Land of Lime

The film, Immadi Pulakeshi, revolves around the well known story of Chalukya emperor, Pulakeshi’s life, documented in his famous Aihole inscription: his early struggles to ascend the Chalukya throne, rightfully his but now occupied by his capable uncle Mangalesha; his troubled relationship with his brother Kubja Vishnuvardhana, whom he established as the ruler of Vengi kingdom, paving the way for a separate Eastern Chalukya dynasty; his epic battle with the emperor of north India, Harsha and his long conflicts with the Pallavas, which resulted in the sacking of both Pallava and Chalukya capitals, Kanchi and eventually of Badami, towards the end of Pulakeshi’s life.

Thus Pulakeshi’s real life itself provides all the drama necessary for a dramatic historical film. Yet, the focus of Rajan and G V Iyer, respectively the director and scriptwriter of the film, has been on filling out details of Pulakeshi’s personal life imaginatively, in an attempt to provide more depth and interiority to all the characters. Hence, the film deals with endless conspiracies and challenges to the Chalukya power, apart from Pulakeshi’s own relationships with his contemporaries. While the actual historical evidence to recreate these relationships accurately is minimal, the film aims to present the human side of Pulakeshi.

Despite this focus on the human side, the story telling requires something to be desired. My criticism is not based on historical accuracy or the lack thereof. The film fails to tell Pulakeshi’s story effectively, as it frequently meanders into details that do not serve any purpose. Yet the significance of the film for me is due to the two perennial themes present in all the Rajkumar historical films: nature and dignity of Kannada language/community/people and the role of political masters, typically Kings in historical films. Both these apsects are relevant in the context of contemporary Kannada activism and more importantly, in light of our own expectations from our public servants and politicians. The latter, being part of a democratic establishment, surely are not to be confused with kings of the past. Yet, given how Pulakeshi or Ranadhira Kanthirava define their responsibilities towards their subjects, their ideals are far more in tune with a modern system than any notion of kingship that we could recreate. I will return to this theme after I have reviewed all the historical films of Rajkumar, since this central question determines our approach to the past.

In one of the early scenes, Pulakeshi assists mounting a victory pillar, when he asserts his identity as a Kannada hero:

I have come from the womb of Kannada’s black soil. My mother Kaushiki is Kannada, my father Mukuteshwara is Kannada. My language and breath are Kannada. This bravery of my heart is the gift of kannada mother. Come on, this pillar of renown shouldn’t fall on earth.

The film is littered with such statements on the nature of Kannadigas:

Just like a husband is to a pativrate, similarly for the people of Kannada, truth alone is the dharma.

When such is the nature of the subjects themselves, then the king too will have to live up to these standards. He is their leader and trustee of their wellbeing. Hence, as Pulakeshi ascends to the throne, he takes an oath, whose rhetorical similarity to modern day oath of office is quite striking: ‘wearing a jewel called truth and a dress known as wisdom’ Pulakeshi undertakes to serve and protect the Kannada mother. His terminology too is interesting since he invokes traditional human relationships; for instance, to protect mother Kannada is to protect her mangalya, symbol of her marital status. That is, the King, being the husband of mother earth (mother Kannada, by extension), will have to address seriously any external threat.

Such a king, who is committed to the welfare of his subjects, should also have the will and vision to sacrifice, if that would be in the larger interest of the country. When Vishnuvardhana rebelled and expressed his desire to be the king, Pulakeshi gave up his right to the throne willingly, despite knowing that Mangalesha and minister Rahappa were instigating his brother. When the queen mother said that the cry of affection and love of all the people was for Pulakeshi to become the king, he responds:

A throne which causes unrest and jealousy among mother and sons, brothers is not to be desired. One could serve even without a throne.

Such moral clarity that we expect in our kings and political leaders is the hallmark of Rajkumar films. When Mangalesha and Rahappa want him to leave the country, since he could become the focal point of dissidence, Pulakeshi opts to be magnanimous and responds by saying he wouldn’t allow anyone to complain: ‘brothers fought, set their own home on fire and asked for water from their neighbors.’ Pulakeshi wants to prevent what his teacher uttered once: when the inner self (antaranga) becomes a battlefield, then even brothers will become enemies. Such is the moral universe in which a wife is prepared to take willingly the blame for killing the husband. When Pulakeshi was falsely accused of murdering Mangalesha, his (Mangalesha’s) wife voluntarily takes the blame and says: I had to it since the mangalya of the nadadevi (mother Kannada) was greater than my own mangalya.

Vishnuvardhana, the main character in the movie, is defined by his vacillation and lack of moral certitude. A physically deformed person, yet an enormous physical specimen and a powerful warrior, Vishnuvardhana is insecure and seeks love constantly. Pulakeshi’s own attempt to be supportive and affectionate doesn’t work well as Vishnuvardhana rejects his brother’s entreaties. Mangalesha and others exploit his need for love and affirmation, his jealousy of his borther’s popularity and fame, and his ambition to be the king. Yet, Vishnuvardhana is often moved and won over by his brother’s good deeds and convictions. Such volatility in Vishnuvardhana’s character is one of the key driving forces of the film. In particular, one of the early songs when Vishnuvardhana pleads with the court dancer for love is a crucial moment in the film. She responds by asking/singing:

Cheuluvina odetana beduveya?
olavina autana bedennuveya?

Do you seek to own this beauty?
do you not want this feast of love?

That is a question which Vishnuvardhana has to resolve for himself as he pursues all the main female characters in the film. What does he want? Perhaps, more than Pulakeshi’s moral certainty, Vishnuvardhana’s ambiguity makes him a more interesting character but the filmmakers do not develop his character in interesting ways.

Despite its obvious strengths, the film meanders into a boring narrative at times, especially when Pulakeshi is facing multiple conspiracies. His troubled relationship with Vishnuvardhana and his underplayed / underdeveloped love for the princess of Revati island drag the story. Overemphasis on non-essential narrative aspects reduces the historical significance of Pulakeshi’s achievements as the first South Indian (and Kannada) King, who established a transregional kingdom. The film fails to construct and sustain an imperial imagination that the Aihole inscription describes.
Cast: Rajkumar, Jayanti, Kalpana, Udaykumar, Balakrishna, Narasimharaju, Sudarshan.

Playback singers: P B Srinivas, S Janaki

Music: G K Venkatesh

Story and screenplay: G V Iyer

Direction: S C Rajan