Bollywood's Historical Reimagining: Amish Tripathi Questions Authenticity in Cinematic Depictions of Khilji and Akbar

Renowned author Amish Tripathi, celebrated for his mythological fiction series, has once again stirred the pot, turning his critical gaze towards Bollywood's increasingly frequent forays into historical narratives. Tripathi minces no words in asserting that the Indian film industry often engages in a profound misrepresentation of history, citing popular portrayals of figures like Alauddin Khilji and Emperor Akbar as prime examples of this cinematic distortion.

Addressing the nuanced complexities of historical figures, Tripathi specifically highlighted Ranveer Singh’s much-discussed depiction of Alauddin Khilji in Sanjay Leela Bhansali's Padmaavat.

While the film garnered immense commercial success, Tripathi argues that its portrayal of Khilji, though certainly a 'bad guy' in his ruthlessness, failed to capture the historical depth of the sultan. Historically, Khilji was a brilliant military strategist and an astute administrator, whose cunning extended far beyond mere villainy.

The cinematic narrative, however, predominantly emphasized his darker aspects, potentially leading audiences to an incomplete and skewed understanding of a significant historical personality.

Conversely, Tripathi also critiqued the romanticized portrayal of Emperor Akbar, notably Hrithik Roshan's interpretation in Jodhaa Akbar.

He contends that while Akbar is often lauded in popular culture as a benevolent ruler, history presents a more controversial and complex figure. Akbar was undeniably a military expansionist whose reign, like many monarchs of his era, involved significant territorial conquest and often brutal suppression.

By painting him with an almost entirely positive brush, filmmakers risk stripping away the challenging ambiguities that define historical truth, presenting a sanitized version that diverges from academic understanding.

The core of Tripathi’s concern lies in the pervasive influence of cinema on public perception.

He warns that when filmmakers cherry-pick attributes to fit a predefined heroic or villainous archetype, audiences, especially those less acquainted with historical texts, are likely to internalize these dramatized versions as irrefutable facts. This, he stresses, is a disservice to history and can perpetuate inaccurate narratives across generations.

Tripathi further posits that this trend is often driven by commercial imperatives, where dramatic impact and box-office appeal take precedence over rigorous historical accuracy.

While acknowledging the artistic license inherent in filmmaking, he advocates for a more responsible approach, one that respects the complexities of the past rather than oversimplifying or overtly distorting it for entertainment. He contrasts this approach with some Western historical productions that, in his view, manage to portray figures like Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan with a greater degree of nuance, acknowledging both their triumphs and their transgressions.

Ultimately, Tripathi’s call is for a more honest and sophisticated engagement with history on screen.

He urges Bollywood to move beyond simplistic good-versus-evil narratives when dealing with real historical figures, and instead embrace the multifaceted, often contradictory truths that define human history, allowing audiences to form a more informed and balanced understanding of their heritage.