Reflection paper: Identity History Essay. Answer these questions
You may answer these questions in order individually or as an integrated essay, but you must answer all of them! I would prefer it if your paper IS NOT longer than 5 pages (preferably 3 or 4), double spaced, max! If you wish to write more do not double space your papers. Once finished upload your paper on Blackboard. Go to Discussion Board, there you will find a forum entitled “Reflection Paper.” Please attach only Word or PDF documents. DO NOT email me your paper! If your paper if emailed to me it will not be graded. Please upload your papers by March 21st.
1. Can cultural and national identity be built on “false truths?” A false truth is essentially what Padmaavat is, a myth about an event which never took place but which nonetheless glorifies practices and ideologies of specific societies. While the practices themselves are not false, are the characteristics we assign to them today a different story? If Padmavati was not a real person does that mean in turn that the Rajput pride and valor (which have been assigned to her in the 20th century) were also false? If that is the case, does that mean that the entire identity of a collective is untrue? Does it even matter? Can identity be based on perceived truths and does that necessarily make it any less valid then if it were based on fact?
2. Glorification of one’s own culture and customs in unavoidable when attempting to portray your collective identity as unique. However, can this glorification not be accomplished without the degrading of other people’s customs? One could argue that Bhansali finds himself in a very unfavorable position in that, he needs to balance an impossible task – be faithful to the original epic, appease the contemporary Rajput community, show a reverence for old traditions and customs, and portray the villain without assigning a religious identity to his character. However, does he go too far with his portrait of the antagonist? Does he succeed in merely portraying him as a character who is evil on a personal level and not on a cultural or religious one? To answer this question you could consider the controversial “bathtub scene” between him and Malik Kafur. While it is a widely known fact that the historic Alauddin kept both women and men in his harem, this was not an unusual practice in the Middle East but rather a very common one. On the other hand local South Asian customs favored heterosexuality and condemned homosexuality. This is all well and good until one begins to impose their own beliefs as righteous and foreign ones as the poster child of moral decay, which is essentially exactly what this scene does. Can making the statement that one’s customs are superior to others even be a valid one? Can identity be glorified while still respecting other cultures? More so, consider the irony this film brings to the foreground. Initially it was Sufi Muslim poets who portrayed Alauddin in a negative light, because he was disinterested in religion altogether, yet now their descendants become outraged when he is shown badly. Why? Very few individuals (if anyone) becomes outraged when the historic Sultan’s shortcomings are listed, while solely focused on him. Therefore, why does it become an issue when he is pinned up against another culture/religion and still shown in a negative light? How does the comparison change the context?
3. Finally, in your opinion, should a successful and well know artist belonging to a specific culture feel obligated to glamorize said culture? Does this compromise his or her artistic integrity or does it make their work more truthful and honest, more successful in presenting their cultural identity to the rest of the world? And does individualism (as underlined by Jayasi’s epic) need to be in sync with tradition? In the contemporary world, particularly in cultures still clinging to honor based ways of life, is individualism necessarily a calamity, is it an anarchic standpoint? Remember – Jayasi worships individuality and women, two things which were radically different from the perspective of the times, yet his work was made immortal because of its uniqueness, not its collectivism and is now a cornerstone of a culture. Is the individual shaped by culture or can culture too be shaped by the individual?
Professor’s name:
Course:
Date:
Identity
The cultural and national identities of a given community or people from a particular country play significant roles in enhancing their sense of belonging. Both the cultural and national identity built around the society’s historical background coupled with its values and beliefs passed down from one generation to the other. The chronological account on the emergence and development of the said values and beliefs may pose a challenge to the authenticity of the acquired cultural and national identities if distorted, proven false or non-existent. Such eventualities raise the question of whether or not people’s cultural and national identities may be built on false truths. A community’s mythology, for instance, may serve as a source of its values and beliefs in which it prides itself and even serving as the distinctive feature in its unique cultural and national identities. Whether or not the myth from which a community gains its identity is factual or a mere “false truth” makes for a contentious issue for comprehensive analysis and deduction.
Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s Bollywood movie, Padmaavat, raises controversies on the authenticity of cultural and national identities claimed by two featured communities, the Hindu and Muslim communities of India in general. The fact that the movie builds on a 1540 scripted Farsi poem by Muhammad Jayasi further spirals down into the heated argument of whether the identities assumed by each of the featured communities hold or are just mere fabrications and distortion of historical accounts or myths CITATION Dut18 \l 1033 (Dutt). The movie epitomizes the noble, stately, and brave or valiant nature of the Rajput caste community with the self-immolation of its queen, Padmaavat CITATION Dut18 \l 1033 (Dutt). It is evident that the Rajput community prides itself in the noble and brave identity through which it has overcome various trepidations in its past to become the caste society it is today. Whether or not the events as portrayed in Padmavaat materialized cannot be an excuse or a reason enough to discredit the community’s identity. The prized identity may not necessarily be the result of the events as they unfolded in the film but rather emerging from other values and beliefs embedded in Rajput’s rich cultural and traditional background.
The movie Padmaavat edifies the Rajput community at the expense of the Hindu Muslim community which also takes pride in the historical account of its predecessors. The director, Sanjay Leela Bhansali, glorifies his community’s cultural identity and customs portraying the Muslim adversaries as barbaric. Bhansali seems to be unapologetic in his depiction of the Indian supremacy over the invading community of Muslim fighters under their controversial leader Alauddin Khilji CITATION Dut18 \l 1033 (Dutt). The director breaks away from the original epic script by Malik Muhamad Jayasi w...