There is a scene in Panipat, Ashutosh Gowariker’s movie about the Third Battle of Panipat, in which Najib-ud-Daula of the Rohillas is trying to persuade Nawab Shuja-ud-Daula of Awadh to support him and Afghan king Ahmad Shah Abdali against the Marathas. He offers him written confirmation from Abdali that if they win, the nawab would be made wazir of Hindustan. Just before, an emissary from the Marathas’ side had also offered him the same post. While watching this horse-trading that is not unlike what has happened in Maharashtra recently, one is struck by the fact that history does, in fact repeat itself.
The other interesting thing about the scene is that Najib-ud-Daula plays the Muslim card – one Muslim must support another when push comes to shove. On the opposing Maratha side, Peshwa army commander-in-chief Sadashiv Rao Bhau (Arjun Kapoor) is clear that no one qaum is better than the other, and makes a statement of pointing out that their consolidated army is a multifaith one. (A key person in this army is, in fact, Ibrahim Khan Gardi, who became part of the Peshwa’s army when the Marathas defeated the Nizam of Hyderabad and displays great valour and loyalty to the Marathas in battle.)
While director Gowariker does make some efforts to balance the portrayal of Marathas and Muslims, it is almost as if only the Muslims on the Maratha side are good guys. The portrayal of Ahmad Shah Abdali (Sanjay Dutt), though far more palatable than recent Bollywood blockbusters have shown Muslim rulers of Hindustan (think Ranveer Singh as Alauddin Khilji), still paints him as the looter and plunderer, while Sadashiv and the Marathas are going to battle not for the throne, but to protect a unified Hindustan. This when, as one of the Marathas says in the film, what is a unified Hindustan? He’s not wrong — in 1761, there were Marathas and Rajputs and Sikhs and Mughals and a whole bunch of smaller players, and they were all looking to expand territorially, so why are the Marathas portrayed as somehow better?
Also read: Hotel Mumbai review: The horror of 26/11 terror attacks deserves a better film
The Marathas are introduced in a beautifully choreographed and sanitised battle sequence, while Abdali’s first scene, a brutal knife fight in his own court, comes spattered with blood and gore. Abdali is portrayed as a one-note character, every scene showing him is accompanied by menacing music, and Dutt portrays him with a one-note menacing expression interspersed with roaring when he is upset. At one point, Sadashiv’s wife, Parvati Bai (Kriti Sanon), even calls Abdali a rakshas (demon). Then there is the fact that the Marathas are shown as family men, with loving wives and mothers, while the Afghan side has no female characters at all. It is clear what the film is meant to say — and if it’s still not clear, two of the film’s three utterly forgettable songs (music by Ajay-Atul) are Mard Maratha and Jai Shiva. Despite the fact that everyone knows the Marathas decisively lost this battle, in this movie, they are portrayed as its only real heroes.
But frankly, the one-sidedness is unsurprising. And Gowariker does try to soften the demonic image of Abdali, even if it is via his letter to the Peshwa expressing his admiration for the Marathas’ valour despite their defeat (the admiration has historically been recorded, in fact). And the scene in which Sadashiv asks Parvati to promise him that if he dies, she will not commit sati, is a refreshing departure from recent offerings from Bollywood.
By and large, the film portrays the Third Battle of Panipat in terms of the facts, and the actual battle is restricted to only some of the last hour. Most of the movie is about the political intrigues preceding the battle, the romance between Sadashiv and Parvati and the tension within the Peshwa’s (an underused and competent Mohnish Behl) own family — his wife Gopika Bai (Padmini Kolhapure) is worried that Sadashiv will usurp the throne. And when the battle does begin, the war strategies make for gripping visuals — barring the painfully slow slow-motion scene of Sadashiv falling to his death.
The film, though three hours long, is largely well-paced and good-looking. Neeta Lulla’s costume design, Nitin Chandrakant Desai’s production design and C.K. Muraleedharan’s cinematography work well to give a sense of the different architectural styles from Pune to Kandahar, but some of the CGI looks amateurish. Arjun Kapoor is predictably personality-less as Sadashiv, and actually, the best performance among the three leads comes from Kriti Sanon. Parvati Bai has a meaty role in the movie, and Sanon, though a little too preppy and 21st century, does her best to dig into the role’s many emotions — and get the Marathi right.
Ultimately, Panipat is a serviceable, predictable retelling of the battle, but it does not tell you anything new or try anything out of the box in its treatment.
Also read: Movie-streaming website MUBI comes to India with a bang, and it’s not just another Netflix
Author of the this review can consider going to neighborhood country..
Writer of the this review simply does not understand know why this battle was fought
The author has zero knowledge of history
On semantics of the title of this review. Any invader is ugly. If the Union Government of India systematically facilitated migration of particular states to a particular state, that’s ugly too. Laloo Prasad Yadav did that through Railway jobs and it was not seen as an act of love; Mamata Banerjee immediately had to remedy the situation when she became Railway Minister.. So beware. An invader is always a brute and invasion can come in any form including the Trojan Horse or a form of systematic change in demographics of a place.
If these arguments had any references to any books or passages instead of parroting the same narrative as is always parroted, maybe it’d not have been such a waste of digital space. Muslim invaders =/= Indian Muslims. Maybe stop with the virtue signalling that does little more than satisfy your own ego. Nobody speaks ill of emperor Akbar. But one can’t just call upon the Islamophobia card. Tomorrow you’ll find a way to say that the colonising Brits are called evil cuz they’re minorities. An article w/ zero references as this does nothing at all. It’s nothing but a great disservice to actual Islamophobia of present. Patronising an entire population of a community cuz of course you are here as their saviour. Get over yourselves and come back when you write something that justifies being called an article. No wonder the Indian left sucks so bad now.
Yes. Reference: Original historical research by Uday S. Kulkarni. Solstice at Panipat is the name of his research work. Ninad Bedekar has done original work as well the story of movie is keeps fidelity with DOCUMENTED history. Bakhar writers in real time documented the history. All letters and original documents are available at historical societies and archives. You can contact Vishwas Patil or Uday S. Kulkarni.
Correction. The story of movie keeps fidelity with DOCUMENTED history.
I am just appalled at the knowledge of your history! Seems like you didn’t attend any history classes in school! Najib Khan did play the Muslim card when he went to seek support from Shuja Ud Daulah! In addition to that he also gave Shuja his sword and asked him to cut his head if he did not agree to support Najib’s cause. After this, Shuja Ud Daulah agreed reluctantly to join the Afghan cause. An army of 42 thousand Marathas was decisively defeated by a coalition army of 85 thousand Afghans!
English is a foreign language in India and those who know it and can embellish their write-up with not-so-oft used words are supposed to be great. This author only knows English enough to write; she has zero knowledge of history. Being able to speak or write English is not the same as having a thorough knowledge of Panipat history. How do we pull this thing off? I mean, can a dilettante write a review of history? She can comment upon acting technical worthiness but she can’t hope to alter history!?
I refer the author to Just one book with documented verified facts. Uday Kulkarni’s Solstice at Panipat. Without reading the history daring to write this kind of review is injustice to work done by stalwarts like Jadunath Sarkar, Bakhar writers such as Bhausaheb. Author of this review is superficial. THE PRINT SHOULD REMOVE THIS REVIEW TO HONOR THE HISTORIANS’ WORK.
Did the author read original history such as letters, bakhar बखऱ and pieces of evidence that are available for him in Pune? He is just another one among many who are jealous of Maharashtra. What Gowariker has shown is all documented history. This is based on a book by Mr. Shejwalkar. He was a great author of history. These things can be independently verified.
U have painted socalled fake story Sikhs were small players first 4 years earlier when first afghan invasion took place in 1755 then in 1757 It was sikhs under Sardar Jasa Singh Alhuwalia who replushed afgans then all kings made alliance with afghans and every year he invaded Punjab to be turned back by Gurrila tactics of sikhs Dahai patt means 2 and a half strokes Marathas came to Punjab with aid of Muslim offficial of Punjab Adina begh who made alliance of Mughal maratha nad sikhs and virtually threw out afghans from India .But sikhs offered Maratha help which they refused it was sikhs who recued 2200 maratha women from afghans after 1761 3rd battle of Panipat and mean time as a revenge 1762 Kup klan genocide took place socalled historians r silent 80,000 sikh women kids were killed .Then sikhs resolved to contiue the war till 1768 long war with afghans continued Afghans remembered it but Indians were never taught Abdali suffered terrible defeats on that battles and sikhs established their rule au to Delhi .Do not demean the sikhs
My Indian friends! Past is the past! Let’s love, accept and respect each other now! If you read our history, we have also been invaded by A-z! However, you are, at least, luckier than us because we still live in the 17th century! Love from Kabul-:)
That’s some mature reply , love from India ?
But we must know our history .
Your article is beautifully crafted with an useless, factless notion of history. Had it been filled with facts of history, it surely would be a worth read rather being the contrary. Better luck for the next time.
Lol , look at the comments. It’s shows ignorance of the reviewer.
Reviewer Must have ignorant of History.
Please put your Agenda behind, thenafter review of a movie.
Sameera madam history knowledge is very poor. She doesn’t no anything deeply
Sameera Sood’s knowledge of history is poor. I haven’t watched the movie, so I can’t comment on that. But to think Abdali as a soft invader is too much. No doubt, he is considered as the father of modern Afghanistan , because he united the warring tribes to create a unified nation. However, with arid geography and with only 10-15 percentage of land suitable for farming, he had no other means to sustain his army than to invade and loot. This he did without any mercy. Perhaps the reviewer may not know, but Abdali was a slave of Nadir Shah of Iran, villainous character who invaded and looted India. Abdali carried out the same tradition . In all, Abdali carried out eight invasions of India. The third battle of Panipat relates to his fifth invasion in late 1759 to 1761- a long stay. In the battle about fifty thousand non-combatants were mercilessly killed. Many women and children were enslaved. He carried out three more invasions. But he was effectively resisted by the brave Sikhs. In 1762, in the Sikh holocaust or the Vadda Ghalughara (the massacred) thirty thousand innocent non-combatants were killed by Abdali. So Ms Sood, please read history properly, before reviewing a historical movie.
Apparantly, the author has not read anything about the battle of Panipat. Please read Ninad Bedekar’s novel as well as Novel by Vishwas Patil.
Indeed Abdali was called by the Nawabs in North India under the pretext of “islam Khatre mein hain”.
Indeed, Abdali, though a very competent and brave general was brutal. (Afterall, he rose from being a horse breeder and care taker to being the Founder of Modern Afghanistan.). All the cattle and donkeys were employed to carry the lot of Delhi and Northern India while he went back to Afghanistan.
Abdali’s victory was pyrrhic. Too much damage was done to his troops and confidence. Marathas WON Panipat in a sense that Marathas recaptured North India in a few years and no Afghan after Abdali ever invaded India.
Indians are indeed very poor in their history. A point worth pondering is that against Abdali, none of Indigeous kings (except Surajmal) sided with the Marathas (probably because they were sure that Abdali is in for the loot and Marathas may Rule). The Sikhs, Rajputs in fact aided Abdali by remaining neutral.
Anyway, just like Bajirao -Mastani made a mockery of History and Panipat to some extent will do the same; the fact is that Indians , in general will know that there were once a powerful Maratha Empire – which was kept under wraps in the school History!
I don’t know which school covered up maratha history y. We all learned quite a bit of the maratha empire through our school text books..
So all Muslim Invaders came to India with roses in their hand and Indian Kings surrendered
So all Muslim Invaders came to India with roses in their hand and Indian Kings surrendered
The movie should have shown how Abdali massacred men women and children and piled them in healps in Mathura. Its a blood chilling description written by Abdali’s own commander.
Hahaha this is a complete joke of an article. Author says film is predictable, to be honest there is nothing more predictable than this article in Print. Can the reviewer review the film rather than make nonsensical interpretations. Be responsible with what you write, words have power don’t make everything about Hindus and Muslims.
The author points out that the film was predictable. To be honest there is nothing in the world more predictable than print having this article. I am sure the author had already written this review without watching the movie.
This is a movie based on a book with historical accounts of the war and that era, how is it supposed to be unpredictable.
If it’s left upon you guys you would even change historical facts.
Please review a film based on a book or an event not on its plot. Don’t make everything about religion.
Well islamic invaders were brute. They didnt come here to spread socialism. They demolished our temples and built their monuments on top of that. Ayodhya , Kashi . Gyaanvyaapi mosque is a scaring example. SO dont try to white wash their cruelty. I dont think anyone has guts to showcase the exact realism like some hollywood movies do about history cuz then you will see the absolute cruelty of mughals like beheading of sikh leaders. So kindly shut this white washing.
No madam, Muslim invaders were not brutes, they were soft and peace loving gentlemen. Indian rulers were barbarians. Happy now?
It’s true… All the Muslim invaders are brute…they didn’t invade with flowers… Outsiders defiled this holy land of Bharat…,
Can the author or editor or the article writer or the reviewer tell us/me what does he mean out of the box… Should he have been shown something else which hasn’t been happen….or what he should have been done to make it out of the box….?
Of course they were brutes , crude ,they destroyed thosends of of Hindu mandir ,raped killed tortured Millions . They forcefully converged people to Islam. Babur sold thousands of Hindu women in Kabul Kandahar. There is no record how much they looted. How can anyone deny it till today. This is one of the reasons for the bitterness among the Hindus towards the Muslims.
Your facts are as correct as you grammar!
Yaawn. More people died in Bengal famine caused by the British than Muslim invaders. Why don’t Indians hate them as much ?
Probably because British historians found a way to demonise Muslim invaders to make the brits look benign