மாண்புமிகு தமிழ்நாடு முதலமைச்சர் திரு. ச. ஜோசப் விஜய் அவர்கள் தலைமையில் இன்று (10.5.2026) தலைமைச் செயலகத்தில், தமிழ்நாட்டின் சட்டம் ஒழுங்கு நிலை குறித்த ஆய்வுக் கூட்டம் நடைபெற்றது.
#CMJosephVijay
The truth about Ramayana is that it has been adapted into various formats over the years, and the filmmakers are still struggling to come out of its serialized hangover. No matter what they try, their version is like serial with a bigger budget, and I can't even say better visuals. What we need right now is not another retelling of Ramayana, but a reinterpretation through a particular character, their psychological depth, and how they felt about what was happening rather than an omniscient view.
A great story can be interpreted in many ways. A Ramayana entirely from Sita's perspective would show her isolation, her agency, her moral clarity against societal expectations. Or from Ravana, not glorified but psychologically unpacked, with ego, obsession, righteousness, and self-delusion. Even Lakshmana, with loyalty turning into quiet resentment or moral conflict. Or the most radical idea, a fragmented narrative where Rama is not the center but a force that each character interprets differently.
I am sure there are good enough writers to do that, but the risk is not commercial, it is cultural. To reinterpret Ramayana through a single psychological lens is to invite accusations of heresy from the right wing. The right wing truly has no aesthetic sense, because they lack imagination. They do not understand myth or lore, or even religion, yet they want to chest thump about how they are the protectors of religion.
But if you go back to the tradition itself, it was never that rigid. There isn’t just one Ramayana, there are hundreds across regions and languages. The moment a culture decides its stories are too sacred for reinterpretation, those stories stop being living things and become statues. And statues, no matter how golden, cannot teach us anything new.
The right wing tends to treat texts like the Ramayana with reverence, as if they need to be preserved. Their instinct is to protect the text and keep its meaning stable. They see the epic as something already complete and morally settled. But when they do this, even an attempt at interpretation starts to feel like distortion or disrespect. So the text becomes frozen. It is safe and elevated, but it loses all its complexity. They risk making it look like a moral class for students at school, removing complexities.
The left wing often does the opposite. They treat interpretation as a way to take the text or rip the text apart and discard it as myth, as if something being a myth is wrong in and of itself. They approach the epic with suspicion, questioning power, gender, caste, and ideology inside it. But in that process, showing any reverence starts to seem naive. So instead of engaging with the text as something alive, they risk turning it into a political object to be criticized or thrown away so as to counter the present political atmosphere.
Right now this situation feels inescapable because the loudest voices demand only one kind of reading. The irony is that these texts were built to handle many interpretations. They are full of contradictions, silences, and hard questions about duty, violence, gender, and power. If those questions are not being explored, it is not because the material is shallow. It is because we are choosing safer and simpler readings.
At this point the obsession over #Dhurandhar is just cow piss.
Fukn get over it. Vadakan's made one good movie (obviously with bullshit propaganda) and they think they are Martin Scorscese 😂😂😂