Originally posted by: sashashyam
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
Anupamaa
Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi 2
