After months of agony, strife and violence, much-talked movie Padmaavat has finally made it to the silver screens across India – most, if not all. After watching the film, most moviegoers said that the film actually taints the Delhi Sultanate Alauddin Khilji – so what actually was the Karni Sena “fighting” for? Here’s what Padmaavat is all about.

So the whole charade, it was about de-capitalizing Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s “history-inspired” film Padmaavat – which the Rajput Karni Sena alleged that was dishonorable to their community and the queen of Chittor, Rani Padmini who has not been around in centuries. The film Padmaavat is about the 1303 invasion of a Rajput Mewari state named Chittor, which was attacked by Delhi Sultanate Alauddin Khilji. Now actual history says that Khilji considered himself to be ‘second Alexander’ and so he had to and wanted to capture Chittor to satisfy his eventual subjugation of whole of Rajputana region. He wanted to rule over as much populace he can – the power and the wealth. That is what history says.

However, it was when 16th Century writer Malik Muhammad Jayasi sat down to write down the poem ‘Padmavat’ which was about the 1303 invasion of Chittor that he realized “Boy, this isn’t juicy enough” and decided to romanticize the whole thing. So he added the character of Sri Lankan princess named Padmini as the main motivation for Khilji’s conquest. He was right, the result was an epic poem that was fictionally romanticized the whole invasion and diverted it towards lust, womanly lust. I mean who wants power and influence over an entire populace or wealth – as long as one can have a girl. And to make the poem more interesting, Jayasi added a string of mix of real and fictional events – all those takes of romance and rage, riwaaz and izzat, pomp and princesses, forts and fallacies.

The point here is that the film is based on a poem that was written about 200 years ago which was “vaguely” based on real events and mostly was spiced up to make the 500 years old invasion war juicy. So Padmaavat is as historically truthful as Zack Snyder’s “Frank Millner’s 300 which as “inspired” from the Battle of Thermopylae and featured an anthropomorphized goat musician and a guy that had razor-saws in place of arms – how must he be eating, or washing stuff!

And if it makes the ‘protestors’ feel any better, even when they are being unreasonable, well the film Padmaavat is actually tainting the character of Sultanate Khilji – he gnaws meat of bones, laughs like a hyena, has kohl-rimmed hungry eyes and a hairy chest with long unruly hair – he looks no less than a barbarian. To be honest, authenticated history states that Khilji was in fact nothing of the sort that has been characterized in Padmaavat, because he was a sultanate drawn from Persia – one of the oldest and most sophisticated civilizations of all times. So Khilji was certainly a fierce invader with a strong army, but he never failed in following the code of etiquette of any Persian ruler, including very formal choices of dressing, eating and sartorial preferences. People should rather peace out, at least now.