Maulanas cry foul over a ’suhaag-raat’

Press conferences (PCs, in our journalistic jargon) are boring. I’d rather dig out facts on my own than be offered them on a platter. But this one (the one I attended last month) was memorable, not because it was an Art-of-Living kind lecture rescuing me from the trap of depression, but because it was goddamn humorous.

A group of Muslim lawyers and clerics had invited scribes to vent their fury over Akbar Khan’s magnum opus Taj Mahal: An Eternal Love Story. The PC was scheduled to begin at 12.30 pm. Reached five minutes late and was still worried that the PC may have started (you know, how many words could be uttered in 300 seconds and for us scribes, it’s not just about every second counts but also every word counts). But the PC room was overflowing with the invited (scribes, stupid!) with no signs of the invitees (the clerics and the lawyers). Time passed, it was 1.30 pm and I could hear a fellow journo utter, “Let’s push off. There ain’t any filmstar coming here.” Wished he had uttered those words earlier as just then, three bearded men in a salwar-kameezes and skull caps and one “suited-booted” man minus the beard and the topi walked inside. Whew!

The suited-booted man adjusted the mike and introduced himself as, “Mohammad Sajid, Supreme Court advocate and All India Lawyers Minority Association (AILMA) president.” Pointing fingers at the trio, he introduced them, “Maulana Mohd Arif Al-Husaini (All Ulema Council president), Maulana Sher Mohd and Maulana Jamil Ilyasi.”

After this long intro of long names, Sajid finally set the ball rolling. “Different sections of Muslims are objecting to the vulgar, disgusting and unacceptable skin display in Akbar Khan’s Taj Mahal: An Eternal Love Story.” Now that was the most fantastic (sarcasm, sweetheart!) opening address I’ve ever heard. Which Muslims was Mr Sajid talking about? Probably, the ones residing on Mars! For the only one objecting to Taj Mahal..is Maneka Gandhi, that too for the alleged misuse of animals in the flick!

As if the first remark wasn’t hilarious enough, Sajid continued, “Mughal tehzeeb ki dhajjiya uda di gayee hai is film mein.” Ouch! Since I hadn’t seen the movie, I didn’t judge the statement, except that I found the its tone and tenor pretty heated. But given that the first remark about Muslims objecting to the film was completely out-of-the-blue, I had to take the one about Mughal tehzeeb with a pinch of salt too. “How did the Censor Board even pass the film? We will ask it to form a committee of intellectuals, ulema and lawyers to review their decision. We want the film banned,” Sajid said. Why, oh why, I thought.

Sajid gave the answer in points:
Point 1: “Nur Jehan is shown to be having illegitimate relations with one Mohabbat Khan, Jehangir’s friend,” he said.
Point 2: “Shah Jehan and Mumtaz are shown to be kissing in front of the prince’s mother, his sister and soldiers. That is Western culture, not Mughal tehzeeb,” he continued.
Point 3: “Showing Shah Jehan and Mumtaz in their suhaag-raat, that too nude, is an insult not just to the tehzeeb of the Mughals but also the whole of their dynasty,” he added.

After the loud Sajid (along with mute “Maulanas”) vented their fury at Taj Mahal, it was time for the journos to shoot questions. But instead of questions, they shot salvos. I, for instance, asked, “Isn’t a suhaag-raat pretty normal for lovers?” To which, Maulana Arif Al-Husaini (at last, the mute button of at least one Maulana was turned off) replied, “It is normal…but given that the movie is historical, they could have switched off the lights or shown them doing it behind the curtains.” He added, “Shah Jehan and Mumtaz shared a ‘paak’ (pure) love, which Akbar Khan showed in a ‘na-paak’ (impure) way.”

Not satisfied, a TV journo (whom I later found out was a Muslim) asked him to differentiate between ‘paak’ and ‘na-paak’. The Maulana replied, “Having physical relationship before marriage is na-paak.” The Maulana just put his foot in the mouth. “Shah Jehan and Mumtaz were shown consummating their relationship after the wedding (which according to the Maulana is paak). So, Akbar Khan never infringed on their purity in the first place!” the scribes shot back, almost in unison. The Maulana and the lawyer (Mr Sajid) were quiet.

Another scribe fired a salvo, “Akbar Khan is a Muslim, so are the film’s actors — Syed Zulfi and Sonia Jehan. Thus, which Muslims are you talking about that are objecting to the film?” The Maulana replied, “The ordinary Muslims.” Even though I am not the kind to harp on my religious identity or get provoked by sentiments, I had to hit back at the so-called ulema on this one, “I too am a Muslim, I find nothing wrong in the film.” To which the Maulana replied, “That is your opinion.” To which I replied, “That the film is tasteless is just YOUR opinion.” The Maulana and the lawyer were quiet again.

Not able to handle the flurry of questions, the lawyer and the ulema trio got up from their seats, walked towards the lawn (the PC was taking place at the Press Club in Delhi) with the cameramen and shutterbugs rushing behind them, unrolled the film’s posters, lit a matchstick and just as they were about to start the “burning ceremony”, the shutterbugs told them to pose and smile (which they obediently did) and set ablaze the posters. Sadly (for the foursome), only two national English-language dailies bothered to publish news about the PC (even though reporters of many newspapers and TV channels were present). So I guess this “controversy” had a still birth. And Akbar Khan is unlucky to have not been able to cash in on it.