This is the most mature discussion I have listened on this movie from western point of view. Kind of awareness you guys have on the topics, really appreciate it. Believe me I heard many podcast on RRR (mostly to kill time and it's interesting to listen western viewpoint), but you guys got many things right. Like representation of Lord ram thru raju character. Nobody pointed it out. Literally no one and it's kind of not expected also. But you guys did. That's very difficult to find. Must have done some research. You earned my subscription to the channel and I rarely comment. You made me do it. 😄😄Cheers!!
Retrospective commentary is problematic. East India company took advantage of conflicts between Kingdoms to gain control. They were interested in furthering their profit. As a company it made sense to recruit locals rather than pay for British soldiers. For the Indians, it was a means of earning a livelihood. Bheem is not an Indian revolutionary.. He never cared about India.. He was fighting for his tribe against Nizam, the rulers of Deccan. British were irrelevant to him. Post independence, there is a new narrative being built up to make it that India was a single entity. It wasn't. India was multiple nations with some common beliefs.. But very distinct identities.
There is no narrative here except for the western worldview of every entity being exclusive to each other that you seem to have adopted. India has always been a civilizational state with distinct sense of history and cultural foundation from which multiple spiritual beliefs, languages and diverse cultures has evolved. It was never a "country" which is a newer construct but It's a civilizational state so yes you will take it as a single entity that can allow itself to be diverse within itself. You seem to have bought the idea of India as nation state that come into existence after 1947 which is why you would say such a thing. Just like Chinese civilization, indian civilization is a singular entity.
@@Priya-cm3tr India was never a country until 1947. It is an undisputed fact. Cultural foundation is a myth perpetrated by revisionists. Assuming vedas were right, Rigveda talked about tribes coming across Beas and Sutlej rivers to defeat the locals. If anything, the modern narrative of India ia based on a story of occupying clan, rather than the resident population. Indian civilization never existed. Indus civilization did. How do you explain the dramatic difference in genetic and linguistic make up of southern and North east Indians compares of the North and Central Indian population? Modern India is a made up nation that spouts ethics but is duplicitous to the extreme. It claims Kashmir on the basis that the king ceded it to India. But, then conquered Hyderabad on the pretext that local population was majority Hindu and Nizam was not reflective of the wishes. India has no defining culture, food is derivative of middle eastern heritage, including samosa, biryani/pulao... And the authentic population of the subcontinent has long been marginalised. Dravidian lands and North East India are the only pockets of authentic culture left in modern polity.
This is the most mature discussion I have listened on this movie from western point of view. Kind of awareness you guys have on the topics, really appreciate it. Believe me I heard many podcast on RRR (mostly to kill time and it's interesting to listen western viewpoint), but you guys got many things right. Like representation of Lord ram thru raju character. Nobody pointed it out. Literally no one and it's kind of not expected also. But you guys did. That's very difficult to find. Must have done some research. You earned my subscription to the channel and I rarely comment. You made me do it. 😄😄Cheers!!
Good discussion guys!👏 👏 👏
Watch "Sardar Udham" next.
You guys rock!
Great review❤
another stunning feature is andhadhun, u guys would love it. An absolute dark plot spiralling till the end! plz dont read a single line about it :)
EEGA next
Retrospective commentary is problematic. East India company took advantage of conflicts between Kingdoms to gain control. They were interested in furthering their profit. As a company it made sense to recruit locals rather than pay for British soldiers. For the Indians, it was a means of earning a livelihood. Bheem is not an Indian revolutionary.. He never cared about India.. He was fighting for his tribe against Nizam, the rulers of Deccan. British were irrelevant to him. Post independence, there is a new narrative being built up to make it that India was a single entity. It wasn't. India was multiple nations with some common beliefs.. But very distinct identities.
There is no narrative here except for the western worldview of every entity being exclusive to each other that you seem to have adopted. India has always been a civilizational state with distinct sense of history and cultural foundation from which multiple spiritual beliefs, languages and diverse cultures has evolved. It was never a "country" which is a newer construct but It's a civilizational state so yes you will take it as a single entity that can allow itself to be diverse within itself. You seem to have bought the idea of India as nation state that come into existence after 1947 which is why you would say such a thing. Just like Chinese civilization, indian civilization is a singular entity.
@@Priya-cm3tr India was never a country until 1947. It is an undisputed fact. Cultural foundation is a myth perpetrated by revisionists. Assuming vedas were right, Rigveda talked about tribes coming across Beas and Sutlej rivers to defeat the locals. If anything, the modern narrative of India ia based on a story of occupying clan, rather than the resident population. Indian civilization never existed. Indus civilization did. How do you explain the dramatic difference in genetic and linguistic make up of southern and North east Indians compares of the North and Central Indian population?
Modern India is a made up nation that spouts ethics but is duplicitous to the extreme. It claims Kashmir on the basis that the king ceded it to India. But, then conquered Hyderabad on the pretext that local population was majority Hindu and Nizam was not reflective of the wishes.
India has no defining culture, food is derivative of middle eastern heritage, including samosa, biryani/pulao... And the authentic population of the subcontinent has long been marginalised. Dravidian lands and North East India are the only pockets of authentic culture left in modern polity.