At its core- the story theme is the same as Mahabharatha, Baahubali & Game of thrones, if you will.
One king is retiring. Who is going to become the next king?
The fight is for the Chola throne. The period is 968 AD according to Kalki.
Also, according to history!
A quick history lesson:
Parantaka-1 has 3 sons - the elder son died early in a war.
The middle son Gandaraditya became the next king. His son Madhurantaka was 1 year old when he dies.
So, Gandaraditya asks his younger brother Arinjaya to succeed him.
Fate played a game here!
Arinjaya died in a year after becoming king.
We have 2 choices for the next king here:
1. The 3rd brother and current king's son - Sundara Chola of age 20 (played by Prakshraj)
2. The 2nd brother and ex-king's son - Madhurantaka, of age 2 (played by Rahman)
They went with #1
24 years later, after Sundara Chola, who should become king?
1. Madhurantaka, age 26 2. Sundara Chola's 1st son Aditya Karikala (played by Vikram), age 25
Should the son of the older brother, or the grandson of the younger, be crowned?
A conflict as old as the Mahabharatha!
After multiple conspiracies, betrayals, battles, natural disasters,
The answer to this question is provided at the end of the book-5. (Part-2 movie!)
You are in for a delightful treat of a journey! A tale for the ages!
When things you don't want to happen, happens, how do you respond?
Do you fatalistically blame it on destiny and accept it, or take initiative to overcome it?
What is the guiding principle in the fate vs free will debate?
What did Sri Rama do in such circumstances? (1/8)
In the epic's defining moment, Sri Rama who was about to be crowned as King, was instead sentenced to exile for 14 years.
Lakshmana was outraged by the injustice of this request, but Sri Rama calmly considered the exile as the will of destiny.
Kambar writes - "நதியின் பிழையன்று நறும்புனலின்மை; விதியின் பிழை"
"it is not the fault of river to dry up when rains fail. Similarly, Kaikeyi isn't at fault for fate's doing", says Sri Rama.
Here Lakshmana is for free-will, to not passively accept injustice, and to fight for the kingdom which was Sri Rama's right.
But Sri Rama defers to destiny and accepted the extraordinarily difficult situation that circumstances suddenly placed upon him and agreed to be exiled.
I've read Ponniyin Selvan cover to cover thrice, and this is my biggest takeaway from it.
It was a decision made by the hero Arulmozhi, inspired by his Suryavanshi ancestor Sri Rama. And it has a relevant lesson for all of us to learn in current political climate.
A🧵(1/8)
BG: Arulmozhi is the more popular prince among public, and they wanted him to be king, even when his elder brother was the crown prince.
This popularity constantly unsettles him, as he wants to do the right thing. And he wants to go beyond public opinion and shape it.
He is influenced by 2 tales - the sacrifices of Shiva he hears from priests at Thiruvarur Thyagaraja temple, and Ramayana.
Rama left for the forest at night when citizens were asleep & also informs his charioteer to take it along a circle so that they can't retrace his path.
2. "My dear Anna, shall I compare thee to Thiruvalluvar or to Marcus Aurelius?"
3. "Like Socrates was punished in ancient times, fake cases, imprisonment is the punishment of our times.
When they checked the pulse of A Raja during 2G case, it was normal. Infact it was the investigating officers who were pulsating with a rapid heartbeat!"
Sati was the most forceful issue created by the Evangelical-Utilitarian alliance to validate Brit rule in India.
The missionary-Brit nexus inflated the # of incidents to horrific levels for politics.
Cholas have documented Sati giving a much needed nuance to this topic (1/8)
The colonial term Sati to refer to this practice is incorrect . Sahagamana/anugamana is the right Indic term.
Anugamana was a rare and sporadic practice in ancient Thamizhagam.
Vaanavan Maadhevi (mother of Rajaraja) chose to do it after the passing of Sundara Chola.
There are several conditions for it to be permitted in Chola tradition:
1) the wife must be in perfect physical and mental health 2) it should be purely voluntary without external influences 3) the close family members must request her to reconsider until the final moment
Kadhalikka Neramillai - a lighthearted film on the surface that espouses the Drav question of - "Is marriage really necessary?"
Directed by Kiruthiga Udhayanidhi, the film has a puratchi pudhumai pen at its helm, and yes she is not a random girl, but a TamBrahm.
An analysis:
This rom-com has Shriya Chandramohan as its central character - she has a BF, registers her marriage months before the engagement (WHY?), drinks, has premarital fun, doesn't know to wear a saree, smokes after a breakup etc.
In summary, a modern day career-centric, jolly good woman. No issues. But is she a "random" modern day woman? Nope.
In egalitarian EVR land where there are no c@ste surnames, the film portrays her family as TamBrahms with no hesitation whatsoever.
Shriya finds days before her "official" engagement that her legally wedded husband is cheating on her.
So, in a case of role reversal, she drinks, and tries smoking in an attempt to move on, like "men". Her father is sorta cool with it. Her aunt (played by Vinodhini) jokingly hints at having "properly" smoked before.
Just moments before there's a deliberate scene where the aunt calls Shriya's father as "Athimber" (a word used by Ds to m0ck TBs)
But why this depiction of community is necessary? Read on.
An asset can be at risk due to both internal vulnerabilities and external threats.
In this analogy, D is the threat - the bad actor who attacks the system.
The comm's flaws (giving up tradition, embracing liberalism/modernity, poor parenting etc.) are the vulnerabilities.
While no doubt both internal and external risks have to be addressed, is it really the right time to discuss vulnerabilities when the system is under attack?
Some say Ds shouldn't be blamed for a systemic flaw - this is such a self-flagellating view that also underestimates D.