In recent weeks things have been happening to revive happy memories of my Doordarshan-cocooned childhood. First I discovered Shemaroo DVDs of the beloved TV serial Yeh Jo Hai Zindagi, which used to be a Friday-evening fixture in the mid-1980s. Shortly after this, I found that several episodes of Bharat ek Khoj, Shyam Benegal's visualisation of Jawaharlal Nehru's Discovery of India, are now up on YouTube.
I shamefacedly admit to not following the show regularly when it first aired 20 years ago – it was too subdued for my taste. (What I did love, and made sure never to miss, was Vanraj Bhatia's beautiful soundtrack for the opening credits, accompanied by words from the famous creation verses in Book 10 of the Rig Veda, which are a rare instance of agnosticism/sceptical inquiry in ancient scripture.) But I'm enjoying it now. Haven't seen all the YouTube clips yet, but I've got through the Mahabharata ones along with a few others. Almost needless to say, Benegal's presentation of some of the epic's key scenes, spread over two episodes, is much earthier than the B R Chopra opus (which, incidentally, is also available on YouTube now). It draws on various artistic interpretations of the Mahabharata over the centuries, including a Kathakali performance that depicts, with gory relish, Bheema tearing out Duhshasana's entrails and using them to bind Draupadi's hair. Notable too are these two clips that show the dying moments of a repentant Duryodhana (played by Om Puri), in the company of Balarama and Ashwatthama as well as his grieving family – his blind parents, his wives and his son Durjaya. This scene is directly taken from Bhasa's play "Urubhangam" ("The Shattered Thigh"), which I mentioned in this post.
Also enjoyed little touches such as Roshan Seth's Jawaharlal Nehru primly stepping over broken weapons and other debris as he walks right onto the deserted battlefield before settling down to explain aspects of the epic to the viewer. (Note: excellent as this serial is, it isn't exactly faithful to Discovery of India – instead it uses the book's framework and Nehru's commentary to examine various facets of India's heterogeneous culture.)
P.S. While on Nehru, a quick recommendation: Walter Crocker's short, lucid biography Nehru: A Contemporary's Estimate, first published in 1966, just two years after Nehru's death, but now reprinted by Random House India with a foreword by Ramachandra Guha. Crocker was the Australian High Commissioner to India during much of Nehru's tenure as prime minister, and his is a sharply perceptive but affectionate portrait of Nehru as man and politician. Reading it, I had to keep reminding myself that the book was written very close to the events it describes - this is often hard to believe, because the level of observation and analysis (including philosophical reflections on the nature of power and the challenges it would present a man like Nehru) is such that you'd think it would have required the passage of several years. (Also hard to believe: some of the initial Indian reviews of the book thought Crocker was being too harsh. Perhaps it was because he didn't shy away from matter-of-factly noting what he felt were Nehru's shortcomings.) More on the book soon.
Hey, coincidence -- Rumman recently picked up DVDs of Yeh Jo Hai Zindagi as well and we did a marathon viewing one evening. the 80s seemed like aeons back -- when a DINK couple had to save for months to be able to afford a cooking range! Like, didn't they have credit cards?
ReplyDeleteI used to love Fridays because of Yeh jo hai zindagi. A decade later there was Dekh Bhai Dekh ... and now there's no comdey on air at all. Only noise and studio laughter and comic relief provided by commercials! (Rakesh Bedi, for one, is paying for the sins of a previous life by acting in the inane Yes Boss! And Satish Shah ...? Ishh!)
ReplyDelete'yeh jo hai zindagee' comes even now on star one. mostly in the afternoons :)
ReplyDeletewe also used to love 'idhar udhar' - ratna pathak, supriya pathak, liliput.
ReplyDeletehave you guys seen OSHIN ? that used to be my fave
ReplyDeleteThere's also Fauji at BigFlix if you like...
ReplyDeleteThere are various versions of re-narrating the Mahabharata from the point of views of its myriad characters. I initially thought that Bharat Ek Khoj's Mahabharata episode was picked first from Ram Kumar 'Bhramar''s piece on Duryodhan and Dharmvir Bharti+Doodhnath Singh's play on Gandhari in Andha Yug. But I finally think (as suggested by you, Jai) that there are as many versions as one can possibly read. Of course I loved this serial, and if at all it were to missed, I made sure I saw atleast
ReplyDeleteits end and the beginning of Vanraj Bhatia's music and Vasant Dev's translations of the Rrig Veda verses. If one were to watch movie Utsav, he/she would know the lyrical ballad Vasant Dev was capable of. But then, Utsav (Mrichhkattikam) is another long story that we shall like to hear from Jabberwock.
yay to YouTube! :-)
ReplyDeleteThe opening theme of "Bharat Ek Khoj" was brilliant. I believe this serial was a little too subdued for our sensibilities at that time. Subsequent rewatch formed a good opinion of it though. I remember the Mahabharta episode when a Plough wielding Balram argues with Duryodhana on the rules of combat. At that time I kept wondering why there was no combat actually shown and preferred the BR Chopra version more.
ReplyDeleteTo be fair to the Chopra version however , it was still more accomplished than the new Mahabharata currently on air. I loved the concept of 'Samay' playing the sutradhar although the whole series tended to be a little melodramatic at most times. Also the serial seemed to stumble upon right characters who looked the part , Gufi Paintal despite being Filmy was more entertaining than the Bald clown who plays Shakuni.The Pandavas and Kauravas were decent although 'Duryodhana' was shown as completely evil without any other shades to his personality which i believe was against the very script of Mahabharata.
Doordarshan is often criticised for being too dull , however the Gems like Bharat ek Khoj , Yeh jo Hai Zindagi were much better than the 'K' brigade serials dominating major channels these days.
It stuck me while reading your post: the guy who played Ashwatthama in Chopra's Mahabharata is Ghajini!
ReplyDeleteShwet: I've been re-watching parts of the B R Chopra Mahabharat (on Star One and on YouTube) and my appreciation of it has deepened on a few levels. During its original run I was very snooty about its clearcut good-vs-evil dichotomy (even though I secretly loved watching it!), but I realise now that it has more layers than I gave it credit for.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, I notice now that when the Chopra Mahabharata begins showing the stories of Krishna's childhood (something that used to irritate me intensely, because I wanted the main narrative to progress), there is a commentary by Samay to the effect that these stories were later additions and that their purpose was to enable people to see God in little children. It's courageous of a mainstream show to make such an admission, or to even suggest that the Mahabharata was a constantly evolving work rather than a text that was set in stone.
About Puneet Issar's Duryodhana being a cardboard-cutout villain: that sort of changes towards the end of the serial when, after Karna's death, we see that Duryodhana's affection for him was genuine - there were some well-done scenes between Duryodhana and Bheeshma, Duryodhana and Gandhari, and a very filmi but thematically consistent scene where Duryodhana doesn't allow the Pandavas to light Karna's pyre, and Krishna agrees that the first right belongs to him. (In general, there's a very melancholy, restrained tone to the 2-3 episodes leading up to, including and following Karna's death - the whole show becomes movingly introspective in these episodes.)
Hi Jai, this is off-topic. I request you to give your posts independent links so that they can be bookmarked - there are times when I would like to come back to a specific post at a later time and this would make it easier.
ReplyDeleteAnon: yes, his name is Pradeep Singh - I realised that too a few days ago, when I saw a series of postcards my wife had received from Aamir Khan's promo team.
ReplyDeleteAbhimanyu: all my posts do have independent links - you can get the URL by clicking on the "time of posting" mentioned at the end of each post.
ReplyDeleteA well written comment about the Old Mahabharata Jai. I have forgotten the last bits of Duryodhana lighting the pyre and some other exchanges. I also think the actor playing Vidur did a commendable job and there were some very potent exchanges between him and Bheeshma on politics and the right of succession theme.
ReplyDeleteIn general the whole serial despite some boring moments was still interesting and had characters who looked and acted their parts well.Even inconsistent actors were masked beautifully. I believe Praveen Kumar was quite a bad actor but his punjabi accent was skillfully camouflaged by giving him easy dialogues. Also having that Giant sized Physique helped as most of the attention went to his body towering over even tall actors like Issar and Mukesh Khanna. People I later saw in villanious roles like Pankaj Dheer , Puneet Issar gave quite competent performances and it kind of surprised me that these people especially 'Dheer' were capable actors in good hands.
Shwet: I also thought very highly of Nitish Bharadwaj's Krishna (and this despite the fact that I personally don't care for the "type" of Krishna portrayed in this show - the ever-smiling, all-knowing puppetmaster) and the actor who played Arjuna - his real name was Feroze Khan but he changed it to Arjun before doing the role. I don't know if this was because there might have been a problem with a Muslim doing the role, but he was very personable, the epitome of the proud but sensitive classical hero, and also very convincing in the Arjuna-as-Brihannala scenes.
ReplyDeleteNeed to blog about the old Mahabharata sometime...
Here's Wishing you a very happy and prosperous '09!!!!!
ReplyDeletesome pretty perceptive comments on the BR Chopra serial.
ReplyDeleteI thought Rahi Masoom Reza's script was excellent in the latter episodes. Also, the casting of key characters (Bheeshma, Krishna, Karna, Duryodhana) was most appropriate. The secondary characters are not so well cast.
Yes, the serial does have numerous melodramatic scenes involving women especially. But that's only being faithful to the epic. After all, the Stree parva in the Mahabharata entirely consists of mournful lamentations.
Thanks! This is fantastic! Since long I wanted to watch the episodes of Bharat Ek Khoj and they were not available anywhere.
ReplyDeleteAwaiting your take on Nehru's biography.
Jai, may be you will be interested — Malgudi Days is also out on DVD now.
ReplyDeleteHappy New Year.
P.s.: Does anybody remember Johnnie Socko and His Flying Robot? Is it available anywhere on the Net?
Bharat Ek Khoj was one of my favourite TV when i was younger. Of course the opening and end credits still give me goosebumps. Doordarshan has recently released DVDs of the entire series. I have searched in vain at a few shops, most of whom have never even heard about it. Can anyone help me where i can find these DVDs.
ReplyDeleteHello Friends I Have founded the great link on Bharat Ek Khoj on mystica music .we have seen the intresting television series on dordarshan ,Bharat Ek Khoj written by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru , bharat ek khoj directed by shyam benegal
ReplyDeleteHope you liked it
As I've been writing my PhD dissertation this past few months, I have Br Chopra's Mahabharat playing in the background, and I have to say, I can't find a single major flaw in this show. It forces me to engage with the story, think about the issues it raises, and understand finer points like why Karna was not the hero we have turned him into in popular culture. It's repeatedly emphasized that both Karna and Duryodhana are brave and skilled warriors; but the pivotal point is the flawed interpretation that Karna chooses of dharma. He considered being loyal to a friend important but he was loyal in all the wrong ways like Vidur and Bheeshma point out repeatedly (apart from a few instances, he struggles and fails to rise above his hatred and jealousy at Arjuna's fame as an archer to inform Duryodhana of his real feelings on the matter of succession to the throne). I've developed a new appreciation for the character of Vidur as well; I was saddened to know that the actor who played this part died almost 10 years back at the young age of 53. This show also raises questions in my mind such as why Arjuna of all the Pandavas is "Nar"-that is, a part of Narayan himself. Similarly, why is Arjun the only Pandav who enjoys such close bonds with Bheehsma and Drona? Was Sahdev too similar in his adherence to Dharma like Yudhisthir? Why did Drona refuse to teach Karna when his skill and Warrior background were obvious to his discerning eye? Weren't Karna and Vidur similar in that both were not socially from the Warrior Class? Then why did Karna have such self-doubt and insecurity while Vidur was secure in his identity and place in the grand scheme of things? Is this because he knew his parents and the story of his birth while Karna was in the dark? Why were some sages with such knowledge capable of giving dangerous and undeserving boons like the boon given to King Drupad (that led to the birth of his son who ended up killing Drona)? Why were some sages considered worthy of such respect when their tempers were so out of control that they'd curse any thing/person that annoyed them (e.g. Sage Durvasa)? A really well done series, in my opinion!
ReplyDeleteSlytherin: interesting comment, though I'm surprised you've chosen to comment on this post, given that I have written much, much more extensively on the Mahabharata in so many other places on this blog (one long piece being here).
ReplyDeleteThe Chopra serial certainly does have flaws (though it doesn't deserve the contempt it gets in some circles these days): it is often very simplistic about characters and situations, and gets too many of its visual cues from the Amar Chitra Katha universe. Besides, the Mahabharata is a sufficiently complex work that all the questions/talking points you raise can be examined from various perspectives.
Dharma is presented as an utterly nebulous concept throughout the epic in any case, so I'm not sure about "flawed interpretations". And in my view at least, by the time the war begins, Karna has risen enough in moral stature - and conquered enough of his "flaws" - to justify his cult-hero status. Incidentally Krishna Chaitanya has a fine essay on the moral growth of Karna and Yudhisthira over the course of the story, in his book The Mahabharata: A Literary Study.
I had read that post of yours but I just hadn't got my thoughts together at that point to post a comment in that section of the blog. I agree that the series does have some minor flaws but as a viewer, I am actually grateful that they used the Amar Chitra Katha template for the visuals of the show. To me, as someone familiar with that visual template, I found it less distracting. I no longer had to worry about analyzing the costumes and sets and could focus solely on the dialogue and narrative. I also agree that Karna does redeem himself by the time he's told of his true lineage which is why I get the feeling that he would not have envied the Pandavas and followed the path of "a dharma" as he did were he aware of his true lineage like other characters (even if it weren't as glorious as it turned out to be) that were excluded from the Warrior Class/Aristocracy like Eklavya and Vidur. Eklavya too wanted to compete with Arjun but his feelings never sank into the dark abyss of hatred that Karna's did because Eklavya,unlike Karna, was aware of his lineage as was the rest of the world. The reason I say Karna's interpretation of his principal dharma is flawed is because as Vidur points out to him (as do Krishna and Bheeshma) that one's loyalty to a man cannot be above his loyalty to what is just and righteous. Furthermore, Karna's desire to stay debt-free is right only when we don't consider the wider implications of the war and fighting for what is immoral. But once these factors are taken into account, no interpretation can justify anyone's fighting for the wrong side. Bheeshma is bound to Hastinapur and it's ruler by his oath but Karna has, in a way, chosen to be bonded to Duryodhan. Under ordinary conditions, this would be an utterly virtuous choice but within the context of the war and the people it affected, I can't see his choice as anything be very flawed. I am surprised at his cult status in popular culture because in many ways, I find Eklavya and Vidur are in similar circumstances but chose a more righteous path. I can understand Vidur not being popular because he of his age and "uncool" (?) views but surely Eklavya's fame in popular culture should have been comparable to if not greater than Karna's? But then, I guess, none of these characters would have cared for something as flimsy as popularity or cult status (Yudhishtira's lack of popularity too baffles me because there was so much to him beyond being a gambling addict; in fact, it's shown that he's become quite good at the game by the time he is in the 13th year of exile). Sorry for the LONG rant :-)
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure about the Eklavya-Karna comparisons. One is a minor character who basically appears in a single significant episode (though there are variant tellings about his later life too) while the other is one of the main people in the story - which naturally means that we are much more privy to all aspects of Karna's character, his positive and negative qualities, and his inner life as it fluctuates through the decades. Do we really know enough about Ekalavya's life over a period of time to say "his feelings never sank into the dark abyss of hatred that Karna's did"?
ReplyDeleteTheir relative "fan following" in pop-culture is also naturally influenced by the size of their roles in the epic. Much like Abhimanyu (another character who shines very brightly for a very brief period), Ekalavya does in fact have an intense cult following in some circles. But Karna is someone who we get to know over a very long period of time, and there are at least 6-7 important episodes that stress the positive aspects of his character and enable us to sympathise, or at least empathise, with him (e.g. the meetings with Krishna and then Kunti, the giving away of his kavacha-kundalas, his emphasis on reclaiming the "righteousness" of the war when he takes over as Kaurava commander after days of unruly and unprincipled fighting).
Again, I don't think the epic as a whole encourages any clear-cut interpretations of principal dharma, regardless of what characters like Vidura or Krishna might say at various points. And I don't see how Vidura is in comparable circumstances anyway. Karna's whole life is an almost melodramatically exaggerated case study of a battle against cruel fate. (Krishna Chaitanya - who is not by any means an unqualified admirer of Karna - opens his essay with the words "One of the most unforgettable personalities of the epic, Karna is the character created by Vyasa for his most penetrating study of relations between man and his circumstance. In the case of no other figure does circumstance become so consistently hostile to freeze life in its entirety into a perpetual predicament as in the case of Karna.")
Very good to have this conversation, btw. (Haven't had a Mahabharata conversation in ages!) I do mostly get where you're coming from, even though I disagree with some of the specifics.
@ Slytherin "Why did Drona refuse to teach Karna when his skill and Warrior background were obvious to his discerning eye? Weren't Karna and Vidur similar in that both were not socially from the Warrior Class?"
ReplyDeleteI too thought that Drona refused to take Karna under his tutelage on grounds of his caste until recently. But while reading the K.M. Ganguli translation of the epic, this was quickly shown to be false belief. Drona does teach Karna along with the Kauravas and the Panadavas.
As for Vidur, although he was the most suited for the throne, the reason he unflinchingly maintained his dignity and chose a more righteous path than Karna was not because he was aware of his identity and lineage but maybe because he never thought of himself as the successor to the throne. Dhritarashtra and Pandu, though not direct biological descendants of the Kuru dynasty, were legal sons of Vichitravirya through Niyoga. Vidur was never a candidate for the throne, as he was not the son of either wives of Vichitravirya, Ambika and Ambalika and hence not the legal heir of Vichitravirya. Laws of succession to the throne at that time did not allow Vidur to become king, rather than his purported caste. So I would regard Karna and Vidur as characters who faced quite different circumstances. Ofcourse, today in retrospect, we can argue that Vidur deserved the throne more than his step-brothers, but as far as I know the epic, it never brings up the issue of Vidur being unjustly sidelined from the throne.
Interesting discourse, btw. This is just my view of things and a just a possible answer to one of the many questions that you have raised.
@ Slytherin "Why did Drona refuse to teach Karna when his skill and Warrior background were obvious to his discerning eye? Weren't Karna and Vidur similar in that both were not socially from the Warrior Class?"
ReplyDeleteI too thought that Drona refused to take Karna under his tutelage on grounds of his caste until recently. But while reading the K.M. Ganguli translation of the epic, this was quickly shown to be false belief. Drona does teach Karna along with the Kauravas and the Panadavas.
As for Vidur, although he was the most suited for the throne, the reason he unflinchingly maintained his dignity and chose a more righteous path than Karna was not because he was aware of his identity and lineage but maybe because he never thought of himself as the successor to the throne. Dhritarashtra and Pandu, though not direct biological descendants of the Kuru dynasty, were legal sons of Vichitravirya through Niyoga. Vidur was never a candidate for the throne, as he was not the son of either wives of Vichitravirya, Ambika and Ambalika and hence not the legal heir of Vichitravirya. Laws of succession to the throne at that time did not allow Vidur to become king, rather than his purported caste. So I would regard Karna and Vidur as characters who faced quite different circumstances. Ofcourse, today in retrospect, we can argue that Vidur deserved the throne more than his step-brothers, but as far as I know the epic, it never brings up the issue of Vidur being unjustly sidelined from the throne.
Interesting discourse, btw. This is just my view of things and a just a possible answer to one of the many questions that you have raised.