Introduction

'Baahubali', a film that has captivated audiences with its grandeur and complexity, often faces criticism for its historical inaccuracies and character flaws. Among the most frequently criticized is the character of Devasena, a key figure in the film's narrative. This article delves into the mistakes attributed to Devasena and critiques the historical inaccuracies introduced in the film, particularly focusing on the portrayal of Wootz steel.

Misplaced Trust in Bhallaladeva

Devasena's trust in Bhallaladeva is her most notable flaw. After Amarendra Baahubali's death, Devasena believes that Bhallaladeva would honor his word and protect her and her son, Mahendra Baahubali. However, this misplaced trust ultimately leads to her betrayal and suffering. The film highlights how naivety can lead to significant consequences, reflecting the complex ethical and moral choices individuals must make in tumultuous times.

Defiance against Kuntala Kingdom's Authority

Devasena's strong personality and fierce loyalty to her husband result in her defying Bhallaladeva's authority openly. While her defiance is commendable, it also puts her in danger, emphasizing the risks of challenging powerful figures. The film portrays a valuable lesson on the importance of strategic decision-making and the potential repercussions of rash actions.

Underestimating Bhallaladeva’s Ambition

Another significant mistake of Devasena is underestimating Bhallaladeva's ruthlessness and ambition. Her belief that he would not harm her or her family was a major miscalculation. This underestimation highlights the importance of understanding one's adversaries and the potential consequences of wrong assumptions in high-stakes situations.

Isolation from Allies

After Amarendra Baahubali's death, Devasena isolates herself and her son, Mahendra Baahubali. While this measure is protective, it limits her support network and resources. The film illustrates the discrepancy between short-term protective actions and long-term strategic planning, cautioning against the overreliance on isolation as a strategy.

Emotional Decisions

Devasena often makes decisions based on her emotions, particularly her grief and anger over Amarendra Baahubali's death. Her emotional decisions can cloud her judgment and put her and her son in danger. The film reinforces the lesson that strong emotions, while understandable, can interfere with rational decision-making.

Criticizing the Historical Inaccuracy: Aslam Khan and Wootz Steel

One gross historical inaccuracy in the film is the introduction of Aslam Khan, a merchant from Kabul, who comes to Kattappa to sell his sword, Sikander. This portrayal is highly misleading and reflects a lack of knowledge about Indian history. Historically, from the 3rd century BCE, Wootz steel, also known as Damascus steel, was the premier steel used in sword manufacturing in India. This steel was globally renowned for its quality and durability, and was highly sought after by Arab, Jewish, and European traders.

The introduction of Aslam Khan with a sword made from ore from Baghdad is not just a factual error but a significant blunder, highlighting a severe lack of research and understanding by the filmmakers. The film misrepresents the historical context by portraying a foreign merchant selling a modern steel sword in medieval India. This portrayal is anachronistic and undermines the credibility of the film's historical aspect.

Furthermore, the portrayal of Aslam Khan's sword being broken by Kattappa is a deliberate move to elevate the character of Kattappa. However, this decision altogether misinterprets the historical significance of Wootz steel. The intention behind the breaking of the sword was to highlight Kattappa's exceptional swordsmanship, but the historical context remains compromised.

Conclusion

While 'Baahubali' offers a compelling narrative and visual spectacle, it is essential for filmmakers to balance imagination with historical accuracy. Mistakes like those pointed out here, particularly the portrayals of Devasena and Wootz steel, contribute to a muddled historical narrative. These inaccuracies not only mislead audiences but also demonstrate a lack of respect for historical research, undermining the film's claim to being a historical epic.