when we reconstruct history, there is always romanticism/idealism mixed with literary freedom and results in a wonderful drama. since there is no living person from that era, it is always a after the event piecing together by somebody and, why not make it worthwhile?
departing from this objective, as a historian - but interested in subjective experiences - how would it have been to have lived in an era that is long past? going keenly by the facts and the records and some amount of historical intuition, if one could construct a story from the perspective of somebody like vandhiyathevan or ponnan - the average kind, not idolized - how would it be? (somewhat in the lines of peter brook's rendition of mahabharata, but of course, it is still sourced in a poetic record which may be different from the actual events going by other types of arhaelogical evidences)
I think the lot of the people has improved overall through the course of history. If you look at a common man during those times, he would probably have been living under extreme fear of the whims and fancies of regional satraps (just as it still is in some villages). In England in those days, kings would spend the first night with a new bride before she could join her husband. Add to this wars, rape, pillage, loot, epidemics.. and the lot of the common man would never have been as idealized/romanticized as we make it to be these days. This is IMHO of course.
For example, "father" is Appa in Tamil and Abba in Sumerian, mother is Amma in Tamil and Ama in Sumerian. The Indus Valley civilization was highly developed in material, mental and spiritual levels. It covered an extensive area. Towards the end, around 1500 B.C. it extended up to Delhi in the East and Narmada in the south. Around 1400 cities have been unearthed though all of these may not have existed at the same time. The Ivians were artists, craftsmen and traders. They were hard working people. They had a highly organized system of agriculture with large granaries and storehouses. They lived in highly planned cities with broad roads and two-storied terraced buildings. They had a script (developed probably from the Elamite script). They made beautiful objects of art, necklaces and other ornaments. They had sailboats and bullock carts. They had wind mills. They played chess. They had stringed musical instruments. They had trade contacts with all the civilisations of their time namely Sumerians
xxxxxxxxxxx
Siva was probably an enlightened Ivian king who lived in the Sivalik hills near the Kailas-Manasasarovar area. He married the daughter of Daksha, a king of Central Asian migrants. Daksha does not invite Siva for a yaga he conducts because of Sivaâs Dravidian practices (may be like keeping a cobra around his neck like the Ivian kings wearing animal horns).... ""
The 'average' kind or more down to earth historical narrative would not be palatable to the masses. Considering that Kalki wrote in a magazine (and lived with the revenue!!) it would not be fair to him to criticise his high degree of romanticism/idealism.
We have talked before on the 'unromantic' basis of the PS history - you can find things like Sati (RRC's mother committed sati while nursing a child), AK treating Veerapandiyan like a criminal and glorifying his victory, and the many many battle narratives that today's minds cannot possibly digest.
To re-imagine PS on this type of crude down to earth basis often will take away the magic of the story that we are used to, and not sure what purpose that would achieve - as long as we remember in the corner of our minds that it was romanticised i think it is ok.
as with any fiction, while it provides much enjoyment, it also colors what we see and judge. can we think of Veerapandia Kattabomman or Karnan without the great Sivaji's depiction? though it is best to think well of the past and not dwell on the negatives of all that happened, sometimes, when we want to measure progress and see how fortunate we are to be living in the present times, we need to evaluate the past more critically, not just romantically. not that we need to do that on a daily basis, but definitely when the appreciation of the present is lacking (and one lives in some romanticized past).
My point is only that we ought not to treat RRC like he was some demi-god (which is what PS does to him). He was a human with many human failings. He had multiple wives (political expedience maybe). He might have concubines (after all all kings those days did have them). He might have plotted politically. He might have killed off certain threats to the throne. maybe some of these things need to be included in a fresh story about him. Yes, overall he was an amazing personality. But, he was also a human and a product of his times. Hence, all that is associated with that (good or bad) would also have touched him. We somehow don't see that in PS.
PS, (for all my love for it) seems very sanitized. There is not that "raw" feeling to it. I personally liked SS better because it had a lot more shades of grey involved. (Just as I enjoy Mahabharatha more than Ramayana). Then again, it is a personal preference!
" .. Just as I enjoy Mahabharatha more than Ramayana. Then again, it is a personal preference! "
Dear Arun Krishnan,
Nicely you have conveyed the substance..
Hope you find time to attend 15th August meet too. Sivaram Kannan will let us know later.
The demi-godification part is NOT KALKI MADE .. !!
It is Rajendra made !
He glorified RRC equating with Vishnu - born with Sangu Chakra rekha in hand - and continues ::
" After the demise of Adithakarikalan, Kali surrounded the world.
When RRC was ready accept the throne, the wives of Adhiseshan - who bear this EARTH danced with joy that their husband's burden will be relieved off !! "
Taking cue from this, Kalki CHARACTERISED Arumozhi !!
Even with Avatars - Krishna included - in the form of human - he almost behaved as Human with almost all the qualities attributable to RRC too !
Thanks SPS, I understand that the "demi-godification" was by Rajendra.. but that was just hyperbole.. just like our present day politicians do (Puratshi deivame etc). Maybe one of us should sit down and write a more down to earth story ;)
Actually Arun I agree with all that you said 100%, and we have talked this before too, RRC of kalki is a flat character with no nuances/gray areas/eveel than PS - no loose ends, less coincidences and rounded characters.
As dear SPS said some of that glorification may havae been historical propogated by his son and successors - also you must consider how people wrote novels in those days. Try reading Akilan or even social novels by Lakshmi for example. All characters will be white washed or two dimensional (good or bad). They were afraid to portray anything in between - Kalki should be appreciated after one reads his contemporaries, particulary historical writers.
Yes Mahabharat is way more interesting than Ramayana of course and it is a story 100 times bigger!! BTW again the 'whitewashing' of the Ramayana happened in later versions too particularly by dear Kambar and later Tulsidas and others. The original Ramayana is far from that, more on that later,
Hi Srini, of course, point taken - two key words - social awareness and understanding that novels and movies are basically for entertainment, they are not history and not to be taken seriously.
But from entertainment great things can evolve - like this forum and so much knowledge sharing evolved out of mutual love for kalki's work,that is all,
Fiction is fiction, it is meant to appeal more to the emotions of the reader than his intellect. If you write a novel where you slander every character in it, will it sell? Even villains, their bad qualities are told, but it is always qualified with glorifications like great intellect and so on. A character has to be impressed upon the reader. It's simply the rule zero of fiction. As for the real character, you gotta figure it out for yourselves, based on your experiences and common sense. It helps if there were some 'honest' historical records. History needs logic like any other science. As i have mentioned in my earlier mails, there is some paucity of records on our side.
Just think of RRC. He was a mighty king, with a plenty of power. In PS, he is shown to have some defects. (Yes, the good qualities crowd out the bad, but that's rule zero. A hero must invoke good thoughts). Do you think such a person can remain uncorrupted by power? And he lived in a age where there was no one to criticise him. Even with the current media exposure, our politicians are corrupt. Just imagine the temptations for RRC. No way he can be the guy you read in the novel.
As for his enemies, all i can say is that one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter and vice versa. In a novel, at least the romantic, historical ones, there simply has to be a battle between good and evil, light and dark, black and white, with a host of 'gray' characters thrown in to make life interesting.
Anyway, you should always start with a clear assumption when you start to learn. You start from "Gandhi is the father of India" or "Hitler was a bad dude" and go from there. You read up more about him, analyse his strengths and weaknesses and then finally rate him. There is simply no such thing as an absolute saint or an absolute sinner. It takes a mature judgment tempered by experience to classify people. Kids just can't do it. You will find that Gandhi was infinitely better than Hitler and that Hitler was heavily influenced by his environment.
Gandhi was a politician, for the record, an extremely smart one too. You can't mobilise a country without some smart Public Relations work, image building, embellishing and so on. A good politician must be able to sell his ideas. He must persuade, not coerce. He must strive for the greater good and Gandhi found better good than most politicians and he deserved every encomium heaped on him. If you still wanna search for the perfect politician, good luck to you.
The British intended to use western education for their own ends. But our people proved to be apt pupils who grew beyond. I'm absolutely sure that we would be burning widows, marrying children and segregating people if we didn't receive culture shock from the west. Gandhi would have been just another practical, devout, middle class, family man. Same with Raja Ram Mohan Roy and others. They changed because they took in the culture of the west, compared it with ours and decided that our society needed some cleaning up.
It helped that we had people like William Bentick. No way the reformers could have fought the society under our traditional laws. We had this super weapon called ostracism: Speak against the 'elders' of your caste and you will die lonely. It is a threat that will cow a Bismarck. You need to compare your state with others to know what your level is. I'm sure you've read about the frog who thought that the well he lived was the universe. Kinathukkul Thavalai. One thing common to all dictators was that they controlled information.
And while you think about it, can you give me a list of 'home made' social reformers? The guys who tried to eradicate the social evils in India? Not the Sankarachariar, Appar, Ramanujachariar types. The ones like Luther King, William Wilberforce, Abraham Lincoln and so on.
It is true that frank and open stories do not attract many. But there is indeed a special attraction when truth is told as it is. I know there are many of us who will not judge but wholeheartedly accept our forbears as they were, with warts and all. Fear, anger, stupidity and cruel behaviour are all part of being human and there is no wishing them away. In a related context can we take a temple and restore it back to its original state? No electricity or marbled floors. Lights round the clock of goat butter. A garden of only native flower trees and plants. Flowers for archana strictly of the native local variety. Maybe members can suggest more ideas? Just imagine going into such a temple and getting transported 1000 years back in time! Hari
"if it was today, aditya karikalan would have been hauled before a war crimes tribunal set up by the UN, side by side with milosevic." Karikalan was on the winning side. No way. I'm sure you are aware that UN never prosecutes a winner for war crimes?
Early we have posted this link recalling Dasavatharam - Kulothunga episode ...
Means World-wide Monarchy operated under similar frame-work.. atleast in the same Era...
Godification is one such view-point..
Just compare the names of GOD with the KING - AANDAVAN - IRAIVAN etc... they both are equated from early dictions themselves ...
There are several other view point too.
Democracy in Monarchy is something very rare .. found in TN .
Why in Uthiramerur DEMOCRACY inscriptions / details be given - by Great grandfather of RRC - Parantaka I - when Monarchy had absolute Privelege TO APPOINT HIS PERSONS - especially there was no puacity for HIS PERSONS when he had such a Big Harem ?
Walasingham, very well written - although i do not agree that comparison to the west is what changed some bad customs on our side. The west definitely influenced our social thikers a great deal and we do owe as you rightly say some ways of life to them. But social reform is based on compassion and people waking up to how they treat fellow human beings - not on how another culture treats its people necessarily. Same with Gandhi's leadership - it was based more on time honored principles - lead by example, address basic needs of people and teach them self respect, less on political acumen although being a very smart person himself he might have used his opponent's weakensses to his advantage.
Leading social reformers are Mahakavi Bharathi, EVR, Dayanand Saraswati, Ramakrishna/Vivekananda, Jyotibha Phule...
"Leading social reformers are Mahakavi Bharathi, EVR, Dayanand Saraswati, Ramakrishna/ Vivekananda, Jyotibha Phule..."
Have you noticed that they are all from the 20th century or early 19th? Indian History goes back to more than 2500 years. Caste system, maybe 1000 years or so, i don't know. This definitely points to some catalyst that wasn't there earlier.
"lead by example, address basic needs of people and teach them self respect, less on political acumen although being a very smart person himself he might have used his opponent's weakensses to his advantage."
As Gandhi says, the basic principle of satyagraha is to make the opponent feel guilty of his actions, in essence troubling his conscience. In Imperialistic terminology, conscience is a weakness as it comes in the way of ruthless efficiency. I would like to see Gandhi do sathyagraha against the Nazis.. He would be in a gas chamber before he could drop the salt he had scooped up.
He also led by example, and made sure the public knew it. I don't really know what falls under 'political acumen'. He did what he had to do and he did it in the best way. I'm extremely supportive of him, because compared to other politicians of his age, he had the best mix of strategy and common good.
> As Gandhi says, the basic principle of satyagraha is to make the opponent feel guilty of his actions, in essence troubling his conscience. In Imperialistic terminology, conscience is a weakness as it comes in the way of ruthless efficiency. I would like to see Gandhi do sathyagraha against the Nazis.. He would be in a gas chamber before he could drop the salt he had scooped up.
gandhi would not have chosen this method if nazis were against him certaily. he chose it becaus ehe had a winning chance against the british sense of fairplay. but gandhi had other facets too. do you know he recruited soldiers voluntairly during the boer war.?
Well the basic difference between Nazi situation one always has to remember is that Hitler got elected to power - indians did not elect the British. In other words Hitler was successful mainly due to his people cooperating with him and that was hardly the case in our country. Secondly the british were not out to engage in racial annihilation - in fact they thought we were smart slaves and were more than willing to let us help them be lord and mastes while we make a living as slaves.
There is no 'one' philosphy that helps in all situations and Gandhi's was no exception to that. One must remember though that the people who did protest against Nazism in small but strong non violent ways are remembered with very high regard to this day - and perhaps it is a combination of their moral strength combined with military diplomacy that ended Nazism.
"gandhi would not have chosen this method if nazis were against him certaily. he chose it becaus ehe had a winning chance against the british sense of fairplay.
but gandhi had other facets too. do you know he recruited soldiers voluntairly during the boer war.?"
Which is why i'm saying gandhi is a smart man, politician. He was a master at psychology and knew what made his opponents tick. He realized that the British had no real ideology, they were consummate materialists. They were imperialists but they had democracy too. And they had respect for skilled opponents, and no doubt, they knew Indians were a class apart from the other peoples they ruled.
Actually i don' think it takes a very smart person to understand British strategies and the western materialism was a pretty well known fact. What it took in the form of Gandhi was strength of will and the abilty to show life is possible with minimal material comforts.
Political strategy - it is sort of like Rajaji who facilitated EVR's marraige to the much younger Maniammai, knowing it would split the DK party. It is only after it happened that one realises how smart a move it was and from the outside, it is support to a long time friend (EVR). Now that is political acumen/diplomacy.
Military diplomacy? Isn't it an oxymoron? Do you mean "gunboat diplomacy"
Hey, wasn't Hitler German? He got himself elected in his own country! Then he enacted totalitarianism and crushed all other countries.See the movie Valkyrie. He was reviled by some of his own military officers. Erwin Rommel? Please tell me if Hitler got himself elected in any of the occupied countries.
I'm not aware of any non violent resistance against hitler that succeeded or even existed. Till the end, he was in control of his country.
Yes, the British were materialists and wanted to suck us dry. Gandhi used this fact against them. Against Nazis, I'm sure he would have come up with a different plan. He even said to the British, "Please let the Nazis conquer you. Then disobey them using passive methods. They will eventually grow tired of killing" Personally, i think he was joking. He wanted to spur them to fight by using reverse psychology. The WW2 weakened the British, and Gandhi certainly wanted them weakened.
Please understand, i like and support Gandhi very much. He had the best combination of morals, guile, polity and strategy. He can't be blamed for partition. His proteges viz., Nehru and Patel grew too powerful for him to do anything. He had his flaws too which many people point out. All i can say is, being a leader is difficult, it's impossible to satisfy everyone. He himself said "Sometimes, a leader must take decisions that make him unpopular among his acolytes."
Hi Walasingham, there are better movies than Valkyrie on the same subject any way that is a different line of discussion :))
I only meant the many many individuals who resisted nazim with moral strength and courage, not military strength - they died of course but succeeeded in inspiring so many others who came after. For example Anne Frank, Elie Weisel, Viktor Frankl..am not implying they were Gandhians but if you read Viktor Frankl's Man's search for Meaning or Elie Weisel the Night they have remarkable similarities to Gandhi's principle of non violent moral resistance - that is something that cannot be written off no matter whate situation one is faced with.
BTW just another example, the wife of Daniel Pearl the journalist kidnapped and beheaded brutally by Al Quaida is a practicing Buddhist/Gandhian type of activist too.
Yes Gandhi could not 'resist' Patel and Nehru and also he tried to deal with a slimy opportunist like Jinnah using principles. As Venkat said he might have been tired too but his philosophies just did not work then, and the fact that he is more of a principled saint than a philospher accounts for that. BTW there are lots of people who feel exactly the same about the Dalai Lama combating chinese invasion - that saints don't make good politicians although they are worthy of high respect.
All right, I'm not an expert on Nazi movies, i just like Tom Cruise:-). The people you mention and their works would never have seen the light of the day, if the Nazis had survived. It inspired future generations, but didn't do much while they lived. You just cannot compare the Nazis and the British..
I don't think Nazism could have ever been overturned by moral courage or non-violence. There just wasn't much internal opposition from the German majority. I think all the three persons you mentioned were Jewish people. No popular uprising.
Daniel Pearl was an American citizen, and American Government always takes care of its own. Her activism against terrorism is commendable, but a lot of others are doing it too.
Anyway, there are accusations against the Lama that he runs a feudal society. I'm no fan of the Chinese Government, but i'm wary of these 'spiritual leaders'.
That's right, Gandhi was tired. Gandhi could have worked a solution out based on his basic philosophy if he had been younger. Stopping partition isn't a big deal for a man who took on the"most determined people in the planet" and wore them down. Unfortunately, he was old and tired when the nation needed him the most. Jinnah? Gandhi would have walloped him at his best. He didn't get much help from Nehru and Patel on this. They missed Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, didn't use his potential.
Saints don't think about means to achieve ends. Gandhi was a master strategist who had a profound insight into the dynamics of a society. He was driven by his heart, but directed by his brain. He had practical common sense. Calling him a saint has actually made him a bit 'uncool'. He should have been a model for political science, instead of placing him in the esoteric realms of spirituality. Medha Patkar? Suu Kyi? They had 'Gandhian' values, but none of his practical genius.
And another thing. Why does the word politician imply a negative image? As somebody said a slimy creature fighting for survival?
Politics is the art of governing people. Gandhi was a politician and he should be the model politician. A politician, ideally, is a learned guy who finds out a way of common universal good and persuades people to see his vision and works out practical ways of implementation. Outdated definition, i know, but to me, that is what Gandhi was.
I was talking of moral courage of the survivors, if there were no surivivors there would be noone telling us about the horrors of Hitler, and it is no mean thing to survive the holocaust conditions, far from just physical survival.
Hitler did not have opposition from his people, but it is highly unlikely he could have continued for too long. His health was detiorating, trust levels within the Reich were non existent and there was continues back stabbing among his generals, and the beat up they suffered in Russia was big enough for the defeat - the Allies tied up the loose ends that is all.
Noone compared the British with Nazis, but the principles Gandhi fought on are valid with any enemy in any sitution - if not for the actual victory the moral or emotional victory at the very least. What would you think of Mandela? and Suu Kyi is a remarkable woman considering what she was facing by herself. Also don't write of the Lama as some saffron clad spiritual leader - I suggest atleast just hear him speak. He is a great scholar, person of great wisdom, humor, common sense and a practical Gandhian. His country is small, international support is pathetic and the chinese are very aggressive people.
The definition of poltiics as you say is a good one, but has other dimensions to it. Politics is also a science, it involves tact and manuevering people to achieve goals. It involves realistic acceptance of power struggles - one's own and others. To achieve any change in politics one has to have handle power with astuteness and command, not averse to power like Gandhi was. Gandhi's integriy and purity of heart would not ever allow him to handle power or engage in tactics as necessary, a fact that he probably knew when he never accepted any office. I think we agree on his greatness and undeniable contributions to our country and culture, so let us stop here.
Wrt satyagraha, it was an effective tool for the time, place and opposition. I doubt if it would have worked against the nazis or against say the Moghuls. They both would have chopped off his head. You have to give the British credit for their sense of fair play and for having a conscience!
It does not work in obvious ways that is all. Moral resistance has been used for years by several people against enemies with or without a sense of fairness. It worked as political ploy since the British had a sense of fairness, yes that is true. and Gandhi as a lone individual put it out there for the whole world to see and use, as a country or as a person. If you see the influence of the Dalai Lama and pacifist movements in the west - one is compelled to ask, yes not a political victory but a victory in so many other ways...only we can't acknowledge that is all.
I think that would have been a disaster for India. Gandhi, great man though he was, had anachronistic ideas on technology etc. Nehru, given all his faults, did sow the seeds for all the science and technology institutes that we are benefiting from right now. Yes, he messed up on Tibet and Kashmir but show me a ruler who never made any mistakes.
I disagree Malathy. Why do you think the world is more concerned about the Palestinians-Israeli conflict rather than the Tibet-China conflict (despite a few Hollywood types voicing support)? Moral awakening of a communist regime is never going to happen. Again, why do you think the Muslim countries make a big deal about Kashmir and Palestine rather than the Uighurs in China? More than 150 have been killed there recently. Mainly because India, Israel have a basic sense of fairplay and decency and the Chinese are simply ruthless. So again, certain strategies work against certain oppositions and not against all.
Arun, I agree that certain POLITICAL strategies work against certain types of governances. Gandhi's teachings on moral resistance are not just political, far from that, they talk about strength in indomitable human will. That is a tool that is usable anywhere from home to work to politics as necessary, that is all.
That I agree with! .. But what outlet that moral resistance has will be dictated by the opposition and strategy. Kind of like Krishna's message in the Gita.. lots of different paths to choose from .. and you choose the path that fits your nature as well as the situation/time/place.
Okay, i guess it is stalemate, this is not leading anywhere. Today's generation will be more impressed if they saw Gandhi as what he was, a smart strategist.
I wouldn't say that it is not leading anywhere. We are clarifying positions and coming to some sort of an understanding of the different positions right?:) Arun
Hi Arun, yes that is true. re: What you said on outlet/direction/strategy - lots of people who have used Gandhian type of strategies to stay alive through holocaust for example have written extensively about it to benefit the world and so many others (read Viktor Frankl's Man's search for Meaning). The strategy was not a military one, but it does not mean it did not have an out let or direction.
re what Walasingham said on Gandhi being appealing to younger masses - first of all it takes some experience and maturity in life to appreciate Gandhi and see him beyond the stereotype of a peace loving 'thatha'. Gandhi is not Hrithik Roshan to be a hero to the young kids. Yes he did strategize to some extent but he was not a 'master strategiest' and we cannot possibly portray him that way just to appeal. All I would say to any kid is to wait and see till you are older and he will make a whole lot better sense.