until the present. The imagination of the geography in these stories is often that of India as a sovereign nation-state, which is starkly inaccurate. However, this inaccuracy is not accidental but motivated. It allows for battles—that were often fought over territorial power—to be seen in a moralistic light of right and wrong, subtly reinforcing the larger right-wing narrative of the Muslim being a foreign figure in the homeland.
Over time, as the formula has been reproduced across films, several filmmakers have seen an opportunity in the historical genre to take a chance at making commercial profit through such distortions. Directors such as Ashutosh Gowariker, who earlier made films like Jodhaa Akbar (2008), which was touted as an epitome of communal harmony at the time of its release, have also resorted to making films such as Panipat (2019) to flow with the current trend. In the process, while right-wing forces have gained further ground and managed to strengthen their narratives without much historical evidence, the depiction of these films has also begun to fuel further majoritarian hatred towards Muslims, an already marginalised religious community in the country. The most recent example is the religious tension in Khuldapur, Maharashtra, over Aurangzeb라이브 바카라 tomb, which can be understood as a consequence of the immense success that Chhaava has received among audiences.
Across the world, cinema has been used to reimagine and recreate history ever since its inception. The impact of this audiovisual medium has often been used to supersede historical evidence and textual research, as its sway over the spectator does not need access to literacy or the written word. American director DW Griffith라이브 바카라 The Birth of A Nation (1915), which was the most technologically sophisticated film of its time, was also a historical epic. The film on the American Civil War—while cementing the status of cinema as a serious medium and a profitable investment—was notorious for its embedded racism and for glorifying the Ku Klux Klan, a white supremacist organisation. It was in the aftermath of The Birth of A Nation that KKK saw a major revival in the US.
What is happening in the Bollywood historicals at present can be seen as a similarly dangerous trend. While the hateful rhetoric of these films is a major threat to the social fabric of the country, both history and cinema will also suffer as casualties to this tendency.
