Both - Chola dynasty and " (current TN) " dynasty - are all about 'holding the power with in the family.'
in the past - it was about Chola Mandalam. Now, it is about Tamil Nadu.
in the past, it was using bows and arrows. now, through elections and gundas.
in the past, anyone against the king would be killed/exterminated/excommunicated. now, the same occurs. or atleast you talk filth about the other guy.
But, now, we call the people/politicians who join forces just for votes as Opportunists. In the past, if they had done the same thing. it is not Opportunism.
==============================================
The past kings built reservoirs, etc. the present day Ministers bring foreign investment.
I do not see much of a change in the mood or the selfishness of the rulers at any point of time.
it has always been Divide and Rule. in the past, it was divide my kingdom from others. now, it is 'divide by caste.'
Chola empire compared with the other empire on their time. It was great, building dams when there was no such technologies existed elsewhere. 80 tons of single stone put on top of the temple 1000 years ago not simple. There was no such granes those times to lift up such weight. So lots of historians wonder about chola emperors and their achievements.
In 10 AD Chola empire had naval force controlled Indian ocean waters and boosted sea trade. During that time the historians never heard of any naval force elsewhere.
Karikal Cholan dreamt of broader India conquering in whole went upto Himalayas. He made world's first dam. Rajaraja Cholan&Rajedra Cholan put the empire zenith.
There were lots and lots of greats happened in Chola empire than elsewhere.
Thats why historians wondered if Rajaraja Cholan& Rajendra Cholan concentrated towards north India than going to east, India's fate would have changed by the time. They would have made fullstop to the moghuls invasion.
So Subbu can wonder by reading PS than fault finding. Historians never found any fault with the glorious Chola.
I tend to agree with you. See it is this way: I believe that human nature hasn't changed all that much in the many thousands of years that have passed since we came down from the trees. THe same factors such as greed, jealousy, love, hate, anger etc predominate. Hence, I doubt if the Chozha times were any different. It is just that we tend to glorify our past. See we do that even with the immediate past: so suddenly Netaji Bose becomes a God-like figure who can do no wrong. People tend to forget that he was also a man and made many of the same mistakes other humans make. I am sure Vijayalaya was driven by the same need for self-preservation that say a Karunanidhi or a Jayalalitha are driven by; that, and power of course. It is another matter that Vijayalaya's descendents did some wonderful stuff after him.
The Kings did not go for corruption. They punished people only after detailed investigation.
Women could walk in the night without any danger. Patrol men were doing their duty.
No police man was there to frame charges.
Kings were very just and if they were proved wrong they committed suicide like Pandiyan Nedunchezian.
They were very devoted to god whether cheras, chozhas or Pandiyas.
Taxes were just and were used for welfare of people. wealth was not accumulated by the kings for their own needs. They contributed their personal wealth when there are disasters.
All that greediness, hatred, jealousy i cannot see in them because they were guided well by their prime ministers. We had Chankaya Shastra and several other dharmas.
The arguement that he was also a man and he has to commit mistakes is something too weak.
Wait a minute I had Interacted with many of my relatives who were born before Independence and there is a great difference in they way people were thinking those days and now. Take for example Kalki, Bharathi you can never get the same type of people now.
Let Mr.Subbu (& Mr.Arun) first understand the difference between aristocracy and democracy. In Demo'crazy' the rulers are elected by people and are subject to change after the tenure. In aristocracy, it is like this :
The leader of a group becomes the ruler of the group's territory first. Then he creates armies with his group members he is ready to protect all of them from attack by somebody who wants to rule this territory. Then in order to save his group he starts capturing potential enemies. (Similar to today's coporate 'mergers' and 'acquisitions'). In return for his service of protecting the people and in taking care of their needs and safety, he charges tax, which is accounted for and maintained. And since the baton passed through lineage, it was understood that his son will take care of the country after him.
Please do not compare or equate that with our politicians wanting to anoint their children as "people's representatives" citing 'thondar viruppam' and 'makkalin anbu kattalai' as reasons (I am restraining myself from giving names).
At least kings said they were the ruling dynasties and ruled us, rather than today's 'leaders' telling us that it was 'makkal aatchi' and yet giving all posts to relatives and coterie people.
Regarding Vijayalaya Chozhan, let us understand one thing : Diplomacy in inter-state / inter-national affairs is always meant to be 'selfish' ,i.e. keeping with the nation's interests. We (India) might be friends with Nepal today and enemies tomorrow, if we find Nepal's interests harm others. Do not our own relatives, friends and neighbours become our enemies if we get hurt by them, if there is a business rivalry or worst, drainage dispute between two houses ?
And regarding somebody harming the king being punished, what do Subbu and Arun think - if India's PM is attacked, we should take it as part of the attacker's democratic right and leave him ? Mind you - An attack on a ruler is an attack on the nation. On opposers being punished, Kalki clearly criticises the "'Paathala chirai' punishment without any enquiry" followed by Pazhuvettaraiyars. Even on Aditha Karikalan's murder, Sundara Chozhar conducts an enquiry - mind it, no murders !!! (Subbu, please read on, without jumping to negative conclusions, unless such quick jumping is the purpose of your reading or posting).
On Azhvaarkadiyan's views, what does Subbu want to say - All the characters in a book should have the same view ? Let us understand that characters speak their mind and not OUR mind. Also, if you take his context of speech, you will understand that he is in his espionage operation and is spying the enemies while uttering these words. Meaning - he hates war, being a Bhaktha, at the same time knows the inevitability of it in order to keep anti-national elements at bay. It is better to have an early but smaller battle if it can avoid a big devastating war.
(Like life insurance policies - though we have some on our own lives, we would not like a death claim to be made on our life no ??? - sorry no hurt intended)
Also, does not Arulmozhi take care of the civilians of Srilanka ? What about the Elelasingan story ? Boss, there is much more to read.....Oorukaiyai mattum saptuttu saappade nalla illainnu sollaatheenga...
And one basic fact : We are reading a historic novel on what happened - not on what should have happened and who was right or wrong. We are not here to comment on somebody else's lives more so because they lived in circumstances which we can not even fully imagine. And remember, one who is not proud of his rich heritage, may not make his successors proud of him.
Dear Venkat That was a very clear and illuminating mail The only addition I would add is in Vijayalaya's time it was monarchy not Aristocracy and today DEMOCRAZY...I havent typed the spelling wrong!!!
The various types of Rules are Monarchy: King ruling by succession Aristocracy: reuled by Aristocrats like lords and diwans and zamindars Democracy:By the people for the people Tyranny: When any of the above lose respect for host human value
Dear Subbu I can understand your concerns bu You have to hold your horses before you whip them if you want to reach the destination if you whip them you wont reach your destination only on the road side of a vayalkadu in the ammavasai iruttu like the poor madhuranthangan....
Who is madhuranthagan and what was he doing by the road side wait till you reach 3rd Bagam
I really feel sorry for you subbu because by the time you go finish the novel you are going to get all the surprises and twists from others...
At the outset we all have to ashamed as tamilians and Indians to let a Democracy give way to Autocracy and monarchy like rule....So be self critical of today not a piece of literature written on evidence of the past!!!!
ministers bringing revenue and welfare of the people from present day politicians you should be joking!! Madrasil Veyil adhikamo?
You only said about a oppurtunistic vijayala fighting on different sides but obviously chose to ignore that in a state e was in with lack of energy in his legs at a ripe old age he took arms and let them into victory......
Aditya his son built 96 siva temples along Kaveri
His son Paranthaka built the Veeranam Eri with the army stationed to protect the northen frontier those days soldiers not only protected their land andlend their lifes but also did service during not combating days...
Unlike present day Kaavalar
He also built a golden roof for the chidambaram temple
Rajaraja built a magnificient temple that still stands proud after 1000 years whereas the present day ministerial designs dont last the next raining season ROADS and Bridges
The same with Rajendra Imagine a fleet to oppose a big naval force and going and defeating them in their own backgarden.....It takes valour and going upto Ganga....
Both of them also made so many land and revenue reforms which will make the current day politicians shame those kings gave lands and gold as Iraiyili That is taxless for charity purposes
Todays politicians are taking then as their own....
Please do not tarnish the image of our glorious past by comparing them to present day politics
First, we are not reading a historical novel per se. It is more "historical fiction" which means that most of what happened in ponniyin selvan is the imagination of the author, but based around a few of the facts. However, what makes Ponniyin Selvan great is that the imagination of the author is so vivid and so realistic that the lines between fiction and historical fact become blurred. Which is why there are still people who don't realize that there was never a real Nandini character historically.
As far as comparing Democracy and Aristocracy... that was not my point. My point was to mention that human nature hasn't changed over all these years. Yes, we tend to glorify our past that isn't bad because it gives us something to cherish and to be proud of. My point is that all these characters we glorify, were also human beings and hence had the same foibles as say, you and me. Again the version of history we hear changes depending on which side we hear it from.
For example, the other day, I was discussing the Pallava rule with a Kannadiga friend and extolling its virtues. I mentioned the Vatapi pillayar and how Paranjyoti got it to TN. He then came up with a statement which went like "oh yeah.. they looted vatapi and stole it" or words to that effect. So it depends on which side you are on. However, on the whole, the Chola rule seems to have benefited the tamilians for which we should all feel proud.