भीतर लगी अगन
बाहर फूट पड़ी हो जैसे
शाख़ पर सुर्ख फूल ही फूल
कोई सब्ज़ पत्ता बाक़ी नहीं
हसीं दिलनशीं दिलकश,
फरेब है लेकिन
नज़र भर का
खोखला है फूल का अन्तःकरण
कुछ सेहरा में मोह्बत की आस की मानिंद
कोई सुकून नहीं
बस फरेब है
नज़र भर का
~ विन्नी
१०/३/२०१८.
The controversies that surround the film , all seem so unnecessary, especially redundant in hindsight, not even worthy of comment. For the many months that the film's release was withheld, the nation debated, folklore and history, the right to privacy, the freedoms of speech and articulation, poetic license and cinematic freedom, multiple perceptions, even the obligation celebrities have to respect public perception. Feminism, the glorification (or otherwise) of Sati and Jauhar, how those two differ , and how war is fought and won and lost by several means!
What a waste of time and effort in a nation where people starve and diseases ravage , where life lapses into the poverty and the paucity of the medieval world with depressing regularity, where everyday struggles are basic and involve survival, not merely human dignity, which comes a distant second. Must one look for statements and issues in everything? Nah, this is merely entertainment.
That apart, the films 's claim to authenticity are two, first, the Jayasi epic is its bedrock, history is largely silent about the story (though folklore is not) and second, its adherence to the times of pre electricity brightness, the dark and the light, the fires serves as symbols of what one knows the film's trajectory to be, as well as the only sources of light apart from the Sun and the Moon, all symbols for Bhansali, who must see himself as a poet in images, if not in letters! everything is thus muted, subtle.
The Khilji character is a monster, yes, but that too is not in your face. He is shown eating, the mannerism raw, he breaks the food apart with his bare hands, his appetites (all of them ) ravenous. However the camera focuses on him, not the food. Bhansali establishes that everything that the man covets, he must have, it is this that fuels his appetite for the elusive queen, the denial.
He is the better strategist, the better General, organises his forces better and inspires them to loyalty as well, the Rawal, in contrast, rules a tradition ridden nation, given to pomp and splendour, a tad complacent. Is it any wonder then that the Khilji won?
It's all very grandly, very well done, the Rawal who has the Queen , comes across as a cultured man, bound, a tad too much and perhaps foolishly, to the dictates of tradition, antiquated notions of honour , a code of conduct that his adversary will not adhere to, and a code that his Queen too finds perplexing. She is a foreigner to the land after all and understands better the laws of nature, where might is right and power is everything. Introduced as a hunter, ( reminiscent of the forest dwellers of 'Avatar) she is practical and forthright in her understanding of men and their motives. The Rawal, on the other hand seems hemmed in, chained to a tradition, a code of conduct conspicuous by its absence in the corridors of power. It's already dated, a thing of the past. He too is shown eating, the food served in silver bowls, several little dishes, each distinct, partaken of a morsel at a time, delicately!Perhaps civilization does this to one, as perhaps it corrupts others, institutionalising sentiment, alienating, dehumanizing. The metaphors abound, she comes from a kingdom that earth and water, he comes from one that's arid and hot, fire reigns. Those contrasts are drawn out, in the individuals who have imbibed them as well as the cultures that have fostered them.
Everything is fair in love and war, anything for success. Two contrasting worlds. the characters merely play their parts, including the Queen, who must die to uphold honour, not to do so would be an unimaginable disgrace.
The 'Ghoomer' song is a delight, showcasing not only the art form, but the scale and grandness of the set as well, Deepika's best moment!
The human element comes from Kafur, there's real emotion there. this character gets a brilliant introduction. A slave bought in the market, he is presented, veiled as a woman, as a "nayaab cheez" to khilji, who has just been robbed of another 'nayaab yakut' ( his could be the Kohenoor diamond that he did get as part of the loot from Deogiri, but one is not told so) Kafur is a vicious killer and an able general, but more importantly he becomes Khilji's most trusted aide and perhaps his lover. Does he love Khilji afterall? or is he merely a slave bound to wish fulfillment. The Actor's face falls everytime Khiji mentions his desire for Padmani, the author backed part superbly played out on screen. Kafur gets the best song too!
Bhansali has over the years created his own genreI in a film where one knows the entire trajectory beforehand, the possibilities are limited, despite that the Bhansali essentials are all there, the grandness, the costumes, the chandelier, the lights the Bhansalieque one lines. There's plenty to remind one of the jungles in 'Avatar', in the opening scenes with Deepika and the 'Game of Thrones' in the battle scenes and the Khilji courtroom in the latter half. Also as Ranvir runs through the battlements of Chittor in the Climax, does he conjure up an American footballer in the mind's eye...his multi layered shoulder guards do!
The fact that it's based on a poem would not be lost to those familiar with the Operatic world.The film is an Opera in another medium and perhaps for that reason lacks the intimacy of storytelling, or it may be that reducing a legend to the personal tragedies of the protagonists, always a difficult task, escaped Bhansali, in this telling.
Do watch it though, there's enough to keep one engaged and watch it in 3D , Do!
Missed this one on screen. it is perhaps, the softest of the songs in the album and could have added the human sentiment, the emotional content missing between the Rawal and his beauteous queen.
~Vinny
9/2/18
I've had a long day, she said,
I've often wondered, he said,
What does it mean when one says that ?
For all days are measured much the same,
Are they not? The seconds and the minutes,
the hours precisely count to twenty four !!
All together and apart!
His eyes twinkled!
Ah! She sighed,
there are days that begin mid morning and end late afternoon,
Gently fade into nothingness,
With the Sun,
And then there are those that one endures,
From dawn to dusk and beyond,
Unceasing the clock goes on and on,
Don't you know those? She said,
The ones when the light burns your soul
Black to a cinder,
And the night whips up a wind,
That scatters one's parts apart,
incessant, such that one comes undone,
Ripped asunder,
They say the Japanese have an art
Whereby they patch up such parts
With gold, such that the broken
Illumined, shines better than one that is not!
He smiled
Though one be broken, black and blue,
That is where the light gets in !
~vinny
6/2/18
Everyone has a story to tell, he said,
your's for instance, could be Envy,
considering you are all green today!
i wonder what has you so thralled!
Ah, she said, shouldn't you know?
considering that you are the one telling the tale!
i merely count the what ifs' and the would bes'
that pepper the telling, he said,
it's your tale, coloured with the oohs' and the ahs'
that collectively give you away!
I've been looking, she said,
in admiration , (i tell myself!)
at this and that and the other,
the curl of that eyelash and the bounty of that mane,
the rose in that cheek and the spring in that step.
the zeal, the zest and the laughter,
the effort in the fragrance, disguised just so, with such elan,
and I've been wondering if i can keep up with the pantomime,
so rehearsed, yet so nonchalant!
yes, i could well be Green, she said!
~Vinny
2/2/18
कभी किसी सफर में दो मुसाफिर मिले
कुछ दूर साथ चले तो
बात भी हुई
वो कहते हैं ना
जो खुश हैं, सभी एक से हैं
ये जो गम हैं, वही हैं अनेक
हर दिल को सालने वाली चुभन
अपने आप में अनोखी है ,
शायद इसी लिए जब तक बात ख़ुशी की थी
दोनों की एक सी थी
फिर जब बांटा वो जो दिल को सालता है भीतर ही भीतर
लगा नहीं ये मैं नहीं
ये तुम हो, कोई और हो, कहीं और से आये हो,
कोई और ही सफर है तुम्हारा
वो जो नहीं है मेरा, नहीं हो सकता मेरा
उसी पल में बदल गया मन का मौसम
एक बेरुखी आ बैठी बीच
और वे जो एक हो सकते थे
फिर से अपने अपने कोनों में सिमट गए
रेल गाड़ी स्टेशन पर रुकी
और अपना अपना बोझा लिए
अपने अपने घर को लौट आये
दो मुसाफिर। ..
- vinny
१४/१२/१७
The story of Madhavi is found in the Puranas as also in the Mahabharat. She was the extremely beautiful and devoted daughter of the Puranic King Yayati, who gave her to the Rishi Galava, so that he may use her to generate wealth enough to buy eight hundred horses, exceptional in that they had to be all white with one black ear each.This was the 'gurudakshina' demanded of him by Vishvamitra, his teacher. There was no one king in all of Aryawarta who alone could pay that price and therefore Madhavi was concubine-d to three kings and the Sage Vishvamitra himself, who all together gave Galava the wealth he required. She bore each one a son and when granted her freedom at last chose the life of a hermit rather than the patriarchal world of the powerful men she knew.
Her story is an extremely accurate comment on patriarchy and what it can do to those the system marginalises. This is a poem i wrote a few years ago about her, but this could be any woman really...
माधवी • क्या परिचय है मेरा … राजकन्या, यायातिपुत्री …? नहीं , नहीं अब नहीं … यायातिकुल में जन्मी मैं दान दी गयी वस्तु समान, गुरुदक्षिणा अर्जित कर, ऋषि ऋण मुक्त हुए, पिता महादानी ,महाप्रतापी कहलाये, और मैं इनकी महत्ता हेतु, भोगी गयी, क्या परिचय है मेरा ? अद्रित्य सुंदरी , दिव्य रूपवान आर्यकन्या ? नहीं नहीं और नहीं … देह के रूप कारण विक्रय योग्य वास्तु हुई, मूल्य हुआ आठ सौ श्वेत अश्व ,एक कर्ण कृष्णा, चार पुरुष, चार पुत्र, हयार्शावा , दिवोदासा , उशिनारा , विश्वामित्र, और आठ सौ धवल अश्व, एक कर्ण कृष्णा क्या परिचय है मेरा … राजकन्या ,राजरानी ,जननी? नहीं नहीं अब नहीं … मैं माधवी , मुक्त स्त्री , निष्कलंकित, स्वतंत्र , स्वावलम्भी , विरक्त , व्यक्ति …. ~ विन्नी २०१२
Sometimes one thing reminds one of another, sometimes the linkages come together to forge a tale.Was listening to the musical, ‘The King and I’ Starring the magnificent
Yul Brynner and Deborah Kerr, and was reminded of several connections that tell quite a story.
The musical is based on the 1944 novel 'Anna and the King
of Siam' by Margaret Landon, which is in turn derived from the memoirs of Anna
Leonowens, Governess to the children of King Mongkut ( Rama IVth ) of Siam in the early
1860s. (1861-67). The musical's plot relates the experiences of Anna, a British
schoolteacher hired as part of the King's drive to modernize his country. The
relationship between the King and Anna is marked by conflict through much of the
piece, as well as by a love that neither can admit. The musical premiered on
March 29, 1951, at Broadway's St. James Theatre. It is one of longest-running
Broadway musical in history, and has had many tours and revivals.
The Thai king
featured here, Rama IVth responsible for the modernization of Thailand became
ill with malaria in 1867 along with the then 15 year old future king Rama Vth. The ruling monarch passed away, the English teacher ( who falsely attributed the darkness of her complexion to her Irish ancestry, but was actually Anglo-Indian, it
was later discovered), then on a leave of absence for six months was visiting
England where her daughter was, she intended to admit her son in a boarding
school there and return with her daughter. Learning of the King's death, she
never returned to Thailand, though she kept up correspondence with her former
pupil Rama Vth, the new King.
This new king received in 1899, the relics discovered in the
Piparhawa Stupa by William Pepe, amateur archaeologist and private British owner of Birdpore Estate.located about 60 miles north of the town of Gorakhpur, in north India.The discovery was marked by controversy on account
of the fact that William Fuhrer, chief archaeologist of the then government of
India, had access to the discoveries within four weeks of the unearthing. It
was discovered soon thereafter that Fuhrer was responsible for several forgeries and was a fraud. When the scandal broke
he resigned in disgrace. The British were now faced with the problem of
authenticating the relics discovered in Piparhawa about which both Fuhrer and
Vincent Smith, the famous historian, and an official of the government of India were of the opinion that they were of the Sakya Muni, Budha, the
one-eighth share of the relics granted to his home clan the Sakas, buried there
by them.the original burial would have been a simple one, the grand Stupa was built over the burial site, by Asoka Maurya ( the
Mauryan king Asoka the Great), along with the precious offerings of gold and
gems discovered there.
Faced with the controversy however, the British quickly
sought to get the relics out of the country. William Pepe’s family retained a
part of the jewels discovered, the relics were offered to Rama the Vth, Buddhist,
King of Siam, in 1899, (Lord Curzon was Viceroy of India then) who housed them in the Golden Stupa, in
Bangkok, Thailand, where they remain. The large stone casket, Ashokan in all
probability as well as the urn which originally contained the relics with the Sanskrit
inscription in Brahmi script on it, are housed in the National Museum in
Calcutta.
It would be a tremendous event if all this could be put
together and precise authentication arrived at, all things are interconnected after all...
राजकन्या, यायातिपुत्री …?