6 thoughts on “The Warrior Queen of Jhansi Is Not Manikarnika

  1. No, but I certainly want to see this one. Years ago, I had seen “The Bandit Queen” about Phoolan Devi, who went from child marriage to leading a gang of bandit raiders to becoming a member of the Indian parliament, and was assassinated by a woman whose husband she had killed back in her bandit days. Over time, more stories are coming out about women who have fought alongside men and even led men into battle. I’d like to see films about Col Botcharevka and the Company of Doom, during WWI and the Night Witches in WWII.

  2. Yeah, I wondered about ‘Saleem Khan’. I know something about Queen Victoria’s private life and her Indian attendants appeared long after the Indian Rebellion.
    However if she’d even heard of Lakshmibai Victoria probably would have sympathized with her situation as it’s pretty clear the British were in the wrong and Vic would have likely sided with her sister ruler. Victoria was also remarkably free of class and racial prejudice.

  3. Thank you for reviewing this! I’m Maharashtrian; I feel seen! There is a famous statue of the Rani of Jhansi fighting with her son strapped to her back. Probably apocryphal.

    @Roxana, given that all this happened during the 1857 Rebellion, and specifically in Jhansi was provoked by the British attempt at usurping the throne after the Maharaj died without a biological heir, and the whole thing ended with Victoria declaring herself Empress of India (having already stolen the Koh-i-noor and “adopted” Maharaj Duleep Singh of Punjab whom she didn’t allow to see his mother or return to India for the rest of his life) …. I’m thinking whatever personal sympathies Victoria may have had, she certainly didn’t let it stand in the way of political machinations.

    1. Vic might have personally sympathized with Lakshmibai but certainly not after the Indian Rebellion which was characterized by horrific crimes on both sides.
      Vic was very proud of her imperial title and while lacking the usual European color prejudice that doesn’t mean she was sensitive to Indian aspirations.

      1. I want to push back against the “both-sides-ism” here. One side was an occupying colonial force; the other was a hastily assembled band of soldiers and civilians. It’s closer to what American settlers did to Indigenous people (both actual events and the stories of “raids”) than any sort of equivalency.

        1. I’m no expert on the Indian Rebellion but I do recall a number of Indian princes were involved, as well as mutinying sepoys. The fact is a mass movement like the uprising is a carefully orchestrated operation and not spontaneous in any sense of the word. Which IMO by the way is much more creditable to the Rebels than blind hysteria. I personally feel the mass murder of British women and children was beyond the pale. As was the indiscriminate killing of Indians in retaliation.

Comments are closed.

Discover more from Frock Flicks

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue Reading