User
Logout
Login Register
You are here :
  1. Home
  2. Forums
  3. Mahabharat
  4. Chat with Anand Neelakantan(Note pg 2)
  5. Page 3

Watch
Mahabharat

Chat with Anand Neelakantan(Note pg 2) - Page 3

Created

Sabhayata thumbnail 9years

Last reply

daenerysnow thumbnail 9years

Replies

28

Views

9053

Users

11

Likes

95

Frequent Posters

Sort Replies:

Anandneelakant thumbnail
Posted: 9 years ago
Originally posted by: Sabhayata






sir thanks for taking out time and answering our questions

pardon my lack of knowledge but what does Chaturvarnam Maya Srishtam  mean?I am not aware of the same

Krishna says in Gita, Chaturvarnam Maya Srishtam, Guna Karma Vibhagasha :- This has been interpreted by scholars in different ways. Krishna says that he is the one who has made the four Varnas, depending on their merit and deeds.  For many years, people who justified caste system used to quote this as divine words saying Krishna had made the Varna system and hence it cannot be changed. On the other hand, a more liberal meaning is that Krishna never meant the Varna to be decided by birth as explained in the second part of the stanza. He is saying the Varna is based on the merit and deeds.  The argument is indecisive on what Krishna meant and it will depend on which viewpoint you are taking while reading Mahabharata. When I am writing from Kaurava's viewpoint, I will have to be uncharitable to Krishna.

My way of writing is more like an actor playing his part. Please try to enjoy it as such. Hating my writing as it does not conform to the conventional tellings is like saying that one does not like the actors who play a villain's role in a film. 

Consider me as the advocate of Ravana and Suyodhana who is arguing his client's' case before the people's court. 


Also since you mentioned Gita i would also like know how this will be handled in your second book?Because in this case Gita is being narrated by someone who isn't a hero?

In Rise of Kali, Gita is told twice. Once as an argument between Krishna and his  brother Balarama where Balarama argues against Gita using the message of peace and again in the conventional place, between a doubting Arjuna and a confident Krishna. In the second time, the arguments against Gita are the ones a sceptic would employ. 

Also curious as to what Rise of Kali refers to?Is it like rise of Kal yug or rise of Kali as in the goddess indicating the wrathful side of a woman may be referring to Panchali

Rise of Kali as in Rise of KALIYUG

1

Reply

Quote
Anandneelakant thumbnail
Posted: 9 years ago
Originally posted by: Urmila11

My questions:

1) What is your view regarding Yudhishthir's kindness to Duryodhan? Will you ever show the incident where Duryodhan & Co went to watch Pandavas in their poor condition but finally caught by gandharvas & became freed by Yudhishthir's mercy? Or will you skip the same to show Yudhishthir as a villain? Also I would like to know whether your Yudhi will give Duryodhan the kind offer of choosing any weapon & any opponent at last battle or not. If you want to skip those just for showing Yudhi as an evil, then will it be fair to epic Yudhi's character? I mean, if we see only flaws of a certain character & completely ignore his/her good sides then will it not look like a biased view?


Roll of the dice is just the setting. Rise of Kali is where the actual drama gets played out. All the character's will undergo change. It shows how power changes people, including Suyodhana. I have not included Yudhistra saving Suyodhana, but have included Jayadratha's episode. I have also included the portion where Arjuna does not kill the Kauravas when he had the chance. Yudhistra will be a different character after the war. He is as much a victim of the system as Suyodhana was. 


2) Will you show the Yaksha prashna part? If not, then why? And there is a philosophical conversation between King Nahusha & Yudhi in Van Parva which proves that Yudhi did not believe that caste is based on birth, rather he is probably the first person to speak that only presence of 7 gunas make a person Brahmin & not otherwise. He then clearly tells Nahusha that even if a Shudra has those virtues then he should be treated as a Brahmin. So what is your take regarding this part? Does it not prove Yudhi as a liberal person? Also, will you ever show this Yudhi-Nahusha conversation in your book?

What Yudhistra speaks and what he does are two different things. Mahabharata is a great epic and writing each and every episode of the same is a mammoth task.  The Yaskha prasanna part has been left out as this is not Yudhistra's story. The acts of Suyodhana is often left out in conventional tellings. Is this not a bias? But Yudhsitra will not be an out right villain after the game of dice. Yudhistra and Suyodhana are mirror reflections of each other. Yudhistra thinks right and acts wrong, Suyodhana acts right, but without much thought.


 

4

Reply

Quote
Anandneelakant thumbnail
Posted: 9 years ago
Originally posted by: Sabhayata

Sir
In addition to Watcher's questions

Karna had promised Kunti not to kill any of her other sons' except for Arjuna but in that case he could have at least imprisoned Yudi as Drona had planned?

He had defeated Yudi on two occasions atleast and Karna did spare him because of Kunti but he could have also imprisoned Yudi and turned the tide of war in their favour but he didnt even do that?What's your opinion on this?It seems like he actually wanted pandavs to win

Also how will this be handled in Ajaya?Since Suyodhan is the hero here and Karna will be betraying the main hero.


Karna in Rise of Kali is a man torn between his loyalty towards Suyodhana and his quest for greatness. He betrays Suyodhana, but Suyodhana refuses to believe that he was betrayed by Karna. Yet, even in his betrayal Karna remains loyal to Suyodhana.

And this strange relationship will claim another victim.

Read Rise of Kali to find out

1

Reply

Quote
Anandneelakant thumbnail
Posted: 9 years ago
Originally posted by: Brishti_Sarkar

Hello Sir. Hope you are having a good time.

1. What is your personal opinion? Do you really feel Duryodhan was correct, and the story is written in favour of Pandavas? Do you actually dislike the Pandavas, and think of Duryodhan and Karna etc as the heroes?


No, Vyasa has given a balanced story. But popular retellings have made Suydohana such a big villain that it was time to bring back a balance. I have no likes or dislike towards Pandavas or even Kauravas. My job is like a defence advocate, who is arguing from Kaurava's side. And beleive me, once you take out the divinity of Krishna out of it, Duryodhana and Karna looks more heroic than the Pandavas

2. You mentioned that Duryodhan did not hit the bird eye as he did not want to hurt even the symbol of a living creature. But, he DID want to kill his cousins isn't it? It is not a question of who is the deserving heir, it is just that he wanted to kill them. And why did you feel Duryodhan would not want to hit the target for this reason? Even if Duryodhan is a hero, he does not have to be good at archery. That was an archery test, and Arjuna is bound to hit, and Duryodhan wasn't a good archer. That does not make him any less heroic (in your book) , so why such a interpretation? Why not accept that Duryodhan wasn't good enough to strike?

Wanting to kill the cousins and killing the cousins are two different things.  Pandavas started the trail of murder and not Suyodhana.  Vyasa portrays Suyodhana as not having confidence until he meets Balarama. It is to show the transformation of Suyodhana from a sensitive child to what he becomes in Rise of Kali. It is also to contrast how he hates his former self when he sees the same sensitivity in his son. It will become clearer, I hope, when Rise of Kali comes out 


3.I think according to you whoever gets to write the story, is portrayed as heroes. The actual heroes are the villians and the heroes are bad. But, In Mahabharata, Vyasa has told us the story of both sides. If he would be in favour of Pandavas, then why would he mention them keeping quiet during Vastraharan, Bheem's numerous insults on Karna, potrayal of KUNTI in such a way (so that people sympathize of Karna. Nobody sees Kunti's side) and many other flaws which he showed. Pandavas weren't flawless. None of the good people of Mahabharata are. And some characters are more human, some are less human. But all of them are representation of people. What we are. Obviously, being a superman like Bheem is not possible IMO. But their mindset? Mahabharata is a story about people, and not only the heroes. It is said in Mahabharat that Duryodhan was a better mace fighter than Bheem. There is no doubt. He was more clever, and he wasn't a bad king. So is that in favour of Pandavas. Mahabharata is a story told open for interpretation. Then how can you say that the villians are heroes? Duryodhan is actually good?


I think, perhaps I made a mistake of doing this book as two parts. The first part is the setting, the second part is where the story starts unfolding and the complexities of character's's come out.  It will become clear how, when both the parties do wrong, the winning party gets glorified and their sins are whitewashed and interpreted to suit the needs of the narrator and how the same story can be told from a totally different perspective and still remain true to the original



3

Reply

Quote
AnuMP thumbnail
Anniversary 10 Thumbnail Group Promotion 5 Thumbnail
Posted: 9 years ago
Thank you for coming back. 
I think I understand the part about bringing back the balance. One of things that bugs a lot of us is the fact that even his friends' misdeeds are assigned to him. The DS/VH had a lot more to do with Shakuni, Dushy and Karna. I am hoping there are some scenes of the quartet discussing these events. 

The one question I have may perhaps be answered in Rise of Kali. With all his mistakes, Krishna's actions after the events of DS/VH were in defence of the weak and helpless. Even if you take his divinity out, at that point don't they have righteousness on their side? After all, her Patis were not willing to destroy the system that treated women as transferable assets. Krishna was. 
Edited by AnuMP - 9 years ago
2

Reply

Quote
Sea-Hawk thumbnail
Posted: 9 years ago
Brilliant idea .. Sabhyata n Any thanks for this wonderful effort 
Before asking anything I would like to say something to Neelkanthan sir ..

Sir I read the back story on how you started re-consider the popular believes and known facts about Mahabharata .. the story behind the Keralian temple was eye-opener. Moreover, the way you challenged the deep rooted conceptions, it was a courageous step and I congrats you for that. I especially loved your portrayal of society back then and the depiction of underworld - very convincing and flawless. Some lines you said there is so applicable in today's India too in fact the thin line between "those days" n "now-a-days" are maintained and merged very smartly. 

Now coming to my question, 

1. I loved our portrayal of Balarama .. I always respected him as the true neutral man who kept himself away from the mass slaughter named Kurukshetra. I want to know what is your inspiration behind depicting him as a person of great values & advanced thinking that can almost make him a reformer?? He somehow reminds me of Iswarchandra Vidyasagar with his calm, no-nonsense attitude .. is his portrayal inspired from any modern day renaissance hero or you simply find epic's Balaram the way you portrayed him? 

2. Why Karna is presented as a weak-link at the beginning? He like always gets my sympathy but Karna was a fighter by all means. Not only in battle field but in his life too. But, in Ajaya the spirit that made him challenge the society, the courage of breaking norms & guts of giving it back to the society is missing. He looked more vulnerable than he was. [read till Karna's education n test at Parashuram's]

3. I loved the way you replaced all supernatural stuffs with probable explanations. I have read Bengali books with such perspectives. However, almost every supernatural things can be decoded with scientific and logical take on them but I couldn't find an apt explanation of Karna's gold armor. What do you think what was it and why it was such a big deal ??

4. Jara - what/who is the inspiration of this character?? He is an amazing addition .. is he gonna be the very significant and relevant EYE of the story?? 


5. Have you read "Meghnath Badh Kavya" by Madhusudan Dutt or heard about it?? I so wanted to ask this question to the author of Asura 
Edited by SayaneeH.Lecter - 9 years ago
4

Reply

Quote
Sabhayata thumbnail
Anniversary 10 Thumbnail Group Promotion 6 Thumbnail + 3
Posted: 9 years ago
Sir
Thanks for taking out time for us

Well definitely excited to read the Gita part of Rise of Kali now

I am  glad that Yudhishtira will kind of get redeemed in Rise of Kali towards the end because he did take great care of Dhritrahstra and Gandhari after the war its one aspect of his charcter that touches my heart so hopefully we will get to see that Yudhishtira in Ajaya as well

And the other victim that Karna and Dury's strange relationship will claim will be i am guessing laxmana (Dury's son).Just a guess

my another question was regarding below

Originally posted by: Anandneelakant


Wanting to kill the cousins and killing the cousins are two different things.  Pandavas started the trail of murder and not Suyodhana.  Vyasa portrays Suyodhana as not having confidence until he meets Balarama. It is to show the transformation of Suyodhana from a sensitive child to what he becomes in Rise of Kali. It is also to contrast how he hates his former self when he sees the same sensitivity in his son. It will become clearer, I hope, when Rise of Kali comes out 


Pandavas starting a trail of murder i am guessing you are referring to killing of Nishada woman in lakshagarh and Khandavprasath which i agree with

But i am confused about the Duryodhan part

Duryodhan did try to kill/poison Bhima at least twice during childhood.Even lakshagarah was planned by him?So can we really say he didn't start this?
4

Reply

Quote
panchaali thumbnail
Anniversary 12 Thumbnail Group Promotion 6 Thumbnail + 2
Posted: 9 years ago
Anand Sir, 

I am a big fan of yours

it is great to have you among us

I have few doubts, I want your opinion about it

in the Vastraharan part as per most popular books on Mahabharat now, we see that Karna insulting Draupadi in a way which never suited his character...

but as per some very old Sanskrit book Karna did not say such things to Draupadi..he was there with Duryadhan but remained silent

in a recent TV show Dharmaksetra in the Epic channel showed the same

my uncle did some research on this matter and he said that

it is not Radheya Karna who insulted Drauapdi, Duryadhan had a brother named Karna who insulted her..in later versions of Mahabhart Radheya karna insults Draupadi..

my uncle feels that the part was altered later only to show that Karna's death was justified somehow...otherwise nothing can justify it...

Some says epic Mahabharat has written by many Vyasa not one, and it took ages to complete it, so the main text has altered in many places... keeping some incidents [specially the wars] intact...  

Sir, what do you feel about it ? I would love to hear your thoughts and  opinion.
  


Edited by panchaali - 9 years ago
6

Reply

Quote
daenerysnow thumbnail
Posted: 9 years ago
Thank you Anand Neelakantan for making this book, and taking time to answer our questions.
 
Firstly, an apt analogy to make; as an author representing his case for his client.
 
I personally believe that Mahabharat is more complex than merely assigning labels  of good and evil to one character or the other, there is a grey area in all of them, and its admirable when that aspect is explored in different forms of art/literature/theatre.
I appreciate the fact that Ajaya disputes and challenges rigid preconceptions and established ideas that exist to subjugate the potential for alternative insights by proclaiming an overruling self-sufficiency.
The main character is a reflection of that, of how through history the Mahabharata has been distorted, filtered out, deflected, contorted to fit into certain agendas. 
As a character of your piece, Duryodhana/Suyodhana appeals to us emphatically, his ideas resonates with us, it sheds a light into preconceived concepts that enfold our reality and contests the truths that are veiled in a mask of hypocrisy.
The nature and style of your writing from character perspectives enables us to delve into the deeper workings of their minds, and how they see things from their eyes, how they internalise the world. And we get the sense that Suyodhana is trying to calibrate how he fits into society, and other establishments and his need to reject societal norms on the basis of escaping from the fabrications and hypocrisy that contaminate it. It gives us access to the nature of an individual that you couldn't glean from a more objective point of view, through demarcating Suyodhana's story from what we are given to swallow, (in more historical/traditional viewpoints passed down throughout history) where we can instead enter into his mentality and make our own interpretations.
 
 
Would you consider writing the story to encompass all the perspectives from the epic, so told from multiple viewpoints?
 
1

Reply

Quote
Previous
1 2 3
No Related topics found