In Sivakamiyin sabatham Kalki's portrays Pulakesin-II as a bit crude and not as a lover of art unlike Mahendravarma Pallavan. Recently I visited Badami, Pattadakal and Aihole. I found Pulakesi and other Chalukians have done an excellent job. I have few questions.
1.Do you feel the portrayal of Chalukyas by Kalki in Sivagamiyin Sabatham erroneous?
2. In one of the caves I found a skeleton figure praying (Reminding VJ post on Boothas). You can see it here
Very nice - interesting observation. kalki had to portray the villain - but he did visit all these places - Maniam sir's paintings of the Badami visit are amazing.
the skeleton figure is most likely to be bringi rishi - as its a male
This refers to Point 1 of your posting. Interestingly, this has been my observation, or at least my feeling, too.
To me Pulikesin II wasone of the greatest kings of India, north and south. If he was barbaric our hero Maamallan was barbaric squared, for we all know what he did to Vatapi.
Interestingly, if you look at early contemporary literarians/historians, Pulikesin has been treated fairly and has been recognised as one of the greatest.I suspect that it is Kalki who turned the tide on him in his masterpieceSivakamiyin Sabatham. And other smaller contemporary writers who followed, perhaps not wanting to go against the trend set by none other than Kalki,followed suit and resorted to Pulikesin bashing as well. Pulikesin hence came to be known as a bit of a villain to this generation. Ifor one was always awed by his challenge of Harsha.
I agree that Kalki had presented the vie of Tamil nationalism, in portraying Chalukyas as villains. In Ponniyin Selvan he reveals more mature when he tells the story of Buddha Bikkus in Chudamani vihar, when they treat Arunmozi with grace. ( Ch. Suram ningiyathu. Vol #)
> > 1.Do you feel the portrayal of Chalukyas by Kalki in Sivagamiyin Sabatham > > erroneous? > > if somebody used the literary licence to the utmost it would have been Kalki. even the relationship between appar and the pallava is contrary to popular beleifs. there are accounts which say appar never stepped inside kanchi after being thrown into the sea
I would not agree that Kalki is erroneous in Sivagamiiyin Sabatham. If I remember correctly Pullikesi is portrayed as bad guy with no interest in arts. But where else his brother character is like more of interested in arts and political games. Remember the scenes where he falls in love with Sivagami's dance. Kalki even did not forget to mention about the cave temples in Chalukya's dynasty. I believe that Kalki added more flavor to Pulikasi character by portraying him as ruthless, dangerous, no humanity and bad taste in art villain...