>> He himself was sufficiently great. I agree. I feel that Kalki had maligned him a little for the sake of his story. There are so many people who dislike him for Veerpandiyan's murer and more for the way it was done.
We are living in a civilized world. When wars were the norm, displaying the enemy's head in front of the fort wouldn't have been such a bad thing. Moreover, as SPS points out, he only avenged an earlier murder.
One of Veerpandiyan's titles is 'chozhan thalai konda ko veera pandiya'. Whom he killed is not clear. Some opine it was Paranthakar (I suspect this).
The other opinion is that Paranthakar had four sons and not three as widely believed. They are Rajadithar, Kandaradithar, Uththamaseeli and Arinjayar. Veera Pandiyan is believed to have beheaded Uththamaseeli in one of the numerous wars fought between Chozhas and Pandyas during that period.
This is believed to have taken place somewhere in the present- day 'Solavandhan' near Madurai. The original name of this place was 'chozhandaga chathurvedi mangalam' as proclaimed by Veera Pandiyan in his 6th year of rule.
>> He himself was sufficiently great. I agree. I feel that Kalki had maligned him a little for the sake of his story. There are so many people who dislike him for Veerpandiyan's murer and more for the way it was done.
We are living in a civilized world. When wars were the norm, displaying the enemy's head in front of the fort wouldn't have been such a bad thing. Moreover, as SPS points out, he only avenged an earlier murder.
One of Veerpandiyan's titles is 'chozhan thalai konda ko veera pandiya'. Whom he killed is not clear. Some opine it was Paranthakar (I suspect this).
The other opinion is that Paranthakar had four sons and not three as widely believed. They are Rajadithar, Kandaradithar, Uththamaseeli and Arinjayar. Veera Pandiyan is believed to have beheaded Uththamaseeli in one of the numerous wars fought between Chozhas and Pandyas during that period.
This is believed to have taken place somewhere in the present- day 'Solavandhan' near Madurai. The original name of this place was 'chozhandaga chathurvedi mangalam' as proclaimed by Veera Pandiyan in his 6th year of rule.
ithilenna santhEkam. We, Indians had the best War practices. Even though the Indian soldiers killed their enemies, we respected them as a Human being.
Even when a king was killed in a war, the opposition allowed the victim's relatives to claim his body and they gave a royal funeral. Remember Mahabharatha, the war happened only from Dawn to dusk and all the people mingled with each other in the evening after sun set.
IN Ramayana, when Ravana is made niraayudhapaaNi he is sent back. Ramayana might be mythological and fictious (well, I don't believe this). But still, if this practise was not there, Valmiki wouldn't have written this.
We were far more civilized than the rest of the world until 300 years ago.
in thiru purambayam pallipadai i remember ravithasan saying kill that spy on sight.
i think he was afraid that alwarkadiyan would brainwash nanthini and lead her back to religion.
( nanthini was an expert in venuganam) nanthini was their trump card. a heir to the pandya throne and better off than the little boy they crown at thirupurambayam. alwarkadiyan perhaps kept escaping because of his superior atheletic powers( remember his sprint at thirupurambayaM) also being a foster brother of nanthini was his insurance.
in the climax when aaditya karikalan and nanthini are in the room, they think they are alone but so many others are hiding for different reasons. almost half the cast were in that small room. agatha christie pichchai vaangkanum
What I meant is, if Aazhvarkadiyan is a part of Moghul era, he might have been finished on the spot. Bcos of these sentiments and other things he was alive...
Also, some of the characters are so careless, for instance Periya Pazhuvettaraiyyer was not confirmed that he was dead. But rather the enemies left him thinking he would be killed by the wolfs there.
Also VD tries to rescue the enemy (I don't remember the name) from the puthai kuzhi...
Mahabharatham, Ramayanam and all other mythological battles happenned in a different Yugam, where there was dharmam prevailing, atleast a semblance of it when mahabaratham took place.
So i think it would not be prudent to compare wars taking place in a differnt yugam. Now remember , this is Kaliyugam.. so it wuld be better if we talk about wars being fought in Kaliyugam...
Dear Dhiwakar a dhiwakar mail in which there is no tamil and no punch dialougue? what happened? have a fever or something?
ha ha
on the kaliyugam you are perfectly right. kaliyugam is a very different era to be on the battle field in this time is dangerous. te one thing that matters is victory
aaditya karikalans act of beheading a enemy and making a show of it was a perfect example of this tactic. in ps he is angered by nanthini sitting next to an injured veerapandya. but in reality he must have thought about sending a message to the rest of the pandyans " beware this could be your fate too" such a tactic usually went a long way indeterring future opposition.
Agreed. I don't know if anyone reads David Eddings here, but in one of his books, the protagonists come across a number of people who have been crucified and their bodies left as is. They ask the general why he did that. He says, well, this way, we don't have to kill any more people and the message gets across... I guess this IS one way of spreading terror.. but rather barbaric..
Look at this, what has really hapen'd...The Mughal Emperor Md-bin-tuklakh took the enemy king's flesh ALIVE, fried and gave that to eat to his wife and children. This happn'd in the same period as that of PS. Does this happen to Veerapandian? He was "JUST" beheaded and killed him.
Even Kunthavai tells AMV, that she heard abt the Mughals that they kill their own brothers and father to get power and this should not happen in our kingdom...
I think mughals and the time period of PS were different. Mughals were later. What Kudavai refers to is the arabs who have come for trade..
I dont see the logic in comparing two barbaric practices (beheading and frying the flesh) and using that to say who is more civilized.
I think war brings out the worst in men and there is no justification for mutilating the losers for whatever cause. Whoever does that for whatever reason (as vendetta or a lesson) is barbaric, be it Veera Pandian or AK or the mughals.
Every great king has to war against enemies and in that process committed atrocities. What we should be thinking of is the trouble the common man will be going through when wars are raging in the land. Good intentions are not always in line with good deeds.
Anyway, Thanks to SPS for clarifying those two points..
i remember seeing the word mughal in ponniyin selvan. mughals were much later. possibly in 15th century if that was true another error of kalki.
even muhamed bin thuglak was around 1325.he was the 2nd king after firoz shah in the thuglak dynasty which came after the khilgis. there is story that he was the geneneral who finished off the power of the tamil kings. thiruvarangkan ula. the second invasion by the delhi sultanate. the first was by malik kafur.
now a sincere question to all who were rajaraja's contemprories? peyar solvathu pola.
I'm not saying that war is not barbaric / uncivilised. But trying to tell that in the same era, in comparison, we are far BETTER than the mughals...Also, though there are something abt the Arab traders, I mentioned the Mughal Rules in India...
In "SS" Kalki mentions about a new religion by name 'Islam' ( or Muslims ? ) being founded in the west and the pallava king wanted to build a temple for it. Kalki portraits that the 5 ratham temples at mamallapuram are meant one for each religion...
Not all of them...Infact Tamerlane is from the Afghan region and is supposed to be of the lineage of Genghis Khan, which makes him a mongol and not an arab. Even if it was doubtful, the period of the invasion of India the middle east was in control of independant mongol satraps and there is a possibility that this might be true. The others are mainly from Persia or middle east and it is hard to classify everyone from there as Arabs (there are other tribes living in this areas).
HI Mughals are basically from Turkey. Baber is the first Mughal king. Md Ghazini is a Afghani. They are not arabs. (Ref. Madan's Vandhargal Vendrargal).
ungaludaya adhey premise la dhaan sir naanum pesaren..... nadandhudhaa nadakkalaiya nnu theriyaadha oru vishayathai nadandhadhunnu neenga sollallam... nadakkalainnu naanga sollallam........nothing is available to prove that these are facts (iamnot telling that the existence of ratham itself is a lie)....
adhey maadhiri indha pudhumai pithan matter yes is a war of scholars.. adhukkaagha sanskrit kalapillaama tamizh ezhudha mudiyaadhu ngaradhu ellaam konjam too much....appuram jayakaanthan maadhiri unga nilamaiyum aagidum.. naan solradhai sollitten.. appuram unga ishtam
enakkennavo... idhu enga poi mudiyumnnu theriyalai..... Doctor sir vandhu "indha groupla idhellaam pesa koodaadhu" nnu oru kaattamaana mail poda poraaru.... appo dhaan budhdhi varum enakku
In one instance Kalki states that a kalvettu which describes AK's death Says" Kalikalan Aagaala maranam adainthan" "Ulagathil Kali enum kaarirul thondriyandhu".
If we dissect the above verse Why on earth a darkness equivalent to Kali should spread.? It relates that his death is not in line with common war murders that happens in chola dynasty in the same era and it is a clear murder done by some one very very close or among his family....and states that the subjects weren't convinced..Let me know your views on this..