So, before I finally watched Bajirao in theaters, I re-watched the other big Mughal era historical epics to prep, Mughal-E-Azam and Jodha-Akbar.  Of course, I was already in the zone since I had just seen Magadheera, which is about half of an historical epic, and sort of Mughal era-y.  And what I discovered, watching all these, is that rather than move forward, these films moved backward in terms of interreligious marriages.

In Mughal-E-Azam, we are introduced to Jodha Bai, Hindu Rajput princess, and Akbar, Muslim Mughal emperor as an old married couple.  They have their differences, but they are more personality based than religious, and they can be worked through.  We see Akbar happily celebrating Krishna, and we see Jodha as a loyal wife to her Muslim husband.

The problems arise in their attitudes and emotions.  Akbar follows laws and logic.  The most important thing in his life is his Scales of Justice.  For Jodha, it is all emotional and spiritual.  She worships her son and her husband, not abstract concepts.  This is actually a not-to-bad concept of the differences between Hinduism and Islam.  While Islam, like the other Abrahamic religious, favors a simple, rule based, form of practice, combined with an abstract concept of god, Hinduism is more social.  It is more about relationships between family members, and responsibilities within society and people.  It is also more about spiritual practices in a day to day life.  This is why, in the best Jodha-Akbar scene in Mughal-E-Azam, Akbar threatens to remove Jodha’s sindoor, if she is not capable of supporting him in his battle against her son, and Jodha immediately submits, requesting that he “return victorious and replace my sindoor using my son’s on blood”.  For Akbar, there can be no patience with human connections and emotions, he must battle anyone who threatens his empire, and his wife must support him on this.  For Jodha, she is torn between her feelings as a wife and mother.  But the sindoor on her forehead which represents her wifehood is not merely a sign of marriage, it is a religious symbol, and a reminder that her religion teaches that a husband should be worshiped as a God.  And therefore a removal of that sindoor is not just a gesture of anger in a marital argument, but a reminder that she is blaspheming by disobeying her husband.

In Jodha-Akbar, this one conflict is expanded to drive the entire plot.  Rather than a couple shown after decades of marriage, comfortable with the constant compromises and negotiations involved in a mixed marriage, this is a couple who had just met.  On their wedding night, Jodha refuses his advances, leading Akbar to suggest a divorce.  Just as she would decades later (and earlier, in terms of film release dates), Jodha recoils.  But, as they have just met, she must explain her reasoning.  As a Hindu, marriage is a sacred rite, even without consummation, she considers herself married for 7 lifetimes and divorce would be blasphemy and irreligious.  Through out the film, this initial conflict continues, but their differences eventually strengthen the union.  While Jodha’s religion and faithful devotion to her husband, her daily puja towards him, her insistence on cooking his food, her hymns to Krishna/her husband, intrigue him, Jodha benefits from the Muslim attitude towards marriage which is open to a building of a relationship, a courtship, as faithfulness and devotion in a wife are not taken for granted.  He sends her gifts, he displays his body for her enjoyment, he talks with her and listens to her opinions.  Finally, he changes his code of laws, his most sacred object, as she has opened his mind and caused him to reconsider his beliefs.  In response, she reconsiders her own, and agrees to sleep with him, despite the differences in their religions.

And now we have Bajirao.  In which we have left the Mughal court, and found ourselves at a Hindu one, in rebellion against them.  And instead of a Muslim ruler married to a Hindu woman, we have the reverse, a Hindu king/general, married to a Muslim.  And it does not end well.  These are all baaaaaaad developments, in terms of accepting of religious harmony.  Especially since, even with these changes, the film still lead to protests.

I would be more depressed about it if I didn’t feel like these types of big historical films are being more protested, and more talked about, and more vilified, in response to a general on the ground growing openness to interreligious harmony and relationships.  This is one thing that the Hindutva conservatives feel like they can fix, one problem they can solve while the rest of the world moves forward without them, so this is where there focus is.

Bombay, just about 20 years ago, was the first mainstream Hindi film to have an interreligious relationship (discounting Henna because of the amnesia loophole).  Now, we have films like Break ki Baad (terrible movie, don’t watch it) and Dil Dhadakna Do (okay movie) where the interreligious romance is an after thought, not the main focus of the plot.  While these “multiplex” films are reflecting the new reality for the urban upperclasses, it is left for these historical epics, the ones that may play among all classes and all regions, to become more and more conservative.

In Mughal-E-Azam, the message was that the two religions had a comfortable compromise, as they have lived in co-existence for hundreds of years.  In Jodha-Akbar, the argument became that Muslims are “newcomers” to the region, but that they can still learn about and appreciate Hindu practices, and eventually the two groups can come together.  And now we have one, solitary, Muslim, within a Hindu court, being allowed to be herself, so long as she stays within certain limitations, and always subservient to a Hindu husband.