Top News

Her right to live is undiminished. Her future is still her own. On that fundamental point, Swara is entirely right.

Where she falters, however, is in applying that timeless truth to a completely different historical reality. Rebuilding one’s life after surviving sexual violence is one profound question. Being trapped inside a collapsing fortress, facing inevitable capture by an invading army, is entirely another. These are fundamentally distinct moral landscapes. And if they are distinct, why should we judge one through the lens of the other?

This brings us back to an argument Swara first raised following the release of the film Padmaavat in 2018. Her objection was directed at the film’s portrayal of Jauhar. She asked what a rape survivor watching that scene might feel. Would she internalise the message that she was somehow less brave for choosing to live?

Would the cinematic narrative suggest that death is more honorable than survival?

She went on to question the haunting image of a pregnant woman walking toward the fire, raising a deeply disturbing implication: would even an unborn girl be denied a future simply because she might one day face sexual violence?

These are serious, searching questions. But their force dissipates when they are transposed onto the wrong historical epoch.

Following the latest wave of controversy, Swara clarified that she never branded Rani Padmavati-or the women who committed Jauhar-as cowards. That clarification ought to be accepted.

There is no justification for attacking her for words she never spoke. The true disagreement lies with the structure of her argument.

The Context of Jauhar

Jauhar was never intended as a commentary on the resilience of a modern rape survivor. It was born out of the absolute extremities of a siege. A fort was falling; military defeat was certain; all avenues of escape were sealed, and reinforcements were not arriving. Moreover, capture did not mean being processed as a contemporary prisoner of war.

In pre-modern warfare, the fall of a city meant wholesale enslavement, the trafficking of captives, forced dependency, and systemic sexual violence-the total annihilation of bodily autonomy, family, and future.

That is the context.

Today, when a woman survives sexual assault, society must offer an unequivocal message: the crime belongs entirely to the criminal, never to the victim.

Live. Recover. Fight. Rebuild.

That is the hallmark of a civilized society.

Yet, a woman inside a medieval fortress was not asking herself, “How do I piece my life back together after a crime?” Her question was immediate, visceral, and terrifying: “In a matter of hours, who will control my body and my destiny?” That distinction changes the entire debate.

'I Am Also Troubled...': Chirag Paswan Criticises Kangana Ranaut’s Gen Z Remark | EXCLUSIVE

Jauhar Is Not Sati

Furthermore, Jauhar must be carefully distinguished from Sati. They are entirely different historical phenomena.

Sati was tied to the private grief of a husband’s death. Jauhar belonged exclusively to the brutal theatre of war and siege-a desperate act undertaken when all military resistance had collapsed, allowing women and dependents to enter the fire just as the remaining men marched out for a final, suicidal battle known as Saka.

At the same time, intellectual honesty requires us to look at history clear-eyed. We cannot definitively prove that every woman in every instance of Jauhar acted out of absolute, uncoerced autonomy. Social pressures were immense; rigid codes of honor prevailed; family and community expectations heavily shaped those choices.

Consequently, no serious observer would present Jauhar as an ideal for women today.

Yet, reducing it simplistically to the notion that “ancestors believed rape survivors ought to die” is equally reductive. The instinct to choose death over subjugation was by no means unique to medieval Rajasthan.

Death Before Capture

Consider Xanthos, in what is now Turkey.

Over two thousand years ago, facing inevitable Persian conquest, its citizens gathered their families and possessions within a stronghold.

Fire followed, and the fighting men marched out to their deaths.

Do not call that Jauhar-it was not. But observe the underlying logic: defeat was accepted; capture was rejected.

Consider Saguntum in Spain, surrounded by Hannibal’s forces. With all hope of rescue extinguished, ancient accounts record citizens choosing death as the walls fell, with women taking their own lives rather than falling into enemy hands.

Consider Masada, where Jewish rebels surrounded by the Roman legions chose a collective end, immortalising the stark creed of death before slavery.

And consider Saipan in 1944, where Japanese civilians, gripped by terror of what American capture might bring, leaped in massive numbers from sheer cliffs.

History does not demand that we romanticise these tragedies. Rather, it asks us to comprehend why human beings made choices that appear utterly unimaginable from the comfortable safety of the present.

EXCLUSIVE | 'Resignation Not Enough...': Chirag Paswan Calls For Greater Measure To Tackle Paper Leaks

The 'Azad' Parallel

India, too, bears its own parallel.

On February 27, 1931, at Alfred Park, Chandrashekhar Azad was cornered by the British police. He fought fiercely, secured his companion's escape, and-according to widely accepted accounts-reserved his final bullet for himself, bound by a lifelong vow never to be taken alive by the British.

Do we look back at that final bullet as a contempt for life? Do we argue that he should have surrendered so that he might have lived?

Of course not. We understand his choice through the prism of the oppressive conditions that forced it. Azad sought to deny the British their ultimate victory: the triumph of his capture.

Sometimes, the dynamics of defeat dictate that an enemy does not merely win by seizing your territory; they lose if they fail to possess your final, sovereign decision-'You may defeat me. You may surround me. But you will not dictate what happens to me next'.

This does not render Chandrashekhar Azad and Jauhar identical. They are not. Azad was an armed revolutionary whose individual agency is clear. In the collective tragedy of Jauhar, we can never fully quantify the degree of freedom available to every woman involved.

Even so, the underlying philosophical thread matters deeply. Choosing death does not invariably stem from a hatred of life. Frequently, it represents a fierce rejection of the life that a victorious oppressor intends to impose.

Two Kinds Of Courage

This is precisely where Swara’s argument falls short.

She champions the woman who survives sexual violence-and rightly so. But the woman inside a besieged fort was confronting an entirely different echelon of terror.

One voice declares: “A heinous crime was committed against me, yet I choose to live.” That is profound courage.

The other may well have declared: “You will not dictate the fate of my body once these gates fall.”

That defiance, too, must be understood within its own grim context.

Why, then, must we pitch these women as adversaries? Why must honoring the resilience of one require the dismissal of the other?

To be historically rigorous, we must also acknowledge the nuances surrounding Rani Padmavati herself. While Alauddin Khalji’s siege of Chittor in 1303 is an established historical fact, contemporary records do not yield the elaborate narrative familiar to us today. Malik Muhammad Jayasi’s epic 'Padmavat' was penned more than two centuries later.

Consequently, every embellishment of the legend cannot be accepted as settled history. But that does not render Jauhar a mere figment of imagination, as independent records corroborate similar acts across subsequent sieges. We must be precise: the legend is to debate, but the broader historical phenomenon cannot simply be wished away.

History, Not Intimidation

This brings us to the Karni Sena’s reaction. Kirti Rathod quite rightly argued that Jauhar must be evaluated within the brutal realities of its time. However, reports also surfaced of threats directed against Swara Bhasker by Surjit Singh Rathod-which are entirely indefensible. If you believe Swara is in error, refute her argument with history, with evidence, and with logic-never with intimidation.

The moment you threaten a person for voicing an opinion, you eviscerate the very cause you claim to uphold.

Ultimately, this leads us back to Swara’s central premise. She is entirely correct that sexual assault does not spell the end of a woman’s life. But that vital truth does not grant us the license to erase the agency, the terror, and the harrowing circumstances navigated by women in another era.

To understand Jauhar is not to endorse it.

To remember it is not to glorify it.

History does not ask us to replicate the past; it asks us to understand the agonising constraints under which people made their choices before we sit in judgment of them. Because at times, history does not pose the simple binary of life or death. It confronts us with something far darker:

Who holds the final sovereignty over my existence-myself, or the enemy waiting at the gate?