Originally posted by: sashashyam
Folks,
It is nearly 1 pm now, and I have less than two hours to do this one. So it will be blessedly (for both you and me😉) short!
Actually, when I saw yesterday that Shailaja had done an excellent and very detailed take on the Friday episode in her The Patliputra Chronicles (No. 5): The day of the underdog, I rejoiced, thinking that I could take the day off. I have been run off my feet - my fingers to be precise - responding to all your comments - and a lovely lot they were! - on my last two posts, plus there is also a life of mine outside this forum, which too clamours at times for my attention. So a bit of a rest would have been welcome.
However, I saw that I had distinctly different views from hers on one of the two major segments of the episode, the one with the young Chandra and Nand, and that set me thinking about the concept of consistency in character development. Whence this impressionistic post. It is not a linear one, and it presumes that you have watched the episode, so there is no narrative element at all. Nor am I going to analyse the performances to any great extent.
OK, this settled, let me begin. I would be really interested in seeing how many of you agree with me, and to what extent, so do not forget to let me know!
The parameters of a character: Now a character in any work of fiction, written or visual, goes thru changes in the course of the narrative. These changes are usually incremental and gradual, though sometimes there are larger shifts due to some major shock. But the core character of the individual never changes. It may be that hidden elements are brought to the surface through external catalysts, but these elements cannot be created, they have to be there already, waiting to germinate.
What a solid truth!
Thus, to be credible, a character has to stay within the upper and the lower limits of the sine curve that defines it. (You can look up a sine curve on Google, it is the standard pattern of radio and other waves, their amplitude going up and down on either side of a central line) . It cannot suddenly go off the graph in a discordant fashion in some odd direction.
Within the above parameters, we shall take the two segments - the Chandra-Nand one and the Chanakya-Nand one - in sequence, not for discussion per se, but to see how far each fits in which the character development curve of Chandra and Chanakya respectively. Chandra goes first.
Chandra: Cool, calculated courage: This has been his core characteristic right from the beginning. Thus, I had written about his honeycomb expedition:
There is the intelligent derring do of the dangerous climb up a steep, unforgiving rock cliff to get at the beehive and the honey. It was very risky, and one could crib that if he was going to sacrifice a pagdi each time to create the protective fire, he would soon be in trouble with his harsh "father", but it was neither implausible nor impossible. There was a cool, calculating courage at the centre of it all that would later shape his military campaigns, the ability to measure the odds, take the risks, and win.
It is the same later, during the woodland scene in Episode 4, of which I had written:
It is clearly meant as a follow up to the honeycomb raid scene, to establish that this skinny, undernourished, abused kid has the guts and the skills to face any situation and come out on top. As in the previous case, he demonstrates anew that he has the ability to plan in advance, calculate the extent of what he can pull off, and then actually pull it off.
However, here we are shown more. His cool confidence and unshaken calm even when facing the senapati of Magadha and a whole contingent of soldiers. His clear-minded, unafraid enunciation of why he and his companions did what they did. His sense of self-respect that has him doing a remix of Amitabh Bachchan's shoeshine boy Vijay in Deewaar (made before most of you were born, but you might still have caught up with it on TV) and refusing the tossed reward. Which he does not with arrogance, but with quiet, polite self assurance.
No wonder that Amatya Rakshas - who bears an uncanny resemblance to a Red Indian chieftain from the old cowboy films - is so taken with this little boy, with the bearing of a king and the swabhimaan of an emperor.
So it was made clear, by the time Chandra sets out for Pataliputra, that his courage is beyond question and is almost limitless. But it NOT a reckless courage that wants to show off. Or would run risks without due consideration of the goal to be achieved. It is always courage with a specific purpose, and he knows what the odds are for his achieving that purpose. This is seen as much in the honeycomb expedition as when he takes on a wild boar and saves Chanakya's life.
Couldn't be more agree more with you, and the best of it will come after Chanakya gives his own mark 👏
Now let us see how Chandra's behaviour during the first segment fits in with this hitherto completely consistent arc of his character.
Before that encounter with Nand, he effectively bullies the guards into letting him in, using the name of the Amatya Rakshas like a talisman, and he pulls it off without any hassle. That was entirely feasible, for had Rakshas been appealed to, Chandra would still have been proved right.
When he challenges the guard who is whipping Mura, and grabs hold of his whip, it is an instinctive reaction triggered by memories of the abuse suffered by his foster mother. And at the worst, he would have got a thrashing from the guards later, but nothing worse. So the gesture does not come at an exhorbitant cost.
Uncharacteristic rashness: What he does once he gets into the palace for the birthday celebrations is, however, very different. It is also most uncharacteristically rash and potentially very dangerous for Chandra himself, and thus for the achievement of the goal that brought him to Pataliputra, to make enough money to buy his mother's freedom from her abusive husband.
Not to speak - and we alone know this - of the fate of Bharatvarsha, which would then have languished under the brutal heel of Nand at one end and the Macedonians at the other.
Shailaja, who has used the evocative subtitle: The Day of the Underdog, for her post, sees Chandra, as the classic underdog who braves a tyrant in his own den and carries the day. I see all this, and Chandra himself, rather differently.
Keeping it short, young Chandra is not in the least like an underdog here, for he confronts the king as an equal, with a kind of brash self assurance that seems to be rooted more in an uncharacteristic recklessness than in the kind of calculated risk taking and measured courage that were his principal characteristics till now.
He might have been raised in a village, but Chandra has at least seen for himself by then how a King can treat his subjects, or have them treated, and that alone should have given him pause before brazening it out in front of Padmanand and abusing him to his face.
Besides, what is it that he seeks to achieve thru this confrontation? For Chandra has hitherto never taken a risk without a specific and achievable purpose. There is no such purpose discernible here.
On any other day, Nand would have either imprisoned Chandra or had him executed on the spot. Whom would that have helped? Not the praja of Magadha, whose sufferings at the hands of Nand's soldiers are seen by Shailaja as the trigger for Chandra's audacity when he faces Nand.
Nor would it have advanced Chandra an inch toward his real goal in coming to Pataliputra, which is, as noted above, to eventually rescue his mother from her brute of a husband.
If he was stirred to this impulsive action by the burgeoning rage in his heart after seeing the atrocities inflicted by the soldiers on the common people, that would mean that his heart governs his head, and that too is not consistent with anything that we have been shown of him thus far. Even vis a vis the one person in the world he truly loves , his foster mother, Chandra's head, his mind, his intelligence, are never clouded by her foolish arguments.
So one is forced to conclude that all of what Chandra does in the palace courtyard - Magadh ke shahsak to uski hi rajdhani mein, uske hi mahal mein, paraast kar dena - as the admiring Chanakya thinks to himself, was just showing off to no purpose at all, and in fact running a dangerous and entirely unnecessary risk into the bargain. In those days, no kid could have spoken to a king in that fashion and been allowed to leave unscathed.
The whole bravura passage, which would have produced seetis aur taalis in a single screen theatre😉😉, seemed to me to be both unrealistic in terms of the scripting, and lacking in consistency as regards young Chandragupta's character as shown to us earlier.
We walk in the same path, aunty😉
Shailaja, who has clearly fallen in love with this bachcha😉, wants me to forgive him for his foolishness. And so I shall, but only after giving him a sound spanking, for all that he is too old for one!😆
That too in part because he was so delightful in the little snippet after he has disposed of the wild boar ((in a horribly shot sequence with lousy VFX😡) ! When he cheekily counters Chanakya's affectionate protests with neat sallies of his own Aap se adhik to nahin!... Nahin to aap mar jaate! , and finally Bas Raja nahin hoon!, the bright-eyed mischief in his face and his infectious smile were enchanting.
Chanakya: Pressing dangers: There is no such inconsistency in the arc of Chanakya's character.
The dangers that threaten his beloved Bharatbhoomi are immediate, and he cannot afford to wait till Padmanand agrees to meet him, something that might never come to pass. So he barges in uninvited, and tries his best, like an overeager salesman, to make a feverish pitch for Padmanand's attention and assent to his plan of campaign.
The way in which he looks up at Padmanand as the latter rises is admirably evocative: for the first time, it dawns on Chanakya that the response is going to be anything but positive. Or, as Shailaja puts it comically: He stops in his tracks. The vibes he gets is the kind any artiste or speaker would get before an audience intending to throw rotten eggs or rotten tomatoes.😆
Chanakya must have realized, after the briefing from his old Takshashila classmate Shaktar (Gollum😉) that the going with Padmanand might be tough. But he would never have expected such gross discourtesy from a King towards a senior Acharya from the prestigious Takshashila University. So one cannot say that his behaviour in making the attempt is in any way uncharacteristic, especially given the vital importance of what was at stake for the whole of the subcontinent, his beloved Bharatbhoomi.
Once Padmanand has shown exactly what he thinks of Chanakya and of his plans, has poured the dakshina in a shower of gold coins over the head of the vidushak, as he calls him, and has sent him reeling, Chanakya's rage breaches its boundaries and pours forth like molten lava. This too is consistent with a character like Chanakya's, for his aatmasammaan has been violated, and no considerations can now hold back the fury in his words or the ferocity of his Draupadi-like shapath.
Exactly! Once his dignity and morale were tarnished, his rage was completely justified
Minor failing: I was somewhat less than impressed by the wide-eyed fear that shows in Chanakya's eyes and in his body language as he faces imminent death from the wild boar. It was not the kind of the behaviour that one would expect from a savant of his eminence when faced with a crunch situation. But it passes soon enough, and I am content to simply note it and let it pass!
Pot pourri:
Sri Nandini Tulabhaaram: The way in which the tulabhaar dipped as soon as Chandra puts in his Rajnandini gold coin reminded me irresistibly of the Sri Krishna Tulabhaaram. This is where Rukmini, the quiet, loving wife of Lord Krishna, balances his whole weight with just a tulsi leaf from her pooja, whereas all the gold and jewels of his 16008 other queens, especially of the haughty Satyabhama, are unable to tilt the balance. That was meant to highlight the strength and purity of Rukmini's love for Lord Krishna, before which the love of all his other queens put together was as nothing.
But what on earth was this Sri Nandini tulabharam meant to signify? It is really a puzzle.
Mob mania: I am sure the readiness of the Pataliputra public, who must be knowing full well what a tyrant Padmanand is, to nonetheless start beating Mura at the instigation of his soldiers must have shocked and disgusted many of you. But it is not quite as it looks.
The guards announce pointedly that Mura, the wife of Suryagupta who was the assassin of the previous, and undoubtedly very popular King Shishunaag, was also a rajdrohi and should be beaten up. The crowd reacts and starts hitting Mura because they hold her husband responsible for the murder of their much loved king, and thus for their having been left to the tender mercies of this tyrant Padmanand.
Well, this might not quite suffice, but it is the best I can do for the Pataliputra janata!😉
OK, folks, this is it. I hope at least some of you read this as you wait for Rajat - who will most likely arrive , after a leap of about 5 years, as Chanakya's shishya in Takshashila only near the very end of tonight's episode - and that you will have something by way of your own views to share with me.
Once Rajat has arrived, I could probably disappear till the end of the week, and I doubt of any of you would even notice that I was missing!😆
And yes, please do not forget to hit the Like button if you think that is warranted.
Shyamala/Aunty/Akka/Di
Udne Ki Aasha
