Shapely! Belur Temple

 Traditional Hindu icons were usually full bodied where musculature was absent unlike in Graeco-Roman icons Posted by Picasa


devsan said...

Suddenly realised why I was so uncomfortable with Saki's interpretation of history -- which doesn't seem to give great credit to our kings, etc. I suppose that's consistent with the Marxian view.
It struck me that the discomfort was because I was weaned on a diet of Amar Chitra Katha and Chandamama. The latter, in particular, had colourful tales of our history, but most of the rulers depicted were kindly, benign souls. There never was a class interpretation in ACK and Chandamama, and -- to my growing-up mind at least -- it represented a healty picture.
I'm comfortable with that picture, even if it is inaccurate. In the absence of cliching evidence that a certain chieftain was cruel, I'm willing to give him the benifit of doubt. What I don't like about Saki's interpretation is that he automatically assumes all chieftains were perpetrations of class victimisation.
I'd rather prefer to see history as a more cheerful topic, rather than assume that it was just one sordid tale of one class victimising the other.
(PS: The reason we talk so often about kings in reference to history is because they have left concrete signs of their times, in the form of palaces, forts, temples, etc. We thus keep invoking them purely because of the physical presence of their kingdom... we cannot do the same with members of any other occupation, such as farmers, carpenters, etc.)
Your thoughts,

leftit said...

Oh.. Those lovely half naked chicks at belur and halebeedu ! ;)

Thanks for reminding me abt them :D