Chandra: Under the influence - Page 2

Originally posted by: myviewprem

Originally posted by: devkidmd

@ bold: So just because a person is a stupid brat she deserves to see her family being butchered in front of her? Strongly disagree.

I honestly do not get this hatred for Nandini on this forum.

As far as I can tell her only "crime" is that she is an over indulged pampered princess, One who was born after 9 sons and the only girl child who adores her father and is blind to his faults. I cannot understand what is so wrong in that! Can any one of us imagine our parents doing bad things? Don't we keep our parents on a pedestal and take offense when someone says something that may be even remotely insulting to them? Why is she any different than any princesses then or even now?

As far as the accounts go, does not matter to me what they say. I am just going by what they are showing in the serial. After all the winner writes history so who knows. The killing of Nand and sons is justified but the way it was done was more to do with Chanakya's personal revenge.

Originally posted by: shailusri1983

This is a 4th BC period story. Please do not impose your contemporary morals or codes of conduct on it. I am not going into history at this point at all. The original Chandragupt was very ruthless and clinical in his destruction of the Nandas. There he had no serious personal reasons to defend his conduct or reason away his extreme hatred for the ruling family.

It was true that the Nandas were highly unpopular as a ruling dynasty. They sucked the people dry and filled their own coffers. They were least bothered about national security and people's welfare. They ruled on the basis of fear. They executed anyone with or without the least possible justification.

Chandragupt, according to history, just wanted to weed them out just like a farmer extinguishes pests and poisonous and thorny plants from his crop to save the crop from being destroyed. Even if you leave one such plant or pest, it will spread and destroy the whole crop. So he destroyed the entire Nanda race.

That was how kings and winners established and stabilized their rule. At least here, Chandragupt seems to have a solid personal reason for his hatred and his behavior. In the period we are taking about the personal was always political. The powerful oppressed the weak and there was only one way of making a big line smaller; that was drawing a bigger line beside it first and then try erasing the previous line. That was how empires were made.

Nand, Chandragupt, or for that matter any other king did not/would not extend any charity or mercy to the former ruling king or ruling family. It would be too dangerous for them. You talk about Chandra's cruelty to Nand in killing his own sons before his eyes and Nandini's eyes.

What about Nand having an affair with his queen and killing his own king when the latter trusts himself in his hands under the assumption that his barber has come to shave his beard? What will you call his Peeping Tom behavior at a pregnant Moora; some sort of social service? What about Suryagupt's murder before Moora's eyes?

Leave all that! This Nand killed 39 new born kids the day Chandra was born thinking that one of them must be Suryagupt and Moora's son. Similarly Nand and his nine sons cooly walk about murdering poor old men in the open court just because they have the temerity to question his injustice. Being Nandini's dad or brothers does not exculpate or atone for every sin they have committed. Nemesis and Karma catches up with everyone. It did with Nand and his sons.

I agree that Nandini and the women on this side will suffer a lot. Every war results in a lot of collateral damage; the woman, children, the aged, the families of the soldiers, etc. Any king would be cruel and ruthless to his enemies, with the traitors or with the previous king, his family, relatives, and even his faithful ministers.

Chandragupt was a great warrior, general, just and noble king to his people, and the founder of a mighty empire. It is nowhere written that he was a great humanitarian, altruist and peace lover. Politics and power in the BC were not for the chicken hearted and Chandragupt Maurya was one of the greatest brave heart warrior Indian soil has ever known.

No warrior worth his salt in those days would have such qualms for spilling their enemy's blood or be put off by all this gore. In a way I felt, the CVs were not exaggerating things or making Chandra cruel. I would rather see it as doing justice to the character description.

You might still feel that Nand being evil is no justification for Chandra being equally evil. This could be your opinion. In that case, no doubt you would equally condemn somebody in the military services of any country like the army, airforce, or navy of being murderers because they actually kill whoever comes in the line of their duty?

Similarly would you condemn an executioner who enforces and carries out the death sentence issued by our Supreme Court as the worst human being on earth for having no pity on his fellow human being? Going by the kind of logic you adopt, he should be the most miserable man on this planet.

Similarly, if we are going to take such considerations into account, I suppose we have to get the Bhagavad Gita banned. We a wear to this day in courts of law to say that whatever we are stating is the absolute truth. I suppose you would have a problem with that too as it was spoken on a field of battle inciting a soldier and warrior who wanted to run away to do battle and kill his enemies. Should we stop worshipping Lord Krishna because he not only supported war but many times also resorted to dubious means to achieve his ends in the battle of Kurukshetra?

Truth and dharma are very relative. We do have courts or police to seek justice in this age. So we can afford to speak all these morals. What about a period like Chandragupt's where the king was law himself and a bad, tyrannical king was at the helm of affairs? Your only option to restore justice or Dharma would have been to overthrow that king. Chandragupt and Chanakya did the same thing.

It at times pains when I see people talking about truth, dharma, right action and conduct in such an arbitrary fashion and sit over judgement of characters, people or their motivations at such a superficial level without realizing the underlying or deeper significance in them.

How easy isn't it to call somebody of Chanakya or Chandragupta's stature as cruel, obsessive, vindictive, demean or lessen their greatness of character just because the other person at the receiving end happens to be the father or brother of the female lead? It is enough if they are good fathers, brothers or husbands. Should all their other crimes be forgiven or overlooked because of that? I think not!

I have been very busy and should not have been replying at all. But I could not help it. So even if you are replying to this post, I will not be continuing this discussion or argument. I hope you understand.

Originally posted by: devkidmd

@ bold: So just because a person is a stupid brat she deserves to see her family being butchered in front of her? Strongly disagree.

I honestly do not get this hatred for Nandini on this forum.

As far as I can tell her only "crime" is that she is an over indulged pampered princess, One who was born after 9 sons and the only girl child who adores her father and is blind to his faults. I cannot understand what is so wrong in that! Can any one of us imagine our parents doing bad things? Don't we keep our parents on a pedestal and take offense when someone says something that may be even remotely insulting to them? Why is she any different than any princesses then or even now?

As far as the accounts go, does not matter to me what they say. I am just going by what they are showing in the serial. After all the winner writes history so who knows. The killing of Nand and sons is justified but the way it was done was more to do with Chanakya's personal revenge.

Originally posted by: ---Khushi---

So maybe Nandini ought to have been pampered on the battlefield by Chandra & Chanakya...the way she has been pampered by her revered Pitamaharaj...😆

If she calls herself a warrior princess, the way her brothers are warrior princes, if she is brave enough to be on the battlefield, then pray tell me, y isn't she brave enough to witness her kin's bloodshed?😕...n if she isn't, what on earth is she doing on the battlefield? 😕...I'm sure she didn't expect dandiya & garba on the battlefield 😆😆

Originally posted by: ---Khushi---

So maybe Nandini ought to have been pampered on the battlefield by Chandra & Chanakya...the way she has been pampered by her revered Pitamaharaj...😆

If she calls herself a warrior princess, the way her brothers are warrior princes, if she is brave enough to be on the battlefield, then pray tell me, y isn't she brave enough to witness her kin's bloodshed?😕...n if she isn't, what on earth is she doing on the battlefield? 😕...I'm sure she didn't expect dandiya & garba on the battlefield 😆😆

Originally posted by: devkidmd

Well she did watch it happen did she not? So that is a moot point IMO.

However I still stand by my opinion of the way the slaughter was carried out. it was more of a personal mission for Chanakya than anything else.

When Chandra was ready to kill Nand in yesterday's episode the look in Chanakya's eyes and the way he pulls his open shikha forward to have it sprinkled by Nand's blood says everything. This is beyond Bharatvarsh for Chanakya.

When Chanakya tells Chandra to let Nand go after he has killed all his sons, Chandra asks Chanakya that after all these years of breeding "pratishodh" ki bhavana in me why did you let him go? Whose Pratishodh was Chanakya talking about? He did not know about Chandra's parents. Or maybe he was talking about Bharatmata's pratishodh.

But I like the way they have showed Chanakya. He was this cruel revengeful person and they have showed him as such.

No complains from me about portrayal.

On the other hand: I do have a strong feeling that Dandiya might've originated on the battlefields of Gujarat. There is a certain sword fighting warrior action to it.😆

Originally posted by: devkidmd

<font color="#9900cc">My dear Shailusri, thanks for this very nice reply. Whether you read this or not since you said you were very busy I do not know.</font>

<font color="#9900cc">I understand that this is 4th century BC. How can I not? People seem to be intent on making sure I do not forget it even if I wanted to by reminding me over and over again.</font>

<font color="#9900cc">If you please read my post properly you would realize that no where have I judged Chandragupta or his morals. I have only said that at this time of his life he is totally under the influence of his Acharya and to some extent his first wife, who IMO are the two of the most vicious people. What is wrong with having that opinion?</font>

<font color="#9900cc">I am not imposing my morals on any one but I hope I am allowed to have my own opinion without being called judgmental only because you may not agree with what I say.</font>

Originally posted by: shailusri1983

This is a 4th BC period story. Please do not impose your contemporary morals or codes of conduct on it. I am not going into history at this point at all. The original Chandragupt was very ruthless and clinical in his destruction of the Nandas. There he had no serious personal reasons to defend his conduct or reason away his extreme hatred for the ruling family.

It was true that the Nandas were highly unpopular as a ruling dynasty. They sucked the people dry and filled their own coffers. They were least bothered about national security and people's welfare. They ruled on the basis of fear. They executed anyone with or without the least possible justification.

Chandragupt, according to history, just wanted to weed them out just like a farmer extinguishes pests and poisonous and thorny plants from his crop to save the crop from being destroyed. Even if you leave one such plant or pest, it will spread and destroy the whole crop. So he destroyed the entire Nanda race.

That was the standard operating procedure when one dynasty replaced another.

That was how kings and winners established and stabilized their rule. At least here, Chandragupt seems to have a solid personal reason for his hatred and his behavior. In the period we are taking about the personal was always political. The powerful oppressed the weak and there was only one way of making a big line smaller; that was drawing a bigger line beside it first and then try erasing the previous line. That was how empires were made.

Nand, Chandragupt, or for that matter any other king did not/would not extend any charity or mercy to the former ruling king or ruling family. It would be too dangerous for them. You talk about Chandra's cruelty to Nand in killing his own sons before his eyes and Nandini's eyes.

What about Nand having an affair with his queen and killing his own king when the latter trusts himself in his hands under the assumption that his barber has come to shave his beard? What will you call his Peeping Tom behavior at a pregnant Moora; some sort of social service? What about Suryagupt's murder before Moora's eyes?

Leave all that! This Nand killed 39 new born kids the day Chandra was born thinking that one of them must be Suryagupt and Moora's son. Similarly Nand and his nine sons cooly walk about murdering poor old men in the open court just because they have the temerity to question his injustice. Being Nandini's dad or brothers does not exculpate or atone for every sin they have committed. Nemesis and Karma catches up with everyone. It did with Nand and his sons.

I agree that Nandini and the women on this side will suffer a lot. Every war results in a lot of collateral damage; the woman, children, the aged, the families of the soldiers, etc. Any king would be cruel and ruthless to his enemies, with the traitors or with the previous king, his family, relatives, and even his faithful ministers.

Chandragupt was a great warrior, general, just and noble king to his people, and the founder of a mighty empire. It is nowhere written that he was a great humanitarian, altruist and peace lover. Politics and power in the BC were not for the chicken hearted and Chandragupt Maurya was one of the greatest brave heart warrior Indian soil has ever known.

No warrior worth his salt in those days would have such qualms for spilling their enemy's blood or be put off by all this gore. In a way I felt, the CVs were not exaggerating things or making Chandra cruel. I would rather see it as doing justice to the character description.

You might still feel that Nand being evil is no justification for Chandra being equally evil. This could be your opinion. In that case, no doubt you would equally condemn somebody in the military services of any country like the army, airforce, or navy of being murderers because they actually kill whoever comes in the line of their duty?

Similarly would you condemn an executioner who enforces and carries out the death sentence issued by our Supreme Court as the worst human being on earth for having no pity on his fellow human being? Going by the kind of logic you adopt, he should be the most miserable man on this planet.

Similarly, if we are going to take such considerations into account, I suppose we have to get the Bhagavad Gita banned. We a wear to this day in courts of law to say that whatever we are stating is the absolute truth. I suppose you would have a problem with that too as it was spoken on a field of battle inciting a soldier and warrior who wanted to run away to do battle and kill his enemies. Should we stop worshipping Lord Krishna because he not only supported war but many times also resorted to dubious means to achieve his ends in the battle of Kurukshetra?

Truth and dharma are very relative. We do have courts or police to seek justice in this age. So we can afford to speak all these morals. What about a period like Chandragupt's where the king was law himself and a bad, tyrannical king was at the helm of affairs? Your only option to restore justice or Dharma would have been to overthrow that king. Chandragupt and Chanakya did the same thing.

It at times pains when I see people talking about truth, dharma, right action and conduct in such an arbitrary fashion and sit over judgement of characters, people or their motivations at such a superficial level without realizing the underlying or deeper significance in them.

How easy isn't it to call somebody of Chanakya or Chandragupta's stature as cruel, obsessive, vindictive, demean or lessen their greatness of character just because the other person at the receiving end happens to be the father or brother of the female lead? It is enough if they are good fathers, brothers or husbands. Should all their other crimes be forgiven or overlooked because of that? I think not!

I have been very busy and should not have been replying at all. But I could not help it. So even if you are replying to this post, I will not be continuing this discussion or argument. I hope you understand.

Originally posted by: shailusri1983

Thank you for the reply. Chandra was actually on his own and not under any conditioning or brainwashing in the scene you were alluding to. If his personal equation with Nand, reasons for enmity and his lineage had not been revealed, he would just have done the thing you suggested with Nand and Sons. He would just have killed them in battle, imprisoned them or have them quietly executed. See how lightly he lets Malay go. He hands him over to Helena to punish him as she sees it fit. That he escapes is another story.

All this ruthlessness and brutality was Chandra's own. No Chanakya or Helena were egging him on to implement it in this manner. He merely did not want to kill them. He wanted them to suffer before they died. It was his own eye for eye stuff. He wanted to rub in the reason for his revenge. He wanted it to sink in their psyche why they were being treated like this before their death. He wanted them to see his mother's suffering in Nandini's and his father's cruel and unjust death in their own cruel death.

Nandini irritates me a lot with her blindness and unseeing nature but all the same I feel sorry for her. A great personal loss like this will be hard to overcome. Even warriors and hard hearted people will crumble against such situations or brutality. Her being a man or woman will make no difference here. She has never seen such blood or cruelty in her life.

Learning fighting or self defense does not mean that you are immune or unaffected by the scenes in a war field. There was one tiny scene where she is terribly disturbed by all the bloodshed in the battlefield when she sees the wounded soldiers. She seems terribly disillusioned and disturbed as she witnesses all these scenes.

Just imagine the state of any Rajput warrior whose wife has committed Jauhar and he somehow escapes and survives her. Will he not be equally affected or disturbed by this loss despite the fact that he has seen a number of battles or seen a lot of blood and gore before this. He might have seen thousands of soldiers being killed before his eyes, or he himself might have killed thousands, but he will react as badly or be as distraught to the thought of his dearest wife burning in the fire.

I still fail to understand how Nandini will even forgive Chandra, leave alone falling in love with him. I suppose the only reason why a majority fail to sympathize with her or identify with her is because of a lack of clarity in the way the character has been conceived and the way it has been portrayed by the actress. If there had been a bit of subtlety, a few layers to the character, it would have really worked wonders for the character and show. Now the character comes across as a very hypocritical, unthinking, unfeeling, careless, self-serving, and egotistic one.

But all these aspects though irritating and exasperating are not criminal offenses. So provided, she is given a proper redemption track and the acting improves, it will be good for the show. Yes! I came back. I could not leave this discussion midway. I thought I could spare these ten odd minutes for it.