u/Niti-mat

Just finished this movie. Great watch!

The character "Saudamini" who is well read women who reads various books and is very much opinionated about every thing going around her, since her father passed away at a young age her mother and her uncle(maternal) are taking care of her and her uncle is a very liberal man and raises her to be very liberal too. With him around she was at ease that she can always make her own decisions. But as life is things take a sudden turn. And this movie later explores her and her husband who is also a very caring, understanding and open minded person.

Saudamini got the reading habit form her uncle as matter of fact she buys books from Kolkata which was the main educational hubs at that time and she was also good in academic debates. unlike other uneducated women she questions belief! Can take perspectives....

Respect for educated people with open mindedness has increased ini my mind as his uncle has great understanding of people with liberal mindset.

SPOILER ALERT !!

Just watched this movie, and I must say, what a great piece of writing. The topic they chose is still relevant.

The story starts and ends with its central character, Amrit, who is both a poet and an activist participating in tribal protests.

There was a social setting where all the creative people gathered to celebrate the success of Divakar Barve, an intelligent and great writer. He understands trends, predicts what people will find interesting, and writes accordingly. The party was thrown by Damyanti Rane, the wealthy widow and patron of the arts, who hosts the gathering.

Some great questions were raised:

• Is the art of an artist without political ideology irrelevant?

There was an argument by a Doctor of Philosophy that it is not important for an artist to be politically committed to make his art relevant.

But when we see movies like Dhurandhar, even if the movie is not a great one, its political involvement makes it relevant.

>There always comes a time in every creative person's life when his own morals and his artistic morals confront each other.

For Bharat, a new and growing writer, the stance was that it can be different. But he was at the stage of building himself in contrast with Divakar.

Although they were intellectual and liberal people, each one of them had their own echo chambers, which got busted by the death of Amrit. Everyone in the room got shaken. I found it fascinating how this group of bourgeois people, sitting comfortably in their air-conditioned rooms, kept intellectualising everything and believing they were making an impact, while remaining detached from the realities they discussed.

Then Amrit dies.

His death shatters every comfortable certainty in the room.

With time, Divakar gets stuck in a spiral and starts finding that his writing is just words because it doesn't resonate with the tribals. Amrit's death completely distorts his echo chamber. He also begins questioning whether his wife, Mohini, who left her acting career out of love for him, had actually used love as an escape from her own mediocrity. He convinces himself that she knew she wasn't a good actress and that love became a justification for leaving her career.

Because Amrit wrote with purpose, he lived his writing. His words are not just words—they are protest. He didn't differentiate between his morals and his artistic morals. He wrote what he believed and acted upon it without compromising his principles because there was no contradiction between his life and his art.

Damyanti, who admired his writing, also had her bubble burst after hearing Divakar's views on his own writing.

There, we can see a great comparison between Divakar and Bharat. Bharat initially seems to think in much the same way as Divakar about taking a moral stance in art. But Amrit's death forces him to confront the gap between merely writing about ideas and actually living them, making him question the very position he had been building for himself. It also reflects the dilemma of creating original content when one begins to feel that the work is "just words"—like a snake shedding its slough.

When did Hindu Dharma become so rigid, despite having no single textbook, and yet still continue to evolve and absorb influences? Thinking along those lines, I wonder about the rigidity surrounding surnames and how long it has prevailed.

What I think is that the problem began when people started viewing it as a hierarchy. The Varna system—Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra—was not necessarily meant to be understood as a sequence of higher and lower groups. If we compare it to modern times, where engineering is highly valued and in demand, many of those practical and technical professions would historically have been categorised under the Shudra varna. Engineers are modern time shudras.

I think that as eras change, trends change as well. Some professions, ideas, and social roles receive more attention, while others receive less. That does not necessarily mean there is a problem with the framework itself.

No doubt, the current situation has worsened over time, and we often place the entire blame on the caste system which is the corrupt derivative of varna system. However, it is not always about caste. It is also about ignorance, the lack of pursuit of knowledge, low emotional intelligence, and the tendency of people to form groups and identify primarily with those groups. These factors can amplify divisions and prejudices regardless of the system in place.

This can be seen in the fact that, despite centuries of foreign invasions, conversions, and the mixing of multiple traditions and cultures, Indian civilisation continues to exist. Instead of collapsing under external influences, it adapted and evolved. To me, this suggests that the framework itself was resilient enough to accommodate change, and that many of the challenges we see today arise not solely from the system, but also from how people interpret and practice it.

If I can imagine the time when this system was newly established, before any invasions had happened, it would have seemed like a very great idea from the kingdom’s perspective, especially when India was divided into small provinces. In modern times, we call it a training period, but with this system, the chances of producing a better goldsmith from a person born into a goldsmith family, or providing better teaching from a teacher’s family, would have been higher. The knowledge, skills, and experience of a profession could be passed down from one generation to the next from an early age so it becomes its conditioning.

more...

People are comparing this CJP with the youth movement in Nepal. If I go back and think about it, how would they have communicated? I think social media would have played a major role, but more importantly, they had a common cause, which was poverty. They may not have had caste or religion-related problems, but they had their own differences. Yet above all those differences, they shared a common cause.

Creating a common cause for the youth of India is next to impossible. We are divided not only by politics, caste, religion, and language, but also by our understanding of the problems we face. I wouldn't say CJP was some meme or gimmick, but on the other hand, it has revealed a lot about the emotional intelligence of the people in this country.

With such emotional intellect, we should not expect that within one or two days, through some random trend, the country will reform. In India, even when the youth tries to come together, they can be divided very easily. Sometimes it feels as if our disagreements are stronger than the issues we collectively face.

If we really want some impact, we should start reading things, understanding things, and questioning them as well. A movement without understanding can create noise, but understanding is what creates change. After all these negatives and positives, I still see this as an effort.

The national parties hold control over the structural framework and all four pillars of the country. But I believe there will come a threshold where people are left with no other option but to revolt against power. Until then, every effort, even an imperfect one, contributes to building awareness and pushing people to think beyond their existing beliefs.

After watching this, I came up with a question that क्या सच में प्रत्यक्ष को प्रमाण के लिए किसी और आवश्यकता नहीं होती ?

प्रत्यक्ष को भी प्रश्न किया जा सकता है। मेरा अनुभव ही एकमात्र सच नहीं हो सकता, लेकिन वह मेरा सच ज़रूर हो सकता है।

Besides all the issues faced by people, we often fail to see the “positive vision” of our contractors and politicians.

Weak infrastructure is directly connected to solving major problems like unemployment and corruption. If roads and infrastructure are rebuilt again and again, the city always looks fresh and “developed” — it never gets the chance to grow old. Rebuilding means continuous labour work, which “solves” unemployment by keeping workers busy forever. At the same time, money flowing to poor workers supposedly reduces black money and therefore “fights” corruption.

And this is exactly how Modi ji’s vision of Atmanirbhar Bharat will be achieved — one broken road at a time.

One of the most legendary political serials ever made, and still incredibly relevant today. If someone truly wants to understand politics and become a real patriot, they should watch this.

History may have been altered in parts, but the serial itself is truly great. As someone who has personally read Chanakya Niti, I can say it captures many of its ideas and philosophies brilliantly.