Creative Liberties or Historical Accuracy? Bollywood Seems to Favour the Former

While filmmakers enjoy creative liberties, moviegoers often immortalise these films and remember them as fact.

Period films are met with great fervour but may not always provide accurate information.

(Source: Bollywood Hungama/Instagram/Altered by The Quint)

Before Vicky Kaushal starrer Chhaava hit the theatres on 14 February, political leaders in Maharashtra had raised objections to certain scenes in the film’s trailer. 

The trailer portrayed Kaushal’s character, Sambhaji Maharaj, performing a traditional Marathi folk dance, lezim,  with Rashmika Mandanna, who plays the titular character’s wife in the film.

Maharashtra’s cabinet minister, Uday Samant, said that while it was commendable that filmmaker Laxman Utekar was making a film that would spread awareness about Sambhaji Maharaj, there were some scenes that might be ‘offensive’ and should be removed if historians and experts disagreed with them.

Similarly, Sambhajiraje Chhatrapati, a former parliamentarian and the family’s descendent, too, addressed the film and urged that the Maharashtra government establish a team of experts and researchers to ensure that their legacy is kept safe and no sentiments are hurt because of the film.

This raised the question: how far do filmmakers bend historical facts while recreating them for the big screen. Through this story, let us see how Utekar's film, and other Indian period films, stand against historical records.

*Spoilers ahead*

Chhaava (2025)

Moments before the film’s climactic battle, Utekar shows Kavi Kalash (Vineet Kumar), the ruler’s advisor, telling him that their position had been compromised and the people responsible for it were Kanhoji and Ganoji Shirke.

The Shirkes: The descendants of the Shirke clan took great offense at this detail, threatening to file a defamation lawsuit amounting to Rs 100 crore against Utekar, alleging that there was no historical evidence to support this claim. 

However, we came across several mentions of the Shirkes having “betrayed” Sambhaji Maharaj in books such as the Advanced Study in the History of Modern India by Jaswant Lal Mehta and Chhatrapati Rajaram and The Maratha Siege by Jaisingrao Pawar.

(Source: Advanced Study in the History of Modern India/Altered by The Quint)

(Source:Chhatrapati Rajaram and The Maratha Siege /Altered by The Quint)

Despite there being multiple versions of literature saying this, Utekar issued an apology to the Shirkes.

The issue here is that while there are accounts naming the Shirkes as the ones divulging military movements to the Mughals, we as fact-checkers cannot independently verify this, as there is no single version of this story among historical accounts or recorded literature.

Moreover, a part of fact-checking involves verifying information from people who may have been present at the spot, which is simply not possible for an event which took place nearly 350 years ago.

Caught in glorious battle?: During and after the said battle, the film shows Sambhaji fiercely battling tens or hundreds of men before being restrained by Aurangzeb’s army and taken away along with Kavi Kalash. 

The same records we went through earlier, and some more, differ from the scene depicted in the film.

For instance, Jadunath Sarkar's History of Aurangzib says that the Mughal soldiers had overwhelmed Kalash and Sambhaji, and had caught both of them together.

Sarkar's version said that Sambhaji and Kavi Kalash were caught together.

(Source: History of Aurangzib/Altered by The Quint) 

Seeing that they could not win, GT Kulkarni's The Mughal Maratha Relations: Twenty Five Fateful Years (1682-1707) mentioned that Sambhaji had shaved off his facial hair and hid either in a hole or a temple, where he was subsequently caught by the enemy’s military leader, Muqarrab Khan.

Kulkarni's book states that Kalash was caught first, and Sambhaji was caught after.

This book also says that Sambhaji hid before he was caught.

(Source: The Mughal Maratha Relations: Twenty Five Fateful Years (1682-1707)/Altered by The Quint)

Moreover, all the literature that we went through described a greater degree of torture and humiliation for the two, which we will not add links to due to the graphic nature of the content.

While one can understand that a film may take creative liberties to show the protagonist as a powerful, mighty character, it is very important to understand that these films cannot be treated as the truth of how things happened centuries ago.

Chhaava is neither the first, nor the only time this has happened. 

Take for example, Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s 2018 film Padmaavat, which was retitled to its current name from Padmavati.

Padmaavat (2018)

During filming, Bhansali was attacked by members of the Karni Sena, a Rajput group, who were offended due to the film allegedly depicting the titular character, Queen Padmini, in poor light. 

Several groups across the country also called for a ban on the film’s release, going as far as filing a case with the Supreme Court for the same. Four states - Gujarat, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and Haryana, did in fact, prohibit the film from being released  in their states. 

However, the petition was overruled by the apex court, which said that freedom of speech had to be maintained, directing the states to ensure that the film was screened in an orderly manner.

The biggest point of contention in the film’s controversy is the very existence of the titular character herself. 

Several historians and scholars have called her “fictional,” while asserting that the earliest reference to her existence was in Malik Muhammad Jayasi’s 1540 poem, Padmawat.

This screenshot from Ram Vallabh Somani's book, History of Mewar: from earliest times to 1751 A.D. questioned the historicity of Chittor's Queen Padmini.

(Source: History of Mewar: from earliest times to 1751 A.D/Altered by The Quint)

Catherine B Asher and Cynthia Talbot's India Before Europe also refers to the piece of literature, calling it "the fictional story of Ala al-Din Khalji's love for the queen of Chittor."

(Source: India Before Europe/Altered by The Quint)

Manikarnika (2018)

Kangana Ranaut’s directorial debut Manikarnika also suffers from minor issues. In the film, Ranaut plays the titular character. In this first hour of the film, Manikarnika gets married to her husband, the ruler of Jhansi.

The movie wedding shows Ranaut getting married, while in reality, the Queen of Jhansi was a minor at the time of her marriage. 

Harleen Singh's book, India’s Rebel Queen: Rani Lakshmi Bai and the 1857 Uprising, mentions that her year of birth differs in Indian and British records.

Indian records show her to be seven years old when she got married, while English records peg her age at 14. Neither of these records show her to be an adult woman, as is seen in the film.

(Source: India’s Rebel Queen: Rani Lakshmi Bai and the 1857 Uprising/Screenshot)

Her young age at the time of her marriage is a well known fact, as it was extremely common for people to get married as children. The 2009 television show, Ek Veer Stree Ki Kahaani – Jhansi Ki Rani, accurately portrays a child actor playing Manikarnika for the first few seasons.

While the storytelling in this film was oddly paced, it was not too far from how things may have actually happened. However, at the very end of the film, Manikarnika, wounded by a bullet to her chest, walks into a fire on the battlefield to set herself alight and die. 

There are many versions of how she actually passed away, all of them state that she died in combat.

• One story claims that her soldiers cremated her on the battlefield. Another states that when she realised she was fatally wounded, she asked a hermit nearby to burn her body as she did not want the British to capture it.

• A third version of this story also says that Laxmibai was shot dead by an official of the British army near Gwalior’s Phool Bagh, as noted in a fact-check by Factly, whose report also concluded that there was no single version of this story.

Heeramandi (2024): After Netflix’s 2024 series Heeramandi gathered high viewership, The Quint, along with historian Dr Ruchika Sharma debunked several aspects that the show portrayed incorrectly. You can watch our video here.

This report is in no way an exhaustive list of all the errors that Indian cinema has made in its depiction of historical events. It would be incorrect to think that the points this report touches upon are the only issues in the films we looked at in this article.

However, given the nationalistic fervour some of these films encourage, it is very important to remember that films cannot be taken as factual retellings of incidents that happened in the past.

(Not convinced of a post or information you came across online and want it verified? Send us the details on WhatsApp at 9540511818 , or e-mail it to us at [e-mail] and we'll fact-check it for you. You can also read all our fact-checked stories here.)