(inputs and ideas by Yugeshwar Singh Kaushal, PhD (ABD))
We explored in the previous articles (here1, here2, here3) how communal narratives insofar as falsehoods and bazaar gossips are openly peddled against the Rajput people by “liberal” journalists and “eminent” academicians in “mainstream” media and institutions. These Narratives and statements if so blindly and brazenly peddled against any other community, would be publicly deemed communal and casteist.
But this isn’t the case with the Rajputs, who any public personality can freely punch, alienate and concurrently appropriate without any compunction. Hence, the Rajput people are Homo sacer of the modern Republic. A Homo sacer was an individual in the Roman republic who could be harrassed, maimed, or even killed by any citizen on whims sans repercussion i.e. they had no rights. In this socio-political process, Bollywood (dominated by Khatris, Brahmins, Jats & Ashrafs) played critical role in establishing and still plays in persevering the status of Rajputs as the Homo Sacer.
I. Bollywood’s Quintessential Filmy Rajputs (QFR)
Amrish Puri played the Bollywoods’ evil Rajputs for decades; Shahid Kapoor played the meek idealistic Rajput in Padmavat (2018). Both happened to be Punjabi Khatris, the caste that has dominated the Industry ever since before Partition.
Bhaag Milkha Bhaag(2013), directed by Rakeysh Omprakash Mehra and written by Prasoon Jodhi, introduces a villain, although fictitious, with the name Sher Singh Rana (a typical rajput name) who sneers and bullies the ‘newcomer’ Milkha Singh, a Sikh. However the fact that Milkha Singh self-identifies and is himself a Rathore (rajput) is obfuscated [1][2].
Hence, when the rajput is commendable, he is no longer a rajput but is identified by other identity traits of region, class, religion and profession. This is in-line with what was discussed under 8th point of our article on Prof Harbans Mukhia - not just the modern Rajput but even the pre-modern Rajput is denied Independent identity as a Rajput when deemed commendable.
However, Bollywood’s quintessential filmy Rajput lacks tribal clan-kinship affiliation (the basis of one’s Rajput identity), instead he is representative of a social-class of Kings presiding over subjects (unrelated to him), a Big Landlord surrounded by petty peasants, and in his modern persona - a congenitally arrogant, pampered brat and a characteristic bully. Thus the quintessential filmy rajput has very static timeless characteristics and in those avatars he is explicitly a Rajput. (See [3])
The only exception to this Bully, is an extremely idealistic, boring and timid hero who only brims up with platitudes sans pragmatism and is always tragically defeated by all. Be it Bhansali’s Rawal Ratansimha in Padmavat (2020) or JP Dutta’s Bhairav Singh in Border(1997) exemplify this exceptional category. A Caveat: The real life BSF soldier Bhairon Singh Rathore still lives an unacknowledged life at his village in Shergarh,Jodhpur. Perhaps, Bollywood’s “good Rajput” who is exceptional to QFR is always a dead Rajput. This bears similitude to the portrayal of patriotic Muslim vs Terrorist Muslim.
One may argue that Movies are just entertainment, except that it is also the most convenient tool to influence public opinion and perception. Even “academicians” cite them on “mainstream” media to push narratives (like below) on people, their issues and demands.
Prof Tanuja Kothiyal Tiwari, a History Professor at Ambedkar University-Delhi cites Anuraag Kashyap’s Gulaal(2009) to invoke “loss of privy purses” as a Rajput grievance, which is laughable; Rajput commoners, who actually constitute the community, were never even recipients of it; Despite an obvious conflation of Rajput ethnonym with the social-class of princes, the narrative is corroborated by a movie. The argument that movies are just meant for entertainment, is not really an honest remark.
II. Ghulami (1985): Where it all began
While “mainstream” media and “eminent” academicians took up normalizing falsehoods against the Rajputs in recent times, caricaturing rajputs as ‘homo sacre’ goes back to Bollywood of the 80s.
By1950s, the trio - Brahmin, Khatri and Jats under the aegis of Congress established themselves as the new rulers of North India.
On the other hand, Rajput Sovereigns had not just surrendered their autonomous States and their political Sovereignty but also leadership of Rajput commoners — becoming businessmen and even restricting their contacts with common-rajputs to occasional ceremonial appearances. Thus it meant - loss of land, loss of employment and lack of leadership for Rajput commoners across the country. Hence, they weren’t seen as threats, even if they were sometimes verbally attacked to highlight merits of the new leadership.
However 1980s, saw resurgence of Secular and Socialist Rajput politicians in Indian political space. This included VP Singh, a Gaharwar/Gahadavala from Prayagraj; Chandrashekhar,Solanki from Ballia, Arjun Singh, a Baghel from Sidhi, Bhim Singh Jamwal of JKNPP or Bhairon Singh Shekhawat from Rajasthan. Though none were “Rajput leaders”, this wasn’t appreciated by the incumbent rulers’. [4]
In Ghulami (1985), directed by JP Dutta, the “son-of-soil” Jat protagonist Ranjit (Dharmendra Deol) fights evil Rajputs — bullies and rapists (there is a rape scene). The evil Thakur’s daughter (Smita Patil) sympathizes with the brave Jats. All the Rajput characters of the movie (except the Jat protagonist’s lover) are evil.This movie was mostly made & funded by Jat Intellectuals, as proudly confessed by Dr Vijay Poonia on International Jat Parliament here.
After this, for the next 15 years, Anti-Thakur was a genre in itself, where the evil Zamindar was explicitly a Rajput, even though Zamindars in North India belonged to a wider ethnic spectrum especially Jat, Brahmin, Bhumihar, Pathan and Khatri groups. Thus in an industry dominated by Brahmins, Jats, Pathans and Khatris , the evil Zamindar was explicitly a Rajput, even if Zamindari itself was not explicitly Rajput.
Hence, privileged Khatri & Pathan boys like Amrish Puri, “Ranjeet” Gopal Bedi, Naseeruddin Shah and Amjad Khan played and immortalized the evil rapacious QFR , who by default was always vulgarly rich. All this was done during the period when a large number of working class Rajputs made their mark in armed forces and international sports, majority of rajputs were still middle-income or small-income farmers ; with a very tiny rajput middle-classof previous Royals and Thakurs who had joined the mainstream. Ironically, this was the time when even Rajput ex-royals (like Brig Bhawani Singh of Jaipur) were assimilated into the middle-class of this country. One must gauge from this, how the 'new Rulers’ hated the Kshatriya public, despite the latter lacking any sociopolitical & institutional power in the new Nation-State.
The best part to project and perpetuate this hatred was to stereotype the Rajputs as not just revultingly evil but also vulgarly rich Zamindar i.e distort the socioeconomic picture of the rajputs - notice that the QFR always lives in a haveli, even though 95% of us who were just clan-retainers never even owned one. For instance, JP Dutta’s Border (1997) shows the charcater of Bhairon Singh (played by Sunil Shetty) owning a rich palatial haveli; while the real Bhairon Singhji Jodha, a JCO & a middle-income farmer, even had a pucca house built not before 1980.
NOTE : - Hence the Rajputs were projected as distant, vulgarly rich, characteristically oppressive Zamindars who were always defeated by others.
On the other hand, the Khatri, Brahmin & Pathan elites in Bollywood did massive PR campaign for their own communities.
The media-trial & media-mobilization against Rajputs that occurred at the backdrop of the Hathras crime of 2020, used this popular culture image of Rajputs as the “evil rapacious Thakur” that Khatri & Pathan boys like Amrish Puri, Ranjeet Bedi , Naseeruddin Shah & Amjad Khan had cultivated. And this was done, despite the fact that even the accuceds’ came from poor farming backgrounds.
III. Rajputs as The Anti-Public (intention of QFR)
The Punjabi Khatris and Khans (Pathans) of Bollywood have always portrayed their own communities favourably and even glorified them.
However, at the same time, they have always dehumanised Rajputs in different ways.
The chief intention of QFR was to construct and portray the Rajput public across classes as enemies of the larger Indian audience.
There have been many movies like Mirch Masala (1987), Karan Arjun (1995) etc featuring the quintessential Rajput in the past 35 years. However, until 2000 it was restricted to the evil Rajput Zamindar, mostly played by Amrish Puri (a Khatri) and Naseeruddin Shah(himself a Pathan Zamindar).
By the mid 1990s, the Zamindar vanished from cinema yet the quintessential Rajput survived, in all traits of the former. While the commendable Rajput personalities are never portrayed as Rajputs, their Rajput identity tucked under various other identity-traits, yet the quintessential filmy rajput has a homogenous set of traits, whether a student, an Army soldier, a sportsperson or even a woman. The QRF is more homogenous and timeless than even the Bollywood’s portrayal of Muslims, which at least attracts widespread intellectual criticism.
1. Jo Jeeta Wohi Sikander (1992)
Though the movie doesn’t have any Rajput character, it has a Rajput College, whose students are imbued with all the qualities of a quintessential filmy rajput (QRF) - they are vulgarly rich, obnoxious, arrogant and typical class-bullies who bull the ordinary poor Sharma boy. Since this is a movie based upon rivalry between the two colleges, Rajput College and Model College, it subtly attacks the Rajput identity even if through the antagonistic characters and students who wear that name on their jersey.
2. Shaurya (2008)
Shaurya (2008), screenplay by Samar Khan, Aparna Malhotra and Jaydeep Sarkar, is an Indian adaptation of Tom Cruise’s A Few Good Men about the Human Rights violations by certain Indian Army personnel in Kashmir. The goodmen are Major Siddhant Kumar Chaudhary (Rahul Bose) and Major Akashdeep Kapoor (Javed Jaffrey) ; and the villains are both Rajputs : Brig Rudra Pratap Singh (Kay Kay Menon) and Major Rathore (Pankaj Tripathi).
The antagonist officers belong to the Rajputana Rifles – the makers could have avoided naming any regiment, but they did. The makers could have invoked any generic regiment like Rashtriya Rifles, but they didn’t.
Further, the villainious Brigadier repeatedly invokes “Veer Bhogya Vasundhara”, the motto of the Rajputana Rifles.
Quintessential Bollywood Rajput, isn’t just restricted to the Zamindar, the middle-class but even extends to Army Regiments.
3. Gulaal (2009)
This film by Anurag Kashyap, stereotypes the Rajput public as a bunch of deranged barbaric people, who clamour for “privy purses”, return to medieval barbarity and are willing to bloodletting and fraud in order to achieve their parochial chimera. For this end, he invents a “fictitious” Rajput seccessionist movement which ultimately fails due to adultery, treachery and internal rivalries.
When was the last time Rajputs even participated in a mass-identity-centric political movement prior to Gulaal? There was Sikh terrorism and the Khalistani sentiments are still expressed by “liberal” artists like HardKaur; the Marathi chauvinists (Shiv Sena) who run the Maharashtra Gov invoke Maratha Pride while Ahom Pride has been a fodder for ULFA terrorism. But when were these illustrious communities caricatured for their “real” political activism and very real seccessionisms.
Through the character of Dukky Banna (Kay Kay Menon), Kashyap wished to stereotype, stigmatize and destroy** any form of Rajput sociopolitical activism** in the modern democratic system by creating a public taboo against it. Hence, while sociopolitical activism by Jats, Marathas, Sikhs, Gorkhas, Muslims, Dalits and even Brahmins are acceptable for their genuine issues, the movie subtly sends a public message against the Rajput socio-political participation in the Indian Democracy.
4. Badshaho (2017)
Badshaho (2017) by Milan Luthra extends the cinematic caricaturing reserved for Rajput men even to Rajput women.
The movie, set against the backdrop of 1975 Indira Gandhi emergency, portrays a Royal hieress, Gitanjali (Ileana D’Druz) - projected as explicitly a Rajput who is even forcefully fed a few “Rajputana dialogoues” - trying to save her family wealth. However this female character is nothing less than a bitch - who betrays her subjects and goes about sleeping with different men who she misuses.
Except for the fact that Gayatridevi of Jaipur, on whose character Gitanjali is based, was not even a Rajput lady. She was a Koch Rajbongshi princess from Cooch-Behar married to a Rajput royalty. Also, 1975 Emergency was about Royals irrespective of clan-kinship castes rather than about the people of Rajput ethnonym. But who cares, only selling narratives matters.
5. Dhadak (2018)
Karan Johar’s adaptation of Marathi movie Sairat, this is a typical “subaltern caste” boy- “dominant caste” girl theme, where the latter is always a Rajput, which goes back to the 1980s. And since here the female lead (played by Jahni Kapoor) is a Rajput, it is natural to have assigned typical rajput clans to all the villains.
However six decades and the Khandani Khatris like Johar and Kapoor have always evaded filming Dalit-oppression by Khatris. Maybe they should work on Dr Payal Tadvi’s tragedy, but it wouldn’t be surprising if the Khatri names of the accuseds are dropped - just as their elders skipped showing the Khatri Zamindars in the 1990s.
An average Khatri, who is predominantly an urban upper-middle-class, is surely far more privileged than an average Rajput, who is still predominantly a rural farmer.
6. Article 15 (2019)
Article 15 was appreciated by a lot of urbaized “woke” “Brahmin-Savarnas” (lets’ not count Rajputs as part of this group) for having allegedly done justice to the discourse on Caste.
However we strongly disagree. Through Article 15 Anubhav Sinha only reinforced how stereotypes persist in “mainstream intelligentsia” not just distorting narratives but also facts. As per the article on TimesOfIndia and the DNA article, the movie is based on 2014 Badaun gangrape and murders.
Let us revisit the names of the accuseds: Chhatrapal Yadav and Sarvesh Yadav (police constables), Pappu Yadav, Awadhesh Yadav and Urvesh Yadav [5] - they all belonged to Ahir caste to which Samajwadi Party leadership belongs.
However who is the villain of Sinha’s Article 15? The Evergreen evil Thakur who is like Potatoes in Vegetables.
Clearly, this was Sinha’s attempt at shifting public outrage away from Ahirs to Rajputs.
7. Gold (2018)
This movie is not an anti-rajput film unlike the above five, however it summarizes the Bollywood’s overall treatment of rajput people, which also extends into media and academia these days.
As discussed Bhaag Milkha Bhaag(2013), introduces a fictitious quintessential rajput (Sher Singh Rana) as a villain but obscures the rajput identity of the real-life figure and the protaganist - Milkha Singh, a Rathore. There is slight repeatition to this here.
The Indian Hockey team of 1936 Olympics and 1948 Olympics was dominated by Ashrafs, Sikh Jatts and Hindu Rajputs. As a result, the movie which has its characters based on the real players also portrays the Rajput ones. This includes Samrat (Kunal Kapoor),based on Dhyanchand Bais; & Thakur Raghubir Pratap Singh (Amit Sadh), based on Kunwar Digvijay Singh -an Ahban Chavda by clan.
KD Singh Babu and Dhyanchand Bais
While Dhyanchand’s roots were obscured (not that it was essential to project them), the quintessential filmy rajput (QFR) was imposed onto KD Singh (played by Amt Sadh), who is portayed as a selfish bully trying to sabotage the talented Himmat Singh (based on Balbir Singh Sr), a Sikh. Anyone even faintly aware of hockey would agree that KD Babu, as he was fondly called, was far different from the arrogant, self-serving, proud and indisciplined character played by Amit Sadh. Read Babu’s kin on Gold: He was royally gifted, not selfish as shown".
Were the filmmakers trying too hard to fit KD Babu into the QFR ?
8. Ekta Kapoor’s “Rajput Wife” & “Code M”
Both movies by Ekta Kapoor (a Khatri) caricature Rajput as the criminal group and anti-human bullies, Code M portrays a Rajput Army officer, played by Rajat Kapoor (another Khatri) who murders a Dalit Army officer in the name of honor-killing.
However a false impression is created that the Khatris outside bollywood have risen above casteism, which is why we wouldn’t come across Bollywood’s Khatri barons making movies targeting their own community on these lines. Be asurred, that Ekta Kapoor wouldn’t make a scandalized webseries titled “Khatri Wife” or show a Punjabi Khatri Armyman comitting crime.
9. Paatal Lok
पाताल लोक लिखने और बनाने वाले सुदीप शर्मा और Producer अनुष्का शर्मा ,ब्राह्मण
इसमें दिखया गया है कि रोहन ठाकुर एक बड़े जॉर्नलिस्ट “big shot” की औलाद है। जाती privilege उसके फेवर में।
असलियत में क्या आपने आज तक कोई बड़ा राजपूत पत्रकार देखा।
On the contrary Drawing Room Journalism has always been an impervious bastion of Brahmins & Khatris who have always ensured Rajputs remain pariah to it.
So they will use their caste hegemony & privilege to discriminate against us , destroy us institutionally and still use the same institutions to caricature us as the “bad privileged people”. This is politics.
As per those who have long controlled Hindi Cinema Industry regardless of whether rajputs are students, armymen, women and sportspersons, the static and timeless QFR defines them all.
Hence, they would even obfuscate the clan-identity of a real Rajput personality, especially if he is a commendable figure; however a bad character (even if fictitious) would always be portrayed as explicitly Rajput.
Are not these unconcealed expressions of Identity politics against the rajputs?
IV. Problems with QFR
The biggest problem with quintessential filmy rajput (QFR) across decades has been that he remained an embodiment of fixed personality traits (characteristically negative) across decades, eras and professions.There have been protagonists played by Amir Khan in Sarfarosh(1999) or Talaash (2012), but these are mere exceptions.
Gopal Bedi “Ranjeet” (a Khatri), Shatrughan Sinha (Kayasth) and Amjad Khan Pathan), all the trio came from groups with their own Zamindars, yet the Zamindar they played was a Thakur
The other problem with QFR is that he is always an exclusive and exhaustive member of a particular social class of rich Zamindars. There is little doubt that Bollywood invisibilized Zamindars of other backgrounds ( “Congressi communities”), or at least showed them in more nuanced ways. This was despite the fact that majority of Rajputs were rural agriculturists of which a smaller fraction was even of landless Rajputs (kamdaars). Despite the fact that the Rajputs who made headlines from the time of Dhyanchand Bais at Berlin right upto Sanjay Kumar Dogra (PVC) were either sipahis or sportspersons of kisaan backgrounds. Why was it done?We have already discussed the political context behind this socio-economic portrayal of Rajputs in the beginning of this chapter.
Another problem specific to the QFR Zamindar was that he is always shown in the very same light as the Brahmin-Kayasth Zamindars of Bengal or the Dukes of Europe, ruling over subjects unrelated to him. A Rajput zamindar or taluqdar (of gangetic plains) was a khaap (sub-lineage) leader who controlled villages occupied by his khaap members, who worked as cultivators and as clan-retainers. Apart from these, there were Dalit auxiliaries, specially Pasis and Bhars also recruited in the brigands. This is not at all to argue that the medieval feudal system wasn’t exploitative, specially for the impoverished castes, however a Rajput fief was not how it was portrayed.
V. Yet Rajputs Aren’t Dehumanized Enough !!
The quintessential filmy rajput (QFR) with his timeless characteristics of arrogance, haughtiness and bullyness was the creation of 4 groups, namely - Brahmins, Khatris, Jats and Ashrafs in the mid-1980s. However, his perseverance over the decades has been morally sustained with the argument of ‘imaginary’ privileged of “glorification”, or in more blunt words "they are not villified enough, dehumanized enough" This is similar to the sophistry employed by Harbans Mukhia in the 7th part of the previous article.
For instance: It is very difficult to accept that Guptaji from JNU hasn’t seen the above movies dehumanizing the rajput people, yet she complains that the Industry peddles “Good Rajputs, Evil Khilji”. This translates to “not dehumanized enough”.
Would Guptajis, Sharmajis, Tiwarijis , Kauljis and Mukhiajis even lament about “Good Sikhs, Evil Aurangzeb” , “Good Jews, Evil Hitler” or “Good Baghdadis, Evil Ghenghis” ? Obviously, NOT, because you are comparing a people with a particular Warlord.
Besides, if they genuinely feel that the image of Khilji is misused to attack Indian Muslims; then why haven’t Guptajis, Sharmajis, Thaparjis, Kauljis and Mukhiajis in their 70 years of untrammeled hegemony at JNU, AMU , DU and Jamia, been able to divorce the Turkic Khalaj warlord from the Indian Muslim milieu? Do they realize that the vicinity of Delhi has settlements of Muslim Rajputs and Muslim Meos who often defied these same Turkic despots that they deify.
Maybe they do, but they prefer to be content to use the above excuse for bashing the Rajput public.
VI. A Comparison with Others
This Orwellian phrase best describes the special (negative) treatment meted to Rajput people.
1. The Brahmin names and Brahmin characters like Sharmaji, Mishraji, Chaturvedi, Joshsi, Pandey, Tiwari , Dubey, Pathak etc are the most common & universally employed names in Hindi cinema. They would be Village Sarpanch in TVF’s Panchayati Raj to a Police Topcop in Sinha’s Article 15, from a teacher to a soldier.In fact in most movies, most or even all characters would be Brahmins, unless a stereotype needs to be attached. The Brahmin Characters represent the Common Man, especially the Middle-class. What he speaks, thinks and does, defines India of the moment. Except the typical Janeudhari orthodox priest, he is above stereotypes.
2. Being the powerhouses of Bollywood, the Khatris supported by Pathans and Brahmins caricatured & stereotyped Rajputs in demeaning ways. However they made well usage of the Industry and Cinema to market themselves and create an immense positive unblemished image of their own community.
Khatris** are always “casteless” , well-educated urban upper and upper-middle-class with a good family background bereft of all fanaticism and bigotry, symptomatic of how Bollywood’s Khatri khandans view themselves.
The Kapoors, Malhotras, Puris, Bedis are visible more in Hindi Movies than in the real common-life.
3. The caste-atrocities or honor-killings do not identify the Jats, rather they are identified with their achievers - sportspersons, soldiers, civil servants etc, who are explicitly portrayed as Jats . Hence the criminals in NH10 wouldn’t define the Jat, but rather it is the Jat Heroines in Dangal (2016), the Jat wrestler in Sultan(2016) ,the brave Dhartiputr from Dharmendra Deol’s roles or Hathiram Chaudhury in Paatal Lok(2020), where the protaganists’ Jat-identities are highlighted. Unlike this, biopics of Milkha Singh, MS Dhoni or Rifleman Jaswant Singh Rawat would obscure their clan-kinship identity with regional or religious ones. Thus,while the Rajput identity of the “real-life” figure like Dhyanchand Bais will always be obscured, a “fictitious” Dukky Banna would be imposed on the Rajput public. On one hand, Badshaho would be made to target Rajput women, on the other hand no biopic on Alka Tomar would highlight her rajput-roots in Meerut.
4. The Sikhs are portrayed as noisy but vibrant and convivial people on one hand, and on the other they are the most exceptionally strong, extremely brave and highly charitable people. Even apart from this, they are the good people. This has a lot to do with Sikh sociopolitical activism, the PR-works of groups like Khalsa Foundations, the Punjabi Film Industry and the influence on Bollywood Industry. Unlike the Rajput who is quickly identified by the “mainstream” with the Karni Senas, the Sikh isn’t identified with the Khalistanis.
More importantly, this is a direct result of Middle-class Sikh’s active and pragmatic participation in the community ----- a thing completely absent among middle-class Rajputs of this country.
On the other hand, there is not just a dearth of Rajput presence in Bollywood, but also those rajput actors or filmmakers who attain fame are expected to denounce their identity unlike their peers. Even then there is no guarantee of acceptance, as we see in Sushant Singh Rajput’s case. And if you rebel, you are destroyed.
SOLUTION:
Elite Rajputs must invest & create an alternative Industry; Rajput filmmakers, writers and even actors must come together to show our stories in a more objective way sans stereotypes - because neither are rajputs going to be accepted nor is their cinematic portrayal changing from QFR anytime soon. Especially the Privileged section of Rajputs must take up social-sciences and filmmaking, because these are what even the middle-class Rajput cannot.
Today’s middle-class Rajput not just lacks resources unlike the above, but he has also given up the will to fight , under decades of Institutional Targeting. Until this changes, we cannot expect substabtial progress.
FOOTNOTES
-
https://www.sify.com/sports/exclusive-interview-milkha-singh---the-making-of-a-legend-imagegallery-others-nhmmDTdfeaasi.html ↩︎
-
https://www.dawn.com/in-depth/partition/story/milkha-singh/ ↩︎
-
Historically, the later Mughal-era (circa 18th century) saw rise of Jat Zamindars and Royals in Haryana-West UP-Braj; rise of Brahmin dynasties (like Ayodhya’s Mishra rajas) , Bhumihar royals & zamindars (Benaras) and Sikh rulers in Cis-Sutlej region. Also historically during this period, the Rajput commoner, who was not a ruler but a clan-retainer or state-soldier underwent continuous plebianization ↩︎
-
In fact, there has been No Genuine Rajput leadership after the independence, hence creating a lacunae only filled by uncouth organizations like the Karni Senas or Mahasabhas. ↩︎
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Badaun_gang_rape_allegations ↩︎