The Aryavarta Chronicles - A review
Simply saying that I thoroughly enjoyed reading The Aryavarta Chronicles is an understatement. Reading these three books was an experience in itself and each one offered me a totally new perspective on the great epic, being the perfect mix of both surprising and intriguing. The author, Krishna Udayasankar, must be commended for her remarkable ability to recount a story that draws her readers into its plot.
I found Govinda very enthralling. Though it was a lengthy one, the detail with which Udayasankar has described the events, the intrigues and the detail of characters themselves, and each character's individual and intrinsic motivations compelled me to finish the book as quickly as I could. Govinda Shauri comes out dominating the book, garnering both awe and admiration.
It was the second book, Kaurava, that I loved the most; once I started the book, I could not put it down. In my opinion, the book should have actually been named Panchali, as, to me, she is both the hero and heroine of the Mahabharat, and nothing has depicted this more clearly than Kaurava. Panchali's trials and tribulations, grit and determination were all brought forth in equal measure in this book. Reading the author's vivid descriptions, all the events seemed so plausible and so realistic; it was almost as though I was seeing them live!
Waiting more than a month for the third book Kurukshetra to be released was a test of my patience. Though I missed Panchali, since Abhimanyu and Uttara are given center stage in the first part of this book, it was great reading about the dynamics of these two young heroes. The war strategies and the plots within plots were engrossing and simply a treat to read! Finishing the book was a catch 22 for me, since I was eager to see how everything ended while at the same time knew there were no more books left in this series for me to read. I was faced with the wonderful dilemma of rushing to satiate my curiosity and finish reading or savor the experience and prolong completing it.
I am hoping the author will come up with another series for us to read soon. Thank you Krishna for taking us on this wonderful journey with both the characters we love and the characters we love to hate!
Dear Friends,
Thank you all very much for inviting me to be a part of your discussion here. I really loved reading your questions, and hope to do some justice to them.
Please find below a pretty long post in which I try to cover some of the main/ recurrent questions so far. My intent here is to a) allow us to move deeper into these issues, or move forward with new questions in the evening's chat and b) make the most of the ten posts per day that I am currently restricted to L
Consequently, I will also have to combine reponses to your questions later on too.
I have not directly addressed some of the more detailed questions some of you have posed. I shall go through the posts again over the next some days and try to cover what has been missed.
Thank you for your patience with me, and if I have inadvertently not responded to you, please do feel free to post your query again.
Now, on to the questions (and my attempt at answers):
Why did Govinda choose Dharma to marry Panchali/ become Emperor?
Many of you have pointed out possible reasons, and all of these are, to some extent part of the larger web. Govinda's distrust of Syoddhan's brothers, the intent to put a Kuru on the throne... all of these are part of the web of reasons. I will add one more:
What we must also remember is that Govinda was not working in isolation, but was working to weave his own plans around those of Vyasa and other players. He did the best he could with what he had. He wasn't always right, and he knew it, which is why he descends into despair when things backfire. But at the end of it all, he discovers a deeper strength and meaning that brings him back to Kurukshetra.
Negative (really?) portrayal of Dharma 😊
Let me say this, many of the statements Dharma makes are taken directly from the KMG ed, sometimes even the critical ed. I too was initially shocked to find that Dharma's behaviour was not always consistent with the picture that was painted of him. But I feel I've done little extra to make him seem negative, and this is really the impression he gives of himself, when we view him from contemporary perspectives.
For example, Dharma does not believe himself to be in the least error in staking his subjects at dice - not even after the war. If you went and asked him today, he'd probably protest saying he did no wrong (I think there was a question about why he does not repent). He does not repent because he thinks he does right. And I agree that he is undoubtedly principled and honest about that. Nowhere have I said that he did wrong. All the other characters say is that his beliefs, which are representative of the larger system, are wrong. Dharma is a symbol of the (then and now) existing hierarchy. And that structure is, I think you'll agree, not a positive one at all.
Arjun/Partha
We are used to thinking of the epic characters as one-dimensional, perfect from the get go, and that, IMHO is a disservice to their true heroic natures. Heroes are those who rise above themselves, who learn and grown. And that is what happens with Partha - he is the symbol of... well you and I, really. People who are not Govinda, but who realize that life is all about trying to get there. Over the three books, Partha is one of the characters who changes the most - from being a womaniser' to someone who is clear and noble in through and intent. But to see this characters growth, you'd have read all three books J
The same goes for his relationship with Govinda. It evolves over time (and the books). Also, Partha was the only one to say anything in question of Dharma's authority at the dice game (other than Bhim's ineffectual rants) - something that would certainly serve to strengthed the bond between Govinda and Partha - not just emotionally, but also at a rational, philosophical level.
As for his getting educated' on flame tailed and flame-tipped arrows by Uttara - why is that such a shock. I doubt a truly noble warrior such as he would have had ego-issues when it came to knowledge of that sort. It doesn't diminish Partha in the least that there are things he does not know - he is willing to learn, that is more valuable than all knowledge he holds.
Why is Panchali childless?
First, let me state for the record that I personally object to the notion that a childless Panchali is incomplete.' Women are not defined by their wombs alone. She is completely capable of being a mother - not just to Abhimanyu - but a woman who feels like mother-like compassion beyond ties of blood and kin. At the same time, she does not have to be a mother, to be deserving of our compassion. She is human, that is all that matters.
Second, both timelines as well as event descriptions are pretty sketchy when we come to the Upa-Pandavas. Nor, as you all know, do the five have any major roles to play. I remember a statement which, roughly rendered, said "by giving each of her husbands a child she fulfilled her duty to them." - suggesting it was put in as a matter of propriety. Otherwise, it does seem quite a feat to deliver exactly one child each with calendar precision, and then have no further children, no?
Missing events
One word answer: Interpolation 😊
Please see my blog (I can't post the link here coz Im a newbie) for more on this.
The War
Why war? What purpose did it serve? Why did Panchali want it? Why did Govinda want it? These are precisely the questions that made me begin writing The Aryavarta Chronicles. How could rational and compassionate individuals like these two want or sanction the killing of hundreds of thousands. Many years and 500K words later, I have an answer, though I do not claim it is the only answer: revolution.
Thanks, and look forward to continuing the discussion!
PS. The books are not available in the US because the publisher does not have US rights (ie US rights available for sale, hint hint!)
Originally posted by: KrisUdayasankar
Dear Friends,
Thank you all very much for inviting me to be a part of your discussion here. I really loved reading your questions, and hope to do some justice to them.
Please find below a pretty long post in which I try to cover some of the main/ recurrent questions so far. My intent here is to a) allow us to move deeper into these issues, or move forward with new questions in the evening's chat and b) make the most of the ten posts per day that I am currently restricted to L
Consequently, I will also have to combine reponses to your questions later on too.
I have not directly addressed some of the more detailed questions some of you have posed. I shall go through the posts again over the next some days and try to cover what has been missed.
Thank you for your patience with me, and if I have inadvertently not responded to you, please do feel free to post your query again.
Now, on to the questions (and my attempt at answers):
Why did Govinda choose Dharma to marry Panchali/ become Emperor?
Many of you have pointed out possible reasons, and all of these are, to some extent part of the larger web. Govinda's distrust of Syoddhan's brothers, the intent to put a Kuru on the throne... all of these are part of the web of reasons. I will add one more:
What we must also remember is that Govinda was not working in isolation, but was working to weave his own plans around those of Vyasa and other players. He did the best he could with what he had. He wasn't always right, and he knew it, which is why he descends into despair when things backfire. But at the end of it all, he discovers a deeper strength and meaning that brings him back to Kurukshetra.
Negative (really?) portrayal of Dharma 😊
Let me say this, many of the statements Dharma makes are taken directly from the KMG ed, sometimes even the critical ed. I too was initially shocked to find that Dharma's behaviour was not always consistent with the picture that was painted of him. But I feel I've done little extra to make him seem negative, and this is really the impression he gives of himself, when we view him from contemporary perspectives.
For example, Dharma does not believe himself to be in the least error in staking his subjects at dice - not even after the war. If you went and asked him today, he'd probably protest saying he did no wrong (I think there was a question about why he does not repent). He does not repent because he thinks he does right. And I agree that he is undoubtedly principled and honest about that. Nowhere have I said that he did wrong. All the other characters say is that his beliefs, which are representative of the larger system, are wrong. Dharma is a symbol of the (then and now) existing hierarchy. And that structure is, I think you'll agree, not a positive one at all.
Arjun/Partha
We are used to thinking of the epic characters as one-dimensional, perfect from the get go, and that, IMHO is a disservice to their true heroic natures. Heroes are those who rise above themselves, who learn and grown. And that is what happens with Partha - he is the symbol of... well you and I, really. People who are not Govinda, but who realize that life is all about trying to get there. Over the three books, Partha is one of the characters who changes the most - from being a womaniser' to someone who is clear and noble in through and intent. But to see this characters growth, you'd have read all three books J
The same goes for his relationship with Govinda. It evolves over time (and the books). Also, Partha was the only one to say anything in question of Dharma's authority at the dice game (other than Bhim's ineffectual rants) - something that would certainly serve to strengthed the bond between Govinda and Partha - not just emotionally, but also at a rational, philosophical level.
As for his getting educated' on flame tailed and flame-tipped arrows by Uttara - why is that such a shock. I doubt a truly noble warrior such as he would have had ego-issues when it came to knowledge of that sort. It doesn't diminish Partha in the least that there are things he does not know - he is willing to learn, that is more valuable than all knowledge he holds.
Why is Panchali childless?
First, let me state for the record that I personally object to the notion that a childless Panchali is incomplete.' Women are not defined by their wombs alone. She is completely capable of being a mother - not just to Abhimanyu - but a woman who feels like mother-like compassion beyond ties of blood and kin. At the same time, she does not have to be a mother, to be deserving of our compassion. She is human, that is all that matters.
Second, both timelines as well as event descriptions are pretty sketchy when we come to the Upa-Pandavas. Nor, as you all know, do the five have any major roles to play. I remember a statement which, roughly rendered, said "by giving each of her husbands a child she fulfilled her duty to them." - suggesting it was put in as a matter of propriety. Otherwise, it does seem quite a feat to deliver exactly one child each with calendar precision, and then have no further children, no?
Missing events
One word answer: Interpolation 😊
Please see my blog (I can't post the link here coz Im a newbie) for more on this.
The War
Why war? What purpose did it serve? Why did Panchali want it? Why did Govinda want it? These are precisely the questions that made me begin writing The Aryavarta Chronicles. How could rational and compassionate individuals like these two want or sanction the killing of hundreds of thousands. Many years and 500K words later, I have an answer, though I do not claim it is the only answer: revolution.
Thanks, and look forward to continuing the discussion!
PS. The books are not available in the US because the publisher does not have US rights (ie US rights available for sale, hint hint!)
comment:
p_commentcount