Who is CGM??? Warrior or Slaughter?

Who is Chandra Gupta Maurya? A warrior or a slaughter? I would have loved it, had he killed all Nanada's (Nava nandas) in battle and would have appreciated this CGM but here he mercilessly slaughter the captives like they were mere sheep or goat. Was that indicates his victory? The way he lifts his sword is similar to the one which the slaughter lifts while sacrificing a cattle in front of a temple ( as seen I some movies). This is not done.

And how could a man lift a girls duppatta in front of her father? if required he could have hurt her hand which was holding the sword and she would have slipped that from her arm but no ha has to disrobe her of her duppatta so that she uses her hands to cover her front to enable him to disarm her. pathetic way to show his way with woman.

Agreed he had vengeance on Padmananda but for that how could he loot a girls honor? If they show him like this, what is the difference between him and Mahapadmanand?

Your post makes me come out of my self imposed exile to comment on episode threads on IF.

CGM in the episode shot in the war field represented a warrior turned into an executioner whose remote control was in the hands of Chanakya.

Though i have some reservations about the manner in which the killing was done as it was blasphemous to see the timid depiction of Nanda princes. Despite their ill doings they are shown as very courageous in the accounts of history and a nemesis of entire ruling class of Bharatvarsha. No wonder they had extinguished all rulers that time. But here they were behaving like lambs ready to be slaughtered. They should have put up a fight.

In fact, i expected a beheading going by the manner in which they were showing the episode. Pardon my insensitivity but this was a period where beheading was permitted in the war field. The CVs stopped short of showing us such a beheading scene. Chanakya in his Arthashastra has given how much prize money should be given to the soldier who brings the head of enemy from the war field.

I would also answer the second point. Going by Arthashastra, Chanakya says, it is always better to kill your enemy, and in case they are weaker than you - then you should definitely eliminate them. The REEL Chanakya was merely doing the same here by showing no mercy to the Nanda princes.

Chanakya's policies were against the dharma sastras. He aims at the total annihilation of the enemy, by hook or crook. The sastras do not permit fighting against women, children, captives etc. but Chanakya simply means business. He mentions special cases, and if the condition is not safe he supports elimination of everyone.


For me, the only thing which happened well in the episode was Chanakya in the last 10 minutes. For those 10 minutes he appeared the Chanakya who we know in history. It was just perfect.

You saw a cold man.
A Heartless teacher (oxymoron).
A proud and revengeful master.
A person merciless in precepts.
A person rich in cruelty.


He was unmoved by the tears of a young girl who was crying at the loss of her family and their brutal execution in front of her eyes. I don't know how will i support or argue against the conduct of CGM in pulling off the dupatta of the Nanda princess. The fault lies with the creatives. On one hand they want to show an empowered "Nayi Soch" by showing her jumping out of nowhere in the CGM - Nanda duel ; and on other hand they stick to such crass ideas by showing her getting realization of her "weak gender" .

Before moving i also want to mention, Chanakya says it is permitted to put fire in the women quarters of your enemy, in order to weaken your enemy in a war.

Though, the sastras are against harming woman, aged person, Brahman etc in any case in a war, but the Udyoga Parva of Mahabharata also says, once any person comes in front of you, in armor, in battle field, then the person is just enemy. This is what was told by Sri Krishna to Arjuna in the battle field of Kurukshetra. He instructed Arjuna to fight any Brahman or relative if he came to fight him, because when you enter a battle field the opponent is simply opponent - no kinsmen and no friend. It means your enemy.

Very practical, Chanakya was. His writings come across as devoid of morals and ethics, prima facie. He had only one religion and one goal and that was the protection of the state and administration. He never felt obliged to go according to the sastras. He is called Machiavelli for no other reason. Clever - cunning - ruthless in his methods. The last 10 minutes were a glimpse of that thing.

I will try to post a short update on my thread soon. I am glad you kept your post short as i could read it quickly. Couldn't resist leaving my quick comment on your thread. Bye. :D

👏

Hi Abhay, nice to have you explained but even I am not defending on killing Nandas but the way in which happened didn't go well with me. They were real warriors and reserved a warrior's deaths. I would have loved it even if he had chopped off all the head's in one go ,sorry that's what he did right. But he could have asked some of his soldiers to do the execution and he could have challenged Mahapadmanand for a duel and killed him. I am not against him fighting A female if she poses herself as his enemy. Or he could have challenged her for the duel and fix her to such a situation that she should not appose him killing her father, if she was defeated. He would have bargained her hand as well as victory. Anyway let's wait for today's episode before committing a crime

Originally posted by: history_geek

Your post makes me come out of my self imposed exile to comment on episode threads on IF.

CGM in the episode shot in the war field represented a warrior turned into an executioner whose remote control was in the hands of Chanakya.

Though i have some reservations about the manner in which the killing was done as it was blasphemous to see the timid depiction of Nanda princes. Despite their ill doings they are shown as very courageous in the accounts of history and a nemesis of entire ruling class of Bharatvarsha. No wonder they had extinguished all rulers that time. But here they were behaving like lambs ready to be slaughtered. They should have put up a fight.

In fact, i expected a beheading going by the manner in which they were showing the episode. Pardon my insensitivity but this was a period where beheading was permitted in the war field. The CVs stopped short of showing us such a beheading scene. Chanakya in his Arthashastra has given how much prize money should be given to the soldier who brings the head of enemy from the war field.

I would also answer the second point. Going by Arthashastra, Chanakya says, it is always better to kill your enemy, and in case they are weaker than you - then you should definitely eliminate them. The REEL Chanakya was merely doing the same here by showing no mercy to the Nanda princes.

Chanakya's policies were against the dharma sastras. He aims at the total annihilation of the enemy, by hook or crook. The sastras do not permit fighting against women, children, captives etc. but Chanakya simply means business. He mentions special cases, and if the condition is not safe he supports elimination of everyone.


For me, the only thing which happened well in the episode was Chanakya in the last 10 minutes. For those 10 minutes he appeared the Chanakya who we know in history. It was just perfect.

You saw a cold man.
A Heartless teacher (oxymoron).
A proud and revengeful master.
A person merciless in precepts.
A person rich in cruelty.


He was unmoved by the tears of a young girl who was crying at the loss of her family and their brutal execution in front of her eyes. I don't know how will i support or argue against the conduct of CGM in pulling off the dupatta of the Nanda princess. The fault lies with the creatives. On one hand they want to show an empowered "Nayi Soch" by showing her jumping out of nowhere in the CGM - Nanda duel ; and on other hand they stick to such crass ideas by showing her getting realization of her "weak gender" .

Before moving i also want to mention, Chanakya says it is permitted to put fire in the women quarters of your enemy, in order to weaken your enemy in a war.

Though, the sastras are against harming woman, aged person, Brahman etc in any case in a war, but the Udyoga Parva of Mahabharata also says, once any person comes in front of you, in armor, in battle field, then the person is just enemy. This is what was told by Sri Krishna to Arjuna in the battle field of Kurukshetra. He instructed Arjuna to fight any Brahman or relative if he came to fight him, because when you enter a battle field the opponent is simply opponent - no kinsmen and no friend. It means your enemy.

Very practical, Chanakya was. His writings come across as devoid of morals and ethics, prima facie. He had only one religion and one goal and that was the protection of the state and administration. He never felt obliged to go according to the sastras. He is called Machiavelli for no other reason. Clever - cunning - ruthless in his methods. The last 10 minutes were a glimpse of that thing.

I will try to post a short update on my thread soon. I am glad you kept your post short as i could read it quickly. Couldn't resist leaving my quick comment on your thread. Bye. :D

Originally posted by: Sandhya.A

👏

Well explained Abhay. This is how Chanakya must have been. And this is how things work in high places.

Dhanyawaad Sandhya !
Yes, this is how Chanakya should be shown, always.

Originally posted by: deejagi

Hi Abhay, nice to have you explained but even I am not defending on killing Nandas but the way in which happened didn't go well with me. They were real warriors and reserved a warrior's deaths. I would have loved it even if he had chopped off all the head's in one go ,sorry that's what he did right. But he could have asked some of his soldiers to do the execution and he could have challenged Mahapadmanand for a duel and killed him. I am not against him fighting A female if she poses herself as his enemy. Or he could have challenged her for the duel and fix her to such a situation that she should not appose him killing her father, if she was defeated. He would have bargained her hand as well as victory. Anyway let's wait for today's episode before committing a crime

I think you have never read about history of warfare and war tactics in India. A king like CGM would not wasted his time over Nandini. In old days she would probably end up in royal harem. Emotions and morality are not valued during war. Chankya's Arthashatra uses all tactics to win a war.

In the oldest days the winning king always killed the losing party. Generally the men were killed before the women of the family. This used to warn the women of the future consequences. This is the reason the imperial women used to commit suicide after defeat.

I think CGM gave decent death to the princes. The other kings would have ripped of their body parts one by one and slowly tortured them to death. In this serial remember that CGM mother was badly tortured by Nand so that anger and hate is present in CGM for revenge.

So what CGM did was perfectly fine. Nandini should remember that they lost war. So the ball is in CGM's court.

Originally posted by: colossial.mega

I think you have never read about history of warfare and war tactics in India. A king like CGM would not wasted his time over Nandini. In old days she would probably end up in royal harem. Emotions and morality are not valued during war. Chankya's Arthashatra uses all tactics to win a war.

In the oldest days the winning king always killed the losing party. Generally the men were killed before the women of the family. This used to warn the women of the future consequences. This is the reason the imperial women used to commit suicide after defeat.

I think CGM gave decent death to the princes. The other kings would have ripped of their body parts one by one and slowly tortured them to death. In this serial remember that CGM mother was badly tortured by Nand so that anger and hate is present in CGM for revenge.

So what CGM did was perfectly fine. Nandini should remember that they lost war. So the ball is in CGM's court.

its scary

Originally posted by: deejagi

Hi Abhay, nice to have you explained but even I am not defending on killing Nandas but the way in which happened didn't go well with me. They were real warriors and reserved a warrior's deaths. I would have loved it even if he had chopped off all the head's in one go ,sorry that's what he did right.

But he could have asked some of his soldiers to do the execution and he could have challenged Mahapadmanand for a duel and killed him.

I am not against him fighting A female if she poses herself as his enemy. Or he could have challenged her for the duel and fix her to such a situation that she should not appose him killing her father, if she was defeated. He would have bargained her hand as well as victory. Anyway let's wait for today's episode before committing a crime

Jaya,

It is always a pleasure to read your posts. I have greatly benefited from them in the past. I have divided your comment in 3 parts.

For the first part.

I concur, as far as the treatment of Nanda princes is concerned, as i said in my first comment above, last night. For all / any fault of theirs, they were a powerful force to reckon with. The war was a highly pitched one and hotly contested, from whatever sources we know. Hence such a cowardly conduct was not right in my opinion. Wars in ancient times were far more destructive than what happened in medieval ages.


For the second part.

I have a counter thought to offer. Since they had already shown the Nandas frightened and timid towards the end of war, hence first option of challenging for a duel is ruled out. Moreover, the Nanda Emperor was already given a challenge of duel in the battle field from where he ran away.

Second clause is - CGM should have asked some other soldiers to execute the Nanda ruler. This, i think, is not possible.

There are 2 reasons which i can offer -
1. Psychological reasons and
2. Mahabharata (seen as a war manual by military historians) praises the warrior who eliminates his rival, and compares him with the prowess of Sri Vishnu. Lets see.

Psychologically, the new king should eliminate the old king. This creates a great impact on the soldiers and the population in general. They get to know that the new master is no less in any aspect, than the old, who was governing them. Do you remember the first episode of Jodha Akbar ? Bairam Khan asks Akbar to kill Hemu after winning the Panipat war to get the title of "Ghazi" ; apart from the supposed religious aspect , the reason was - He wanted Akbar to show his might to his soldiers and make an impression that whoever comes in my way would be put off as ruthlessly as possible. This was the psychological aspect of the war. Central Asian tribes were very dreaded ; precisely for the brutal manner in which they conducted warfare.

Coming to second point.
In the Santi Parva in Mahabharata, Pitamaha Bhishma in a conversation with Yudhishthira, narrates a story and quotes the God of Gods Indra saying : "That powerful warrior who, having slain the commander of the hostile army, mounts the vehicle of his fallen antagonist, comes to be regarded as possessed of the prowess of Vishnu himself and the intelligence of Brihaspati, the preceptor of the celestials. "

Military historians have taken great note of this point. There was a strong meaning and importance attached to the person who eliminated the rival commander / king.


For the third part

It is about females fighting in war. I too have no problem with the Nanda princess entering the war and even fighting in the war. Only the manner of her entry was terrible. And as listed above, this was a fault of CVs. They seem confused what to show.

If they had brought her in the war field, then there was no need of showing CGM's meddling with her garment. A proper duel was needed.

Just for note, females took part in wars in ancient India. I have made a thread about women in ancient times and also included some notes in it about women and military.

Alexander while marching into India had to fight with a principality in the North West which had female contingents in it ; the king died and the queen and her daughter commanded the army. It was a long siege like the Chittor battle of Akbar. Alexander emerged victorious with great difficulty and eliminated everyone there - male OR female.

I have made a note on my latest thread about this war. {Link} BTW, i have already made a note about interesting views of Chanakya on war , which i said in the first comment above. {Link}

Originally posted by: JazzyM

Super explanation...I too have read Chanyaka histories and have always found him to be ruthless for the sake of state...Bharat mata is the ultimate goal. I too agree, the minute Chanakaya walked and stopped the final sword trust by Chandra towards Nand, it was beyond description. He turned into a cold blooded tsar with only the thoughts of revenge...

Thank you @JazzyM.

Quoting Chanakya, his views on governance.

-> Just as fire burns by heat, sun burns by it's rays, Brahman burns by his penance, similarly, a king burns by punishment.

-> People are controlled by punishment, intrinsically pure man is rare. Out of fear of punishment, the world enjoys blessings.

Presents an image of a person who is cold and is clear about what he wants and how he wants to achieve stability in administration.

On a lighter note, Arthashastra has more list of punishments than any other thing. ROFL