Bollywood celebrates the launch of a star kid with the kind of fondness and fervour that Indian families reserve for weddings. But Aamir Khan바카라s son, Junaid, about to debut in a Netflix release, Maharaj, got nothing. Literally nothing: no teaser, no trailer, no hoardings, no interviews, no promotion. Quoting industry experts, entertainment websites speculated that the real reason could be the script itself. In 1862, journalist Karsandas Mulji wrote a newspaper article accusing Jadunathji Maharaj, the leader of the Vaishnavite Pushtimarg sect, of sexually exploiting his female devotees. Maharaj sued Mulji for libel. Now a period drama recreating this case, where Junaid plays Mulji, has itself become embroiled in a legal tussle.
On June 3, a Hindu nationalist organisation, Bajrang Dal, sent a letter to Yash Raj Films (YRF), accusing its movie of 바카라vilifying Hinduism바카라, 바카라disrespecting Lord Krishna바카라, and 바카라offending the feelings of Hindus바카라. If released, the letter continued, the film could create a 바카라law and order바카라 problem. 바카라So we demand that you immediately show the movie to the representatives of the Vishva Hindu Parishad [VHP] and religious leaders.바카라 It ended with a warning: 바카라Hindus will not tolerate anyone disrespecting their religion.바카라
Over the last few years, many OTT releases have attracted the ire of Hindu fundamentalists, such as Sacred Games (2018), Pataal Lok (2020), A Suitable Boy (2020). In almost all of them, the main charge remains the same: 바카라Hinduphobia바카라. Tandav바카라s director, Ali Abbas Zafar, apologised and deleted the objectionable scenes; so did Nayanthara, an actress helming Annapoorani (2023), which stopped streaming on Netflix. Her apology came after VHP바카라s FIR complaint. But YRF ignored the letter, hoping a quiet release on Netflix, then the word of mouth praise, could save the film.
Just a day before the release, however, the Gujarat High Court, acting on a petition by the members of the Pushtimarg Vaishnava sect, issued a stay order, halting its screening. Around the same time, hashtags such as 바카라Boycott Netflix바카라 and 바카라Ban Maharaj Film바카라 trended on X. Many social media users also connected this case to Junaid바카라s father, Aamir Khan, commenting on rising intolerance in the country in 2015 (which continued to haunt him even seven years later, as his Laal Singh Chaddha (2022) faced boycott calls).
Unlike the recent film controversies, which can be boiled down to a 바카라Left versus Right바카라 conflict, Maharaj바카라s case doesn바카라t seem that simple. 바카라Mr. Saurabh Shah (@hisaurabhshah) took a firm stand for Hindutva at a time when no established alternate ecosystem existed. 바카라Maharaj바카라 is based on his [bestselling Gujarati] novel,바카라 wrote Meghalsinh Parmar on X, the Deputy Editor of Op-India Gujarati, a far-right-wing website. 바카라Do you really think a person who is ideologically committed and who worked extensively for Hindutva would write an anti-Hindu book and defame his own Dharma?바카라
But Maharaj isn바카라t the only film this week to court controversy. It바카라s found company in Hamare Baarah, whose trailer shows a series of dialogues, by Muslim men, establishing their misogyny and fixation on breeding. We see an incendiary speech by a Muslim leader (바카라women should be like salwar바카라s strings바카라it바카라s better if they remain inside바카라), an old Muslim man (Annu Kapoor) threatening to kill his wife (as disobeying a husband means disobeying khuda), and Muslim men slapping Muslim women multiple times, dragging them on the floor, and on and on.
The drama plays to Hindutva바카라s perennial concern바카라called, what else but, the 바카라population jihad바카라바카라which believes that Muslims바카라 population will swell to such an extent that they바카라ll overtake Hindus. In fact last month, during the election, Prime Minister Narendra Modi바카라s Economic Advisory Council released a working paper, which stated that, between 1950 and 2015, the Muslims바카라 population share increased from 9.84 per cent to 14.09 per cent, while the Hindus바카라 decreased from 84.68 per cent to 78.06 per cent. Many critics, however, objected to the report바카라s selective reading of data and the lack of context. It relied on, for instance, a survey and not the decade-wise national Census and used percentages, instead of absolute numbers, to paint an alarming picture.
After the trailer surfaced online, several Muslim organisations complained about its Islamophobia and misogyny. Earlier this month, the Karnataka Government banned its theatrical exhibition, as the movie could create communal tension. Scheduled to release on June 7, it ran into another roadblock when the Bombay High Court, acting on a petition, issued a stay order till June 14. The court directed the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to form a three-member committee to watch the movie and share its feedback. But the panel requested for more time, and the High Court allowed the film to release.
The petitioner, then, moved the Supreme Court, objecting to the CBFC forming a panel when it was itself an 바카라interested party바카라. On June 13, filmmaker바카라s counsel said that the makers had removed the objectionable scenes from the trailer. 바카라We saw the teaser today morning,바카라 responded the bench, 바카라and all the scenes are there.바카라 It also stated that the 바카라teaser바카라 was 바카라so offensive that the High Court [initially] granted an interim order [restraining the film바카라s release]바카라. When the counsel argued that a delayed release could result in huge losses, the bench said, 바카라If the teaser is so offensive then what about the whole movie?바카라 It also slammed the CBFC, saying it had 바카라failed to do its job바카라.
It can be argued that, over the last 10 years, the CBFC has 바카라failed바카라 to discharge its duties several times, green-lighting films demonising Muslims, which deepened the communal divide and even became box-office blockbusters. But with the Supreme Court바카라s firm stand in the Hamare Baarah case, and YRF and Netflix challenging the Gujarat바카라s High Court order, a slender beam of hope seems to emerge from the bleak canvass of Indian political cinema.
