█Full Movie█ Free Download Panipat

//

https://rqzamovies.com/m16568.html?utm_source=otakuword.blogia Here

 

 

• 
• Publisher: Hemant Srivastava
• Resume: Proud Indian. Loves to share Positive Stories from India.

. director=Ashutosh Gowariker. resume=The film is based on the third battle of Panipat which took place on the 14 of January in 1761 between the Marathas and the King of Afghanistan, Ahmad Shah Abdali. Rating=2079 votes. 6,2 / 10 Stars. Action, History.

इतिहास मे बहुत कूछ ऐसा हूआ जो आज के परिपेक्ष्य मे बहुतों को गले नहीं उतरता ।. Panipat: The Great Betrayal”, out in Indian cinemas since December 2019, is just the latest in a string of recent Bollywood movies that feature Afghans in the role of arch-villains, in this case Ahmad Shah Durrani, often described as the founder of the modern Afghan state. The historical revisionism and stereotyping of Afghans seen in the film have sparked protests by Afghan diplomats and public alike. AAN’s Fabrizio Foschini here assesses the film-makers’ claim to historical accuracy and also sets the movie in a wider context, wondering if the recent negative portrayal of Afghans by Bollywood may yet jeopardise the long-lasting bond of friendship between the people of Afghanistan and India. Sanjay Dutt as Ahmad Shah Abdali in Panipat - photo On the 14 January 1761, a great battle was fought on the plain of Panipat, around 90 miles north of Delhi in today’s state of Haryana, India. It was the third major confrontation to take place on this battlefield in just over two centuries and while it was not the most decisive, it was certainly the bloodiest. More than a hundred thousand soldiers were involved in the fighting, along with countless camp-followers and civilians who were also present; the casualties numbered, for both sides, in the tens of thousands. The armies of the Durrani Kingdom had marched south from Kandahar led by Ahmad Shah; facing them was the army of the Peshwa, the ruler of the Maratha Confederacy, who had travelled northwards from their capital of Pune under the command of Sadashiv Bhau. The two factions led large coalitions, as various contingents of fighters from the regional principalities of Northern India had coalesced around the two contestants. The Afghan king had come to assert a claim over some northern provinces of the Mughal Empire that had recently fallen under his dominion. Moreover, the Afghans had decided to intervene more directly in the Mughal affairs at the behest of their kinsmen, the Rohillas, who were long-settled in Northern India, and trying to counter the Marathas’ expansionism by cutting a role for themselves as king-makers at the Delhi court. The Marathas power had grown after successfully resisting the Mughals in Deccan and gradually encroaching upon imperial territory in the North by way of raids and tributes exacted from local Mughal feudatories. They were now trying to play a more pro-active and stable role in Delhi, until faced with this challenge from the Durranis. The third battle of Panipat followed two months spent with the main armies entrenched in the respective camps, with only minor detachments involved in forays and sallies, until the Afghan command of all the supply routes forced the Marathas to attack. At the end of a violent engagement that lasted for most of the day, the Marathas were thoroughly defeated and their rout turned into a massacre. Despite representing the climax of a protracted confrontation that had pitted the Marathas and the Afghans against each other for over two years, with many a battle fought and with mixed fortunes, Panipat led to remarkably limited consequences for the balance of power in northern India, at least in the short run. The victorious Ahmad Shah stopped in Delhi just for a couple of months in order to settle the affairs of the helplessly decaying Mughal court to the advantage of his allies and to secure recognition of his annexation of the ex-Mughal province of Punjab. (1) Then he rode home, back to his cherished mountains, fruits and quarrelsome subjects. Thus far, facts that anybody familiar with Afghan or Indian history knows. Against the backdrop of war-torn eighteenth century India, with Mughal authority in the North collapsing and stimulating invasions and raids from Central Asia, Central India and European colonial inroads in Bengal, the Afghan military campaigns in the Punjab and around Delhi hardly made an outstanding exception. (2) However, history is often re-written according to the whim of the era or the need of the screenplay, and in the case of “Panipat: The Great Betrayal” it seems that the Durranis have been taken as the eponym for an evil foreign threat that had to be stopped at all costs by a handful of self-sacrificing and patriotic heroes. Conversely, in the movie script it fell to the Marathas to be cast in this valiant role, an unlikely one even for these redoubtable warriors. The highly-polarised rendering of this historical episode and, in particular, the nasty portrayal of Ahmad Shah Durrani, a hero to many Afghans, has caused deep resentment among the Afghan public, an otherwise avid consumer of Bollywood movies. A three-hour history lesson? It may be pointless to single out every historical inaccuracy or inconsistency in the movie, given the typical lack of concern towards these issues displayed by Bollywood movies. That boring historical truths can be sacrificed – at least up to a point – on the altar of entertainment and audience empathy is part of the rules of the game. However, the movie chooses to follow a chronological approach, relating the events of the 1759-1761 campaign in order and detail and laying thus an implicit claim to accuracy. Indeed, it has been labelled, by some cinema reviews in India, a “labored history lesson” (read here or here). It is therefore worth mentioning a few significant points of the historical reconstruction offered by the movie, particularly given the huge educational potential of Bollywood among the Indian public and that of neighbouring countries. The title “The Great Betrayal” – following the old literary canon that only betrayal can bring about the heroes’ defeat – finds little justification in the facts surrounding the military campaign. The movie is also ambiguous about the real substance of this betrayal: it could refer both to the belated decision by Shuja ud-Dawla, the ruler of Awadh (in modern Uttar Pradesh), to side with the Afghans, despite his many differences with the Rohillas who were the main local allies of Ahmad Shah (the rulers of Awadh and the Rohillas were competing for territory and belonged to rival factions at the Delhi court, loosely aligned along sectarian Shia and Sunni lines); or to the last minute desertion from the Maratha coalition by the Jat leader of Bharatpur, Suraj Mal. On one hand, the focus on the Marathas’ epic struggle and political-military achievements is interesting. Episodes from Maratha history have not featured prominently in Bollywood movies until recent years but were consigned to regional filmography. A re-discovery of such history and its significance at the national level through the media of cinematographic fiction is entirely justified. However, the portrayal of the Maratha policies and ideology offered by “Panipat: The Great Betrayal” is flattened by a mixture of early twentieth century Indian patriotism and early twenty-first century Hindu revival. Director Ashutosh Gowariker with the main characters from the Maratha camp: the hero Sadashiv Bhau (Arjun Kapoor, in white) his beloved wife Parvati Bai (Kriti Sanon, warming up with a hot beverage) General Govind Pant Bundela (Paresh Shukla, in orange) and loyal Muslim soldier Ibrahim Khan Gardi (Nawab Shah, with beard) – photo Let us start with the most problematic aspect of how religious strife is dealt with in the movie, particularly when set against the backdrop of today’s sensitivity on this issue in India. Official history here unfortunately led the way: according to many sources from the time, in his 1759-61 campaign Ahmad Shah had responded to pleas from several leaders to come to the rescue of the Indian Muslims, threatened by the Marathas’ capture of the Mughal capital, including a request from Shah Waliullah, a major alim (religious scholar) and Sufi pir (holy man) of Delhi. Hence, the idea of a Jihad against infidels – together with hopes of booty and territorial and diplomatic gains – was part of the ideological baggage of the Afghan army when marching towards Delhi. It is to be noted, however, that Ahmad Shah had established diplomatic relations with several Hindu rulers, such as the Rajput princes of Jaipur and Jodhpur, who had also invited him to India to protect them from the Marathas and who remained steadfastly pro-Afghan during the whole Panipat campaign. Among the ranks of the two armies there was an intermixing of Hindus and Muslims. Troops coming from Afghanistan were not accustomed to such integration at first and were reportedly outraged at the presence of Hindus in the contingents of their Indian allies. It was after the better advice of his Rohilla and Awadhi supporters that Ahmad Shah issued decrees to his troops requiring them to respect Hindu religious practices. It is not however Muslim intolerance that is exaggerated in the movie. (3) Rather, it is the pan-Hindu significance of the Maratha struggle against the Afghans that gets portrayed in a way that panders to the Hindutva nationalist ideology expounded by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and by more extreme, right-wing political movements. One example. Songs usually stress crucial moments and have a narrative value in Bollywood movies. A particularly telling one in the movie marks the Marathas’ conquest of Delhi in July 1760, during the manoeuvre warfare that took place before the decisive battle. The event is hailed in the movie as the liberation of the national capital (in fact, Marathas had already entered and held the city in 1758, in collaboration with a faction of the Mughal nobility, before the Afghans occupied it early in 1760). The main refrain of the song, “We’re the ones who shook the millennial chains of bondage” cannot but refer to the centuries-long rule of Muslim dynasties over Delhi and, generally speaking, northern India. The fact that before this last ‘shake’ the Hindu Marathas had alternatively threatened or patronized the now-weakened Mughal emperors, exactly as the Afghans were doing, with no intention of abolishing the institution of the Mughal Empire is conveniently overlooked. This brings us to the second incongruous aspect: the hero’s and his companions’ idea of nation, socially and territorially. One of the movie’s recurrent themes is the self-identification of the Marathas with India as a whole and their dedication to protect its external borders from foreign invaders. However, this needs clarification, both at the semantic and symbolic level. Part of the problem is with the term “Hindustan”. Historically this referred only to the Upper Gangetic Basin – roughly speaking from Sirhind to Varanasi – but since Partition it has become the term of choice used by some Indian and Pakistani politicians to indicate the whole of India, in place of the official name, Bharat. While historical-geographic Hindustan covered a portion of Northern India in which a Muslim minority had made significant contributions through centuries of political and cultural prominence, the ideal Hindustan evoked in the words of the movie hero Sadashiv Bhau (the Marathas’ commander in the Panipat battle) is a veritable ‘Land of the Hindus’ encompassing the whole of India. (Sadashiv Bhau is at some point even rebuked by another Maratha chief for his dream of a united Hindustani army). Indeed, what the movies shows as the Maratha concern of rushing to defend the northern frontiers because of Delhi’s inability to guard them, fails to take in account what we know about the geographic differences and community identification of the time. Eighteenth century Marathas would not have identified as Hindustanis but as Dakhani, from Deccan in central India, a view that would have been shared by Hindustanis (Hindu or Muslim alike). This said, the Afghans who came with Ahmad Shah were certainly seen as foreigners. Ahmad Shah came in the wake of the invasion of India by his former mentor, the Persian ruler Nadir Shah Afshar. That event, in 1739, was the first time in centuries that an invader from the north-west had sacked Delhi but not tried to occupy the throne, and had instead marched back after a thorough looting, thereby not letting time wash away his otherness as previous invaders had done. While a portion of the Afghan people had for centuries been part of the north Indian landscape and were a familiar presence in Hindustan, the Persian civilization that Nadir Shah represented and that Ahmad Shah’s retinue and elite corps resembled (as the direct product of Nadir Shah’s military system), was perceived as distinctly “other” in India. Moreover, Ahmad Shah was trying to make the Afghan tribes coalesce under his leadership to create a new political entity centred on what is nowadays Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan, not on the Gangetic Plain. His dealings with Delhi do not give the impression that he had an ambition to establish himself as the successor of the Mughals in northern India. His main aim, during his several Indian campaigns, seems to have been to secure for himself Punjab, which – together with Kashmir – constituted the major revenue-generating area of his empire, and to certify this possession through a measure of leverage over the nominal emperors in Delhi. To sum up, to the people of Hindustan, Marathas and Afghans were foreigners in very much the same way: they were familiar, albeit foreign, military powers that had to be reckoned with. They could pose a threat by way of raids or could be called in for help against other enemies. Indeed, in northern Indian chronicles, Marathas have been vilified as much as the Afghans as rapacious raiders and plunderers. When they were campaigning around Delhi, the Marathas were as far from their capital at Pune as the Afghans were from theirs at Kandahar (Panipat is actually slightly closer to Kandahar). Some Maratha leaders and their retinue had become permanently established in Hindustan and were arguably becoming “Hindustani”, much like the Afghan Rohillas, but both expatriate communities were in the process loosening their bonds of loyalty to their original community and the political entity that chiefly represented it. These two historical distortions in the movie – the supposed Maratha role as avengers of centuries of Muslim oppression of Hindus and as saviours of the national independence against a foreign threat – are worth taking time to debunk because it is on them that the vilification of the Afghans is founded. In fact, the political-military ascent of Marathas and Afghans have a few common traits: from the formation of a strong “identity in opposition” against the Moghul Empire (and the Safavid Empire in the case of the Afghans) to the military exploits of their cavalry units. In an epoch of rebellions, collapsing revenue systems and perennially indebted monarchs who could not afford to pay regular troops, the Marathas and the Afghans had turned to the tactic of making war to pay for war, by raiding the declining empires’ territories – hence their shared reputation as plunderers in many sources. Finally, what may seem the last and foremost revisionist aspect of the movie is that it portrays the battle of Panipat as a strategic victory for the Marathas, claiming that it was Sadashiv Bhau’s heroism that henceforth scared away Ahmad Shah from India. Although all sources corroborate the idea of a decisive tactical Afghan victory in one of the greatest battles of the time, the idea that the strategic outcome was closer to a draw is not as bizarre as it seems. If the Marathas lost the battle, the Afghans failed to capitalise on their hard-won victory. The direct effects of the Afghan victory at Panipat did not last more than a decade. Even in a highly dynamic context such as India in the second half of the eighteenth century, that is not a great achievement, and arguably not worth all the blood spilt for it from the two sides. In the 1770s, not only did the Maratha recover and start anew to harass the lesser principalities of the north, but the rise of the Sikhs’ power in the Punjab helped to cut off Afghanistan from its Rohilla allies, making Afghan influence over Indian politics more remote. For some historians, a secondary effect of Panipat was the extension and consolidation of the grip of the English East India Company on India, who arguably exploited the temporary weakening of the Marathas to make decisive gains. Protesting against the new image of the “Afghan other” in Bollywood “Panipat: The Great Betrayal” was controversial even before its release. Afghan diplomats in India were concerned about possible negative effects of a misrepresentation of the founding figure of Ahmad Shah on Afghan-Indian ties. Reportedly, the cultural attaché at the Afghan Embassy in Delhi had started investigating the film’s contents as early as two years ago, when he first heard of it. As soon as the trailer for the movie came out, last November, these concerns were realised. The actor’s choice for portraying Ahmad Shah was Sanjay Dutt, a charismatic old favourite. However, the line he tweeted at the trailer’s debut “Ahmad Shah Abdali – death strikes where his shadow falls” sent a shiver through the spine of many Afghans. Since its release, the movie’s portrayal of historical events and, in particular, of the character of Ahmad Shah has offended many Afghans, stirring a virulent debate on social media (read here and here). The movie producers have been accused of spreading islamophobia and hatred and spoiling good relations enjoyed by India and Afghanistan for the box office takings. In the movie, Ahmad Shah Durrani is cast under a sinister light from his very appearance: his eyes are heavily lined with kohl and his garments are usually sombre. One cannot avoid the impression that the costume designers were keener on morphing a gothic-look of action movie villains with some of the Taleban’s black grunge, rather than consulting historical sources. Suffice to say, the image is in stark contrast to the resplendent images of the Durrani court from paintings of the era. The representation of Ahmad Shah in the movie is such a thin caricature that it is completely detached from any historical reality. The result however is not a fearsome adversary or a monster of cunning: this Ahmad Shah behaves like an ill-tempered gorilla throughout the movie. He is given to fits of hysteria and is often at a loss as to what to do next. The movie does not give him space for an inner life, even of a villainous nature, he merely demonstrates his evil by killing aimlessly and brutally a couple of his own courtiers. In what is probably the trashiest scene of the whole movie he smashes the skull of a conspirator with the famous Koh-e Noor diamond set in his crown, then dons the bloody headgear. History records several massacres of civilians carried out by Afghan troops during the Indian invasions of Ahmad Shah: at Mathura and Vrindavan in 1757 and in various instances at Amritsar and in other parts of Punjab in the following years. However, the main historical sources do not attribute to Ahmad Shah Durrani a cruel or brutal personality, at least according to the royal standards of the epoch. (4) Acts of wanton cruelty and autocracy do not fit with the portrait of the Afghan monarch left by contemporaries. Moreover, Ahmad Shah had to manage a tribal confederacy, whose loyalty was conditional upon a delicate balance of personal and familial ties as much as on force and prospects of booty. This called for a very ‘light hand’ in meting out punishments to other Afghan chiefs and posed strong caveats against the despotic use of royal authority against his own subjects. In short, Ahmad Shah is shown as a violent barbarian with no ambition above plunder, one so craving for India’s riches that his first act after entering Indian soil is to grab a pomegranate and bite it ravenously (as if he had not just arrived from Kandahar! ). (5) In the movie, part of the blame for the Afghan invasion is deflected onto the treacherous Rohilla chief Najib ud-Dawla, who keeps dragging Ahmad Shah into battles that he would prefer to avoid (and is thrashed by the Afghan king every time something goes wrong). Even this, however, belittles the character of the Afghan monarch, making him look like a petty thief lacking the intellect to make strategic decisions about war and peace. Finally, at the end of the movie, his shift away from aggression towards a more reasonable posture is motivated only by the reverential terror inspired on him by the heroic bravery of Sadashiv Bhau. Indeed, a veteran of remarkable villain roles like Sanjay Dutt must have found it dull to impersonate this Ahmad Shah: he is not given a single funny line of dark humour, a recurrent honour offered to classical Bollywood villains. (6) Following the release of the movie, protests immediately took place in parts of the Indian state of Rajasthan, where cinemas were vandalised. Local audiences were incensed at the negative role played by the Jat leader of Bharatpur, Suraj Mal, one of whose descendants is currently a state minister in Rajasthan. This pattern of protests against the representation of communities or historical figures is becoming a normal occurrence in India, especially given the high number of movies with historical subjects produced in recent years. It is unwise to portray historical communities with a deep-rooted sense of identity – and this is certainly the case in many parts of India, such as Rajasthan, where politics are still run on the basis of identity and family origin – in the highly-polarised manner of contemporary Bollywood movies. In the face of the Rajasthan protests, the producers of Panipat promptly edited the movie, cutting it by 11 minutes, and distributed a new version. It is however difficult to imagine that anything can be done, even if there was the will, to improve the profile of the Afghans in the movie. “Panipat” is not the first instance of a Bollywood movie with negative stereotypes of Afghans in recent years. Most notably, “Padmaavat” (2018) and “Kesari” (2019) made many eyebrows rise. As the Telegraph India said, “Period films like Padmaavat, Kesari and now Panipat, have crassly stereotyped and vilified Afghans in typical colonial fashion as brutal, cold-blooded and treacherous ”. Padmaavat retells the story of a Sufi poem about the frustrated obsession of sultan Alauddin Khalji for the beautiful queen Padmavati (or Padmini), wife of the Rajput ruler of Chittor. In the movie, the fourteenth century Afghan sultan is so violent he appears to be a borderline psychopath, and a remarkably shabby one for that. He commits all sorts of treachery: against his wife, his uncle and his foes, rehearsing derogatory tropes about Muslim men as violent abductors and rapists. The second movie, “Kesari”, is set during the Tirah campaign of 1897 and is about the battle between a small detachment of the British Indian army at a frontier garrison and the Afghan tribesmen. The heroism of the Sikh soldiers is contrasted with the brutality of the Afghans (honour killing and the repression of women are also touched upon), without addressing the paradox of a film that exudes nationalist pride but is actually centred on Afghans defending their land from British colonial rulers who were using Indian soldiers to occupy it. Both movies stirred strong criticism in Afghanistan; albeit without reaching the sensitivity of the misrepresentation of Ahmad Shah. Have Afghans achieved a new status of Public Enemy Number 1 for Bollywood screenwriters? If so, that would reverse a long-established trend of sympathetic portrayals of Afghans by Bollywood that has been the subject of an AAN report in 2012 (read it here). Generations of Indians and Afghans have grown up with that cinematographic staple and this has influenced positively the reciprocal perception between the peoples of the two countries. Even Narendra Modi, in his speech at the Afghan Parliament in 2015 remembered, among other instances of Indo-Afghan friendship and closeness, the famous character of the big-hearted Pathan crook Sher Khan in the movie “Zanjeer”. However, if the pattern of movies vilifying Afghans continues, things may change for newer generations. So, what’s happening in Bollywood? One should ask the producers of period action movies, a booming genre in today’s film industry. They are constantly on the lookout for new enemies, preferably Muslims, that fit a popular narrative of nationalism in contemporary India, with an increasingly Hindu-nationalist slant given the current political trends in India. (7) When the enemy was inside, that is when Bollywood dealt, albeit in its naïve way and through the medium of love stories, with themes of social reform like the fight against poverty, criminality, corruption and class division in Indian society, the simple-mannered and proud Pathan could be seen as a good sidekick for the protagonists, also thanks to the stereotypical representation of an altogether familiar “otherness”. Fascination for a more complex other is now over, and all the enemies are outside of India, or clearly recognisable inside it because of their religious or political affiliation. Therefore, it was probably inevitable that Bollywood screenwriters would fall in with European colonial imagery and find their ideal villain in those champions of imaginary “otherness”, the wild and wily Afghans. Afghans were right to expect, if not a favourable portrait of Ahmad Shah and his warriors, at least one founded upon historical sources and shed of unnecessary and unproven nasty characterisations. On the other hand, Afghan touchiness on issues regarding their history and identity is problematic. As in many other parts of the world, sensitivity about issues of national or ethnic identity and the memory of historical figures has been on the rise in recent decades and has often been exploited by political forces, causing polarising mobilisations and in some cases instances of violence. This can prove particularly dangerous in a country where the study of modern and contemporary history lags behind and where teaching the events of the last 50 years in schools is still taboo. This means that when such issues arise – as has been the case on a few occasions in recent years () – there is no common scholarly reference that is widely accepted or can at least be used to mediate or exclude the most extreme positions. Afghanistan should devote more efforts at researching, understanding and writing its history, by listening to its many voices and experiences of it, in order to produce shared standards of reference both at the scientific and entertainment levels, if it wants to be sure that in the future no-one can slander its historical figures and its role in world history unopposed. Edited by Rachel Reid (1) Also not so decisive a result, for in the next decades the Sikhs would bitterly contest and eventually snatch away control of it from the Afghans. (2) The decline of the Mughal Empire created a free and open military labour market that was dominated by Afghan migrants by the early 18 th century. As detailed by Jos Gommans in “The Rise of the Indo-Afghan Empire 1710-1780”(Brill, Leiden 1995), the prominence of Afghan mercenaries was linked to their mastering both the type of military formation most effective in that contest, medium-sized and highly mobile bodies of light cavalry, and the military commodity pivotal to the development of such units, that is, the fine war horses which were brought from the Central Asian breeding grounds to almost horseless India by the same Afghan traders. These trader-mercenaries, collectively known as Rohillas (that is, coming from Roh, the mountainous Frontier area) had settled in large numbers in a tract of land between the Ganges and Yamuna rivers which came to be known as Rohilkhand and their leaders had become influential at the Delhi court. The most prominent among them around 1760 was Najib ud-Dawla, whose territories were both the more exposed to Maratha raids and the best located to assist logistically the Durrani military campaign that he triggered, in hope of countering the threat from the Marathas. (3) Through the movie there are a couple of Muslims characters that are not portrayed as unequivocal enemies. One of them is an unavoidable historical protagonist of the battle of Panipat: Ibrahim Khan Gardi, a Deccani Muslim who held a high rank in the Maratha army, being in command of the sepoy (Indian) infantry (European model) and of the artillery. He was a highly respected veteran who had served in the Maratha army for many years and had been instrumental in many of their victories. In the movie, however, he is seen being spared as a prisoner by the Maratha hero Sadashiv Bhau right at beginning of the events, hence forming a bond of personal loyalty to him that explains his awkward position in the Hindu-Muslim conflict that is later represented. The real reasons for his stubborn attachment to the Maratha cause apparently did not interest the movie screenplay writers. It is a pity, for reality here would have been more dramatic than fiction: after the battle of Panipat Ahmad Shah Durrani had Ibrahim Gardi executed because of his refusal to join the Afghan army. (4) It is interesting to note that the only non-Afghan biographer of Ahmad Shah Durrani – and thus the author of the only biography of him available in English language, Ahmad Shah Durrani, Father of Modern Afghanistan (Bombay, 1959) – was an Indian historian, Ganda Singh (1900-1987). He was a Sikh, member of a community whose past history of conflict with the Afghans holds a much more central place as a marker for identity compared to other Indian communities, but he portrayed Ahmad Shah in a remarkably positive light. (5) Kandahar is famous worldwide for its pomegranates, which, together with other Afghan fruit have been exported to India for centuries (on the Indo-Afghan fruit connection see an old report here). Also, the scene contrasts awkwardly with Ahmad Shah’s own poems, where he longs for the gardens of Afghanistan and declares himself ready to renounce the throne of Delhi in exchange for the bare Afghan mountains. (6) The TV series from the 1990s “The Great Maratha” (by Afghan-Indian director Sanjay Khan) is as celebrative of the Maratha gallantry as it is dismissive in its portrayal of Ahmad Shah Abdali (who appears as a rather uncouth and ruthless, if less sinister, villain). It is just as prone to casting the blame squarely on Najib ud-Dawla and equally patriotic, but nonetheless more realistic and enjoyable than 2019 Panipat (see here the episode focused on the battle). (7) Just one month after the release of Panipat, another period action movie focusing on the exploits of the Marathas was aired in Indian Cinemas. “Tanhaji” sees again the Hindu warriors defend their homeland (this time Central India) from an invasion by Muslim fiends (the Mughals, then still aggressively trying to subdue the Marathas), but the main villain in the movie is a Rajput Hindu commanding the Mughal troops. Depending on the point of view, he can be seen as a high-ranking official in the (at its high points) religiously tolerant Mughal Empire or as a traitor of the worst kind, but what is more interesting here is that he shares with his fellow movie villains Ahmad Shah and especially Alauddin Khalji some disgusting habits that are cast as traits of Muslim (evil) otherness, like cheating, eating huge amounts of meat and posing a threat to the chastity of women. Endnotes: Revisions: This article was last updated on 9 Mar 2020 Authors:.

Panipat hindi movie. साहेब बाजीराव सतत बाहेर मोहीमेवर रहायचा म्हणून मस्तानी च्या नादाला लागला हे सत्य नसून. छत्रसाल बुंदेलाने बाजीरावांच्या मदतीवर खुष होऊन त्यांना भेट म्हणून दिली होती असे इतहास सांगतो ! बाकी तुमचा मुद्या युध्दात सरदारांनी स्वतःच्या बायका घेऊन जाणे काही अंशी बरोबर असेल पण कृपा करून त्याला मस्तानी प्रकरणाशी जोडु नका. Panipat official trailer. Will I go to watch this movie. 1:04. Panipat song. Am i only one who hears welcome movie tone?😂.

Panipat movie full movie. Panipat war wiki. Panipat review. Movie is not loading through app. I have waisted money on this. And there is no feedback or complaint option. Panipat movie release date. Panipat full movie online watch. Panipat movie free online. Panipat reviews. UNLIMITED TV SHOWS & MOVIES SIGN IN In 18th-century India, a Maratha commander leads his army in preparation for a fierce battle against Afghan invaders in this film based on real events. Starring: Sanjay Dutt, Arjun Kapoor, Kriti Sanon Watch all you want for free. Ashutosh Gowarikar, director of the Oscar-nominated “Lagaan, ” helms this period drama starring Sanjay Dutt and Arjun Kapoor. More Details Watch offline Available to download This movie is... Emotional, Exciting, Romantic Audio Hindi [Original], Hindi [Original] Subtitles German, English, Thai, Simplified Chinese Cast Sanjay Dutt Arjun Kapoor Kriti Sanon Zeenat Aman Mohnish Bahl Padmini Kolhapure Kunal Kapoor Suhasini Mulay More TV Shows & Movies Coming Soon.

Abe dience ko bhi sun saala apni hi bole ja raha hai... YouTube. Yar ye movie lga do. Felling very proud to be an #MardMaratha. Panipat box office. Panipat. Panipat movie reviews. 👍One like for chota diljith 😁😂. Hrithik Roshan ko he ly lyty is film main. sleepy actors not allowed. Panipat Theatrical release poster Directed by Ashutosh Gowariker Produced by Sunita Gowariker Rohit Shelatkar Written by Ashok Chakradhar (dialogue) Screenplay by Chandrashekhar Dhavalikar Ranjeet Bahadur Aditya Rawal Ashutosh Gowariker Starring Arjun Kapoor Sanjay Dutt Kriti Sanon Music by Ajay−Atul Cinematography C. K. Muraleedharan Edited by Steven Bernard Production company Ashutosh Gowariker Productions Vision World Films Distributed by Reliance Entertainment Release date 6 December 2019 Running time 162 minutes [1] Country India Language Hindi Budget ₹100 crore [2] Box office est. ₹49. 29 crore [3] Panipat is a 2019 Indian Hindi -language epic war film directed by Ashutosh Gowarikar. [4] Starring Arjun Kapoor, Sanjay Dutt and Kriti Sanon in the lead roles, it depicts the events that took place during the Third Battle of Panipat. The film was theatrically released in India on 6 December 2019. [5] [6] The film was unsuccessful at the box office. [7] Plot [ edit] By 1758, the Maratha Empire had reached its peak under the leadership of Peshwa Balaji Baji Rao aka Nana Saheb. Maratha commanders Raghunath Rao, the Peshwa's brother, Shamsher Bahadur, the Peshwa's half-brother, and Sadashiv Rao Bhau, the Peshwa's cousin, defeat the Nizam of Hyderabad and capture their commander of artillery Ibrahim Khan Gardi, with Sadashiv inducting him into the Maratha Army as their commander of artillery. They return home to the Empire's capital at Pune and are welcomed. Due to pressure by his wife Gopika Bai, the Peshwa appoints Sadashiv as the Empire's finance minister in favour of the Peshwa's son Vishwas Rao, which he reluctantly accepts. Sadashiv lists the defaulters who failed to pay taxes to the Maratha Empire on time, and notes that the Rohilla chieftain Najib ad-Dawlah has the largest amount of tax due. Najib, determined to teach the Marathas a lesson, allies himself with Ahmad Shah Abdali, inviting him to Delhi. News of this formidable alliance reaches Pune, along with the news of Dattaji Shinde 's death in battle against Najib. The Peshwa appoints Raghunath Rao as the commander of the Maratha forces which will be dispatched to fight Abdali and defend Delhi. However, Raghunath asks for a large amount of money, which Sadashiv denies, citing the treasury's condition after consecutive battles. Raghunath, therefore, refuses to march north, which leads the Peshwa to appoint Sadashiv as the commander-in-chief of the Maratha army, under the overlordship of Vishwas Rao, the Peshwa's son and heir. The army, along with a large number of non-combatants (women, children and pilgrims), begin their long and arduous journey north. They arrive at Dholpur, where they're welcomed by their fellow Maratha generals— Govind Pant Bundela, Balwant Rao Mehendale, Jankoji Shinde, and the veteran Malhar Rao Holkar. They start making alliances with other kingdoms, including Maharaja Suraj Mal and Nawab Shuja-ud-Daulah, and are successful, with their army size growing to 50000 men. Abdali is also making alliances, taking advantage of the Rajput kings' hatred for the Marathas. Sadashiv and the commanders receive intelligence that Abdali has camped on the other side of the Yamuna and spot Shuja's flags along with Abdali's, revealing that the Nawab had switched allegiance. Due to the heavy rains, the Marathas are unable to build a bridge to cross the Yamuna. Sadashiv decides to march north and capture Delhi and then cross the Yamuna to defeat Abdali. Najib receives intelligence that the Marathas have retreated, from which Abdali deduces that they are marching north to Delhi. He suggests that they also march north and cross the Yamuna. Meanwhile, the Marathas defeat Najib's general and capture Delhi. After finding out the Afghans are chasing the Marathas, Sadashiv decides to strategically capture Kunjpura Fort, which angers Abdali to such an extent that he immediately reacts by crossing the swollen Yamuna in heavy rainfall. This leaves the Maharaja of Patiala, Ala Singh, unable to send his soldiers. Food begins to dwindle, and the Maratha soldiers and civillians are forced to go without food. Although the arrival of King Araadhak Singh provides some relief to the Maratha camp, but soon after camping at Panipat, Abdali catches up with the Marathas and comes face to face. However, after hearing of a possible coup at his capital in Kandahar, Abdali arranges for a truce with Sadashiv but scraps it after the latter doesn't agree with to terms Abdali presents him. After both sides decide strategies and formations, they prepare for the final confrontation. Parvati Bai and the civilians and pilgrims stay at a small camp towards the back, and Vishwas promises Sadashiv that he'll never get off his elephant during the battle for his own protection. Artillery firing begins by both sides, with substantial damage done to Abdali's army due to Ibrahim Khan's leadership. The riflemen also start attacking. The infantry then begin the main attack, with the Marathas doing well. Overcome with fear, many soldiers of Abdali's army retreat, but Abdali threatens them with severe punishment and forces them to return to the battle. Meanwhile, on seeing Shamsher wounded, Vishwas descends from his elephant to protect him. Sadashiv fends off the Afghans who attacked the young prince, but a bullet hits Vishwas on his head, killing him. This is a huge blow to the morale of the Marathas, who begin to lose ground from then. One by one, the Maratha chieftains are either wounded or killed. Araadhak Singh unexpectedly retreats from the battle. It is then revealed that he was angry with the Marathas for the high taxes imposed upon them, so he secretly allied himself with Abdali and passed information onto him. Seeing the tide of the battle turn, Malhar Rao retreats from the battlefield and escorts the non-combatants to safety, as promised to Sadashiv on the eve of the battle. Abdali's soldiers close in on Sadashiv but he bravely fights back, sustaining serious injuries. He eventually succumbs to his wounds and dies, but not before making Abdali aware of his pyrrhic victory. Back in Pune, Parvati Bai dies from grief. Abdali sends the Peshwa a letter, praising Sadashiv's bravery and courage. The epilogue reveals that even though victorious, Abdali never returned to India. Under the leadership of Peshwa Madhav Rao, the generals Mahadaji Shinde and Tukoji Rao Holkar saved the Maratha empire from extinction, and re-captured Delhi ten years later, making the Marathas a dominant force once again. Cast [ edit] Arjun Kapoor as Sadashiv Rao Bhau Sanjay Dutt as Ahmad Shah Abdali Kriti Sanon as Parvati Bai Mantra as Najib-Ud-Daula Mohnish Bahl as Nana Saheb Peshwa Padmini Kolhapure as Gopika Bai (Peshwinbai) Sahil Salathia as Shamsher Bahadur Kunal Kapoor as Shuja-ud-Daula Mir Sarwar as Imad-ul-Mulk Milind Gunaji as Sardar Dattaji Shinde Abhishek Nigam as Vishwas Rao Peshwa Ravindra Mahajani as Subhedar Malhar Rao Holkar Gashmeer Mahajani as Sardar Jankoji Shinde Nawab Shah as Ibrahim Khan Gardi Kashyap Parulekar as Raghunath Rao Suhasini Mulay as Radhabai S. M. Zaheer as Mughal Emperor Alamgir II Arun Bali as Ala Singh Karmveer Choudhary as King Suraj Mal Paresh Shukla as Govind Pant Bundela Zeenat Aman as Sakina Begum Pradeep Patvardhan as Lingoji Narayan Krutika Deo as Radhikabai Vinita Mahesh as Mehrambai Archana Nipankar as Anandibai Shailesh Datar as Pant Dyanesh Wadkar as Sardar Balwantrao Mehendale Shyam Mashalkar as Bhanu Dushyant Wagh as Nana Phadnavis Dr Rajesh Ahir as Sardar Biniwale Sagar Talashilkar as Sardar Raste Ajit Shidhaye as Wazir Shahwali Khan Production [ edit] Development [ edit] National Award winning art director Nitin Chandrakant Desai recreated the majestic Shaniwar Wada at ND Studios, Karjat. [8] Neeta Lulla has designed the costumes. [9] Padmini Kolhapure joined the cast in October 2018 as Gopika Bai. [10] In June 2019, Zeenat Aman joined the cast to portray Sakina Begum. [11] Filming [ edit] On 30 November 2018, Gowariker and the cast tweeted a promotional poster to announce the beginning of principal photography. [12] On 30 June 2019, Sanon wrapped up shoot by posting pictures and notes for Gowariker and Kapoor. [13] Soundtrack [ edit] Panipat Soundtrack album by Ajay−Atul Released 28 November 2019 [14] Genre Feature film soundtrack Length 16: 48 Label Zee Music Company Producer Ajay−Atul Ajay−Atul chronology Super 30 (2019) Panipat (2019) Tanhaji (2020) External audio Official Audio Jukebox on YouTube Ajay Atul are composing the music for the film. The songs are written by Javed Akhtar. [15] [16] Track list No. Title Singer(s) Length 1. "Mard Maratha" Ajay−Atul, Sudesh Bhosle, Kunal Ganjawala, Swapnil Bandodkar, Padmanabh Gaikwad, Priyanka Barve 6:05 2. "Mann Mein Shiva" Kunal Ganjawala, Deepanshi Nagar, Padmanabh Gaikwad 5:17 3. "Sapna Hai Sach Hai" Abhay Jodhpurkar, Shreya Ghoshal 5:26 Total length: 16:48 Marketing and release [ edit] The first teaser poster was released on 15 March 2018. [17] On 5 November 2019, the official trailer of the film was launched by Reliance Entertainment. [18] The film was released on 6 December 2019 in theatres and on 14 February 2020 on Netflix. [19] Reception [ edit] Critical reception [ edit] Monika Rawal Kukreja of Hindustan Times wrote "Panipat is an honest attempt at recreating the war that we only read in history books until now. It’s a tribute to the Maratha community in its truest form and even it was shorter by an hour, it could have had the same impact". [20] The Times of India gave 3. 5 out of 5 stars stating "‘Panipat’ delves into a significant chapter in history and is a war drama that lauds the unshakable bravery, courage and the strong principles of the Maratha's". [21] India Today gave 2. 5 out of 5 stars stating "Ashutosh Gowariker may not be able to do grandeur like Sanjay Leela Bhansali, but he can do war. Yet, a lacklustre cinematography and terrible CGI mars this solid attempt. It would have worked 10 years ago". [22] Namrata Joshi of The Hindu wrote "Gowariker may have taken liberties with history, but doesn’t play around with the form. He sticks to the tried and tested, the long and langourous and old-fashioned". [23] Bollywood Hungama gave 3 out of 5 stars stating "PANIPAT throws light on an important chapter of Indian history with the battle scenes as its USP". [24] Zee News gave 3 out of 5 stars stating "The film is a great effort by Gowariker and deserves to be watched for some impeccable performances and adrenaline-pumping action". [25] CNN-News18 gave 2. 5 out of 5 stars stating "Panipat, a film about Maratha warrior Sadashiv Rao Bhau who staves off Afghan ruler Ahmad Shah Abdali, disappoints only because of a linear screenplay that fails to rouse dramatic emotions so important to historicals". [26] NDTV gave 2 out of 5 stars stating "The burden on Arjun Kapoor is too heavy for him though he rises manfully to the challenge. Panipat definitely isn't Mohenjo Daro. But is that saying much? It will take three hours of your life and a whole lot of patience to sit through this laboured film". [27] Deccan Chronicle gave 2. 5 out of 5 stars stating "Directors like Gowariker do no service to the nation or their audience by twisting the truth, ignoring military, diplomatic, common sense follies and rewriting history with jingoistic fervour". [28] BBC News and Al Jazeera reported that the film received criticism from different parts of the world, especially from Afghanistan since Ahmad Shah Abdali is the national hero and the founder of modern day Afghanistan. [29] [30] Afghan viewers pointed that the film's portrayal of Abdali was that of an Arab, rather than an Afghan. Critics linked the rising number of Bollywood films with negative Muslim characters, such as the portrayal of Alauddin Khilji as a cruel and vicious ruler in the film Padmaavat, as an attempt by the industry executives to align with India's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, a Hindu nationalist party led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. [29] The Panipat trailer depicted Ahmed Shah Durrani as ruthless and brutal ruler [31] and Afghans as 'battle-hardened, blood-thirsty savages'. [32] While the film presented Marathas as 'sophisticated and righteous'. [32] Consul General of Afghanistan in Mumbai, Naseem Sharifi, said that 'Afghans would not tolerate any insult to Ahmad Shah Durrani'. Afghan journalists stated that the film will create more Islamophobia and racism towards Afghans. The Telegraph India reported that films like Padmaavat (2018), Kesari (2019) and Panipat have stereotyped and vilified Afghans as brutal, cold-blooded and treacherous. [33] Afghanistan's Ambassador to India, Tahir Qadiri, claimed that he was in contact with Indian officials and have shared the Afghan concerns with them. Ajmal Alamzai, cultural attache at the Afghan embassy in New Delhi, claimed that he had made several unsuccessful attempts to contact the director of the film. Pajhwok Afghan News reported that the Panipat film trailer depicted the Maratha Empire as victorious in the Third Battle of Panipat despite the fact that it was Ahmad Shah Durrani, who had won the battle. [34] Khaama Press, another Afghan newspaper, reported that some Afghan social media users have welcomed the film as reality while others criticised it and claimed that parts of history has been forged in favour of specific groups. [35] Box office [ edit] Panipat ' s opening day domestic collection was ₹ 4. 12 crore. On the second day, the film collected ₹5. 78 crore. On the third day, the film collected ₹7. 78 crore, taking the total opening weekend collection to ₹17. 68 crore. [3] As of 10 January 2020, with a gross of ₹ 40. 81 crore in India and ₹ 8. 48 crore overseas, the film has a worldwide gross collection of ₹ 49. 29 crore. [3] References [ edit] ^ "EXCLUSIVE: Panipat makers opt for self-censorship; REMOVE 11 minutes of controversial content". Bollywood Hungama. Retrieved 12 December 2019. ^ "Panipat box office collection Day 1: Arjun Kapoor and Sanjay Dutt film earns Rs 4. 12 crore". India Today. Retrieved 8 December 2019. ^ a b c "Panipat Box Office". Retrieved 11 January 2020. ^ "Ashutosh Gowariker to make film on the Third Battle of Panipat". The Times of India. ^ "Kriti Sanon: Excited to share work space with Sanjay Dutt". The Times of India. ^ "Ashutosh Gowariker's period drama 'Panipat' first poster is out". Connect Gujarat. November 2019. Retrieved 4 November 2019. ^ " ' Panipat' box office collection day 5: Arjun Kapoor, Kriti Sanon and Sanjay Dutt's periodic drama fails to impress the audience". Times of India. 11 December 2020. Retrieved 2 January 2020. ^ "Ashutosh Gowariker To Recreate Shaniwar Wada for Panipat". Koimoi. 19 April 2018. ^ "Neeta Lulla to design costumes for Ashutosh Gowariker's 'Panipat ' ". The Times of India. ^ "Padmini Kolhapure joins Arjun Kapoor, Kriti Sanon, Sanjay Dutt in Ashutosh Gowariker's Panipat". Firstpost. ^ "Veteran actress Zeenat Aman joins cast of Ashutosh Gowariker's Panipat. Details here". Ist. Retrieved 30 June 2019. ^ "Panipat: Sanjay Dutt, Arjun Kapoor and Kriti Sanon starrer goes on floors". Zee News. ^ "Kriti Sanon wraps up the shoot of Panipat; shares a note thanking Arjun Kapoor and Ashutosh Gowariker | Bollywood News".. Retrieved 30 June 2019. ^ "Panipat - Original Motion Picture Soundtrack". Jio Saavn. ^ "Ajay-Atul to create music for 'Panipat ' ". Deccan Chronicle. ^ "Javed Akhtar to pen lyrics for Ashutosh Gowariker's 'Panipat ' ". The Times of India. ^ "Panipat teaser poster: Ashutosh Gowariker announces next film with Kriti Sanon, Arjun Kapoor and Sanjay Dutt". Firstpost. ^ Reliance Entertainment (5 November 2019). "Panipat - Official Trailer - Sanjay Dutt, Arjun Kapoor, Kriti Sanon - Ashutosh Gowariker - Dec 6". Retrieved 5 November 2019 – via YouTube. ^ "Panipat - The Great Betrayal". Netflix. ^ "Manmadhudu 2 movie review: Nagarjuna, Rakul Preet starrer is a hopelessly bad rom-com". Hindustan Times. 6 December 2019. Retrieved 7 December 2019. ^ "Panipat Movie Review: A Layered, Detailed War Drama". Retrieved 7 December 2019. ^ "Panipat Movie Review: Arjun Kapoor, Sanjay Dutt and Kriti Sanon film is a brave attempt". Retrieved 7 December 2019. ^ Joshi, Namrata (6 December 2019). " ' Panipat' movie review: Sticks to the tried-and-tested format, but falls short of its ambition". The Hindu. Retrieved 7 December 2019. ^ "Panipat Movie Review". Retrieved 7 December 2019. ^ "Panipat movie review: Kriti Sanon outshines Arjun Kapoor, Sanjay Dutt in epic saga". Zee News. Retrieved 7 December 2019. ^ "Panipat Movie Review: Ashutosh Gowariker's Simplistic Approach Fails to Meet Expectations". CNN-News18. Retrieved 7 December 2019. ^ "Panipat Movie Review: Arjun Kapoor's Film Perks Up A Tad When Sanjay Dutt Surfaces". NDTV. Retrieved 7 December 2019. ^ "Panipat movie review: Rewriting historical defeats with patriotic fervour". Deccan Chronicle. Retrieved 7 December 2019. ^ a b "Panipat: The Bollywood battle over an 18th Century war". BBC. 8 December 2019. Retrieved 11 December 2019. ^ "Bollywood's Panipat irks Afghans over founding father's portrayal". Al Jazeera. 17 December 2019. Retrieved 7 December 2019. ^ Sangeeta Nair (8 November 2019). "Panipat Movie controversy: Can Ahmad Shah Abdali's portrayal impact Indo-Afghan ties? ". ^ a b "Afghans Unhappy With Movie Panipat Over Vilifying Ahmad Shah Abdali". Eurasian Times. 7 November 2019. ^ "Vilifying Afghans in Bollywood". The Telegraph India. 6 November 2019. ^ "New Indian movie on Panipat battle roils Afghans". Pajhwok Afghan News. 6 November 2019. Archived from the original on 6 November 2019. ^ "The upcoming Bollywood movie 'Panipat' sparks anger among the Pashtun's of Afghanistan". Khaama Press. 6 November 2019. External links [ edit] Panipat on IMDb Panipat on Bollywood Hungama Panipat at Rotten Tomatoes.

Panipat trailer 2019.
Panipat wiki.
Panipat 2019 movies full free.
Diljeet👌👌👌👌👌.

Starting background music sound like The lion king's. Panipat trailer. Panipat movie.

 

 

I'm also from Panipat... ❤️💛. Panipat collection. Loveliest song. Its lyk sugar to ears💕💕💕💕💕💕💕💕, this movie changed the image of Arjun Kapoor, gr8 acting👍👌 amazing expressions both. The Sanskrit part of this song 💕💕💕💕💕💕💕💕💕💕💜💜💜💜. Panipat rediff review. Panipat war 1. Gadhe ko peet ke ghoda nahi bana sakte. AngryRantman(2019. Panipat full movie online. Mullo ko jihad hi karne ata hai or ata kya hai. Panipat betrayal. Panipat battle. Panipat reaction. Panipat movie song.

MOVIE IS watch stop seeing such cheapos reviews

When will producers understand that Arjun Kapoor is more risky the Bitcoin.
Casting him for this role was a horrible decision. Panipat public review. Mashallah Allah Allah vahan ke musalmanon ko masjid Abad karne ki taufeeq ata farma. Panipat cast. Panipat full movie watch online. Panipat battle third. Come man banglore Avane srimannarayana kannada film 🎥. Panipat 2019. Panipat movie collection. Where is the full movie in Ishaqzaade. Panipat india. Panipat movie near me. Panipat trailer reaction. Panipat showtimes. Panipat history. Thank you brother this is really history. Panipat box office collection. Panipat movie download. Panipat scene. I love this song jai maratha jai shivray 🚩. Panipat 2019 movie online. Panipat maratha. Panipat court. Nonika Singh The Third Battle of Panipat, fought in 1761, is testimony as much to the might of Ahmad Shah Abdali as the valour of his adversary the Maratha Empire. What for many of us might be a one-line note in history books transforms into a full-fledged story replete with background and detail. Ashutosh Gowariker, who has a penchant for translating history onto silver screen, brings to us this fascinating battle. Though history, it is often said, is written from the victor’s point of view, he glorifies the vanquished. The hero here is Sadashiv Rao Bhahu, a Peshwa (Arjun Kapoor) who decides to take on Ahmad Shah Abdali after he is invited by disgruntled elements in India. Sure India was not India back in the 18th century but the idea of Hindostan both Gowariker and his protagonist uphold and float with the secular fabric intact. Though Marathas chant Har Har Mahadev with gusto, Gowariker does not make this a Hindu-Muslim battle and certainly does not feed Islamophobia. Early on in the film, he establishes how traitors are born in every community. Clearly treachery is a thread that runs through the film but Marathas are let down not just by Shuja–ud–Daulah (Kunal Kapoor) but also by Hindu rulers, a few of them on the battleground itself. Indeed, no one can take issues with Gowariker’s intentions or his ambition to take us back into the lanes of history. But, it is in trying to strike a balance between historical veracity and the commerce of cinema that he fails. Much of the film as expected is spent in building up the romance between Sadhashiv and Parvati (Kriti Sanon). No doubt, Kriti looks beautiful and has a meaty part too. The film also boasts of two heroines of yesteryear, Padmini Kolhapure and Zeenat Aman. Zeenat, in a small but significant part of Sakina Begum, retains the grace of her youth but doesn't quite stand up to be counted. Padmini shows the same spark that distinguished her in her heydays but is hemmed in by the archetype that her role demands. Much here follows the hackneyed. Marathas breaking into a song every now and then doesn’t help except introduce us to the scale of those times and the opulence of the sets. The treatment of the film is rich and the grandeur of those times comes across though not in the same fashion as a Bhansali film. With a smattering of Marathi, the language just about passes muster. Words like gathbandhan shatbhandhan stand out like a sore thumb. Even Abdali (Sanjay Dutt) is introduced with a rather insipid one-liner. Unlike Khilji played to menacing perfection by Ranveer Singh in Padamavaat, Abdali is not so demonised. But then despite looming large on the screen, Sanjay Dutt fails to create a solid impact. And that is the biggest problem of the film. For a film that recreates an epic battle, it doesn’t create a powerful impression. Even on the battle ground, everything is spelt out thus diluting the otherwise formidable battle scene formations. Since it all finally boils down to eulogising the bravery of one man Sadashiv, the bloodbath leaves you more cold than emotive. Making a historical, we all know, requires tremendous hard work, research and money. If only Gowariker had added astute skills to his armoury we would not have been forced to say love’s labour lost. For, while history stands as witness to Maratha’s loss, despite their peerless courage, we hate to see Gowariker lose a cinematic battle. More so for alongside goes the earnest endeavour of Arjun Kapoor who looks the part but can’t rise above the film.

🇯🇴❤🇦🇫. Long live afgans❤.