Swara Bhasker Revisits Her Padmaavat Letter to Sanjay Leela Bhansali, Says Controversy Hurt Her Career

Actor Swara Bhasker has once again spoken about the controversy surrounding her open letter to filmmaker Sanjay Leela Bhansali over the portrayal of jauhar in Padmaavat. Nearly a decade after the debate first erupted, Bhasker revisited the issue during a public conversation in New Delhi, explaining why the film’s climax troubled her and how the episode affected her professional life.

Bhasker was speaking at the “Women | Life | Freedom” event held at the India International Centre on August 31. The discussion covered feminism, cinema, politics, protest and the personal consequences of speaking publicly on contentious subjects.

Why the Padmaavat scene disturbed her

The actor recalled her reaction to the final portion of Padmaavat, particularly the depiction of women choosing jauhar. Her concern was not simply about the historical practice itself but about the message she believed the cinematic depiction could communicate to survivors of sexual violence.

Bhasker said she began wondering what such a portrayal might mean to a woman who had survived rape. In her view, presenting death as the ultimate way to preserve honour could potentially create the impression that surviving sexual violence leaves a woman with a diminished life.

She questioned whether cinema should reinforce the idea that a woman’s honour or courage is connected to whether she chooses death after sexual assault.

For Bhasker, this was especially troubling in the context of contemporary India, where sexual violence remains a serious social issue.

The actor said she did not immediately write to Bhansali after watching the film. Instead, she spent several days thinking about her reaction before deciding to put her concerns into an open letter.

The letter that became a major controversy

Bhasker had publicly supported Padmaavat when the film faced protests and opposition from the Karni Sena. However, after watching the film, she ultimately chose to criticize one of its central creative choices.

The open letter addressed to Bhansali attracted considerable attention. One particular line from the letter became especially prominent in media coverage, overshadowing the broader argument she believed she was making about women, sexuality and identity.

Bhasker explained that she had intended to make a wider point: women should not be reduced to their bodies or sexual identity. However, the phrase describing her feeling of being reduced to a sexual body part became the headline associated with the controversy.

According to the actor, many people reacted to the headline without engaging with the larger argument contained in the letter.

Bhasker says the episode affected her career

The actor also reflected on what followed professionally. She said the response to her letter contributed to damaging her career and recalled receiving angry calls from male filmmakers.

Some, she said, questioned why she was involving herself in political or social issues when she was an actor.

Bhasker acknowledged that her willingness to express political opinions has repeatedly carried professional consequences. Nevertheless, she said she continues to speak because she believes remaining silent is difficult when she has the privilege and security to express herself.

Her understanding of feminism

During the Delhi discussion, Bhasker also explained how her views on feminism developed.

She traced much of her understanding of the subject to her time at Miranda House at the University of Delhi, where she studied in an environment she described as openly feminist.

For her, feminism is not limited to individual empowerment. She views it as an examination of structures that influence women’s lives through family, society, law, culture and politics.

Bhasker argued that confronting sexism can be particularly complicated because the people involved are often those closest to women.

Her own understanding of gender inequality, she said, became more pronounced after entering the film industry. Although she grew up in a liberal household with an educated working mother, her experiences in cinema made her more aware of differences in how men and women are treated.

Privilege and the willingness to speak

Bhasker was also careful not to describe herself as exceptionally courageous. Instead, she attributed much of her confidence to the privilege and protection she experienced while growing up.

She said that coming from an upper-middle-class Delhi family gave her a sense of security that many others do not have. She also acknowledged the advantages associated with her caste and religious background.

Because she has not experienced being routinely questioned or shamed because of her identity, she said she feels she has fewer reasons to remain silent.

That perspective, she suggested, creates a responsibility to speak when others may not have the same freedom or protection.

Beyond Padmaavat

The conversation also touched on Bhasker’s broader career and activism. She recalled participating in protests connected with the Citizenship Amendment Act and National Register of Citizens, the Shaheen Bagh movement and the farmers’ protests.

She spoke about the importance of ordinary people coming together during such movements and said those experiences remained personally meaningful to her.

Bhasker also discussed her acting work, including Nil Battey Sannata, for which she prepared by speaking with domestic workers and learning about their lives. She recalled the preparation for Anarkali of Aarah, including adopting habits associated with her character.

Despite the professional difficulties she described, Bhasker said she continues to have a deep affection for acting.

Her comments on Padmaavat therefore form part of a larger story about the choices she has made as both an actor and a public figure. For Bhasker, expressing an opinion can carry a cost, but remaining silent can also come with its own consequences.

The renewed discussion around her letter demonstrates how debates over cinema can extend far beyond a film itself, particularly when questions of history, gender, honour and contemporary social values intersect.