Please use a size 12 font and do not use any fonts other than Times New Roman or Garamond. You dont need to answer these questions in order or even one by one; you may very well put them into one comprehensive answer. However, you do need to answer all of them. Support all your answers with examples from the film and the Ramayana when appropriate.
Questions to answer:
The later addition to the Ramayana, the Uttara Kanda, proposes the idea than morality on a personal level should be sacrificed in favor of morality on a social one. The epic Padmaavat (which your film is based on) on the other hand shows a king who is willing to let his kingdom come to ruin, rather than sacrifice some personal integrity and kill Alauddin when he has the chance because he is alone, helpless or unarmed.
1. While it can be argued that Maharawal Ratan Singh acts like an ideal human throughout the course of the film, does he act like an ideal ruler? And even then, can you call someone an ideal man when he willingly brings about the downfall of his entire kingdom just because he stubbornly holds on to a set of moral principles? Is it ethical to always be ethical? It can be argued that any time one abandons their principles they lose a bit of themselves, is this type of sacrifice worth doing for the greater good?
2. Being moral on a personal level and being so on a social one are not necessarily the same thing. When these two come into conflict, which should you choose?
3. Honoring your principles and treating others with unwavering morality is an admirable feat, but when faced with an adversary who does not share your principles and resorts to deceit, immorality and treachery, should he be afforded this type of just treatment?