I am of the opinion that book reviews must contain little information about what happened in the book (the non-technical ones), I found that it isn't the right place to be discussing our after thoughts. This behoves me to start a separate section where people who've read the books can discuss the plot, the author, technique and about books.

Starting right off with the first, ‘The Oath of the Vayuputras’, here’s my piece of mind. For the uninitiated, the book review was written here.

The amount of text in the book exploded. Compared to its predecessors, ‘The Oath of the Vayuputras’ was voluminous. It looked like Amish did not want any of the detail left while knitting a new yarn from our mythological tales; as if he was a mediator whose credibility depended on the success of this merger. It seems to have paid off well (at least for Amish).

One striking feature that I noticed in all his three books was the business management principles that he successfully applied in the ways of the Indian society of that time. I say Indian, because it was not just about Meluha, it was as much about Ayodhya, Branga and Panchvati. The best validation I found was in the principle that is often used in business when a bad news is to be conveyed. Because there is a tendency of ‘shooting the messenger’, the messenger is chosen to be an outsider, especially when the head is not a champion of change. Shiva, a complete stranger to the Indian lands is handed the task of being that messenger. Daksh and Dilipa embody such heads, who due to vested interests try to take Neelkanth out of the equation rather than giving up on the consumption of Somras. Even after knowing that the Somras was the reason behind the Branga malady and genetic mutations by birth in some unfortunate babies, they decide to linger on to what they held dear. The second principle is that of ‘change’. When the coin flips, the good starts to turn evil, showing that we’ve got to move on that anything in excess is seldom good. Amish has infused management principles into his creation in subtle ways, it is laid out there for those who seek it. The war is half won when the people on the wrong side know that they are wrong. The problem arises when both sides have good people who, in accordance to their own values, chose the side that was righteous. This was the case of Shiva vs Maharshi Bhrighu. Though raised to the pedestal of a living God, Shiva was consistently portrayed as a human prone to flaws and errors. Even in the end, he decided to break the promise to not use the ‘Daivi Astras’ (Weapons of mass destruction) in a fit of rage on having lost Sati.

On the other hand, Kartik’s character escalates dramatically from a little boy to a fierce warrior and finally to what He is widely renowned for, when he starts thinking what is right and what not even in the face of great personal loss. Even when he brutally slaughters the enemy earning the name of ‘God of War’, He knows how to treat a soldier, even in his death.

Then there’s the Parallel of Bheeshma (ideologically), Parvateshwar; full of duty and devotion towards the country and its people, not the head of the state. It is heartening to see him torn between the sides. Much to his relief, he never had to face his living God in the battlefield.

Many people resented that Amish decided to make Sati a sacrifice on the altars of war, but in her sacrifice was another doctrine. There are no absolute victors in a war; everyone loses something or someone dear. Though tragic, for me it was justified because that is what we’re are told, happened in our mythology. Also, the fearlessness of Sati is exemplified in her last battle which was not just her way of setting right the wrong, but also absolving herself of her own guilt of the previous loss.

Amish was retelling a story in a different theme, not rewriting it. Had he done so, his only defence against (factional) critics would have been, ‘it is fiction’, and that would have been a poor defence.