Chandra Nandini 8: The game advances

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

khalessi75

@khalessi75

Explorer

Posted: 8 years ago

#71

Hola, Shyamala aunty.

This episode was surprisingly good. So my takes will be on dark green as this is my post before the surgery.

Originally posted by: sashashyam
Folks,
I was strongly tempted to name this post, what else, Khoon bhari maang!😉 But that would have been both too predictable and too kitschy, so I desisted.
The present title is also a good fit, for right from the time he enters the Pataliputra palace environs, Chandragupta is focussing, not on the swayamvar, but on imprinting every detail of the area and the layout of the palace, as also of the sole access route across the moat, in his mental hard drive, to be reproduced later for the benefit of his guru.
One also realises exactly why that elaborate reference to the santaram vidya was made earlier, complete with a demo by young Chandra. For it is he who, when the time comes, is going to cross this palace moat by literally walking on water!
I really like that flashback because it gives us a premonition of the future events that will be shown at the upcoming episodes asyou said, when the time comes!👏
Extended encounter: Between our lead pair, of course. The opening part, with Nandini - stroking her fake moustache every ten seconds to make sure it is not coming off, and once babbling aayee hoon instead of aaya hoon 😆- spinning a yarn about a fat, limping princess with a maleficent kundali, is noteworthy only for Chandragupta's partly puzzled, partly suspicious reactions as she proceeds. His subsequent ruminations about who these odd folk might be - his shatru or his shatruon ke shatru - show that he is indeed a Chanakya's child, and suspects everything and everyone till they are proved innocent.
The duel that follows is at times gripping, at times funny - as during their desperate struggle for Nandini's beard and moustache😆 - at times OTT. Prime examples of this last were when Nandini jumps clear over Chandra in a bizarre manner, like a jack rabbit, or a pole vaulter without the pole😆, and when Chandra walks up a vertical wall to do an entirely unnecessary somersault before landing on his feet, which is where he was in the first place!😉
I am not going to compare the swordsmanship of the two, noting only that Chandragupta is merely toying with his opponent, with the sole intention of removing the facial hair and revealing the person's true appearance. Which he manages to do, and also to disarm Nandini and remove her turban, revealing that she is a woman and thus cannot, under the code of the warrior, be attacked. So he turns to leave the room.
The entire swordfight sequence was in general ok. It was clearly evident that Chandra was miles ahead over her and his suspicious reactions thanks to his training were a treat to watch
Khoon bhari maang: It is solely Nandini's ego that prevents her from following Chandragupta's example. Or perhaps the script's fixation with the khoon bhari maang, for which it is obviously necessary that
- Nandini should confront him once again,
-that he should stick to his principles and not attack her, and so
- he should be forced to arrest her sword by holding it with his bare hand.
Voila, we have the blood from his cut palm dripping, with admirable precision, right down to the parting in her hair. While the familiar sloka, with the almost impossible degree of perfection it demands of the ideal wife, is intoned in the background. (Of course it must have been composed by a true blue MCP of those times, and there is no corresponding definition of the ideal husband; it presumably suffices that he be of the male gender.😡)
Karyeshu dasi, karaneshu mantri (Like a daasi in serving her husband, like a minister in giving him advice)
Bhojeshu mata, shayaneshu Rambha (Like a mother while feeding him, like the apsara Rambha in the bedroom)
Roopeshu Lakshmi, kshamayeshu Dharitri (Like Lakshmi in beauty, as forgiving as the Mother Earth)
Shata dharmayukta, kuladharma patni. (Equipped with a hundred virtues, such is the ideal wife)
Having thrust this heavy handed symbolism down our collective throats - and startled even the immovable Chandragupta by what looked at first sight like an impromptu and longdrawn out hug - Nandini scoots, after having fibbed to Chandragupta that she is the princess' daasi, and adding forcefully that her mistress does not want the marriage at all.
He looks after her with a bemused face. He is no fool , and he clearly does not believe this daasi nonsense; whoever has heard of a daasi being such an accomplished swordswoman?
This scene was completely well made. Their eyelock was fantastic, both were surprised and puzzled at each other, nothing more. And to get things clear, there is no romantic stares between them which made me very happy. At this point Chandra has already realized Nandni's true identity

As if this was not enough, , there is the other piece of heavy symbolism, when Chandragupta looks down at the cut across his palm, and responds to Nandini's query about the blood with: Abhi abhi smaran rahega ki Magadh mein ek kanya ne meri haathon ki rekha ko badal diya.
Lastly, to top things off, there is the Star Trekkie Amatya Rakshas babbling about the conjunction of the full moon (Chandra, get it?) and the Rohini nakshatra, making it especially auspicious for Nandini, as she was born at an identical conjunction. Now Rohini was the Mood god's favourite wife, so the inference to be drawn is blindingly obvious.
He goes on to repeat the prem ya ghrina spiel , a very odd thing to say under the circumstances, but his main point is that a couple who get married at this conjunction of the moon and Rohini are leg shackled for life - in all absorbing love for or murderous hatred of each other. So what is new there for us, folks? 😉
Well said about the symbolisms!
Misleading spiel: To revert, this belief of mine, that Chandragupta was on to Nandini's deception very soon, was reinforced during their subsequent encounter, with her in a proper daasi outfit, when Chandragupta is on his detailed reconnaissance tour of the palace.
He treats the supposed maid of the princess to a curious spiel about how his real goal is to seize the rajya Magadha, by means fair or foul, by consent or by theft.
Vivaah karne kaun aaya hai? Hum use paane aaye hain jiski sundarta man moh leti hai..Jise dekhte hi use jeevan ka lakshya bana diya jaata hai..Jiske pas aakar rikht haathon lautna aasmabhav hai..Wo apni ichchanusaar aaye to theek, anyataa chura loonga main use..
Then, responding to the fake daasi's protest, Rajkumari ke baare mein baat nahin kar raha hoon main. Baat kar raha hoon rajya Magadh ka!
It was an extremely strange, indeed dangerous thing to say even to a maid, especially when he tops off this peroration and responds to Nandini's pitying reference to his not knowing Maha Padmanand, with Jaanta hoon, tabhi to aaya hoon! , while his lips curl in barely veiled contempt.
It sounded and looked exactly like a magician forcing a card on you while producing the illusion that it is your own free selection. But why this spiel at all?
Why, because by now, Chandragupta knows perfectly well that the pseudo maid is Nandini herself. As this is almost obvious, he deserves no special brownie points for that.
So now he wants, for some as yet obscure Chanakyan purpose of his own, to make her suspect him, either his bonafides or his intentions or both. Which is why he takes the turn towards Maha Padmanand's rooms, the opposite direction to the one Nandini had indicated.
What he said here has to be part of a deliberate plan. Otherwise it makes no sense at all, it would be simply inviting trouble for nothing and torpedoing his own plan. For after having said such explosive things, it would hardly be enough to change the topic and refer to the King's invitation.
At the beginning I was quite skeptical about this, but as the scene progresses it blew me away completely how he has started to make all this scenario of this speech for his own benefit. What a cunning man he has become!!⭐️👏
The precap: As Padmanand holds forth about how his daughter's cleverness had trapped him, Chandragupta looks across at the triumphant Nandini with narrowed, almost slit-like eyes in a face as expressionless as that of a statue. This is clearly the climax of his devious stratagem.
It will be delightful to see him turn the tables on Nandini tonight, trump her effortlessly, and also ingratiate himself with Padmanand, thus getting exactly where he wants to be, right at the power centre of the Nanda empire.
We shall see tonight what his stratagem is.

I hope my theory is correct The alternative would be that he is jailed and meets Mura there and learns all his past history. Then he will escape from the prison, after learning about the layout of that part as well. That is the only other twist possible. But I prefer my first version!
So the game advances.
The main players: Rajat's Chandragupta: He brings nuances to his eyes, his face, his demeanour, that invest his Chandragupta with more shades than perhaps the director ever dreamed of.
It is not only in the opening scene, which I had discussed in my last post. His shifting expressions before and during the duel are fascinating. Puzzlement, suspicion, hostility, curiosity, a grim determination to get at the real identity of the shubhchintak, the shock as her feminine identity is revealed, the total absence of any reaction as she seems to be hugging him - all these shades of emotion chase each other across a face that, in his Jalal, was always mobile, but is now always still and unmoving.
However, as I had noted the last time, he also manages to make it clear to the viewer that this stillness is illusory and that his mind is working beneath the surface at top speed.
I repeat myself, but I do love that parallel. His is the stillness at the centre of a spinning top. He moves, but nothing moves inside him.
Plus, he is a cinematographer's dream. Take the classic profile and the now lean, drawn face, free of the slightest hint of chubbiness. Take the planes under skin that is stretched tight, showing the fine underlying bone structure. Add an abundance of wavy, unruly curls framing that face, and every shot of his Chandragupta looks like a painting: a Van Dyke, a Franz Hals, or a sculpted head from a museum in Athens or Florence.
For those still hung up on his Jalal, to my mind, the shot of Jalal that was as good, though in a different way, was in the tent on their way back from Amer to Agra, as he was dreamily regarding the sleeping Jodha Begum. Then too he looked exactly like a Van Dyke, and I had said so (Of course this was just before she woke out, ranted ast him and then bolted out into the cold!)
I am too old to go gaga over a handsome young man, but pure beauty entrances me still, and in Chandra Nandini, Rajat's Chandragupta is almost impossibly goodlooking in frame after frame after frame.
What a neat and amazing perfomance. Everything was there at the right place and the right time, and if he continues like this, it will become his best role so far. Huge respects👏⭐️
The main players:Shweta's Nandini: She is at her best in the white dress just after her turban has come off and her hair is loose, and she is staring across at Chandragupta in sheer shock. She looks lovely then, proving that all this chakmak only dilutes her looks.Poor girl, she is stuck with it!
She looks second best in the daasi get up, with absolutely no ornaments, her wide eyes and the round face structure being shown to best advantage. When she is being dressed up for the swayamvar, she looks standard issue, like any other overdressed and over bedecked princess.
I am not among those who love her chulbulapan, the girlish giggling, the teasing, the running around with her sakhis. As I noted elsewhere, I do not like giggling girls, whether in the 1970s films or now; they invariably look silly to me.
But there was one point where Nandini, though doing some of the same things that irritate me, came off very well. This was when the number of princely candidates stalls for a while at 14, and she is convinced that she has scared off Paravtak Malayaketu. As she chortles in pure glee and repeats delightedly that No.15 has been scared off, she is exactly like a naughty little girl so pleased that her trick has paid off. Delightful!👏
Of course this joy is fleeting, for soon our hero saunters in on a very graceful white mount, making sure he is not one of the crowd, but a solo, standout entrant. Plus, he also has much more time to survey and assess the palace entrance and its security.
To revert, this Nandini will begin to shine once she is allowed to get out of this atipriya putri straightjacket, and can cut loose. There is promise, even now, of this. In her scenes with Chandragupta, she is neither coy nor arrogant, but simply matter of fact, which is a relief, and forceful when necessary. She does not rave and rant or start speechifying (as yet). And when she is playing at being Nancy Drew (the girl detective in a famous American series of novels for the preteen and early teens), her eagerness and her puzzlement are alike entertaining.
A very huge relief indeed!
OK, folks, this is it for today. I am sorry that I have not been able to respond to any but a very few of the comments on my last post, though I must state, with pardonable pride, that I have covered all of those on the Episode 6 thread! I will try and cover those on my last thread tonight; please bear with me till then. I am very headachy and it was all that I could manage to get this post done, though an hour later than usual.
See you again soon. For now, please do not forget to hit the Like button if you think that is warranted.

Shyamala/Aunty/Akka/Di

Quote

fanjarajat

@fanjarajat

Beginner

Posted: 8 years ago

#72

I will be responding to your post to me, but one request. Please let go of Jodha Akbar. 😆It is long past its expiry date😉, and Chandragupta is not Jalal. Nor, thank the Lord, is this Nandini, with all her failings, like the mostly insufferable Jodha Begum.

True I should 😆

And she is an acclaimed actress, so she should be able to deliver in the tougher scenes. I hope ..so far not impressed. I was looking for some grace while dealing with ur sister in law considering the royal upbringing that I found lacking.

And where was there a reflection in the water scene? I was reminded of the reflection of Jalal at Gan gaur festival cementing her fate to him when i saw the Khoon Bhari Maang..(You are way too sarcastic and funny). I am never impressed with giggly types.

As for the topic here, the declining status of women, that had not started in this era, the 4th century BC. It was really not till the Gupta period some 6/7 centuries later, and then of course the Muslim invasions made matters much worse for North Indian women.

In the pre-Vedic India it is clear that women enjoyed a high degree of social equality since in most tribal societies property is communally held and mothers tend to be more important than fathers. Even in the early Vedic period the high status of women was recognised and there were women rishis like Gargi who could hold their own with the likes of Yagyanvalka in philosophical discourses, including the nature of Brahman. ( Thanks for reminding me of Gargi..) I think now in parts of Maharashtra women have taken to chanting the Gayatri Mantra at social events.

However, with the emergence of private property, the importance of patriarchal societies grew steadily and a person's socio-economic standing came to be determined by who was his/her father. Since women hardly tilled land or herded cattle for grazing, in an agrarian society it made common sense that a family's land / cattle holdings (the primary sources of wealth) should pass on from father to son and that daughters would be fobbed off with bridal dowries when they got married. Eventually , over time, even that dowry got virtually confiscated by the husband's family , leaving only a few pieces of gold and silver ornaments with the women as streedhan.
Was emergence of private property the cause of patriarchal society? In my mind it was the constant invasions made women vulnerable hence protected and then subjugated.

For a while under Buddhist influence from the mid-6th century BC onwards. women did get back a degree of respect and recognition , but the loss of economic independence spelled their eventual doom. So true.

By the time of the Guptas from the 4th to the 6th century AD there was a tremendous revival of Hinduism and it is clear from both our epics and the numerous puranas, that the status of women was going steadily downhill. Manusmriti in particular damned both women and the lower orders of the Varna-based social hierarchy to a perpetual inferior status. In my history lessons I never learnt when the varna system became rigid. What caused it to be rigid.

With North India , in particular, regularly subject to waves of foreign invasions, purity of blood-lines became a major concern for many orthodox Indians and progressively early marriages for both men and women became the norm. With many men dying in frequent warfare , both polygamy and early widow-hood became the twin curses visiting women. By the time the Turco-Afghan invaders arrived on the scene in the 10th century , the status of women was already quite low, but the invasions worsened the situation for obvious reasons and, as always, the women and the weaker sections of the society, bore the brunt of the ensuing iniquities and injustices. Yup..the invasions

Phew, that sounds like a lecture! Sorry, but it is a subject on which one should have clear ideas.
no dont apologise for a history lesson. There is os much learn with history esp. when you dont have to remember dates and names but get the gist of how humanity evolves or at times devolves.

Will try to see CN with an open mind and not compare the anecdotal similarities. I also would like to echo Lashy's thoughts about not doing justice to your posts and analysis on comments. But you know that not everyone is a vociferous reader and an avid writer like you. 😊

Keep writing.

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

Karaali

@Karaali

Rocker

Posted: 8 years ago

#73

Shyamla Di, I don't care about logic with watching majority of tv shows. If I did, there would be nothing to watch.

Unfortunately I am a stickler for "clinical" history. I am one those people who spend their free time in art and history related museums. Any deviation from written or archaeological records makes it complicated for me, especially when it is packaged for entertainment.

Thanks for explaining how many portions of the show are linked to various historical records. I will keep an open mind when I watch the show next time.

Originally posted by: sashashyam
My dear Katori (and please tell me your real name, I cannot go on calling you a bowl!😉)

You are of course free to be disappointed with Chandra Nandini or with any other show, and I am very pleased that you like my posts. But my dear, you are making the same old tired comments about blatant disregard for anything related to history without any research to back up your statements. It looks as it this is a mantra that half the folk here repeat day in and day out, in a kind of cyclical, self-reinforcing process. I don't like this parrot like behaviour.

Now let us look into two aspects, one, the actual amount of reasonably authentic historical data in Chandra Nandini thus far, and two, the difference between historical fiction and real history.

For the first, if you read serious sources on Mauryan and pre-Mauryan history, you will realise how much uncertainty there is about almost everything. ? For example, were the Nine Nandas the sons of Maha Padmanand or were he and they brothers? The historians are not sure.

But one thing seems certain according to serious academics, who go by Buddhist, Jain and Greek chronicles of the period and the Arthashastra, which is that the founder of the Nanda dynasty was either a barber or the son of a barber. That means that Ekta's naapit who became the king is authentic.

Similarly,the Buddhist chronicles attribute royal lineage to Chandragupta, as belonging to the same Sakya clan as Siddhartha Gautama, who later became the Buddha. Piplivahan and Suryagupta fit in here, and are not, as I initially assumed, natakiya rupantar. In fact I was surprised by the extent of historical backing of one sort or another for the narrative so far.

We are not here to write a thesis on Chandragupta Maurya, and very little is known about his personal life anyway! So. it would be a good idea not to fret constantly about "history" and instead see whether one likes the acting and the narrative in general. And on both counts, especially the first, above all Rajat's performance, Chandra Nandini is doing very well. One cannot watch a serial only for the sets, and one cannot dump it because the sets are garish. Which recent historical or mythological has been any different. This is not Bajirao Mastani, and even Bhansali's Saraswatichandra was not as muted in the art direction as his film on the great Peshwa.

One has also to remember that they were to make a clinically historical Chandragupta Maurya serial, like the 1990 Chanakya, it would not last 2 months.

Also to read Abhay (history_geek)'s latest about the pre-Mauryan dynasties, especially the Nanda dynasty, as also his earlier one about the origins of Chandragupta Maurya, just for personal information. Heis very careful to metion the alternative theories, as he is serious researcher.

As for the difference between historical fiction and history, I cannot do better that quote in full a recent post by my young friend Shailaja on my last thread, and I am sure she will not mind it.

"My friend you are in the wrong place if you are looking for historical accuracy. It is a costume and period drama. Moreover for the small mercies it is named Chandra Nandini to tell eternal optimists like us that this is a love story and not a history.

I guess the genre definition Historical Fiction ought to enlighten us to the fact that there might be a lot of fiction and very less of history or even nothing of history. According to its very categorization, you could call it a historical fiction if you have a few names and events lifted from history. Your take on them could be entirely different and might not even fall within the historical timeline. Still you would be justified in calling it historical fiction.

You'd perhaps be surprised to know that Shakespeare's Historical Plays adopted a timeline which did not coincide with the historical timeline neither did he stay close or true to history. It was his own imaginary take on history and it was what sold during his times as entertainment. Many famous historical novelists like Walter Scott did the same thing. They too were no pujaris of history. They too wrote what was entertaining and what sold!

If it was a documentary, or a text book on history, I could have understood your logic. Even there, there are times when we find history missing or distorted. Watch the series with an open mind you will find a lot in it to like as well. Dislike also becomes a habit if we give it too much importance. A stage comes when nothing could please us or keep us happy. "

I do not mean to try and put you down, my dear, but I do not like it when young people - or even those of a slightly more mature age - repeat things they pick up without trying to investigate the matter as far as they can and try and make up their minds for themselves. I hope, therefore, that you will take the above in the right spirit and not get upset about it.

Finally, while it is of course your decision to take, chill, and try and enjoy the good things in the show instead of indulging in doom and gloom!😉 Look at me! I am surely much older than you are, and I have been a hard core professional, an Indian diplomat of all of 38 years till I retired. Still I am able to have fun with this because right now, it is worth my time. When it fails to measure up, as happened with Jodha Akbar after about 220 episodes, I shall quit.

Shyamala Aunty (Di?)

Edited by Katori - 8 years ago

Quote

sashashyam

@sashashyam

Sparkler

+ 3

Posted: 8 years ago

#74

My darling Lashykanna,

I am more delighted than I can say to see all the three sets of extensive comments from you on Nos.6, 7 & 8. I will respond to this now and come back to the other two tomorrow. I have to spend most of tomorrow morning in the hospital for checkups, so it will be only in the afternoon, around the time you will be up and about.

Shyamala Aunty

Originally posted by: lashy

There were one or two points from the last two review that I wanted to bring up to for their innate beauty.. I'll do it in this thread.. 🤗
I am finding it tough to find the time to read all the fantastic analysis you come up with for every episode, and everyone's replies to it, and then your replies to them.. and then to write the kind of reply it warrants too... And all this without sparing the usual 20-30 minutes for an episode yet... 😲
How am I ever going to find the time?😭
I found it easier doing analysis/replies during JA time... I guess because I wasn't juggling a novel and a toddler then... (which already takes up many of my waking hours)🤔
I will reply as and when I can Periyamma... (is it ok even if I only drop in a line... or would you prefer I only wrote when I have something longer to write)
But be assured, (if you see my like) I am reading EVERYTHING you write... 🤗
My pet, never feel obliged to comment in detail when you do not have the time for it.
You are now very hard pressed and there is only so much one can do in 18 hours a day. This is not 2013, either for you or for me. I am now beginning to feel as if I am on a treadmill that is going faster and faster, and I do not know for how much longer I can keep up with it. I am thinking of biweekly posts, on Wednesdays and Saturdays. Let me see.
I know that you will read my posts in full, and more to the point, will relish them in an intelligent manner, both for the content , which many do, but also for the language, which very few do, and which I miss. Not out of vanity, but because at times I am so pleased with some turn of phrase that occurs to me that I would like others to delight in it as I did. Like the one I have used today to describe Chandragupta: lambent fire sheathed in ice.

Quote

karkuzhali

@karkuzhali

Inactive

Posted: 8 years ago

#75

Shyamala,

I happened to come across a passage from the book "Toss of a Lemon" by one Padma Viswanathan. There is a mention about "Manjakkani Property", which may interest you..

Akka.

...

"Manjakkani is an inheritance customarily passed from mother to daughter to daughter. Literally, this translates as "yellow money," as though this land, or money, or jewels, were rubbed with turmeric, as is the thread of the thirumangalyam that knots a woman into married life, as is a woman's skin, freshened by the cut edge of that root on finishing her bath.

Many a woman does not receive her manjakkani. Many a woman, married by the time her mother dies, is convinced by her brothers that they need not give her the mother's wealth. She is well enough provided for, they say, and her husband would get it if they gave it to her, and so better it should stay in the family. Many a woman buys this line.

Sivakami's mother, though, on her deathbed, called to her side her only surviving daughter. There, in confidence, she told Sivakami about the battle she had fought with her own brothers, her mother's battle against the mother's brothers, and so on and up and down through the generations to defend the wealth of the family's women.

"God's grace, you will never need this money, as, God's grace, I didnt," she had croaked. "But you may. And even if, by God's grace, you don't, your daughter may.

You must therefore fight for it, as I did, and my mother, and my mother's mother..."

...

Accordingly She writes a letter to her brothers...

"..In light of all this, I have decided it is time for me to make my claim to the manjakkani property which our mother intended to pass to me. I did promise our mother that I would do so at some point, even had I no need, in case Thangam or her daughters should someday require a cushion to fall back upon. I know You will understand and, in memory of our mother, make this easy for me.

Quarter-annually, I will send my man, Muchami, to collect the rent from the lands. Nothing should change for the tenants. I will honour your agreements with them, trusting that you have made arrangements both fair and profitable. I will send word of the first day when he will come..."

( This is one of the best sellers in recent times, written against the background of a typical orthodox South Indian Brahmin family. You can read it on-line.)

Originally posted by: sashashyam
Very interesting, Akka. But though I was vaguely conscious of this practice, I do not know how widespread it was.

I asked my mother, who knows about it, though she got no such thing from her mother - they were two sisters. Nor did my grandmother get anything from her mother - and she was one of 4 sisters. I suppose it was a voluntary tradition.

It seems to have died out on its own, just like the far more firmly established matrilineal tradition of marumakkal thaayam among the Nair community in Kerala, which has faded away under the pressures of modern urban living and nuclear families.

Shyamala

Quote

myviewprem

@myviewprem

Sparkler

+ 3

Posted: 8 years ago

#76

Aunty

somehow i am not warming up to the charcaters evrything looks fimly and cliched and not like 350 BC

Take case of swaayaamwar- its very tough to believe that chandra just went inside as maleketyu and no one checked if he is real malekeytu. those times spies were everywhere and they could recognize the real prince and impostor easily. I think prince had to get some royal souvenuier of his kingdom etc to pove his authenticity and malekeytu is a prince, some other princes in swayawar are his cousins and friends are they not? they will know real malekeytu will they not?

Second why will clever chankya send chandra his main weapon into nanda palace. If nanda kills him, what happens to akhand bharat. now some will say chandraa is great warrior etc its nandas palace not easy to escape its not fantasy story real story.

Third chaankyaa wants to hurt nandas weakness - foolish, chankya will want chaandra to prepare for war by meeting nandas enemy kings to form alliance. war happens at two level diplomatic and real war field not in nanda palace. What good it is to tour nandas palace by chandra? no use utter waste of time, war shall not take place inside palace but on outskirts of pataliputra

Fourth i doubt that chandra gupta met nandhini ever before war ended, chankya must haave arranged his marriage to nandhini(dhuradhara) so how can all this tashan and love start before any war

Nandha is not such a big fool to allow anyone inside palace for swayamwar and chandra running off palace was unconvincing. Other than prithviraj chauhan unning off with sanyogita and arjuna with subhadra i have not heard of anyone running off a palace with a princess.In 350 BC its a very big blasphemy to run off with unmarried girl even for few minutes that too a princess.

Nnaadha himself lashing chandra another nonsense, does he not have slaves to do that? And what jail is that like open air theatre? even mura can run off from there on her own forget chandra?

And chandra reaching nandhini chambers - antaarpoora was heavily gaurded like an harem in 16th century, no one can run inside like that

Quote

sashashyam

@sashashyam

Sparkler

+ 3

Posted: 8 years ago

#77

Prem,

There is no point in this extended exercise, my dear boy.

Malayaketu is taken to be authentic because he carries the invitation from Maha Padmanand with him. It would have been considered highly insulting by the visiting princes if they were asked to prove their identity. I have never heard of such procedures in any swayamvar, Sita's or Draupadi's or anyone else's.

Besides, why would Nand expect an impostor to sneak in? Even if he won the contest, he would have been exposed at the first occasion when his family would have to be present, the nishchiyatartham or the wedding.

Who said that some of the other participants were Malayaketu's cousins? I never heard any such thing.For that matter, how would the visiting princes know that the girl being shown to them was indeed Nandini and that some other less goodlooking girl would not be palmed off on the winner at the wedding? A lot of this has to be taken on trust at that level.

And once a royal guest is inside the palace, what is to stop him from wandering around and admiring It? Nothing.

I do not see anything wrong with Chandra being asked to spy out the lie of the land from within the inner circle.He is the only one whom Chanakya can depend on to be able to execute this task.

I think Chanakya wants to kidnap Nandini, not fight a war inside the palace.That is to cripple Nand and Magadha in the east. For the northwest, he is going to meet Purushottam aka Porus, by then a satrap of Alexander's like Ambhi.

In the 1990 Chanakya, it was shown wiht what infinite patience, effort, and untiring, relentless persuasion Chanakya built his coalition against, first the Macedonians left behind by Alexander, and then against the Indian allies of the Macedonians, beginning with Purushottam (aka Porus) - whose daughter, married to Ambhi of Takshashila, was a devotee of Chanakya's - and finally against Magadha. This narrative is like shorthand, but at least they are making a beginning with Ambhi and Purushottam.

As for Chandragupta never having met Durdhara or Nandini _ there is going to another actress playing Durdhara, Chandragupta's first wife and the mother of Bindusara - before the marriage, you are once again back on your hobby horse, of comparing the script with what could be called real history. I have said this to you once, but I shall say it again: this kind of constant complaints about the script being ahistorical is pointless.

As I wrote to Katori above, this is a mantra that half the folk here repeat day in and day out, in a kind of cyclical, self-reinforcing process.

Now let us look into two aspects, one, the actual amount of reasonably authentic historical data in Chandra Nandini thus far, and two, the difference between historical fiction and real history.

For the first, if you read serious sources on Mauryan and pre-Mauryan history, you will realise how much uncertainty there is about almost everything. ? For example, were the Nine Nandas the sons of Maha Padmanand or were he and they brothers? The historians are not sure.

But one thing seems certain according to serious academics, who go by Buddhist, Jain and Greek chronicles of the period and the Arthashastra, which is that the founder of the Nanda dynasty was either a barber or the son of a barber. That means that Ekta's naapit who became the king is authentic.

Similarly,the Buddhist chronicles attribute royal lineage to Chandragupta, as belonging to the same Sakya clan as Siddhartha Gautama, who later became the Buddha. Piplivahan and Suryagupta fit in here, and are not, as I initially assumed, natakiya rupantar. In fact I was surprised by the extent of historical backing of one sort or another for the narrative so far.

We are not here to write a thesis on Chandragupta Maurya, and very little is known about his personal life anyway! So. it would be a good idea not to fret constantly about "history" and instead see whether one likes the acting and the narrative in general. And on both counts, especially the first, above all Rajat's performance, Chandra Nandini is doing very well.

One has also to remember that they were to make a clinically historical Chandragupta Maurya serial, like the 1990 Chanakya, it would not last 2 months.

It is very interesting to read Abhay (history_geek)'s latest about the pre-Mauryan dynasties, especially the Nanda dynasty, as also his earlier one about the origins of Chandragupta Maurya, just for personal information. He is very careful to mention the alternative theories, as he is a serious researcher.

As for the difference between historical fiction and history, I cannot do better that quote in full a recent post by my young friend Shailaja on my last thread, and I am sure she will not mind it.

"My friend you are in the wrong place if you are looking for historical accuracy. It is a costume and period drama. Moreover for the small mercies it is named Chandra Nandini to tell eternal optimists like us that this is a love story and not a history.

I guess the genre definition Historical Fiction ought to enlighten us to the fact that there might be a lot of fiction and very less of history or even nothing of history. According to its very categorization, you could call it a historical fiction if you have a few names and events lifted from history. Your take on them could be entirely different and might not even fall within the historical timeline. Still you would be justified in calling it historical fiction.

You'd perhaps be surprised to know that Shakespeare's Historical Plays adopted a timeline which did not coincide with the historical timeline neither did he stay close or true to history. It was his own imaginary take on history and it was what sold during his times as entertainment. Many famous historical novelists like Walter Scott did the same thing. They too were no pujaris of history. They too wrote what was entertaining and what sold!

If it was a documentary, or a text book on history, I could have understood your logic. Even there, there are times when we find history missing or distorted. Watch the series with an open mind you will find a lot in it to like as well. Dislike also becomes a habit if we give it too much importance. A stage comes when nothing could please us or keep us happy. "

I do not mean to try and put you down, my dear Prem, so I hope that you will take the above in the right spirit and not get upset about it.

Finally, it is of course your decision to take, chill, and try and enjoy the good things in the show - like Rajat's performance and to a lesser extent, Chanakya - instead of indulging in doom and gloom!😉 Look at me! I am surely very much older than you are, and I have been a hard core professional, an Indian diplomat of all of 38 years till I retired. Still I am able to have fun with this because right now, it is worth my time. When it fails to measure up, as happened with Jodha Akbar after about 220 episodes, I shall quit.

Shyamala Aunty

Originally posted by: myviewprem
Aunty
somehow i am not warming up to the charcaters evrything looks fimly and cliched and not like 350 BC

Take case of swaayaamwar- its very tough to believe that chandra just went inside as maleketyu and no one checked if he is real malekeytu. those times spies were everywhere and they could recognize the real prince and impostor easily. I think prince had to get some royal souvenuier of his kingdom etc to pove his authenticity and malekeytu is a prince, some other princes in swayawar are his cousins and friends are they not? they will know real malekeytu will they not?

Second why will clever chankya send chandra his main weapon into nanda palace. If nanda kills him, what happens to akhand bharat. now some will say chandraa is great warrior etc its nandas palace not easy to escape its not fantasy story real story.

Third chaankyaa wants to hurt nandas weakness - foolish, chankya will want chaandra to prepare for war by meeting nandas enemy kings to form alliance. war happens at two level diplomatic and real war field not in nanda palace. What good it is to tour nandas palace by chandra? no use utter waste of time, war shall not take place inside palace but on outskirts of pataliputra

Fourth i doubt that chandra gupta met nandhini ever before war ended, chankya must haave arranged his marriage to nandhini(dhuradhara) so how can all this tashan and love start before any war

Nandha is not such a big fool to allow anyone inside palace for swayamwar and chandra running off palace was unconvincing. Other than prithviraj chauhan unning off with sanyogita and arjuna with subhadra i have not heard of anyone running off a palace with a princess.In 350 BC its a very big blasphemy to run off with unmarried girl even for few minutes that too a princess.

Where does blasphemy come in? He is not running off with her, he is taking her hostage in order to escape unscathed, and this is the standard operating procedure in such cases. 😉And it works 90% of the time.

Nnaadha himself lashing chandra another nonsense, does he not have slaves to do that? And what jail is that like open air theatre? even mura can run off from there on her own forget chandra?

The jail is nonsense, apparently copied from Bahubali, which I have not seen. Nand lashes him for the sadistic pleasure of inflicting pain personally. Surely it is easy to understand that?

And chandra reaching nandhini chambers - antaarpoora was heavily gaurded like an harem in 16th century, no one can run inside like that

You forget, he is dressed like a guard. Anyone seeing him would think he had rushed in to announce some crisis.

In any case, all this is nitpicking. No serial would survive such examination.

Quote

sashashyam

@sashashyam

Sparkler

+ 3

Posted: 8 years ago

#78

This is fascinating, Akka. I shall show this to my mother; she would be greatly interested. What I want to know is this: how did her brothers react to that letter?

Yes, I will try and read it online.

Shyamala

Originally posted by: karkuzhali
Shyamala,
I happened to come across a passage from the book "Toss of a Lemon" by one Padma Viswanathan. There is a mention about "Manjakkani Property", which may interest you..
Akka.
..
"Manjakkani is an inheritance customarily passed from mother to daughter to daughter. Literally, this translates as "yellow money," as though this land, or money, or jewels, were rubbed with turmeric, as is the thread of the thirumangalyam that knots a woman into married life, as is a woman's skin, freshened by the cut edge of that root on finishing her bath.
Many a woman does not receive her manjakkani. Many a woman, married by the time her mother dies, is convinced by her brothers that they need not give her the mother's wealth. She is well enough provided for, they say, and her husband would get it if they gave it to her, and so better it should stay in the family. Many a woman buys this line.
Sivakami's mother, though, on her deathbed, called to her side her only surviving daughter. There, in confidence, she told Sivakami about the battle she had fought with her own brothers, her mother's battle against the mother's brothers, and so on and up and down through the generations to defend the wealth of the family's women.
"God's grace, you will never need this money, as, God's grace, I didnt," she had croaked. "But you may. And even if, by God's grace, you don't, your daughter may.

You must therefore fight for it, as I did, and my mother, and my mother's mother..."
...

Accordingly She writes a letter to her brothers...
"..In light of all this, I have decided it is time for me to make my claim to the manjakkani property which our mother intended to pass to me. I did promise our mother that I would do so at some point, even had I no need, in case Thangam or her daughters should someday require a cushion to fall back upon. I know You will understand and, in memory of our mother, make this easy for me.
Quarter-annually, I will send my man, Muchami, to collect the rent from the lands. Nothing should change for the tenants. I will honour your agreements with them, trusting that you have made arrangements both fair and profitable. I will send word of the first day when he will come..."
( This is one of the best sellers in recent times, written against the background of a typical orthodox South Indian Brahmin family. You can read it on-line.)

Quote

amina1

@amina1

Dazzler

Posted: 8 years ago

#79

Aunty i was reading on nanda dynasty on Wikipedia ,and it did mention the queen had affection with a napit,im enjoying the episode ,too much rona dhona on tv and im fed up of sas bahu serial where a son is nothing but a kathpuli of the mother ,🤢

Quote

Shraddha

@lashy

Trailblazer

+ 4

Posted: 8 years ago

#80

Originally posted by: sashashyam

Hope it's just a routine check up, tomorrow... and hope it all comes back normal, Periyamma...
🤗

If and when you have the time... it might not be your cup of tea, since it's by no means a descriptive or serious analysis.. only a light take..

But, I've done one too... https://www.indiaforums.com/forum/chandra-nandini/4737379/my-random-musings-chandra-nandini-1-10
Probably come up with my random musings every now and again, when I find something funny...

See why I miss you, child!
Awww🤗
No, it is because, like the Gollum designation for Amatya Shaktar, the hunchback, this one fits Rakshas. If you look at one of the Star Trek movies, there is usually some extra terrestrial from some other planet who sports his kind of weird hairdo.
😆 Ok I nicknamed him Mr. T... have you seen Mr.T?
Yes, Lashykanna, I think he had a brainstorm and his grey cells got temporarily derailed!😉 The funny thing is that this had no bearing on his getting caught; that was due to Raja Parvathak's unexpected arrival. Once he was there, nothing could have saved Chandragupta.
The Parvatak part is there... but still!!!!!
Men are vainer than we are, kid. And actors the most of all, so he would most likely feel that I had understated things!😆
If this wasn't enough...Add an abundance of wavy, unruly curls framing that face, and every shot of his Chandragupta looks like a painting: a Van Dyke, a Franz Hals, or a sculpted head from a museum in Athens or Florence. then nothing will ever be!
Of course I do, my dear. But the latter kind of girls are not foolish. I meant the silly types who flock together, giggle at passing boys, and do not have either ideas in their heads or goals in their lives. I am sure that you belonged to the first kind, as will little Rithi when she grows up!
Hee hee...😆 at least, I hope!
My pet, never feel obliged to comment in detail when you do not have the time for it.
You are now very hard pressed and there is only so much one can do in 18 hours a day. This is not 2013, either for you or for me. I am now beginning to feel as if I am on a treadmill that is going faster and faster, and I do not know for how much longer I can keep up with it. I am thinking of biweekly posts, on Wednesdays and Saturdays. Let me see.
I do feel you're being very positive with the serial and putting in more than you must, periyamma... for now, take it light... I'm sure there'll be parts in future that do warrant a daily thread... but as of now (and this even with RT in it) is it really at a stage that warrants this much of your effort, time, energy and optimism into it? Take care of yourself first... and bunch 3 episodes in 1 go if you must... or even once a week... or it'll start feeling more like an exercise than a hobby.🤗
I know that you will read my posts in full, and more to the point, will relish them in an intelligent manner, both for the content , which many do, but also for the language, which very few do, and which I miss. Not out of vanity, but because at times I am so pleased with some turn of phrase that occurs to me that I would like others to delight in it as I did.
Of course I know the feeling, since I experience the same when I write.. 🤗I'm sure many can pick on it too, periyamma... but maybe it's just doesn't come out as expressively, in the way we analyse your analysis...
Like the one I have used today to describe Chandragupta: lambent fire sheathed in ice.
Of course...

Edited by lashy - 8 years ago

Quote

1 ... 5 6 7 8 9

Chandra Nandini 8: The game advances - Page 8

Related Topics

Explore Topics