Posted: 24 January 2011 at 12:40pm | IP Logged
Ok, we do differ here - for me, authenticity is paramount. If a show can't be true to the story, I have little use for it. BRC seemed to me to be simply projecting BRC's own philosophy into the Mahabharat & changing the script wherever convenient. That to me is unacceptable.
Here is one example. At the end of the serial, when Bheeshma was giving his final bhashan to Yudhisthir, the main thing he talked about was maintaining the unity of the motherland, and how he was wrong in proposing partition. That was not the main theme of the Shanti parva, and it was not even true: sometimes, if kings had more than one son, they'd sometimes either extend their kingdoms, or divide them between them. Yayati, who was the ancestor of the entire Chandravansh, did precisely that - each of his 5 sons got kingdoms of their own so that they could establish dynasties in their names, but under his ancestry. Outside the Chandravansh, Rama did both extend the empire - conquer other kingdoms for his nephews, and as for Kosala itself, he split it b/w Kush & Luv. So what BRC projected Bheeshma as saying was more of BRC's own political philosophy that partitioning a state is a bad idea, but in historical terms, that was very much the norm. Today, when people talk about splitting Telengana, or Vidarbha, they are sometimes thought to be anti- their state, but in those times, splitting kingdoms b/w dynasties was very much the done thing.
I don't mind BRC telling the world what they thought should be the norm, but it's unacceptable that they project their views ahistorically onto ancient epics, that sometimes just downright fly in the face of what actually happened.
Edited by _Vrish_ - 24 January 2011 at 1:01pm