No, Prem, in those days, a son did NOT argue with his father. Why in the 4th century BC, my father and my chacha never dared to argue with my grandfather about anything, and that was till 1965.
Yes, there were rebel sons, but those were usually cast out of the family. In 20th century China, and in Japan too, the system was identical. There was NO question of a son going against his father.
Moreover, you are going overboard here with this slave business, which is nonsense. And you are attributing statements to me which I never made, which is worse.
Chanakya loves Chandra like his son,and expects total filial obedience from him in the then prevailing pattern. He NEVER ever refers to his having bought him from his foster father, and he NEVER ever uses the term daas about Chandra. It is Chandra who refers to the purchase in the hilltop scene Let us stick to the facts.
I am afraid you are not only going astray yourself,but you will also mislead others who might follow you in pasting 21st century concepts on a 4th century BC template of a father-son relationship. If you are a serious analyst, you cannot carry on like this. I remember your equally untenable stand on the relationship between Chandra and his foster father, which I had to take apart at considerable length.
I take your posts seriously, but I cannot do that when you take such far out stands. I cannot tell you what you or should not write, but my advice, for whatever it is worth, would be to avoid such extreme positions based on premises that are NOT valid for the era we are discussing.
Shyamala Aunty
Originally posted by: myviewprem
Dear aunty
I understand what you say
For chankya chandra is his slave cum shishya whom be brought from parents as a boy
No, I never said any such thing, Prem. Please read what I have written, and stick to that. What I said was that right from the beginning, Chanakya had made it clear to Chandra that he expected total obedience from him, He NEVER even mentioned the purchase angle, not to speak of referring to him as a slave. It is Chandra who does that in the scene on the hilltop.
But even slaves have some rights
There were slaves and maids in akbars palace also brought and sold (till he abolished) or other kings like CGM, ashoka etc
Are you saying that akbar, CGM etc will go around searching brides or grooms for their slaves and maids or ordering them marry this this etc
Somewhere he also should have personal choice no
From what you say that logic chandra may be emperor of india but he is slave of chankya
OK father figure but with father you can say no or argue or refuse etc No, you could not, Not in those days.
But if chankya is saying you follow me blindly it means chandra is slave a bonded labourer of chankya na
Originally posted by: sashashyam
Dear Prem,
I have gone into this question in depth in my latest post, Extended finale,but for ease of reference, and to save my poor fingers more typing, here is that extract for anyone who might be interested.
One more point: Chandragupta is not yet an emperor. But for Chanakya, he would still have been herding sheep and getting thrashed daily by a drunken foster father. Let us not forget that.
Extract from my Chandra Nandini 31-33: Extended finale
Slavish obedience? : Chandra has been criticized for accepting his guru's fiat in the matter of the uttaradhikari and Durdhara without much protest, and branded a puppet of his mentor's. To these criticisms , I would say just this.
Chanakya is Chandra's Acharya. He is the man who has made him what he is, and but for him, what would Chandra have been? A skinny, undernourished brat, beaten black and blue daily by his drunkard of a foster father, while his foster mother bleated in the background about her abiding prem for her husband. For that inestimable favour that Chanakya did him, Chandra owes him at least total obedience.
In any case, Chanakya has bought him from his foster father, and he makes it clear right at the beginning that he expects implicit obedience from Chandra in all things. It is another matter that over the years, he comes to love Chandra like a son,but that alters nothing in the context of the obedience he demands of his shishya.
If Chanakya had been Chandra's father, and Chandra had obeyed him in the same way, would the criticism be the same? I don't think so. But Chanakya is the only father figure Chandra has ever known, and even in Chakravartin Ashoka Samrat, Bindusara tells his eldest son Sushim that his father, the great Chandragupta Maurya, would not take a single step without his guru's explicit approval. Was that found strange? No. Is it seen as strange that Lord Rama obeyed his father, who was clearly in the wrong, so implicitly? No.
The fact is that such critics are importing contemporary sensibilities into a 4th century BC story. No one can expect anything different from a shishya in that age. In the 1990 Chanakya too, Chandragupta was shown as a completely obedient shishya, for that is the historical truth. I do not see why the script should stand this paddhati on its head to please those with 21st century ideas.
Shyamala Aunty
Edited by sashashyam - 8 years ago
Pyaar Kii Ye Ek Kahaani
Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi 2
