It suddenly struck me very hard one morning as picked up the Mahabharata for the umpteenth time. No, the book didn't strike me down. Rather it remained in its usual solidity on my desk, ready to endure another reading through, like I do every damn year. What struck me was this revelation that it is possible to read it discounting the supranormal, the paranormal and any such mythological stuff. Yes, it can be read as history. Of course I was inspired by great historians like Romila Thapar and Rajagopalchari, but at that time it felt like an ingenious idea.
And, you know what? I was trying stitch together the story of Amba, who was "reborn" as Shikhandi. It took me a while to be convinced that her tale could be told without all those rebirths, gods walking among men, the boons granted by gods, and sages who lived forever. Damn, it felt like a goldmine.
Will the real Mahabharata stand up?
But, before I started to figure out her tale, I stumbled upon another real gem. I realized that the Mahabharata is essentially a story of barbarian tribes fighting against each other for trivial reasons. Take the story of Shishupala for instance. Bhima and Krishna walked straight to the house of Shishupala, the emperor of the largest empire, and called him out. When he came out Bhima challened him to a duel, and killed him. Does this sound like there were real empires, palaces, armies and such stuff involved? Not to me. Or, take the story of Arjuna at the court of King Birata. Karna, Duryadhona and some other warriors of the Kaurava clan came and tried to take away a herd of cows that the king owned. Arjuna had to fight really hard to get the cows back, and he was much appreciated by the court. Cows!!! Oh, please. Remember, many of the Kings and Emperors had seen glass for the first time when Yudhishthira built his new palace.
Poor people leaving in huts made of mud, straw, bamboo and wood - that's what a palace was. Most travelled on foot, even the princess, and at every turn the cities (rather, the larger villages) stood like island in seas of forests. Cows were the biggest asset, nomads came from many corners, iron was a wonder metal, the laws were not written down (in fact most people didn't know the alphabets, not even kings and princes, and hence the abundance of oral messages), and the clan system was way stronger than kingdoms with a border (no matter how tentative those borders were). What was I smoking? Nothing much, just plain tobacco. This view is well supported by Ms. Thapar, I found out.
I wasn't disappointed. In fact I became even more curious. The more curious I became the more I started to believe that the whole story is a story about the women of Mahabharata. They pulled all the strings, supplied the motivations,
A far fetched dream
I would love to turn her story into a film script someday (I'm working on it, really). I also would like to treat the script as I see Mahabharata - the real history (in reality arrows don't turn around to bite the archer, or dead people don't come back from the netherworld at a sage's wish). I have no idea who is going to turn that script into a film. But, well, that can't stop me from writing it. Not that I don't care. I do. I care so much that I want it to be made before Bipasha Basu grows old. As a feared warrior who also is a sizzling beauty, I can see absolutely no one but Ms. Basu playing the role of Amba. For Bhishma it is entirely possible to cast Amitabha Bachchan for the older version, and Abhishek Bachchan for the younger version (shouldn't take a lot of special effect make up, eh?). The king of Shalwa can, of course, be John Abraham.
Who do I believe can direct this? Well, I'd believe Ashutosh Gowarikar could do justice to the narrative. Haven't think of anyone beyond him. It shouldn't be a very high budget film, as there is no super sets and gorgeous costumes or loads of special effect to depict Brahmastras and shape shifters involved. Let's see what happens.
The journey has began, and there's still a long way to go. Let me tread the road one step at a time. Thanks.
[BTW, critical commentary on and outright criticism of all three parts of the story would be highly appreciated]
