Churning of the Ocean; note on pg 15 - Page 13

omg divi i just realized my dearest shyamala has visited this thread..too much catching up to do😆

shyamala i agree with you and i was appalled when jodha said akaaran hi yudh ho raha hai..what about the shelter that akbar's enemy had seeked from MP!..akaaran kaise..jalal ab chooriyan pehen le!!!

Well, my dear, methinks it is I who should be thanking you. You are like a life raft for me in this ocean of Sufi mysticism in which I nearly drowned!

In my analyses, I am always flat footed on the firm ground of fact, and I have but little patience for rose-tinted explanations of the crass, OTT stuff that has been dished out to us for the last 2 days. It was bad enough on Thursday, with a sulky Jodha looking as though she was coming down with the mumps. Yesternight was worse, with a snarling Jalal and an endlessly lamenting Jodha now suddenly obsessed with her Rajvanshi origins. It was all very distasteful and illogical.

Why does Jodha not remember Sujamal's unprovoked attack of conquest on Mewat, in which so many Mughal soldiers attained what Jodha then facilely described as veergati? Was that attack anuchit or not? One still does not know if Jalal got the fort back or not.

To see a Rajvanshi princess, brought up on traditions of sar kalam karna and tales of martial bravery, now suddenly talk like a convert to Buddhism is bizarre. Has she any idea of intra-Rajvanshi wars of conquest and how they were started and conducted? She should ask her Dadisaa, who was warning Mynavati, before the Jodha-Jalal wedding, that many neighbouring Rajvanshi kings had their eye on Amer.

It goes from bad to worse, and I shudder to think of what is to follow once Jalal does an Asoka and dissolves into, not just a puddle but a whole lake of tears. I was amazed to see Hamida lamenting that the Shahenhshah did not have the advantage that the begums had, of being able to weep. This chap??? Why, he weeps copiously and unashamedly for anything and nothing. A regular watering pot, who would beat any woman at crying!

I am also looking out for another convoluted explanation for the attack on Ranthambhor the year after, which ended in a speedy surrender thanks to the example Akbar set at Chittor. Gujarat in 1572 would not matter, for it was not Rajvanshi. Jodha Begum's tender heart beats only for the Rajvanshis, it seems, not for any other group.

As for Jodha looking like a traitor, I thought that after marriage, a wife's loyalties were to be firmly and unequivocally with her husband, as per Rajvanshi sanskaars. Why does Jodha waffle on this principle now?

Shyamala B.Cowsik

Originally posted by: chitterati

Thank you so much for this post, i had been trying to wrap my brain around the rationale behind jalal's sudden change of heart, and yesterday had resigned to the accepting his "pain and suffering, and need for isolation" but as logic prevails, it gets difficult to read between the lines and see rationale, let alone love in this track.

The overall handling of this track is EK's way of setting backdrop of chittor bloodbath, The Akbar who wailed and consoled Jo on Hassan's death, cannot be the Jallaludin Mohammed who unleashed destruction and death on Chittor and 1000s of civilians in it. H & H deaths as are used as an excuse to make Jallaludin Mohammed seem less guilty of the havoc and plunder of Chittor. After the aman ka messiah Jalalludin has been painted till now, there was no way to show him being the power hungry emperor he was during this conquest.

And the Jodha Jalal estangement was to get Jodha out of picture - without this Jodha, would simply appear to a traitor who was happy bearing Mughal heirs while her husband plundered Rajputs

Originally posted by: sashashyam

Sensitive and anguished, my dear Sandhya, and I am glad I stumbled on this. But is there no rational thinking or logic left either in Jodha or in Jalal?

Now both of them share the bitterness of their love being the cause of Hussein's death.

How, pray? If Jodha had been on her toes around Hussein, he would have survived for a day or so longer, till he was returned to Ruqaiya, which would in effect mean to Zeenat. Then he would have been poisoned at the first convenient moment. So long as Zeenat was not unmasked, Hussein's fate was in any case sealed. So, the Jodha-Jalal night, or part thereof, together only advanced the timing a bit.

Why does Jalal not grasp this, and why does Jodha not verbalise this?

All this highfalutin' stuff that you and Divya and Adiana and Khushi have been writing, which is basically to console yourself that all is not lost, begs this fundamental fact. I vastly prefer the extract from the Akbar Nama that Divya quotes so often, the one about Jalal-Jodha's sober and mature reaction to the death of the twins.

I found this whole track horribly OTT and crude,the only saving grace being the tender and deeply affectionate Jalal-Jodha scenes when he is consoling her after Hasan's death. Both the actors were pitch perfect there. Now this crass Jallad 2.0 is so artificial and forced, having been cooked up for the sole purpose of "explaining" the Chittor massacre.

As for the tilak/aarti scene, I never knew that Rajvanshi women performed this ceremony only when they had decided that the war their husbands were embarking on were morally justified dharmayuddhs!😉 Why, I had been under the mistaken impression that it was an unshakeable tradition meant to protect the warrior's life and gain him victory!!

And in the end she never applied the tilak to his forehead at all, only to the sword, and that sulkily and half-heartedly. If I had been Jalal, I would have been concerned about the efficacy of any such tilak, except of course that he wants to force her to do it to prove his point.

As for Jodha's sharp jibe about Rajvanshi blood, she has clearly forgotten all about the Raja of Panna, who was clobbered by Mansingh and Mirza Hakim for the same crime, of sheltering rebels against the Mughal rule. And does her repeated stress on the Rajvanshi angle mean that it would have been all right if the other side had been Afghans? And did Rajvanshi kings never attack one another for this very reason?

Jodha's objection that thousands of innocents would die was very strange. What did she think happened in wars waged by Rajvanshis among each other? Did she think they decided the outcome thru a dandiya match?

All in all, the only thing I liked about that scene was Jalal's face at the end, a throwback to the good old days.

But by all means carry on with this esoteric soul talk, saagarmanthan (it was Divya's determinedly positive title that brought me here in the first place) and complicated rationalisations. I for one was plain bored by Ekta's latest excess, clearly tailored for ulterior purposes.

After all, Jalal, after Hasan died, was deeply grieved but rational still. And in his heart of hearts he must have feared that Hussein too would die. Why then all this unconvincing melodrama all of a sudden? The kind of intensely protective love towards Jodha that he displayed after Hasan died - how was it transformed into this mixture of self-hatred, passing the buck, and such over loud nastikvaad? 'Your faith in God, and your love for the mother of the dead child, can survive one child's passing and that too unchanged, but it collapses into a puddle of acrid, venomous despair after the second one dies? It is too much to digest.

Then again, losing faith in God does not automatically mean that Jalal has to deprive the executioner of his daily bread and cut throats himself, and then pummel the faces of his jungi riyaaz opponents to a bloody pulp. It was stupid and fake and very crude.

It is a clumsy yo yo exercise, and it is going to take all your skills to REALLY explain it. To yourselves, that is, not to me.

Shyamala Aunty

Thank you, my dear Raksha. As I have noted in my response above to chitterati, your reactions are like a lifeline to someone like me, drowning in this ocean of Sufi mysticism and paeans to Jalal-Jodha's direct line to the Divine. As Holmes used to say, my takes are always flatfooted on the ground, and I have little use for all this highfalutin' stuff.

I agree with what you have said here. But the Sujanpur attack was triggered by a very real source of rage, what Jalal thought was the Amer family's culpabilty in loss of his baby, PLUS there were clear reports that the prince of Sujanpur was in league with bandits. Now, just because he has lost faith in God, which is not uncommon, he is shown turning into the kind of sadist he never was even in his early days. It was crude and entirely unnecessary. He was awful with his snarling and ranting last night.

As for Jodha, she was looking like an incipient case of mumps, and parroting the Rajvanshi line endlessly, illogically and meaninglessly. Why does she not remember Sujamal's unprovoked attack of conquest on Mewat, in which so many Mughal soldiers attained what Jodha then facilely described as veergati? Was that attack akaaran and anuchit or not? One still does not know if Jalal won the fort back.

I thought that after marriage, a wife's loyalties were to be firmly and unequivocally with her husband, as per Rajvanshi sanskaars. Why does Jodha now waffle on this principle, on which she must have been brought up?

Besides, to see a Rajvanshi princess, raised on traditions of sar kalam karna and tales of martial bravery, now suddenly talk like a convert to Buddhism is bizarre. Why, the Rani of Chundawat - whose husband was so obsessed with her that he was unwilling to go out and fight - cut off her own head and sent it to her husband to tell him to fight to win. I do not suppose she bothered about whether that war was justified or not!

Do Jodha have any idea of intra-Rajvanshi wars of conquest and how they were started and conducted? She should ask her Dadisaa, who was warning Mynavati, before the Jodha-Jalal wedding, that many neighbouring Rajvanshi kings had their eye on Amer.

Look out for the CVs tying themselves into knots for the attack on Ranthambhor the year after, which ended in a speedy surrender thanks to the example Akbar set at Chittor. Gujarat in 1572 would not matter, for it was not Rajvanshi. Jodha Begum's tender heart beats only for the Rajvanshis, it seems, not for any other group!

Shyamala Aunty

Originally posted by: rpeez

Bravo Aunty!

I maintain the fact that CVs do not have the maturity to show the Chittorgadh massacre, or the supposed 3 difficult years. Obviously after the petticoat government era, there would have been quite a few rebellions in the empire, because, the governors would have thought the emperor had gotten complacent and rebelled, and Akbar waged many a war to quell these, but, that doesn't make him jallad.

But, what can we expect, even the first time around when Ruq had a miscarriage, he'd gone on a rampage on Sujanpur ke Raja, so it looks like a character flaw here. 😡

Thank you, my dear. It is good to have some support for my totally different approach to the abysmal goings on of the last 2 days, Friday being even worse than Thursday, which I had not thought to be possible!

The question is not what Jodha thought to be the reason for the war. The question is why she defends the Mewar family despite the fact that they have been sheltering those rebelling against the Mughal emperor, and that too apparently only because they are Rajvanshi. And why she goes on and on and on about Rajvanshi blood being shed, as if it would be all right if it was any other kind of blood. It was very distasteful, and erased all her fine talk of now being a Mughal begum.

Do see my responses to chitterati and Raksha above, disregarding the overlap between them. Both Jodha and Jalal were the pits on Friday, and worse lies ahead as Jalal has his Kalinga epiphany, a la Asoka, after the bloodbath at Chittor. Which, by the way, was pretty much standard practice in those days, and right up to the Spanish Civil War and even later.

I wonder how the CVs are going to softsoap Jalal's attack on Ranthambhor the year after Chittor if his epiphany and oceans of tears come in between! Not to speak of Salim in the same year. Gujarat in 1572 would not be a problem as it was not Rajvanshi, and so Jodha would not care!

Shyamala Aunty

Originally posted by: al_pal

lovely post aunty ,we need at least one practical post in here

The questions you raised are very practical ,even I was wondering what she meant by this war is anuchit because he is king and has to extend his kingdome,being princess she knew how all it works but I took it as she thought he is going to war just to run way from his pain or his way of taking it out .

Then she said thousand innocent will die as if she knew about history of chittor massAcare but I guess it is cvs ways of thinking and they can't risk her being involve in this war ,it is as simple as that ,we are going to see crying jalal after this and same story will go on.

One thing is though grief stricken parents don't think logically ,to escape guilt they blame other for misfortune ,so it was natural reaction for me ,in Hassan 's case they never knew the reason or motive ,that is why their reaction at that time was perfect ,and as usual cvs on their convinience made Salima sherlock and made her tell the whole story .

Real jajo went on to spiritual journey ,not on strike with God that we know from akbarnama

So if we think practically all this us staged to justified chittor war but does any war needs justification ?

Originally posted by: sashashyam

Sensitive and anguished, my dear Sandhya, and I am glad I stumbled on this. But is there no rational thinking or logic left either in Jodha or in Jalal?

Now both of them share the bitterness of their love being the cause of Hussein's death.

How, pray? If Jodha had been on her toes around Hussein, he would have survived for a day or so longer, till he was returned to Ruqaiya, which would in effect mean to Zeenat. Then he would have been poisoned at the first convenient moment. So long as Zeenat was not unmasked, Hussein's fate was in any case sealed. So, the Jodha-Jalal night, or part thereof, together only advanced the timing a bit.

Why does Jalal not grasp this, and why does Jodha not verbalise this?

All this highfalutin' stuff that you and Divya and Adiana and Khushi have been writing, which is basically to console yourself that all is not lost, begs this fundamental fact. I vastly prefer the extract from the Akbar Nama that Divya quotes so often, the one about Jalal-Jodha's sober and mature reaction to the death of the twins.

I found this whole track horribly OTT and crude,the only saving grace being the tender and deeply affectionate Jalal-Jodha scenes when he is consoling her after Hasan's death. Both the actors were pitch perfect there. Now this crass Jallad 2.0 is so artificial and forced, having been cooked up for the sole purpose of "explaining" the Chittor massacre.

As for the tilak/aarti scene, I never knew that Rajvanshi women performed this ceremony only when they had decided that the war their husbands were embarking on were morally justified dharmayuddhs!😉 Why, I had been under the mistaken impression that it was an unshakeable tradition meant to protect the warrior's life and gain him victory!!

And in the end she never applied the tilak to his forehead at all, only to the sword, and that sulkily and half-heartedly. If I had been Jalal, I would have been concerned about the efficacy of any such tilak, except of course that he wants to force her to do it to prove his point.

As for Jodha's sharp jibe about Rajvanshi blood, she has clearly forgotten all about the Raja of Panna, who was clobbered by Mansingh and Mirza Hakim for the same crime, of sheltering rebels against the Mughal rule. And does her repeated stress on the Rajvanshi angle mean that it would have been all right if the other side had been Afghans? And did Rajvanshi kings never attack one another for this very reason?

Jodha's objection that thousands of innocents would die was very strange. What did she think happened in wars waged by Rajvanshis among each other? Did she think they decided the outcome thru a dandiya match?

All in all, the only thing I liked about that scene was Jalal's face at the end, a throwback to the good old days.

But by all means carry on with this esoteric soul talk, saagarmanthan (it was Divya's determinedly positive title that brought me here in the first place) and complicated rationalisations. I for one was plain bored by Ekta's latest excess, clearly tailored for ulterior purposes.

After all, Jalal, after Hasan died, was deeply grieved but rational still. And in his heart of hearts he must have feared that Hussein too would die. Why then all this unconvincing melodrama all of a sudden? The kind of intensely protective love towards Jodha that he displayed after Hasan died - how was it transformed into this mixture of self-hatred, passing the buck, and such over loud nastikvaad? 'Your faith in God, and your love for the mother of the dead child, can survive one child's passing and that too unchanged, but it collapses into a puddle of acrid, venomous despair after the second one dies? It is too much to digest.

Then again, losing faith in God does not automatically mean that Jalal has to deprive the executioner of his daily bread and cut throats himself, and then pummel the faces of his jungi riyaaz opponents to a bloody pulp. It was stupid and fake and very crude.

It is a clumsy yo yo exercise, and it is going to take all your skills to REALLY explain it. To yourselves, that is, not to me.

Shyamala Aunty

Mandy dearest,

It is lovely to be back with you again. I see that you have read my posts on pages 8 & 9, but do take a look at the three above, to chitterati and Raksha (please overlook the overlap in parts between the two) and then to al_pal.

Friday was frightful, as Jalal snarled like a maniac and Jodha moaned endlessly about the Rajvanshis. Plus looking as though she is going to come down with the mumps. Worse lies ahead, my dear Mandy, as Jalal has his Kalinga epiphany and drowns Agra in his tears.Ugh...


Shyamala

Originally posted by: mandyg

shyamala i agree with you and i was appalled when jodha said akaaran hi yudh ho raha hai..what about the shelter that akbar's enemy had seeked from MP!..akaaran kaise..jalal ab chooriyan pehen le!!!

I agree completely with your take on Chittor, Adiana, and I shudder at the thought of the Insanification 2.0!!

Shyamala

Originally posted by: adiana12

Hawww... Shyamala, You dont want Jodha to once again change a Jallad to an Insaan ??????? 😲

Jokes apart EK has tried to whitewash all parties involved - No one was doodh ka dhula in this war and there was no order for a 'Massacre' - what happened was a general 'Slaughter' which took gruesome proportions due to both parties involved - neither can be exonerated and neither can be glorified - One needs to know every aspect to know this and though no one can justify such carnage, no one can be crucified either

Aunty
New promo is out.
Akbar already becoming Ashoka!

Next week Agra to suffer from incessant thunderstorms caused by Jalal's crying. As though the rains in Chennai are not enough!🤔

Originally posted by: Sandhya.A

<font face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif">Aunty
New promo is out.
Akbar already becoming Ashoka!

Next week Agra to suffer from incessant thunderstorms caused by Jalal's crying. As though the rains in Chennai are not enough!</font>🤔

Sandhya, Raksha & me already predicted this, see we r always right too like Jo begum 😉 😆