Swara Bhasker and the Noble Art of Being Offended
Total Views |
There are actors who act, actors who overact, and then there is Swara Bhasker, who sometimes takes on the toughest role of all: explaining what she meant when she said what she said.
Swara is back in the news, this time because of Padmaavat, Jauhar, Rani Padmaavati and, inevitably, a clarification.
The actress recently revisited her criticism of the Jauhar sequence in Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s film at a Delhi event.
Her point was that the scene could send a disturbing message to rape survivors. Watching the women choose death, she said that, God forbid, if she were a rape survivor, she might feel like a coward for surviving instead of taking her own life.
Swara then showed up with a clarification.
She insisted that she had never called Rani Padmaavati or the women who performed Jauhar cowards. Her words, she said, had been mistranslated and misrepresented. She even offered to translate her own English into Hindi for those who had apparently missed her point.
At this stage, one starts to wonder whether Swara Bhasker makes statements at all. Maybe she releases draft statements.
The final version comes later.
First comes the statement. Then comes the interpretation. Then comes the clarification of the interpretation. Then comes the clarification of the clarification. And somewhere in between, the audience is told that the real problem is not what Swara said, but how it was translated.
Maybe the government should set up a new statutory body: the Swara Bhasker Commission for Interpreting Swara Bhasker.
Its job would be pretty simple.
Whenever Swara speaks, a panel of linguists, historians, feminists, film critics and one very tired stenographer would gather immediately.
Step one: listen to Swara.
Step two: figure out what Swara actually said.
Step three: figure out what Swara meant.
Step four: figure out what Swara meant when she later explained what she meant.
Step five: issue a clarification.
This could save the country a huge amount of social-media bandwidth.
But underneath the jokes is a serious problem with the argument itself.
Jauhar is not something that can be casually pulled into the moral language of a modern celebrity panel discussion and judged as if history were a customer complaint filed yesterday.
ALSO READ:The Law Must Protect the Family, Not Weaken It
One can question Jauhar. One can condemn the circumstances that forced women to choose between death and captivity. One can debate whether cinema should show such an act as heroic, tragic, horrifying or all three. Those are fair questions.
But historical people lived in historical circumstances.
The women of medieval Rajasthan did not have access to the language of modern trauma discourse, rehabilitation policy, feminist law or television-panel psychology. Their world was shaped by war, siege, conquest, captivity and the deeply held belief that defeat could mean sexual enslavement and humiliation.
That does not mean anyone today has to celebrate Jauhar.
It means we should understand it before judging it.
And this is where Swara's argument becomes unintentionally funny. The modern celebrity intellectual often walks into history not as a student, but as an inspector. The past is dragged before the moral court of the present and accused of failing standards that did not even exist at the time.
The irony is especially striking in the case of Padmaavati.
For centuries, the story of Jauhar has meant one thing to many people: the extreme lengths women were willing to go to rather than submit to an invading power. Swara looks at the same episode and asks whether it sends the wrong message to rape survivors.
That is a perfectly valid modern question.
But it is not the only question.
And it is certainly not the historical question.
There is another funny part of this controversy. Swara says she was misunderstood, but her explanation is pretty remarkable too. She tells critics, basically, that if they want to abuse her, they should at least abuse her for the right reason.
How generous.
Even abuse now needs fact-checking.
Imagine the possibilities.
“Dear Troll, your criticism has been received. Unfortunately, it has been rejected because you misunderstood the exact reason I am supposed to be offended.”
This may be the most Swara Bhasker moment imaginable.
She wants the outrage, but properly sourced.
She wants the criticism, but correctly understood.
She wants the abuse, but factually accurate.
In the age of social media, this is almost a new kind of public relations: managed controversy.
Still, Swara deserves credit for one thing. She has accidentally reminded us that words matter.
Unfortunately, that applies to her too.
If a statement needs a long explanatory video before people understand what the speaker meant, maybe the problem is not always the translator.
ALSO READ: Why Krishna’s Janmashtami is celebrated at Shiva temples in Goa
Sometimes the sentence itself needs a little work.
And maybe that is the real Swara Bhasker phenomenon. She has spent years in the interesting space between cinema, politics, feminism and controversy. Her opinions arrive with the confidence of final judgments, but those judgments often pick up footnotes later.
The footnotes then become another controversy.
The controversy leads to another clarification.
And the clarification creates another round of headlines.
It is quite an ecosystem.
At this point, Swara does not need to worry about finding a new film role. She has already created one that needs no script, no director and no retakes.
She plays herself.
The audience watches.
The statement goes viral.
The controversy begins.
“That is not what I meant.”
Fade out.
Until the next clarification.