It was my friend Venky (Kai) who suggested that I write on this topic, a couple of days back. I wouldn't have written on this, had I not seen two classics yesterday, one-the heavy, Varumaiyin Niram Sivappu and two-Sila Nerangalil Sila Manidhargal (adapted from Jayakanthan's work with the same title). The common line between the two films, adamancy of Rengan to adhere to his (idealistic) principles, and Ganga to her decision. At the end of it all, what made all the difference, was Rengan's philosophy of acceptance of what he got, whereas, Ganga doesn't settle, rather she prefers to remain unsettled. The names of the two characters, to me has a lot more significance, maybe it was not intended to be that way. Rengan, the lord of Srirengam, one who will come down at the call of his devout (irangi varuvan, avane Arangan), and so does our Rengan, who not only comes down heavily at the false hood surrounding him, but also relents and accepts Devi (against his idealistic instincts), in a manner like how the lord Rengan, accepted Kodhai. Ganga, she washes our sins, yesterday-today-tomorrow, only to remain impure! So does our Ganga, washes the sins of her uncle, and also the man who led her to now(-)here, only to remain undeviated in her stance, to remain impure, try as much as she would to become a wife, but she only continues to feed the insatiable hunger of the gossip mongers, like the holy mother (as she herself says), thus remaining unclean. Getting back on track, adamancy, is it a positive trait or a negative one? is it a trait at all? to answer which, I think I have to take a radical stance before which, I must say there are two kinds of adamancy, one that is bordering on vow, and the other based on mentally conceived designs. The former, if for the good, like Rengan's, doesn't quite harm anyone, but for the one who harps on it (again debatable), the latter is what Ganga is hell bent upon. So, lets say adamancy per se is not a negative trait, however would I classify it as a trait? well maybe, maybe not....Heres why....
Taking off from where we would all relate to, Love, the name or definition given to human emotional and hormonal (im)balances and urges, is it not a form of adamancy? We have a conceived design, of completeness rather a feeling of it, we refuse to live with anyother. Why? because we refuse to share love with one and all, because our definition of love is flawed, because we expect returns of some form, because it is temperamental, because it is based on conveniences....we refuse to change our perception about love, we are adamant.....love is universal and also a methodical mental construct, however it has got no definition, thats the adamancy of the feeling of love itself! Every friendship is love, an undercurrent of it, pretending otherwise would blurt our ignorance, and ignorant we will be, because we are adamant....moving on to life itself, from love and friendship, not that they are not related to the other, there is this detached-attachment of life with love and friendship, but life in itself adamant, living is adamancy not to die, so adamancy could also be related to basic human instinct, an evolutionary principle of survival of the fittest...Oh, so all of us are adamant, yes we are, as we ought to be....So then where is this leading to, I started of with one question, is adamancy positive or negative, and here I am, saying, well not quite, I espouse and vouch that life is adamancy and adamancy is life, to demystify which we need to use the sixth sense, which is again adamant....Oh God, he is adamant too...அன்பே சிவமேன்றலும், அன்பும் சிவனும், இரண்டுமே பிடிவாதமே, இது வெறும் வாதம் அல்ல ...
