Posted:
I have seen so many amazing historicals on indian tv that have impressed me for several reasons. This includes prithviraj chauhan, which till this date remains the closest to my heart out of any historical as it was the first one i ever watched and was the show that actually got me into watching indian serials years ago as well as got me into wanting to know more about indian history. If it wasn't for prc i would have known zilch about india's history and it was only because of it that i watched all the other historicals that came after it. Also loved jhansi ki rani because it was the only historical that featured a female protagonist (well apart from shobha somnath ki, but that show was more fictional with only hints of history and the main girl wasn't real at all), as usually all historicals are about a male warrior. Then also there are few others i loved like maharana pratap, but also jodha akbar, for the sheer fact that i actually felt I went back in time and because they did focus a lot on the political side of the history of akbar's rule which impressed me. This show on the other hand sucks apart from rajat himself, and there are a number of reasons for that...
1. Factually completely inaccurate and might as well be called a periodical fiction, due to the fact that so many of the characters, including the main ones apart from chanakya, chandragupta, helena and durdhara are made up, but also because chandragupta's background is shown falsely; as far as i have read he did not come from a royal background.
2. The complete immaturity with which one of india's greatest ruler's has been portrayed as a brainless king who needs constant guidance from his teacher. The man doesn't even know how to sit or even walk like a king, let alone think like one or rule like one, as this show is showing us. The real Chandragupta would have been burning up in flames seeing how he is being shown as only a dependent puppet of chanakya.
3. Too much importance being given to a character that never existed (nandini) and creating silly and pathetic moments of utter lunacy between historical characters who rather than engaging in politics are caught up in silly kitchen politics and comedy.
4. The political side of cgm is not being shown at all unlike in jodha akbar, where despite all the criticisms, i strongly commend ekta for actually giving importance to the political side of the mughal history, where that is completely non-existent here, although i would also say that is down to how little is documented about cgm's rule and political consensus unlike akbar's.
I could go on and talk about all the stupid things that i have seen in this show that make me wonder whether the same woman who created zee's jodha akbar actually created this show, but that would be a never ending discussion i guess.
CID
