Pls recall details of the Udayarkudi incriptions posted in the Photo Section (due to paucity of storing space in the Files Section.)
A Retd Dy Suptt of Police (DSP)Sri RAMARAJ from CBI, who was in the team that investigated Late PM Rajiv Gandhi's murder, has been concentrating on Aditha Karikalan's murder for the past 3 - 4 years. Now settled in Chennai, he has contacted Dr. Kalaikkovan (who did mention this when I spoke last week) & Dr. Kudavoil. He had gone through the details of Udayarkudi inscriptions and opined. He has been referred to me by Dr. Kudavoil and today we met and spent some time on this subject.
FIRST OF ALL, it is very apporpriate to review this subject from the angle of investigating agency which has specialised in Poltical assassinations. Secondly such person has already invested 3 -4 years of hard work in going into several inscriptions, write ups, books and other sources apart from personal interviews with acknowledged Scholars on this subject.
With such rich back-ground he has reviewed the Udayarkudi inscriptions and certain details evolved :
1. Striking parallelism between Rajivji's murder & AK's murder. 2. Murder took place When :: 969 AD. Why: To Avenge / to clear Throne rivalry / Both / other reasons..? How : ?? WHO :: ?? 3. Do Udayarkudi inscriptions throw enough light on the above .. reviewed.. 4. What are the postulates ..to identify WHO ..
Here I must CONFESS that ever since I saw the insctiptions a decade back, personally I have been maintaining that UTHAMA has a hand in the assassination of AK. The word "Drohin" has been disturbing me.
This gentleman made me to look at this from another angle::
The PRIORITY of UTHAMA was to ENSURE Rajaraja's SAFETY till he ascended the THRONE in 985 AD. Uthama had the mechanism to wipe of RRC if he wanted during Uthamas tenure ... He could not be Drohin.
Kudavoil has been maintaining that the CONFISCATION OF LANDS took place during Uthama's tenure..
If yes, then Uthama is absolved. If no, he comes under cloud..
Was Ravidasan, made a Brahmadirajan under Sundara or Uthama? Was Panchavan Brahmadirayan during Chozha rule in Pandya Kingdom?
But when certain matters were subjected under scrutiny, the opinion is still swinging ..
It was an interesting experience to talk to him. I have agreed to provide certain materials for his expert review.
now we can also be happy the the old cases of history are being solved. the national geographic did such an investigation ( including ct scan of the body) of tutankhamen of egyp who was also possibly murdered.
I am very happy uthama was absolved. we have had similar discussions in the past and many members have said that uthama could have easily wiped out rrc with an accidental death. but my reasons are purely literary and partisan. kalki was not keen to pin it on senthan amuthan or mathuranthakan.
but first of all I would request you to explain to us where udayarkudi is , and in what circumstances the kalvettu was discovered.
Shall I throw a a heretical thought here? What if RRC was involved? What if his and Kundavai's overarching ambitions led to his hiring some goons to kill AK? What if Ravidasan and co are actually innocent but RRC later on threw suspicion on them to avoid being implicated in the murder? :-)
AK (Arun Krishnan not Aditya Karikalan of course:p)
haha... maybe I should use Aditya Karikalan as my punaip peyar!:-D
Seriously though, why isn't this feasible? Surely RRC was an ambitious person... his willingness to use force to expand his state's territory is a sure sign of that. Most successful, ambitious people are ruthless to a certain degree. So why can't the scenario that I dished out be true? His having built the Periya Kovil can be thought of as atonement for his "sin" of killing his own brother :-D
If am not wrong,Udayarkudi is the small village near Kattu mannar Kudi/Kattu Mannar Kovil(25 km from Chidambaram).Udayarkudi should be 5- 6 km from Kattumannar kudi town.
The river(or Canal) Vadavaru which brings water to Veraanam Lake actually pass thru Kattumannar Kovil.
dear Mr SPS; Dont u think a 16 or 18 year old can plot and kill his own brother? I think this is possible. Wasn't RRC younger than 18 when he fought battles in Lanka? I think RRC was mature enough at 16-18 and certainly had the mental and physical capabilities to carry out such a scheme. We are still not able solve a murder which happened 1000 ears ago. There have been generations who have been trying to solve this mystery and i doubt whether we ever will. Of all the people who had probably killed AK who was the person who had skill to do it and hide for 1000years and more! RRC! He even has the least amount of people suspecting him!Killing brothers at 18 for the kingdom was probably not that big a deal then. I am sure some novelist will write a book on this and the debate would become even more controversial.
As I mentioned, RRC + Kundavai could have done it. True RRC was only 18ish.. but then we ought to take into account that he was already a battle hardened veteran by then. Also, the more I think about Kundavai, the more I get the feeling that this was one tough lady. Perhaps she was the brains behind it? Think about it.. in those days (why even in these days) when the "kal aanaalum kanavan" mantra used to rule a woman, how could she remain behind in her piranthaveedu and not go to her husband's house? RRC had enough wives to take care of Rajendra Chozhan. I would suspect that Kundavai was the brains behind the murder. AK was probably too headstrong and independent for Kundavai to control while RRC, who probably adored her was more pliant :-)
"SUCH BOOK DID SURFACE AND WAS CRITICISED BY HISTORIANS." Can you give us the name of the book and the author? This could have been "The DaVinci code" of our culture.
Hi Arun @ Aditya Karikalan, ( Sound pretty Good!!!).
if RRC is the culprit as per your view, why should he wait for 12 years to come to the power, why should he allow UTHAMA CHOLAN to be in power for 12 years ? For the one who killed the bravest AK, will it be a matter to Kill UTHAMA CHOLAN ?
RRC got the idea of building the Big temple for Lord Shiva after he saw the huge Butha Vihars in Sri Lanka.
So please don't defame his glory by your baseles views.
Why isn't it possible? Why not? Can anybody tell for sure?
tracing down the hierarchy to present day Sophia .. !?
Teacher turning to be the hunter guy ... No logics..
It is a story, yes and it must have its part of fiction else this would have turned into a religious war. Passing judgements like 'no logic' etc. without basing your comments is not appropriate.
Leaving Da Vinci aside..
Could you tell me if any of these copper plates bear any similarities with incidents in Ponniyin Selvan? I mean it looks like Kalki has used fictious characters. I was shocked to find that Nandini is an imaginary person. Is that true?
And like some of us said about AK's murder, why not RRC? If not RRC, I would bet it on Kundavai. Because she herself was a very ambitious person and she had wanted to rule thro' RRC , according to PS.
Assuming that Kalki had at least portrayed the characters as they were.. we can safely say Kundavai had a sharp political intellect and that she was capable of induling in conspiracies!
Let me know your views.
Also, would love to read any material you may have on the inscriptions . I have also seen that the Tiruvalengadu copper plates have been mentioned in numerous places. What is the significance of these?
We may not know what happened 1000 years back. Only speculate.... RRC relinquishing the throne for Uthama and coming back after 16 years is the confusing factor here. If RRC can remove Karikalan to assume power, why did he wait for 16 years with Uthama on the throne. He need not have sacrifised the throne in the first place.
At the same time why didnt Uthama's son was not made the king after him. Why RRC who made a great sacrifice earlier changed his mind after 16 years, eventhough that period was peaceful without any major attacks on the kingodm. So can we assume that there was a premediated arrangement between Uthama and RRC? If so.... the conspiracy theory against Karikala within the Chola family gets stronger.....
I had compared DaVinci code to this situation because both tend shake common beliefs, the scale of the controversy (although the DaVinci controversy is much greater),both if proved right would tear to pieces all that was believed uptil now. And both have been shunned by historians. I really think a good book on this subject written as a fast paced novel and not as a historical account will bring more publicity to the Chola dynasty. Dont get me wrong but i think the "DaVinci" code has done more to Christianity in terms of publicity than any other mercenary. I really feel that DaVinci code is the biggest publicity stunt by the Church or some other organisation. I also have another question why choose such a bloody way to finish off AK? If Nandini had planned it then i feel she would have poisoned him or because AK is almost lifeless near her she could have talked him into killing himself or something like that? Mind you this one incredibly beautiful,talented and evil lady we are talking about here. Has this been already discussed? Pardon my ignorance but i really feel the murder could have been carried out better. Or has it been made this bloody by our Kalki? I think we are all looking at these episodes through Kalki unintentionally or intentionally.
We may not know what happened 1000 years back. Only speculate.... RRC relinquishing the throne for Uthama and coming back after 16 years is the confusing factor here. If RRC can remove Karikalan to assume power, why did he wait for 16 years with Uthama on the throne. He need not have sacrifised the throne in the first place.
At the same time why didnt Uthama's son was not made the king after him. Why RRC who made a great sacrifice earlier changed his mind after 16 years, eventhough that period was peaceful without any major attacks on the kingodm. So can we assume that there was a premediated arrangement between Uthama and RRC? If so.... the conspiracy theory against Karikala within the Chola family gets stronger.....
Think of another conspiracy theory of RRC being able to control Uthama chola for 16 long years(an extra-constitutional power eg. sonia).. then one day he gets tired of all this non-sense.. fine let me be the consitution itself.. ;)
just kidding.. another line of thought..
Also as SPS or someone else had pointed out, humans tend to believe what they want to believe.. eg... we have been so fantasised by the greatness of colas that we refuse to believe that have always been part of the land and our cultures for thousands of years...
Mind you, we all have been swayed by the literary exposition of KALKI.. NO doubt that we will refuse to believe anything and everything that would go against the path of growth identified in the Ponniyen selvan..
mughals had always had brothers fighting brothers.. except in some cases in the hindu kingdoms.. eldest always ruled..
Sandilyan did build a part of the core of his story for Kadal puraa aournd Kulothungan's exile from his own kingdom(chalukya cholas from eastern chalukya or vengi)..
Also PS storyline has something similar to the way in which first kulothungan came to power in the chola country..
Inorder to check whether RRC killed his own brother, we need to read the previous Tamil history and whether any previous king has done the same thing. To my knowledge, there is no proof that any other Tamil king had done this before.
If RRC had murdered his own brother, he might have easily eliminated Utama & co and become the king in first place.
Let us remove that option from our minds.
When Aditya Karikalan was killed, RRC wouldnt even have known it as he was too young...
We need to trace what RRC was doing during those 16 years of Utama chola rule. Was he imprissoned or deputed to other districts ?
Was Sundara Chola alive when Aditya was killed ? If so why didnt he find the culprits ? Was he aware that his son was killed by the "drohins" ?
How did Aditya die ? Was he poisoned or his head severed?
Sundara Chola was not the decendent person to claim the throne. So inorder to eliminate Aditya to become the king, Utama or his associates might have conspired the murder.
RRC's waiting for 16 years might have been the natural choice. Probably he had known the fact, but no authority to punish the criminals. Or probably he knew only after becoming the king...
Why there was lots of peace during the 16 year Utama rule? If he was so meek, the neighbouring countries would have plunged against the chola kingdom!
wow.. quite a lot of mails :) Looks like I really set the cat amongst the pigeons here!
Dear SPS,
I think your mentioning that this was a religious issue (or that I had made it so ) is IMHO fallacious. It doesn't matter WHY RRC built the Periya Kovil, it is still a magnificent temple. The greatness of a place of worship I think does not lie with who built it or who gave how many kalanjiams of gold to it. If that were the case, with all the unscrupulous politicians visiting Tirupathi and dumping their black money into the hundis, Tirupathi's lustre would have been lost long ago. That hasn't happened. Hence, criticizing RRC or raising the contention that RRC might not have been as innocent as one is assured that he was (on what basis one does not know) does NOT in any way detract from his marvellous achievement of building the Periya Kovil.
Let me put another scenario: Perhaps a young RRC was completely dominated by Kundavai and hence was part of the conspiracy to eliminate AK. However, with age comes maturity (and wisdom hopefully). Or perhaps he turned to religion later on and realized that what he had done was wrong.. this is usual human nature right? Where we realize as we grow older that some of the things we did when we were young was not quite cricket.. It is possible that RRC had a change of heart later...
However, more than RRC, I believe Kundavai's role needs to be delved into...
As for why RRC and Kundavai waited for 16 years after AK's death to reclaim the throne.. here is an alternative scenario.. perhaps RRC and Kundavai assumed that with AK gone, the throne would automatically come to RRC .. Perhaps they didnt expect the other warlords like Sambuvaraiyars/Pazhuvettaraiyars etc to throw their collective weights behind Uthama Chola. Perhaps the 16 year period was filled with intrigue with each side manouvering for position. I would suspect that the Pazhuvettaraiyars would have passed on by the end of the 16 years leaving the RRC/Kundavai jodi with enough balance of power to ultimately make the move on the throne.
All this is speculation of course. My only contention is that, if anyone wants to "investigate" a murder, leaving out ANYONE from the list of suspects is a bad idea. The idea should be to treat EVERYONE as a suspect and then go on from there eliminating people one by one.
Btw, another twist to the story could be that AK was such a vile person that his elimination was in the best interests of the Chozhas and so Kundavai/RRC had to reluctantly do it. Maybe AK actually "imprisoned" the King in the pon maaligai. :) How about that?
I dont find myself knowledgable enought to comment... but its intriguing...
Also, I second SPS that 'lack of evidence' is what keeps this controversy hot. As a knowledgable and empowered group, its upto us whether
- We are going to keep speculating and providing our point-of-views based on loyalty to characters.
or
- We are going to do some research (possibly unearth evidence) that would shed light on what actually happened.
I would say its time for some textual research based on rationality and existing evidence.
Am thinking the best place to find some evidence about the mode/manner of AK's killing would be where he was killed. (Something on the lines of "Here was martyred AK, conqueror of ... etc.,). Are there any known inscriptions like that?
Just my two cents worth.
Could any of you suggest texts by authentic tamil historians on this period, that I could borrow/buy?
In PS, it is said that Nandini and Madurantakan( Valarpu pillai of Sembiyan Madevi) are twins. Does this mean Madurantakan is also fictious? Does it mean Senthan Amudhan was the only son (born or brought up) of Sembiyan Madevi? Why has Kalki introduced this twist? Nandini doesn't affect any other character other than AK. Azhwarkku Adiyan also doesn't affect anything. What about Mandakini? She saves the king from falling victim to the plan of the Pandiyan aabathudavigal right? Is it possible somebody had really saved Sundara Chozhan from the enemies?
Talking about Mandakini devi.. Kalki has written the RRC builts a temple name Singhala-nachiyar kovil.. and mentions that this temple is currently known as "Singachiyar" kovil and is in ruins in Thanjavur... and hence Mandikini devi is not fictious.. or thats the line that I will draw..
Also, these characters Nandini, Madurantakan(Pandian), Alwar kadiyaan, manimekalai, parthibendran(some extent), kandhan maravel are not historically supported and hence can be assumed to be fictional in nature..
Kalki's notes towards the end of the PS book points out some of this information.
Also talking about AK's murder, I do feel that Kalki would have gone in depth and in detail with regards to understanding RRC's character and the events to support and build Arulmozhi's character. Remember like every other heroic character he has built it up with character formation backgrounds through the 5 books.
As such our varalaaru group articles have also point out the benevelont nature of RRC, and infact, the real growth of the Tamil nation from a fragmented society to an integrated society was brought only by forming big empires(Pallavas, Cholas) had the capability and ambition to do that, while Pandyas and Cheras have never gone beyond the North Pennar(Please correct me, I am not a historian) which has always been thought to be northern border for erstwhile tamil empires.
AK was an equally great warrior. He also had a good army. Besides there were the pazhuvettaraiyars. If RRC had accepted the throne, he would have betrayed the trust of the kingdom and the people and earned the enemity of his brothers and other big generals in the King's army. He was only a prince. By custom, the eldest should be the first to assume position and responsibility. If he had accepted the throne, his own people would have turned against him. Besides, there was also the problem of food and equipment. If his people had turned against him, he would not get the necessary commodities. Why leave a big Chola kingdom and settle for a small battle ravaged Ceylon?
Having read some of the previous discussions on the topic, I think this discussion is proceeding purely on the basis of speculation. While RRC as a suspect is a diversion, I dont think there are facts or evidence supporting this. What AK has done is assume a few things and built a hypothesis with RRC and Kundavai as conspirators but has offered no evidence. Cruelty by Tamil kings has some truth in it (eg. Kabilar's songs on Nannan, who supposedly raped and pillaged the losers Kingdom). I think if a simple explanation is suffice, then the complex is ruled out (occum's razor!). The people with straight motive seems to be the guards of Veera pandiyan(with probably the Cheras helping out) and Utthama chola (who is rightfully the heir). AK has to build a roundabout conspiracy theory for RRC and Kundavai to kill Aditya and it doesn't explain the 16 year break in the rule. Also the act of sacrificing the throne to Uthama doesn't gel (please dont bring Sonia here!!). AK asks to assume two things. In a previous mail, it says RRC has done great things by his 16th year and thus is capable of murder. In a recent one, it says he was dominated by Kundavai and was driven to murder. Both are at best tangential at each other. If we take it that RRC killed AK, it still means Uthama is standing in his way and has to be eliminated. If we make RRC, Kundavai and Uthama as the parties to AKs murder, It leaves Uthama at a stronger position to expose RRC/Kundavai's hand in the murder. It needs another explanation as to why Uthama didn't expose RRC's hand in murder and securing the line for his descendants. If we leave Uthama out of this conspiracy, then the question is why did RRC wait 16 years for claiming the throne?. Apart from the empathy for RRC shown by this group, I dont think logically the 'RRC conspiracy' theory stands closer scrutiny and thus had to be eliminated.
While AKs suggestion can be made into a sensational book and will help in selling it, I dont think it has any logical basis for it.
first of all we should be able to seperate and see the attributes of a king. if building temples is the only criterion for a good king uthama was better off than rrc. a shaivaite revivalism happened during his times. the other face of the cholas was made visible to history during his rule.
I still beleive the pandyas were responsible for aaditya karikalans murder. they avenged the atrocities of AK ( not arun krishnan) in sevuur. but for a common enemy , the remaining cholas would not have been united thereafter.just imagine the scenario rrc spurning the throne and the same deed repeated by uthama's son 14 years later.
in case uthama was the culprit ,just a thought. would we term the pandavas of mahabaratha as murderors for killing their cousins? they were trying to get their throne back( though it righfully belonged to the kauravas) similarly uthama as a kshatriya was allowed to get back his rightful throne by any means.
Nandini is fiction. mathuranthakan is not. in actuality mathuranthakan became uthama. but kalki was a great fan of alexander dumas I guess and like him has a emperor growing up amongst the common man.
so he created a charecter called senthan amuthan who becomes uthama sola. amutha and uthama are anagrams.
mandakini is fiction too. but most people do not realise that one ordinary charecter in the novel is responsible for may twists in the story
he is karuthiman alias kariya thirumal.
he saves mandakini from drowning, he saves uthama from beiung buried alive as a baby, he reveals to sendan his secret of his birth. he brings back mathuranthakan to the pandyas and so on.
the genius of kalki was that he could give so much importance to such an ordinary charecter.
pungkuzhali is also a wonderful piece of fiction. the name of the goddess in a very ancient temple adjacent to kalki's village is called vandamar punkuzhali. perhaps he chose that name because of this.
Lets revisit the facts again. Why do people believe it was Uthama?
the facts as we know them. If I have missed some please correct me:
a) Aditya Karikalan kills Pandiyan king and displays his severed head at fort wall b) Aditya Karikalan gets murdered. c) Uthama gets the throne after Sundara Chozhar d) RRc gets the throne after Uthama and not Uthama's son e) After RRC attains throne, Ravidasan and co (referred to as Drohin) are banished from Chozha Nadu
With just these facts in hand, I find it very difficult to pin blame one way or the other. Circumstantial evidence might enable us to say, as Kalki did that Uthama might have been involved and hence was deposed. The other idea could be the Pandiyan angle. Although again, displaying severed heads of enemy kings at the fort was something that was done fairly regularly in those days. I belive that the evidence is rather flimsy either which way. Were Ravidasan and co ever mentioned in connection with the murder of AK in the kalvettu? Or only as Drohins? If only as Drohins, that might have been for just revealing secrets of state to the enemy. Remember that we associate Ravidasan and Co with AK's murder purely based on Kalki's book I think. (If I am mistaken and there indeed is some mention of Ravidasan and co in connection with AK's murder in some kalvettu, please correct me).
Hi Venkatesh, First, you can call me Poornima, cut the Sai.
Two, thanks for that. Karuthiruman should also have been fictious. True, he was 'the one' who played a major role..
Clear this one for me... this is from PS ...
Kalki says Mandakini and Veera pandiyan were rescued by karuthirumman and when she was rescued, she was pregnant. Is it possible that she had met Veera pandiyan even before that? That has not been mentioned right? And it is also said that Oomai Rani gave birth to twins in Sembiyan Madevi's palace and that the replacement happened after a few days of the birth of Senthan amudhan. Which means right after Senthan amudhan was born, the twins were born. But it is also said When the pattabhishekam of sundara chozhar happened,Kandarathitha chozhar's son(madurantakan) was one year old. I think only because of that reason the guards went searching for Sundara Chozhar in the first place. And only during the pattabhishekam , Oomai rani tried to kill herself by falling off the light house and then was rescued and found to be pregnant. Now don't you think that is confusing? Please correct me if my argument is wrong.
Hi Poornima, Kalki was genius. no doubt about that. but he was also handicapped by the fact that he had to write one bit every week. he was comitting himself in print with no opportunity to correct himself if he was found to be wrong.
in this group we ran a discussion a year back on the errors of kalki.
this particular chronology of events was discussed and I remember swetha came out with some conclusions based on the ages of the charecters. you are right . sendan amudan just does not fit into the chronology, because he could have even been born on the same day as nandini. also in one paragraph nandini's identity ( as daughter/ wife of ) was also confused by kalki.
so I suggest lets cut out the research and enjoy kalki's story telling.
venketesh
Kalki says Mandakini and Veera pandiyan were rescued by karuthirumman and when she was rescued, she was pregnant. Is it possible that she had met Veera pandiyan even before that? That has not been mentioned right? And it is also said that Oomai Rani gave birth to twins in Sembiyan Madevi's palace and that the replacement happened after a few days of the birth of Senthan amudhan. Which means right after Senthan amudhan was born, the twins were born. But it is also said When the pattabhishekam of sundara chozhar happened,Kandarathitha chozhar's son(madurantakan) was one year old. I think only because of that reason the guards went searching for Sundara Chozhar in the first place. And only during the pattabhishekam , Oomai rani tried to kill herself by falling off the light house and then was rescued and found to be pregnant. Now don't you think that is confusing? Please correct me if my argument is wrong. >
Dear Arun nice thread nice logic ... Ravidasan et al were punished by RRC and it is found in the Udayarudi Inscriptions Having not read the inscriptions myself but it is referenced in so many places So Ravidasan was not part of Kalkis imagination
So it is based on inscriptional evidence and we have discussed about the punishment taht was meted as well he did not kill them but excommunicated them and send them out of the country...
I know G will have some answers but is keeping mum because that would be a crux of his Seramaan Kottai
Wow...a gush of mail flows after a long time in this group. And great to see that many new people have joined the discussion. Welcome to all first timers :) and welcome to one of the long lost face in the group welcome swetha... I was not able to follow even the thread of mails due to work and though compelled to write, did not find time. Kundavai and RRC conspiring against AK...quite possible. I think almost all postultes have been discussed before, but every one questions the 16 year wait of RRC. Let me try to explain that..All would accept that though it was Monarchy, earlier kings had a semi democracy as well. the king makers or the sitrarasars, the traders community etc. should support whoever ascends the throne. Sabayom, oorom etc. Sundara chola was very much alive when AK was murdered. Since he would have felt that RRc was too young to ascend throne, he would have given it to Uthama, who in actual is the legal hier. RRC who would have thought that if not AK he should have been the king, shocked and unable to go against his father, kept quite. sundara's supporters who were loyal to him, supported Uthama. RRC who already cleared off AK, would have been a threat to Uthama and hence uthamas period of 16 years didnt see any major uproars in terms of wars or any great things. Though outwardly it seemed peaceful, Uthama would have lived in constant fear of his life. 16 years is more than enough to gather support by hook or crook, which RRC accomplished. Then continuing the threat, he asked Uthama to quit and ascended the throne. Later thinking that Uthamas son can be a threat to him or his son, he cleared him off too. Tiruvalangadu Cheppedu, which says RRC sacrificed the throne, hehe..sonia gandhi is also claimed to have sacrificed the throne, but in actual she announced that MMS will be PM after a 40 min discussion with the president. In just 40 mins if a person can become a tyaga chemmal, 16 years is more than enough to say anything. SPS argument of a such a ruthless RRC constructing big temple...why not? Ashoka killed 8(?) of his brothers to ascend the throne. He was ruthless but changed overnight and spearheaded the spread of Buddhism in India and abroad. nathigam pesinavangale manja thuni potutanga..appuram enna sir... Anyway, all are hypothesis and no one can prove anyone right or wrong. Good discussion. edho ennala mudinchadhu. en pangukku koncham olarittu poren.