By Bishop Dr. J Ravikumar Stephen G.

Celebrate Love: A Dravidian Legacy

Love has always been central to Dravidian civilization – a society that embraced passion, personal choice, and the sanctity of human relationships. Tamil Sangam literature, renowned for its poetic expressions of romance, portrays love as a force that transcends social barriers, uniting couples based on mutual affection rather than rigid societal norms.

Dr. B R Ambedkar recognized the profound cultural and linguistic identity of the Dravidians, tracing their influence across the Indian subcontinent. He noted that Tamil was once the language of the Nagas _(natives of South Asia)_ across India, later displaced in the North due to political assimilation. In Dravidian tradition, the natural attraction between man and woman—the very essence of life—was never suppressed but celebrated as part of nature’s divine order.

The Transformation of Marriage Practices under Aryan Influence

With the Aryanization of South Asia by Indo-Parthian, Indo-Greek, and Indo-Aryan rulers, the concept of marriage underwent a significant transformation. Several new marital customs emerged, shaping societal norms and redefining the union between man and woman.

1. Arranged Marriages in Vedic Aryan Society

In early Vedic times, marriages were primarily arranged based on *’varna* (caste)’ and ‘gotra (lineage)’ considerations. The key characteristics of these marriages included:

-Parental Involvement: The selection of a groom was the primary responsibility of the bride’s father.

Kanyādāna (Gift of the Daughter): The bride was ceremonially “given away” to a groom deemed suitable, symbolizing her transition into her husband’s family.

Horoscope Matching: Astrological compatibility played a crucial role, particularly in later Vedic traditions.

Dowry and Gifts: While dowry was not originally a requirement, the exchange of gifts was common.

2. Swayamvara – A Controlled Choice

The ‘Swayamvara’ (meaning “self-choice”) was an ancient marriage practice where a royal princess had the right to choose her husband from a gathering of eligible suitors. However, while it allowed women some autonomy, the selection process was often influenced by ‘political considerations’, ‘familial alliances’, and the ‘suitors’ abilities’. A notable example is ‘Draupadi’s Swayamvara’, which was structured to favor Arjuna, demonstrating how family influence remained decisive even in so-called “self-choice” marriages.

3. The Eight Types of Marriages in Vedic Culture (Manusmriti 3.21-26)

The Vedic tradition classified marriages into eight types, each varying in social acceptability and moral standing:

1. Brahma Marriage: The ideal arranged marriage, where a father gives his daughter to a virtuous groom without expecting anything in return.
2. Daiva Marriage: The bride is given to a priest as part of a religious offering.
3. Arsha Marriage: The groom presents a token gift (often cattle) to the bride’s father.
4. Prajapatya Marriage: Similar to Brahma marriage but emphasizing duty over affection.
5. Gandharva Marriage: A marriage based on mutual love and consent, without family arrangements (akin to modern love marriages)
6. Asura Marriage: The groom offers wealth or valuables to acquire the bride (considered improper but practiced)
7. Rakshasa Marriage: The bride is abducted by force, as seen in Krishna’s abduction of Rukmini.
8. Paisacha Marriage: The most condemned form, involving coercion or deceit.

The ‘Aryan influence’ reshaped India’s cultural landscape, reinforcing hierarchical and caste-based constraints on marriage.

Love and Marriage in Sangam Tamil Literature

To understand Dravidian marriage traditions, we must turn to ‘Tamil Sangam literature’, which offers a stark contrast to the rigid structures of Vedic traditions. Unlike Vedic texts, Sangam poetry is rich with references to love, romance, and marriages based on ‘personal choice’. These poems celebrate the emotional depth, spontaneity, and mutual affection of love marriages.

Love and Elopement (Kalavu) in Sangam Poetry

Sangam literature often portrays ‘young lovers meeting in secret, falling in love, and eloping’. The following poetic examples illustrate various aspects of love marriages:

Kuruntokai (Poem 40)

You and I, how do we know each other?

Yet, like rainfall on red earth,

Our hearts in love merged into one.

Natrinai (Kapilar, Kurinji Thinai)

Truthful in speech and eternal in sweet friendship, he does not know parting from my arms.

My friendship with my esteemed man is great, like sweet honey made in the tall sandal trees, by bees that collect cool pollen from lotus flowers.

Just as the world cannot live without water, I cannot exist without him…

These poems reflect the ‘autonomy Tamil women had’ in selecting their husbands based on love.

Love Cannot Be Silenced

Across the Earth, the cycle of life continues in both the ‘plant and animal kingdoms’, ensuring fertility and sustenance. This process is guided by the natural attraction between male and female—a ‘fundamental principle of existence’ that aligns with nature’s divine order. ‘In this context, lust is not inherently wrong; rather, within the sacred bond of committed marriage, it transforms into something divine.’

In ancient times, Aryan kings ‘discouraged marriage’, believing that ‘unmarried men made better warriors’. A millennium ago, as ‘wars consumed human civilization’, people gradually lost touch with the ‘passion and artistry of love’. To preserve and educate future generations, societies carved ‘intricate erotic sculptures’ into temple steeples, such as those in the ‘Konark Sun Temple’, serving as ‘visual lessons on love and intimacy’.

Non-Aryan Bhauma-Kara dynasty ruled Kalinga in the 8th, 9th, and 10th centuries. To make inroads into the plains of Kalinga, the Somavamshi dynasty ruled coastal fought several wars, till they conquered them. Guides at the _’Konark temple complex’ narrate how, after the War, a vast number of soldiers perished, leading to a severe scarcity of men in Kalinga. The ‘sculptures within the temple complex depict a variety of intimate acts and sexual positions’ (refer to the second image), meant to educate and preserve the tradition of love and procreation.”

The origins of ‘Valentine’s Day’ share a similar spirit—when ‘Emperor Claudius II of Rome banned marriages’, fearing that ‘married men were less effective in battle’, ‘St Valentine defied the decree and secretly officiated weddings, upholding the sanctity of love.

Yet, even today, the ‘celebration of love faces resistance’. Every year, couples encounter ‘hostility simply for expressing their affection’. ‘Valentine’s Day’, a ‘global symbol of love’, has become a battleground where fundamentalist forces attempt to ‘suppress the natural right to love’.

Love is the ‘foundation of human connection’, a ‘force that unites souls and strengthens societies’. The ‘Dravidian Gond community’ still practices the ‘concept of ‘Kalavu’, preserving the ‘tradition of love-based unions.

This Valentine’s Day, let us reclaim this spirit. *’Until we establish a Dravidian Day of Love in our cultural calendar, let us proudly celebrate St Valentine’s Day as a testament to our enduring belief in love, choice, and togetherness.’

Among the Dravidians, there is no caste, creed, or religious divide.* ‘Declare your love with pride’. ‘Stand for the freedom to choose your partner’. ‘Uphold the Dravidian spirit of love, passion, and commitment’.

‘Happy Valentine’s Day!’

____________________

Dr. J Ravikumar Stephen G., is the Founder, Dravidianism Revival Centre, Peace Coalition of the People of South Asia, and Sages of the New Covenant. He is also the Presiding Bishop of General Convention of the Episcopal Churches in Southern and South Eastern Asia.  The Dravidianism Revival Centre is located in Badlapur, Greater Thane Maharashtra, India.

Read: Beyond Nilakanta Sastri: Revisiting Dravidian and Aryan Narratives

The post Love Beyond Boundaries: The Dravidian Legacy of Romance and Freedom first appeared on Sindh Courier.

Jahangir Mahboob

In the realm of Greek mythology, the renowned warrior Achilles was deemed invincible in the theater of combat; however, he harbored a vulnerable point on his heel. Throughout the annals of history, eminent political figures have capitulated before the influence of their closest connections. Enveloped in the opulence of the throne and the crown, there lies a labyrinthine network of emotion, yearning and affection. I have selected the title “The Achilles’ Heel of Power” , for it eloquently encapsulates the paradox of how even the most formidable leaders may find themselves rendered susceptible because of their deep-seated affections for others.

It is not unusual (indeed, relatively common) for the private lives of leaders—such as Napoleon Bonaparte’s fixation on Josephine, or Adolf Hitler’s devotion to Eva Braun—to wield considerable influence over significant historical occurrences. The ancient world serves as a prime example (as evidenced by Mark Antony’s ill-fated romance with Cleopatra, the queen of Egypt), illustrating this: such romantic involvements frequently presaged the downfall of empires. Similarly, Tsar Nicholas II’s commitment to Alexandra manifested as a detrimental distraction; however, Akbar the Great’s affection for Jodhabai transcended cultural barriers and initiated a new epoch of tolerance. Not even the infamous King Henry VIII remained impervious to the repercussions of his liaison with Catherine of Aragon, which initiated a cascade of events that would rejuvenate the English monarchy. This article, therefore, explores the enthralling tales of these leaders and their paramours, elucidating the lasting influence of love and relationships in determining the trajectories of nations.

The Human Side of Power: Behind the grandiose facades of authority, leaders are, indeed, human beings imbued with emotions, desires and vulnerabilities. The exercise of power is frequently accompanied by immense pressures, stress and isolation; however, leaders must adeptly navigate intricate webs of relationships (which can be quite challenging), manage competing interests and make arduous decisions that significantly impact countless lives. Although the public often perceives these figures as invulnerable, this journey unveils the largely untold dimensions of prominent figures’ romantic lives—because, ultimately, they too endure the tumultuous nature of human connections.

Napoleon Bonaparte and Josephine

Napoleon Bonaparte’s deep-seated affection for Josephine constituted a pivotal dimension of both his personal and public existence. Her influence on his policies and military strategies was subtle; however, it was profound. Indeed, as a member of the French aristocracy, Josephine’s social standing and connections facilitated Napoleon’s navigation through the intricate terrain of French politics. During Napoleon’s military campaigns in Italy, Josephine’s presence not only uplifted spirits, but also instilled a sense of normalcy amid the chaos. Her popularity among the Italian populace significantly aided Napoleon’s endeavors in the region. Furthermore, Napoleon’s affection for Josephine rendered him more vulnerable; his desire to care for her and secure her future invariably swayed his decisions. A noteworthy instance of Josephine’s influence on Napoleon’s policy determinations was her role in shaping his rapport with the Catholic Church. Although she was a devout Catholic, Josephine encouraged Napoleon to cultivate relations with the Vatican, which ultimately culminated in the signing of the Concordat of 1801. This act not only solidified his power but also demonstrated the intricate interplay between personal relationships and political maneuvering.

This agreement reinstated Catholicism as the official state religion of France and played a crucial role in fortifying Napoleon’s authority; however, the political landscape remained complex. Nevertheless, Josephine’s incapacity to bear an heir would ultimately engender a rift between them. Napoleon’s yearning for a successor compelled him to divorce Josephine in 1810—a choice that would have enduring implications for his reign and legacy. The divorce tarnished Napoleon’s reputation and popularity among the French, who had come to admire Josephine; however, it also signified a turning point in Napoleon’s relationship with the Catholic Church, contributing to his eventual downfall. The last words from the greatest French Emperor before death are noted in history as: France, Army and Josephine.

Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun

Braun—a youthful and appealing assistant to a photographer—encountered Hitler in 1929 and swiftly ascended to the status of his mistress. As historian Ian Kershaw elucidates, Braun’s relationship with Hitler was characterized by a “deep emotional dependence” (Kershaw, 2000). Despite their considerable age disparity and the pervasive secrecy enveloping their liaison, Braun remained unwaveringly devoted to Hitler; she adeptly managed the household at the Berghof, Hitler’s alpine retreat and frequently occupied a prominent position at his side. Hitler, conversely, relied on Braun for emotional sustenance and companionship. Albert Speer—Hitler’s confidant and architect—asserted that Braun was “the only one who could soothe him” (Speer, 1970). The ramifications of Braun’s influence on Hitler’s decisions were indirect; however, they were profound and undeniably significant. Because war brought Germany to its knees, Hitler increasingly isolated and withdrew, rendering Braun’s presence a rare source of comfort. He grew more dependent on her as the Allies encroached. In the final throes of the conflict, Hitler and Braun united in matrimony during a modest ceremony within the Führerbunker. Although this union was shrouded in the chaos of war, it nevertheless underscored a complex interplay of devotion and dependency that marked their relationship.

This union epitomized their indomitable bond and Braun’s loyalty to Hitler remained absolute until the very end. Eva Braun’s affection for Adolf Hitler persisted unwaveringly. Her devotion to Hitler served as a testament to the profound (and often inexplicable) power of love; this phenomenon can lead individuals to perceive even the most dangerous flaws in those they adore. However, such intense affection raises questions: how can one reconcile admiration with moral failings? Although the allure of charisma is undeniable, it complicates one’s judgment, because emotions can cloud rationality.

Mark Antony and Cleopatra

The partnership between Anthony and Cleopatra epitomized a formidable amalgamation of passion, politics and power. Their bond, forged amid a tumultuous epoch in Roman history, would have far-reaching consequences for Egypt, Rome and the trajectory of Western civilization. Cleopatra, the last pharaoh of Ancient Egypt, emerged as a shrewd politician and strategist who skillfully manipulated her relationship with Antony to secure Egypt’s interests. Antony, one of Rome’s most powerful generals, was equally ambitious; seeking to expand his own power and influence within the Roman Empire. Their relationship was marked by a series of strategic alliances, including the so-called “Donations of Alexandria,” in which Antony granted Cleopatra control over several Roman territories. This move was perceived as a direct challenge to Octavian’s authority and ultimately contributed to the outbreak of war between Antony and Octavian. The Battle of Actium in 31 BCE, in which Antony and Cleopatra’s forces were decisively defeated by Octavian’s army, marked the beginning of the end of their relationship and the downfall of the Ptolemaic dynasty. However, the complexities of their alliance reveal the intricate interplay of personal ambition and political necessity. Although their connection was characterized by mutual dependence, it was also fraught with the tensions arising from competing aspirations. Because of this, their fateful decisions not only altered their destinies but also reshaped the course of history. However, it is essential to recognize that, although their ambitions aligned, the underlying tensions would ultimately precipitate their tragic demise. At last, Antony took his own life; Cleopatra, however, followed suit, acting solely on the orders not to become a captive in Rome’s grand display. This decision was driven by their desire for autonomy, because they were acutely aware of the implications of surrender. Although tragic, their demise underscores the complexities of power dynamics in that era.

Tsar Nicholas II and Alexandra

Tsar Nicholas II (the last Romanov czar of Russia) was a man encumbered by his predestined historical path. His union with Alexandra—a German princess—was ostensibly a love match, which would, however, serve as both his greatest refuge and his eventual undoing. Alexandra, a woman of considerable will and intellect, exerted a profound influence over Nicholas; she both fostered his autocratic tendencies and reinforced his vacillation. Her own health afflictions, which included a debilitating case of hemophilia affecting their son Alexei, further alienated the royal family from external realities. As the Russian Empire wavered on the brink of disintegration, Alexandra’s influence over Nicholas grew increasingly disastrous. Her dependence on the mystic Rasputin (who asserted he could remedy Alexei’s condition) culminated in a succession of catastrophic decisions that undermined the monarchy’s credibility and expedited the emergence of the Russian Revolution. Nicholas’s deep affection for Alexandra obscured his perception of the stark realities of his situation, ultimately leading him to miscalculate the intensifying discontent among his subjects.

As the empire disintegrated (around him), Nicholas steadfastly maintained his devotion to Alexandra, even as she directed him (down) a path of ruination. In the end, it was Nicholas’s love for Alexandra that emerged as his Achilles’ heel: a tragic flaw that precipitated the downfall of the Romanov dynasty and irrevocably transformed the trajectory of Russian history. However, this affection, (although) deeply felt, ultimately culminated in his undoing, because it obscured his vision to the looming turmoil.

Akbar the Great and Jodhabai

Akbar—the formidable sovereign of the Mughal Empire—epitomized an unwavering ambition and an unrestrained fervor that marked his reign. His union with Jodhabai (a Rajput princess) constituted a strategic alliance, which ultimately emerged as a pivotal juncture in his rule. Jodhabai, endowed with remarkable intelligence and beauty, introduced a distinctive perspective into Akbar’s court. Her influence profoundly shaped Akbar’s policies, particularly with respect to religious tolerance and cultural exchange. The emperor’s affection for Jodhabai incited a notable transformation in his disposition towards Hinduism; indeed, Akbar assimilated numerous Hindu customs and practices into his own life. However, this affection engendered tensions within his court. A multitude of Muslim grandees harbored suspicions regarding the emperor’s burgeoning interest in Hindu practices and his Hindu spouse. Consequently, a rift emerged between Akbar and his Muslim advisors, who perceived Jodhabai’s influence as a deleterious force. Although these challenges persisted, Akbar’s devotion to Jodhabai proved resilient and she remained a trusted advisor as well as a companion until her demise.

Jahangir, their progeny, would ultimately ascend to the throne, succeeding Akbar as emperor—ensuring that the legacy of Jodhabai continued to influence the Mughal Empire. The relationship between Akbar and Jodhabai stands as a testament to the transformative nature of love; however, it simultaneously illuminates the complexities that are inherent in dynastic politics. Even amidst great turmoil (and upheaval), love can indeed flourish, although it is often fraught with myriad challenges. This dynamic is particularly poignant because it underscores the intricate interplay between personal affection and political necessity, thus revealing the multifaceted dimensions of human experience.

King Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon

King Henry VIII, the formidable and multifaceted Tudor monarch, was fundamentally a complex individual propelled by his own wants and desires. His union with Catherine of Aragon (the devout and logical Spanish princess) constituted a relationship that would ultimately culminate in his own downfall. Catherine, who had previously been wed to Henry’s elder brother Arthur, was a woman of steadfast conviction and unwavering piety. Her inability to bear a male heir, however, became a source of escalating frustration for Henry—who was ardently seeking a son to solidify the Tudor dynasty. As Henry’s yearning for a male heir intensified, so too did his obsession with Anne Boleyn (one of Catherine’s ladies-in-waiting). Henry’s infatuation with Anne of Anjou would, however, precipitate the English Reformation, because he severed ties with the Catholic Church to procure an annulment of his marriage to Catherine. This, when Catherine did not acquiesce (as was her right) to the annulment, would signify the demise of their union.

Henry’s profound yearning for a new consort, alongside his desire for a male heir, would ultimately result in the downfall of Catherine; she was deprived of her royal title and condemned to a life of exile. The repercussions of Henry’s decisions would be extensive—shaping the course of English history and determining the fate of the Tudor dynasty. His ambition for a male descendant, combined with a legendary infatuation with Anne Boleyn, would both become inextricably linked to his eventual undoing. Because of this, a series of events would unfold that would, however, irrevocably transform England.

In contemplating the narratives surrounding these iconic figures (and their kin), several recurring themes surface: one discerns that even the most powerful individuals can succumb to the vulnerabilities intrinsic to love and interpersonal relationships. We observe how their private lives, in conjunction with emotional affiliations, can significantly influence their choices, policies and, ultimately, their fates. For instance, Napoleon’s all-consuming ardor for Josephine and Henry VIII’s relentless quest for Anne Boleyn illustrate the manner in which affection can metamorphose into an Achilles’ heel—enticing even the mightiest leaders down avenues of annihilation. Furthermore, we note the dual nature of the repercussions stemming from relationships with those we cherish: they can yield both solace and calamity. This representation is by no means exhaustive; indeed, there exists a plethora of additional instances throughout history wherein leaders have been swayed by their personal connections. However, these narratives stand as poignant reminders that, despite the most robust leaders, no individual is genuinely irreplaceable. Ultimately, one may conclude that, however formidable or influential a leader may seem, they remain susceptible to the emotional pull of familial ties.

The potential for happiness can indeed be a perilous endeavor, yielding both the highest echelons of joy and the deepest abysses of despair; this duality has intricately interwoven itself into the very fabric of human history—manifesting in both grandiose and minuscule, albeit horrific, manners. However, the dynamic interplay between joy and suffering transcends mere historical occurrence; it serves as a poignant reflection of the complexities inherent in existence. Although individuals may ardently pursue happiness, they must simultaneously grapple with despair, as these two states are inextricably intertwined. Because of this intricate relationship, the narrative arc of humanity is indelibly marked by a tapestry of both triumph and tragedy.

Read: History of English literature is the Autobiography of English People

_________________

 Jahangir Mahboob is a student of BS International Relations University of Sindh. Email: jmchannas30ok@gmail.com

The post The Achilles’ heel of Power first appeared on Sindh Courier.

Dr. Jernail S. Anand

The world is weary of scholars in general, and poets in particular, and hesitates to consider them for political positions like the Premier. Some of the great Premiers adored contemporary poets, although they themselves were no poets.  For example. George Washington adored Phillis Wheatley, Thomas Jefferson was a fan of Thomas Moore. Abraham Lincoln adored the poetry of Irish poet Robert Burns and John F. Kennedy adored Robert Frost. So, loving Poetry is one thing, but being a Poet Premier, quite another.

Perhaps, it shows the trust deficit of the general public in poets who are looked upon as men of unsteady mental disposition.  How can people think of having such a person in the position of a Premier? Let us not forget Plato who dismissed the Poet from his Republic. A Poet as the Head of a Republic will raise Plato from his grave. Did a Poet ever get a chance to rule, even in Egypt or Rome, where poetry was in such transcendence? Did England where poets like Shakespeare, Wordsworth and Eliot were born, ever give a chance to a Poet to rule the country? Yes, they made Laureates of them. When Wordsworth was Laureated, Robert Browning had written the famous poem: ‘The Lost Leader’. He was not wrong. Making a poet a laureate simply meant giving a vaccine of inaction, and non-speech, and rendering him passive about human suffering. Thereafter, he is free to write about bees, cuckoos, rivers, mountains and keep roving in valleys. But, not a word about the evil that is rampant in society. The vaccine is so strong, that injustice, corruption, drugs, terror which mark public life, never touch the heart of a Laureate. No wonder, no poet aspires anything beyond this.

No political party can support the poet, because he believes in Universalism. In final analysis, the world cannot risk having a Poet as a Premier. So, they offer them Laureateships liberally so that their penchant for political power, recognition and sense of self-importance could be satisfied.

The highest virtue of poetry, or you may say, of a Poet is ambivalence, abstraction and obtuseness. Poetry is considered a higher virtue over prose or fiction, simply because fiction and prose are objective while the field of poetry is entirely subjective. The absolute confusion about the meaning of Poetry afflicts the life, choices and decisions of a Poet.  A man for whom clouds are more romantic than a sunny day, cannot be entrusted with the destiny of a nation which needs clear vision and hard decisions.

POET AND THE GHOST OF HAMLET

A Poet has an inborn capability to confuse things. The ghost of Hamlet haunts him day and night. To be or not to be. If the mind is forked like this, a Poet cannot but meditate on whether to stop near the woods, or pass [Stopping by Woods], and one cannot decide which road to take [The Road Not Taken].  The Poet’s mind is obsessed with kings and queens like Antony and Cleopatra, and “her infinite variety”. For a Poet, the journey is more delightful than the destination and indecision, more productive than decision, which finally forces us on a collision course with real life situations.

Of late, we have seen Premiers who can project lies like oracular truths. A Poet too weaves an unreal web to project truth. But this is too whimsical an equation between the two and does not go far. Politicians are far more accomplished in tailoring lies, than Poets are at lyrical fiction.  The comparison ends here, because a poet has no ulterior motives, like the politician, who has “no interest unborrowed from the eye”.

POET AS A LIABILITY

One major point of deviation which freezes the chances of a Poet as a Premier is that, while the society considers poetry an asset, the poet is considered a liability. No wonder, ninety percent of the poets are part-timers.  Such passivity of character does not become a Premier, who is expected to don an aggressive life-style.

Read: Of a Civilization in the Quick Sands of Time

This liability becomes most untenable and beyond tolerance during a national emergency. When the country is face to face with a threat from the enemy, and when action is the need of the hour, the Poet may start composing a poem of amity and send it to the commanders on the other side. The most popular governments which mass-produce weapons of war, would not like such silly behavior from a Premier. What finally kills in the battlefield is not a word, but a sword. The Poet who tries to kill evil with words is decidedly a liability for the upcoming world.

TAKING A CHANCE WITH A POET

Let us take a chance with a Poet. Once elected to the post of a Premier, the Poet will start with his love for Romance. There is every possibility, he will make visits to Delphi, England and Egypt, rather than America or France for purchase of weapons and fighter planes.  There can be a resolution in the Parliament that the proceedings will be recorded in verse. All the Parliamentarians will be taking courses in versification. And in the towns, bronze statues of warriors will be replaced with Shakespeare, Milton, Chaucer and William Wordsworth. Too much emphasis on poetry, truth, virtue and beauty can create a grave crisis for general public. No political party can support the poet, because he believes in Universalism. In final analysis, the world cannot risk having a Poet as a Premier. So, they offer them Laureateships liberally so that their penchant for political power, recognition and sense of self-importance could be satisfied.  Shelley who regarded poets as unrecognized legislators of the world, it appears, took a bite too big to be chewed.  [My apologies to the great master, because it is all tongue-in-cheek].

Read: Alfred Domett: poet and premier

________________

Dr. Jernail Singh Anand, President of the International Academy of Ethics, is author of 161 books in English poetry, fiction, non-fiction, philosophy and spirituality. He was awarded Charter of Morava, the great Award by Serbian Writers Association, Belgrade and his name was engraved on the Poets’ Rock in Serbia. The Academy of Arts and philosophical Sciences of Bari [Italy] honored him with the award of an Honorable Academic.  Recently, he was awarded Doctor of Philosophy [Honoris Causa] by the University of Engineering and Management, Jaipur. Recently, he organized an International Conference on Contemporary Ethics at Chandigarh. His most phenomenal book is Lustus: The Prince of Darkness [first epic of the Mahkaal Trilogy]. Email: anandjs55@yahoo.com 

Link Bibliography:

https://atunispoetry.com/2023/12/08/indian-author-dr-jernail-s-anand-honoured-at-the-60th-belgrade-international-meeting-of-writers/

The post THE POET AS A PREMIER first appeared on Sindh Courier.

K Asif’s Mughal-e-Azam is often referred to as one of the most iconic films of Hindi cinema. The grand sets, the majestic dialogues, and the glorious cast of Dilip Kumar, Madhubala, and Prithviraj Kapoor has cinephiles celebrating the film even 61 years after its release. But what’s now remembered as a triumph on the silver screen was exactly the opposite in real life for its lead actors.

Late actor Dilip Kumar’s turn as Salim is often remembered as one of his best works but it is not just Salim who made a mark in cinematic history. Madhubala’s Anarkali was applauded for her delicate screen presence and her poised performance. The story of star-crossed lovers gave Indian cinema one of its first iconic love stories that has proved to be timeless. But here’s when the difference between reel and real creeps in. What we saw on screen was drastically opposite to what was transpiring in real life.

When Dilip Kumar and Madhubala were cast in K Asif’s magnum ops, it was said to be the perfect pairing. Stories of their raging romance were all over the place and Yusuf Sahab himself wrote about the same in his biography, Dilip Kumar: The Substance and the Shadow. “The announcement of our pairing in Mughal-e-Azam made sensational news in the early 1950s because of the rumours about our emotional involvement. In fact, K Asif was ecstatic with the wide publicity and trade enquiries he got from the announcement,” he wrote.

He candidly shared that they were both attracted to each other while filming Tarana (1951) so when Mughal-e-Azam eventually landed in their lap, they were more than happy to embrace the roles of divine lovers. He wrote, “She filled a void that was crying out to be filled – not by an intellectually sharp woman but a spirited woman whose liveliness and charm were the ideal panacea for the wound that was taking its own time to heal.”

Since Mughal-e-Azam took years to shoot because of its expansive sets and production design, things were drastically different between the lead pair by the time they shot the famed feather scene. Dilip Kumar and Madhubala “had completely stopped even greeting each other” when they shot for the scene that is now remembered as one of the most romantic scenes in Hindi cinema’s history. For shooting this successfully, he gave credit to their professional attitude who respected the director’s vision. “It should, in all fairness, go down in the annals of film history as a tribute to the artistry of two professionally committed actors who kept aside personal differences and fulfilled the director’s vision of a sensitive, arresting and sensuous screen moment to perfection,” he wrote.

But what really tore apart the famed couple? Dilip Kumar shared in his biography that contrary to popular notion, Madhubala’s father Ataullah Khan wasn’t opposed to their match but instead, wanted to turn this marriage into a business venture which did not land well with Dilip Kumar. Madhubala’s father had his own production company and wanted to bring in the two stars under his roof but Dilip was not in favor of this idea.

“I explained to both of them that I had my own way of functioning and selecting projects and I would not show any laxity even if it were my own production house. It must have tilted the apple cart for him and he successfully convinced Madhu that I was being rude and presumptuous,” he wrote. Dilip Kumar shared that Madhubala tried convincing him a lot and promised that “that it would all be sorted out once we married” but Dilip was not ready to “surrender to someone else’s dictates and strategies.”

This led to their break up which made Dilip think that this was probably for the best. “I was truly relieved when we parted because I had also begun to get an inkling that it was all very well to be working together as artistes, but in marriage it is important for a woman to be ready to give more than receive,” he wrote.

_____________________

Courtesy: Indian Express

The post Mughal-e-Azam: Dilip Kumar, Madhubala were not on talking terms when they shot Indian cinema’s most romantic scene first appeared on Sindh Courier.