Porus 159-160: Acharya devo na bhava? - Page 3

Originally posted by: sashashyam

Folks,

Like Surbhi yesterday, I was in two minds about doing this post, which would be mostly about issues that had already been discussed threadbare here, especially on her very entertaining thread, which resembled Hanuman's tail in the speed with and extent to which it grew! 😆But my contrarian nature won out, and here I am, to provide a perspective that is not in sync with the general sentiment here. I would only request you to give my point of view some considered thought.

Before I get to the crux of my post, let me dispose of two other items.

Sri Purushottam Tulabhaaram: The first is the tulabhaaram scene, in which, after Anusuya's heavy kangans have failed to tip the scales, Laachi's 50 gm. paayal manages it effortlessly. There have been arguments against this depiction, the majority, and some arguments for it. I am with the former, though I can see where the latter are coming from, and here I shall try and meet their objections, especially those of soyan.

Here, it is not mutual respect between the mother in law and the prospective daughter in law that is the issue. Nor is it the issue that Purushottam now needs a life partner; that having just his mother is no longer enough, and as a corollary to this, that the daughter in law should be shown due respect and her position in the son's life accepted by the mother. None of this enters into the tulabhaaram scenario.

The problem I, and many others here have with that scene is that it has been written and enacted in such a way that pits the mother against the beloved, and makes it appear as though the love of the former is somehow wanting, is lower in quality than the love of the latter.

After all, the whole tulabhaaram concept hinges on this rating of one love as being superior to all the others. In the Sri Krishna Tulabhaaram, it was the love of Rukmini ---whose single tulsi leaf did what all the jewellery of Satyabhama and of Lord Krishna's 16007 other wives combined could not for Lord Krishna ---- that is rated higher than that of all the rest.

Here it is Laachi vs the rest, but the rest also includes Anusuya, and there lies the rub. It was a badly conceived scene, that is all. Now for the second item.

I think it's one of those scenes that were conceived with good intentions but didn't quite turn out as expected. Given the CVs' tendency to put a mother above all else, I don't think it was meant to show us that Anusuya had been replaced by Laachi, rather that there is a woman who can fill that void in his life that only a life partner can. I saw it more as passing on the baton to the next generation. The way Bamni made way for Puru to take over, Anusuya is doing the same with Laachi, allowing her to be Puru's support system as she herself has been for Bamni. The parents aren't going anywhere, they are just putting the next generation in the foreground but still playing their role in the background.

Old shoe love: This is a phrase I have borrowed from Mira Nair's celebrated Monsoon Wedding, which won the Golden Lion award at the Venice Film Festival. She used it to describe a love of long standing, between a couple that has weathered the vicissitudes of the years together, with their relationship maturing like fine wine, and acquiring emotional depth and richness, a sense of unshakeable togetherness, and a steadfast loyalty that nothing and no one can weaken.

On Friday, as I watched Bamni and Anusuya together, I felt that theirs too was a beautiful example of old shoe love. Which also showed, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that theirs is the only pair in Porus which has that elusive quality, chemistry, and in spades!

Completely agree with this. Also, the fact that they had been separated for so long and had missed out so many terrible experiences in life makes them cherish what they have and make the most of everyday.

Bamni was apologizing yet again to Anusuya for all the humiliation she had suffered at the hands of his brother, and praising her, with awestruck admiration, for the courage and resilience with which she had chosen to stay behind and risk the attendant dangers while ordering Puru to save his father's life and to serve the motherland. He even thanked her for the umpteenth time for saving his life from her brother 21 years ago in Takshashila, forgetting that it was her well-intentioned folly that had then endangered his life in the first place.

How many men, and that too a man who was a king, would apologise so unreservedly and humbly for his failings? Very, very few, for the male ego is obstinate and unyielding. But Bamni can and does apologise. His face was wracked with anguish and shame at his earlier failings, and his sorrow and regret were visible and convincing.

So was Anusuya's quick and protective response. There is always something of the mother in a loving wife, and it is this aspect of the ardhangini that surfaced as Anusuya hastened to comfort and reassure her Arya, and to cocoon him in the tender warmth of her embrace. But then that is Anusuya all over.

This is one of Bamni's best qualities. I had referred to this in my post on Bamni's Lament before being executed by his son where we saw who Bamni is: a good man at heart who has always struggled with finding the right balance in life in terms of the different roles he has had to play: king, brother, husband, father. A man who is not afraid to acknowledge his shortcomings in front of his wife, son, brother, and everyone else, who laid bare his soul without inhibition.

Through his guilt, compassion, and restraint, he is making up for his mistakes and showing wisdom.

Both the actors were superb, and it was a deeply and genuinely emotional scene. I was sorry to see that while so many here are quick to deride Bamni and call him Dumbini and the like, there were very few to appreciate him on Friday and note his truly admirable qualities. It is OK for us to discuss Alexander and Porus and Chanakya all the time, but we should also not fail to notice some little gem when it comes our way.

OK, here we come to the nub of my post. It is about Puru, not Porus, or Purushottam.

Puru in the pillory: I was somewhat bemused to see that over the last two episodes, Puru has been, so to speak, set in the pillory in this forum, and showered with rotten tomatoes and eggs, along with an occasional chappal. 😉

He has been accused, in an echo of Chanakya's angry outburst, of forgetting his maryada, and the Bharatiya sanskriti that he is always boasting about, in his interactions with Acharya Chanakya. Of being arrogant and overbearing in his interactions with the visiting kings. And even of sitting on the throne in a way that was unlike that of Bamni and even Kanishka, and reeked of arrogance. In short , of having suddenly become an ill mannered upstart whose behaviour was abysmal and needed instant correction.

In a curious reversal of the fairy tale, the prince had become a frog!😉

But is all of this shower of angry criticism really deserved? And is it true that Puru's behaviour has taken an sudden turn for the worse? Let us look at each aspect of the charges against him.

Puru has always been impulsive, and rash. On many occasions he has sprung into action without thinking too far ahead, not to mention lecturing people, especially Alexander, at length. So I was not too surprised to see him this way.

The self-appointed Acharya: The hymn to the guru goes as follows:

Guru Brahma, Guru Vishnu, Guru devo Maheswaraha,

Guru sakshat Parambrahma, tasmay Shri Gurave namaha.

The guru is equal to Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva combined. He is the embodiment of the Parabrahman, the Ultimate Reality, and to this guru, I bow down.

This total devotion of the shishya to the guru was the bedrock of the guru-shishya parampara of ancient times. But Chanakya was never Puru's guru, nor was Puru his shishya in this sense of the term. It is upon this rock that their relationship founders.

Chanakya, with his razor sharp intellect, the strength of his mind, and his devotion to the Akhanda Bharat of his dreams, is matchless, and as such, deserving of the utmost respect from all those who encounter him (bar Alexander, of course!). But he is also an unbending autocrat who insists on unquestioning and total obedience to his instructions.

We must not forget that Puru's formative years were in Dasyu lok, where he was taught to be fearless and take action. He used to speak up when he wanted to and opposed even the ruling king and queen when he didn't agree with them. This is just on a bigger scale. If the person in question hadn't been the famous (and revered) Chanakya, viewers might have been a little less sensitive to his behavior.

Nor is he interested in or affectionate towards Puru per se. For him, Puru is the presently best available tool for checking the advance of Alexander into Bharat. That is why, though he must clearly have seen that Puru is rash and immature, and has a lot to learn before he can become a successful king, he pushes him on to the throne, for he thinks that Puru's reckless courage, his physical strength, and the commitment they both share to the goal of an Akhanda Bharat, are needed at the moment to get together a coalition against Alexander. Bamni is nowhere near as forceful as Puru, and the other kings will not follow a yuvaraj.

And this is where Ripudaman would have been the perfect guide, and father if I may say so. He raised Puru since his childhood and knew him inside out. He knew how the Dasyu environment affected his upbringing but also how he needed to be moulded to be the best crown prince and eventually king of PR, having served as a general there. He was also a fearless warrior with undying loyalty who knew how to balance emotions with practical decision-making. He was sensitive enough to his wife's plight to understand that in some ways he had to compensate for the lack of maternal love in Puru's life, but also ensure that he never strayed from his duty to protect the heir to the throne.

Think back to their conversation about Alexander the siyaar. Puru clearly underestimates Alexander, and that exasperates Chanakya, but he thinks he has taken some corrective action. But he is neither fully confident of Puru's ability to withstand Alexander on the battlefield, nor of Puru staying the course he has laid out for him . Whence his shortcut of inveigling Alexander and getting him to Paurav Rashtra, to be slaughtered out of hand by Puru, thus safeguarding Bharat from him once and for all. Being the autocrat that he is, it never occurs to him to brief Puru in advance about his plans, to ensure that he is fully on board.

I am now wondering if Chanakya did this deliberately. Perhaps he knew that Puru would never agree to go along with this and would derail Chanakya's plan, and that his only option was to catch Puru off guard and appeal to his impulsiveness and patriotic sentiments. It's another matter that this backfired.

Curious lack of perception: This betrays an incomprehensible lack of perception of Puru's character. Puru is no one's puppet, and he has always thought things out for himself, and held forth about them (at interminable length!😉) . He is grateful to Chanakya for saving his father's life and I presume for helping him overcome Shivdutt and seize control in Paurav Rashtra. But there it ends. There is and can be no unquestioning obedience of the kind Chanakya insists on.

Chanakya's authoritarian nature worked with someone like Chandragupta who he took on as a student at a young age, where one can be moulded. Puru's personality has fully developed and he cannot be expected to change overnight. Perhaps in his desire to eliminate the threat of Alexander, on whom he has been focusing the whole time, Chanakya missed the cues closer to home that should have told him to be careful about how to deal with Puru and what to expect of him.

So, there is the inevitable clash between the irresistible force, Chanakya, and the immovable object, Puru, and the object wins out. I have written at length about their clash on Wednesday evening in my last post, and I won't repeat myself here (count your blessings!😉). But it is Chanakya's cardinal mistake that he tries, and in front of the whole assemblage, to force Puru to do something which would make it impossible for him to live with himself henceforth. Chanakya either does not understand this, or if he understands it, he does not care.

Chanakya is at that point blinded by his single-minded determination to have Alexander executed on the spot after all the scheming he has done, and his obstinacy in trying to free his Taxila from Alexander made him go down the desperate times call for desperate measures route.

It is not that Puru was being deliberately impolite and trying to teach Chanakya about morality and the true sanskaars aur sanskriti of Bharat. He is, and always was, "like that only", and lectures anyone within earshot at the drop of a hat. Some of the things he said to Chanakya that day were better left unsaid. But in the heat of the debate, he gets carried away, nor does it occur to Chanakya to advise that Alexander should be imprisoned while they thrashed this matter out. They are both as obstinate as can be, and since Chanakya cannot behead Alexander himself, he loses out, and in public.

I don't mean to be rude, but I feel that where we've seen the Chanakya-Puru duo as a brains vs brawn (or hot blood) thing, this time it was the opposite, where Chanakya was losing his cool and getting all riled up and Puru was trying to reason with him, and everyone else in the court by extension.

Unpardonable lack of courtesy: What follows is far worse. After his exchange of barbs with Alexander, Puru is clearly very pleased with himself, and equally so are his parents. They happily proceed to the raajtilak and then the tulabhaaram ceremony, without having had even the elementary courtesy to ask Chanakya to take a seat. Not to speak of Puru touching his feet (he has never done that so far, though any real shishya would do that first thing) and seeking his blessings, and also begging his pardon for the way in which he was forced to oppose him on the Alexander issue, both of which were called for by elementary good breeding.

It was unbelievable, seeing Chanakya standing there, in the middle of the hall, like a piece of unwanted furniture that no one cared about. It made me cringe with shame, not only on Puru's behalf, but also on behalf of Bamni and Anusuya.😲 If he is a heedless brat, they at least were grown ups, and they should have taken immediate corrective action by rendering due honour to Chanakya and involving him in all the ceremonies.

I just think they were so self-absorbed and that Chanakya was still considered to be part of their inner circle. It was also their way of exercising their independence of speech and thought. I also think that Chanakya was not known to them or revered in the same people do now. Perhaps he was not that famous and they only approached him because Ambhiraj had referred to a ved who could help cure Bamni. Chanakya had never been mentioned before.

I don't think Puru or his parents were being rude, but they were making the same mistake again of not having their finger on the pulse and not being able to appreciate the jewel they had amongst them in the form or such an aalem (who even Alexander doesn't fail to respect or appreciate).

But neither made any such move, nor did the ubiquitous Laachi feel the need to retrieve the situation. Instead, they all left Acharya Chanakya alone and proceeded with the ceremonies as if nothing had happened. It was the ruddy limit.😡

Well, Puru has missed out on good parenting from his biological parents, but they themselves have not led him too well by example, have they?

When Chanakya, fuming in anger - the shades of emotion that cross his face at the various stages of the events he deplores were admirably subtle and yet fully readable 👏- walks out at the end of the tulabhaaram ceremony, Puru spots that, but he does not try to go after Chanakya, apologise suitably and bring him back. Nor do his parents bother about it at all. It was all the height of ingratitude and lack of even elementary sanskaars on the part of all three of them: Puru Anusuya, and Bamni.

Parental failing: But the fault is more that of Puru's parents than of Puru himself. As he quotes (in a marked anachronism that I had noted in my last post) from the Arthashastra, if the sapling is defective, the fault is that of the seed. If a child is ill-behaved, the fault is that of the parents.

They should have reprimanded him at once and made him beg Chanakya's pardon for the way in which he had opposed him, even if not for the opposition itself, and tried to rebuild the relationship between Puru and Chanakya. Instead, they are both happily gazing at their boy wonder, who they are sure can do no wrong. No wonder, then, that Puru is heedless, impertinent and cocksure of himself to the point of being arrogant.

I think after the recent turmoil in their lives, they were content with some form of happiness and a sliver of (temporary) peace in their lives and do not want to engage in disciplining their son. No wonder Chanakya was frustrated. He felt that Puru had become arrogant after taking on the crown and that his parents were complicit as well.

Persistent trend: Puru has very many admirable qualities of head and heart. He is a superb warrior, extremely courageous, resourceful in coping with crises, very caring and protective towards the weak, loyal to those he feels are his own, unfailingly grateful for favours done to him, and very, very strong physically.

But he is also rash, over confident about his own powers, easily distracted by side issues, impatient, inclined to rush to judgement without knowing the facts, and generally cocky and convinced that he is always right. He has never been noted for politeness in dealing with anyone other than his mother and Laachi, and earlier Ripudaman and the Dasyu Rani. He was always brash and aggressive, even when addressing Maharaj Bamni in open court. He has never paid even lip respect to the concept of good manners and proper behaviour.

I agree, and we cannot expect him to talk or to behave otherwise. He's just not been given that education, or taught the tehzeeb that royals are supposed to have. He is more Dasyu than PR at heart, yet the burden of being the king has started to awaken in him a sense of responsibility to the throne and to his people. It will take time for him to find his equilibrium but I have no hope that our CVs will take time to show him grow, which would be extremely interesting, instead of filling up the next 60+ episodes with strange tracks.

Today, he is being criticized for the way in which he dealt with Chanakya, a revered Acharya and a benefactor of his family. But what of the way in which he spoke to his own father, refusing to acknowledge his apologies for what had happened over the last 21 years, insisting that he would never see Bamni as his father, and accusing him in a most illogical fashion for the death of Ripudaman and the travails of Anusuya? I did not see any such criticism of Puru's behaviour at that time. Should his sanskaars not have extended as much to his father then as now to this Acharya who is not his guru?

So there is no point in barracking Puru now for something that has been one of his fundamental characteristics from day one.

Lack of correction: No one who could have corrected him took the trouble to do so, or even to set right his misunderstandings. Not even Anusuya, the one with the most influence over him. If she had told him exactly what had happened in Takshashila 21 years ago, including her own role in unthinkingly drawing Bamni into a deadly trap, from which all the rest followed, his bitterness towards his father would have vanished much earlier. But she never thinks of doing that. And it seems to never occur to Bamni that his heir needs training in kingship and governance.

Instead, they all behave like Puru's cheerleaders, and he is left on his own, hailed as a paragon, but in reality a young man untrained for the responsibility now thrust upon him, with no one to guide him and make him shape up and to burnish his undoubted, tremendous potential. Without such strict oversight, he continues to behave as he always has, in a manner both bumptious and over confident. He is less to blame for this than those who should have taken him in hand.

This is a moot point by now, but I'll still say that showing a young Puru in this serial instead of one who was actually around 50 at this time has been detrimental, in the sense that the real Puru would have been mature and a sensible king when it came time to face Alexander.

The coalition builder: See, here is Puru, new to the throne, and handicapped by his dasyu background. He has to get all these other kings to agree to support him in opposing and fighting Alexander. If he were to try and talk them round, they would never agree, despising him as an inexperienced young man, and would walk out.

So he has to force them, by fear as well as by inspiring them to serve the motherland. But for the combination of his panache and his threat, they would never have joined him. It is true that some or many of them might defect at the last moment, but that is a risk Puru has to run, and if he were to lose all these adherents, he would be no worse off than he is now.

Yes, he needs to show strength, not just to follow through on his newly declared slogan on unity, but also to prove his worthiness as a king to the dissenters and skeptics. He also threatened to destroy anyone who sided with Alexander, and though that sounded ruthless, it is the steely resolve he needs in order to face (and maybe win) against someone like Alexander. I still think though, he doesn't fully understand who he's dealing with when it comes to Alexander, but he will find out, hopefully with good teachings from Chanakya and the backup of his father. I am glad Bamni is still around because when the time comes, I expect him to now make wiser decisions that he did in the past.

It is a kind of psychological struggle for the minds of the other kings, and I feel that Puru did the best he could, and he succeeded, even if only temporarily. Yes, his speech of encouragement is excessive, but such speeches always are, being more about psyching oneself up for the battle ahead.

The kingly stance: This is funny. Puru is very young, and is clearly delighted to have become the king and to sit on the throne. How does it matter if he sits facing front or somewhat sideways?😆

A seething volcano: I had practically forgotten about Alexander! He was fabulous, like a seething volcano, as he makes his way back to Takshashila, and then when he sets the whole strategy table on fire in his fury. Even when he has slipped in the mud, and is sprawled on the ground, he manages to retain not only his dignity but his aura of power.

That scene in the mud was fabulous and I loved the contrast between Puru's declaration that water helps bind sand/mud to form one shape, whereas Alexander was picking up this very mud and watching it becoming slippery due to excess rain. I hope this will help him with this Jhelum crossing and battle strategy. Alexander also showed that he may be down but not out and that even in his fall he finds a way to rise back up. As with the post near-drowning scene, here too he does not want Hephaestion to help him get back up. Weather is never a deterrent and he will brave it in order to conquer India, his resolve becoming firmer everyday (if that is possible).

On the boat/ship back to Taxila, we see the rainwater washing away the mud and this is what Alexander will achieve by exploiting the slipperiness of mud during the Hydaspes battle (or so I hope).

I also loved how he set the table on fire and declared how he would set fire to the war in Jhelum, in contrast to what Puru told him before leaving PR about him/Bharatiyas being the water that would extinguish Alexander's fire. He looked like a ferocious, wounded lion there who is now thirsty for blood. 😆

I did not understand what he said about Ambhiraj not being able to get Takshashila back, for I thought he still had it as the king. But then there are so many things that our principals say that only they can understand.😆

Anyhow, in the precap, Alexander seems almost set to walk on water! 😉

The Jhelum river has played an important part in this show and I'm keen to see how Alexander uses it to best effect, because by now Puru's oath to prevent Alexander from crossing the river has no more meaning since Chanakya himself showed him the way to PR. And Alexander has now had the chance to observe very closely a lot of things he would not have been privy too had he stayed back in Taxila until the actual war. I also think he would have closely observed the interpersonal relations in the PR ruling family (plus their dynamics with Chanakya) and will strategize around that too.

Immediate prospects: Chanakya will now wash his hands of Puru and set out for Magadha, to seek the support of Dhananand, who was clearly not part of the Paurav Rashtra assembly, against Alexander. He will be safer on the road to Magadha than in Takshashila! 😉He will then be duly humiliated by Dhananand, will make the immortal Chanakya shapath, and will very likely run into the young Chandragupta Maurya, the perfect candidate to soothe the wounds inflicted on his psyche by Puru.

I am still half expecting them to bring in Chandragupta Maurya somewhere, but they need to find a way to do so without him stealing Puru's thunder. Of course, in order to maintain their 100% track record the CVs are bound to destroy this character too if he makes and appearance. 😆

Titbit: Did you folks notice that by the time the tulabhaaram ceremony came around, all the other kings had taken themselves off? They did not want to part with their jewels for the tulabhaaram!😆

That is it, and more than enough! If you liked this, please do hit the Like button.

Shyamala Aunty/Di

Originally posted by: Nonie12345

Awesome analysis Shymala Aunty

I have always enjoyed reading your analysis whether it is in Jodha Akbar,Chandra Nandini and Porus