Ponniyin Selvan Review by Deepa Chakravarthy
The Chola legacy and Kalki’s intent
Today, as Ponniyin Selvan (PS) has created a stir amongst youth to revisit history, a point to be noted is that: all mediaeval dynasties had contributed much and left a glorious legacy that already establishes them in history and so they do not need anyone’s tale or validation. But since we are revisiting our regional history and tales of kingdoms, we must not fail to ask what are the unseen and unspoken aspects of Indian history that we need to ruminate on?
To answer this, let us first be clear that History is a vast subject covering – the social, religious, economic, political aspects of the past. And although these disciplines are studied separately, the cultural aspect of the land which guards the civilizational seed just like how an oyster hides a pearl remains blinded to our plain sight even today. While we rightfully claim that we belong to a nation of an ancient civilization which has shown the longest cultural continuity, we also fail to recognize and reason out how the civilizational seed survived and who are all the people who have contributed to it at various crossroads in Time. From that context, one can say that the Chola dynasty has been like an oyster, who has contributed to the civilizational ideas nurturing many pearls. They laid a keystone during the early mediaeval age that was then carried forward by later Dravidian kings like Chera-s, Pandya-s, Vijayanagara-s and Maratha-s. This distinct legacy of the Great Living Chola Temple and chola dynasty is the cultural imprint they left behind not just for the people of Tamizhakam and India, but also the entire South East Asia.
In the modern age, what the Chola-s left behind as legacy, caught the attention of someone like Kalki. As an enthusiastic deep sea diver, he fished out an epic tale in the form of a string of pearls. Kalki weaves together historical and fictional characters that teaches to separate duty from beauty. Similarly, the historical events he used can trigger wonderful debates on statehood and polity. There can be no denying that Kalki’s unprecedented success for PS is also due to its historical setting. Belonging to a glorious kingdom and of a very loved and successful king, his family, noble chieftains, administrators, and subjects served as the land’s socio-cultural units of measure to understand and appreciate Bharat. Kalki used the period of Chola dynasty just before it climbed to its greatest heights for an engaging discourse with his readers on attributes of beauty, qualities of righteousness and a personal resolve that is needed for upholding lofty ideals such as justice and peace. The many subtle hints and suggestions Kalki drops as well as chooses to leave out helps a keen reader to arrive at the right conclusion, making Ponniyin Selvan a timeless classic.
Appropriating a narrative from kavya as natya
Often the external world and transactions in it influences memories, desires and sentiments, limiting the human sight, blurring our ideal nature. When the psychological states and temperamental natures during these blurred times are exploited by a good storyteller, then that story can scale the reader’s intellect to realize an ideal that would also allow them to better negotiate the reality they are caught in. Now the question is, with the sensibilities of aesthetics in living, and the scope of dramaturgy employed in Kalki’s PS already so well defined, what attributes of these did Maniratnam’s recent film of the same appropriate?
To begin with, unlike Padmavat which is an unknown, unvisited text; Ponniyin Selvan (PS) is a popular best selling contemporary novel of Tamil literature. The biggest challenge for Mani Ratnam is how he can replace the worlds already created by his readers with the world he has envisioned. This cannot happen without any fan or connoisseur first letting go of their own imagined world. This makes adaptations of best sellers extremely challenging for the film makers. But, in this department, Mani has succeeded in winning over the book lovers’ imagination transporting them to his conceived world.
Secondly, in not over-exaggerating more than required, treating the characters close to Kalki’s sketch, Maniratnam got for himself a vast canvas, where he could paint visuals, draw the attention of his audience to differentiate the various shades within human nature. This is in contrast to making the characters larger than life. In the case of the latter, the complexity of the psycho-social nature of humans would dramatically shrink as the predominant sentiments that the subject undergoes will only sharply contrast as black or white, making it an outward experience for the audience. However, since the reality we live in is between black and white; only when the complexities of grey nature are scrutinised and explored, the experiences of the subject can evoke and kindle the audience to reflect deeply. This approach is ideal as it allows the authors and directors to actively engage, influence and even start a discourse with their audience. How did Maniratnam’s adaptation fare?
Any adaptation is always subjective, and may never satisfy a book lover. The reason being, a book allows a reader to fully absorb the author’s intent. In PS, Kalki leaves some things unsaid and pushes his readers to search for answers, reason out, and come up with an informed conclusion on whether Nandini was the daughter of Veerapandiya or Sundara Chozha. If Nandini was Veerapandiya’s daughter, then his relationship with her would evoke disgust for the Pandiya king in the minds of readers and audience. This has been the interpretation for the movie. On the other hand, if Nandini was the daughter of Sundara Chozha, given the timelines in the narrative, the decision to uproot Nandini from the neighbourhood of Pazhayarai maligai would have been that of Sembiyan Mahadevi. And, the queen mother’s decision would also justify; as her intention may have been to avoid an incestuous relationship in the Chola bloodline. In believing that Nandini was Sundara Chozha’s daughter, as readers, we would also avoid creating a disgust for Veerapandian, a historical figure. The readers would easily forgive Sundara Chozha, for abandoning Mandakini as he was duty bound to the kingdom. A good story teller will never state anything conclusively that will tarnish the image of a historical character. Kalki strived to be such a storyteller; and he has shown the greatest respect for maintaining historical accuracy.
Also, the high point of Kalki is how he pitched Nandini against Kundavi to actively engage with his readers on true attributes of beauty. Similarly, Kalki was nudging his readers to reflect on war, its consequences and the complexities within heroism. In this regard, Kalki deliberately set-up the characterisation of Aditya Karikala for his readers to search: what may have caused the mysterious killing of Karikala? Did Karikala sever the Pandiya king’s head in battle out of jealousy or rage? Either way, did this unresolved internal conflict in Karikala make him feel burdened by the praises and title showered on him as a Chola army’s battle hero; or, was he feeling ashamed of himself for committing a questionable action in the presence of his lover?
While on the subject of heroism, an unintelligent thing in the adaptation, which is very unlike Maniratnam, was his depiction of Maduranthaka. In the movie, Madhuranthaka agrees to the bargain the Rashtrakutas offer, but suddenly decides to return back to fight against them. When a war is going to break out, how would any sane kshatriya (doesn’t even have to be a king) let a royal blood of his enemy walk away alive from his camp? Even as a literary reading, in such a portrayal where is the character arc for Madhuranthakam or for that matter, even Arunmozhi Varman? Is Arunmozhi Varman hailed as Ponniyin Selvan because he sacrificed his crown for his uncle or because he is wise? At all times, Kalki portrayed Arunmozhivarman to be non-greedy, zen-like, detached-attached but never altruistic or ascetic. When Arunmozhivarman has shown time and again that he is committed and loyal to the kingdom, why should he sacrifice the throne to a person who had just shaken hands with the enemy (as shown in the movie)? Also, what would be so uttama in Mani’s adaptation and portrayal of Maduranthakam to fit the historical royal name and description: Uttama Chola?
Fact is: when Crown Prince Karikala dies mysteriously (which is believed to be in the hands of Pandya spies) it also led to the immediate demise of Sundara Chola, and Madhuranthaka ascends the Chola throne, assuming the title: Uttama Chola. Here is where the book appeals as a better ending although it may sometimes read impractical and dramatic. But, there are reasons to justify Kalki’s ending.
Kalki has written historical fictions without tarnishing any characters of history. So in choosing to end by breaking down for his readers that the son of Sembiyan Mahadevi was Senthan Amuthan, Kalki introduces an unexpected twist for his readers. On probing more, the readers will understand that even though Senthan Amuthan does not fit the historical account of being a Shaivite saint; raised as a Vaishnavite, he had all good virtues fitting a king, growing up in the vicinity of the kingdom’s first family. In this way, Kalki establishes that Senthan Amuthan had similar zen-like qualities like Arulmozhi Varman. And so, when time came to choose a crown prince, Senthan Amuthan’s sattvic nature, bloodline and seniority justifies why Prince Arumozhi Varman gives up his ascend to the throne to his uncle. After all, a kingdom needs a wise and righteous king but does not require for him to be trained in war and polity. With this ending, Kalki not only gives his readers the unexpected twist but also validates the historical name Uttama Chola. Ponniyin Selvan’s fame and popularity is due to Kalki’s scholarship and attention to such details in history. At all times, Kalki showed how sensitive he was in reading historical characters and events.
Unfortunately Maduranthakan’s depiction in the movie has done grave injustice to historical facts, also exposing the filmmakers lack of knowledge in Indic socio-cultural standards in war, polity, and statehood. Maniratnam’s treatment of Kalki’s work was very contemporary, and shallow, failing to address the attributes of beauty and righteousness in a society. There can be no argument that the movie has reduced Kalki’s monumental work from being a discourse to mere entertainment. While Maniratnam has managed to engage his audience; when it comes to capturing the essence of Ponniyin Selvan, his narrative lacks depth to influence Kalki loyalists. The movie in the second half has been reduced as a love story between Nandini and Karikalan, conveying neither the unseen nor the unspoken aspects of Raja Raja Chola’s cultural identity and legacy. Sadly, such repeated, loose, superficial portrayals of historical literature is why today’s population are unable to engage in intelligent conversations on dharmic ideology. This is also why the urban population are neither able to handle their own dharma-sankata-s nor capable of solving contemporary socio-religious problems.
Having said that, a lot of work has gone into recreating the period, for giving the audience a feel of the 10th Century. Different types of sea transport used by royalty, commoners and soldiers helped to establish the seafaring nature prevalent at that time. In the socio-religious front, to suggest that the royal members of the Dravidian kingdoms closely interacted with the Brahmin community enough has been portrayed. The verbal exchanges between Vanthiyathevan and Alwarkadiyen which some found unwanted was actually used to convey that the mediaeval Tamizh society was culturally pluralistic and religiously tolerant; where, ideological discourses were common amidst the commoners.
Just as how the Sanskritic cultural influences on the land were portrayed, the Tamil religious beliefs and its rich and colourful expressions did not get neglected. It is well known that many shaivite and shakti cult based worship chose to remain outside the mainstream temple traditions. One such cult worship is the Kotravai and there are many references in the Sangam literature on their ritualistic beliefs. In the movie, the practice of ‘sacrifice’ by these native cults is suggested on various occasions by the Pandya spies. Similarly, the ritualistic dance that is referred to as Devaralan attam, in the movie, is a well imagined approximation. The musical and lyrical composition in this movie and particularly for this song is a high point and satisfies the seasoned rasika-s as well as the pop cultured masses. Of course the directors (of music and dance) have taken artistic liberty to appropriate it, taking inspiration from kecak, the Hindu dance of Bali. But in doing so, Mani Ratnam succeeds in dropping a subtle hint that the Chola dynasty conquered South east Asia culturally (not brutally) and the cultural imprints of which are still in vogue.
Although we are aware that the Chola artisans were magnificent engineers who built monumental granite structures; their own palaces were built only with bricks, and have not survived. Hence, the Tamil land does not have forts and palaces. The only surviving palace in Thanjavur was built during the early 17th Century by the Maratha-s. By squaring the round chhatris of Gawlior octagonally using CG, the Dravidian sensibilities of architecture has been incorporated beautifully, giving the audience a feel of a Chola fort.
