Feanor and Maedhros - My favourite Silmarillion characters

Who is my favourite Tolkien character? Silmarillion is rich with tragic characters, but whose tale moved me the most? I find it a bit difficult to choose one from among them. There are two candidates primarily - Feanor and his son, Maedhros.

I like Feanor because of his artistic skill and, most importantly, his arrogance. I have even devised a new phrase - 'Feanorian arrogance' which I consider synonymous with 'enlightened arrogance' (sounds oxymoronic, I know). He had reason to be arrogant. He was far too skilled and gifted than others. I like such anti-heroes, such as Darth Vader of Star Wars. Such characters have a mysterious, unfathomable element in their personalities.

Some regard Feanor as nothing more than a mad-man. But think like this: Feanor's rebellion was obviously part of Iluvatar's plans for Ea. If it hadn't been for him, the Light of the Two Trees would have been lost for ever. If it hadn't been for him, the Noldor wouldn't have returned to Middle Earth, and Men wouldn't have received the gifts of art and music from them. If it hadn't been for his actions, the three beautiful unions of the mortal and immortal would never have happened. If it hadn't been for him, his grandson Celebrimbor would not have created the three great Elven rings of the "Lord of the Rings".

In short, without Feanor there is no Silmarillion and Lord of the Rings! It is the fruits of Feanor's madness that we see throughout the First, Second and Third ages in Middle Earth. He is undoubtedly the greatest Elf in the legendarium on account of his skill and influence in shaping the history of Middle Earth.

The other contender is Feanor's eldest son, Maedhros the tall. His tale is one of honesty, nobility, bravery, resilience and yet, replete with fallibility and the inevitable tragedies that arise from it. He is my image of a true male, a true son, a man of word. He remained steadfast to the commitments he made to his dying father. He must never have satisfied his father with his soft nature and warm-relationships with the Houses of Fingolfin and Finarfin. His inability to please his father must have weighed upon him for all his life. He probably decided to redress this when his dying father commanded him to assume the leadership of the House and continue the battle. He remained true to his word till the end, even when his death seemed certain due to it. He knew that the battle was hopeless. He knew he was on the wrong side and that he was doing things which he shouldn't be doing. But the weight of the Oath and his commitment to his dead father over-ruled everything else.

His story is also one of resilience. He had to endure horrific tortures at the hands of Morgoth. He was hung on his right hand for many, many days from the sheer face of a cliff. His spirit nearly broke down when Fingon found no way of rescuing him. But after his rescue and recuperation, he displayed a surprising strength of will. He learned to fight with his left hand instead of the maimed right hand. It is said that he wielded his sword with this left hand with even greater power and ferocity than he ever did with his right hand.

Despite all this, he ultimately failed in his mission. He had to commit sins and inflict cruelty on others, though his heart was bleeding all along. But he never went back on his words. He never failed his father till death. Eonwe knew his fate when he allowed Maedhros and Maglor to escape with the Silmarils. Eonwe, and all the Valar for that matter, were powerless to prevent what fate had in store for Maedhros, the former High-King of Noldor in Middle-Earth who was also the only one to relinquish the title in favour of another.

Why Silmarillion is special to me

I have often thought how my life would have turned out had I not discovered Tolkien. Life would have become so empty in spite of the left-wing passion that I had. Since I started reading Tolkien's works, there has not been even a day, nay not even an hour, when I had not thought about the events in the legendarium.. It has become so much part of myself. If you take the Communist and Tolkienist out of me, you are left with a useless biological specimen that is as good as dead.

But the most amazing fact is that my discovery of Tolkien was a work of chance. Before the year 2001, I had never heard of Tolkien, Lord of the Rings or Silmarillion. This was how it happened. I was reading through the articles in the 'Young World' supplement of 'The Hindu' newspaper. An article on Peter Jackson's upcoming movie "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" caught my eye. I don't remember what that article said. But I was spellbound by the picture they published with the article. It was the snapshot of Frodo Baggins enjoying a breath of fresh air at Rivendell against the backdrop of majestic cliffs and waterfalls. A few weeks after that, while I was surfing the channel on TV, I saw a program on the movie. It showed the sequences of the huge statues at Argonath and Enya's haunting music. Too beautiful! Too enchanting! I did not know anything regarding the movie, the story or the author. But I wanted to see it. I went to see it at the local theater when it was released. I was hooked, literally. I wanted to know the rest of the story. I couldn't wait for the next installments. I asked my brother to bring the book when he comes from abroad. I got it on the eve of my first year Engineering exams. As a few of the exams got postponed, there was a gap of about a month. I read the whole story at a stretch forgetting my studies. My! What a story it was! When I reached the part of Frodo battling Gollum on the Mouths of Doom, I was literally shaking with excitement and anticipation. And the really beautiful, tearful ending.. conveying the idea that ends of great stories are not exactly happy..

That was the beginning.. Once I had read Lord of the Rings a couple of times more, I felt confident to take the dive into the unknown.. The Myths and Legends of Middle-Earth. Tales that Hobbits and Men knew as legends, and Elves knew as their ancient history. The incomparable, eternally beautiful "Silmarillion".

Again I requested my brother. He brought it when he came. It was the paperback edition with Ted Nasmith's painting depicting the birth of Elves at Cuivinen as the cover. Before I got the book, I read numerous reviews of it in the Net. Nearly all of them branded the book as too boring, too hard to read, useful only for a Tolkien scholar. But it was nothing of that sort to me. I was swept off my feet by the first chapter : "The Music of the Ainur". I knew that this was what I wanted. I tried to visualize the event: The eternal darkness, Iluvatar as a mighty source of light, creation of the Ainur, their music reverberating through the empty cosmos. Tolkien's legendarium is no work of fantasy. It is mythology. It is cosmology. How many works of fantasy have such fantastic depth and philosophy? It is true that Tolkien got his inspirations from numerous other sources.. But who in the history of humanity have ever created a piece of art without some kind of inspiration from outside? Which world religion has created a uniquely original philosophy? Everything borrowed concepts from everything else. It is the tale of such sharing that is what we call history. Tokien's tale had the one God - the one true cosmic spirit. It had the pantheon of gods that God created to rule the Earth. It had the tale of fall of Men, and most importantly, that of the nearly "perfect" Elves. It had the tale of Atlantis, the Beowulf, the Karavela, the Sigurd, Oedipus Rex and numerous others. But Tolkien's achievement was that he was able to creatively combine his inspirations and create a beautiful piece of art.

After reading Silmarillion, Lord of the Rings suddenly appears to have a whole new meaning. To truly understand the Lord of the Rings, one has to view it through the glasses of Silmarillion. I had a totally new experience when I watched the Lord of the Rings after reading Silmaillion. For instance, when I see Hugo Weaving as Elrond, I think like this: "He is the son of Earendil who sought the pardon of the Valar to save Elves and Men. He was captured and raised by Maglor and Maedhros. Yes, he has seen them with his very own eyes!". Or Cate Blanchett as Galadriel, who was there over 7000 years ago, in the square on Tirion when Feanor delivered his thundering call for revenge. She has seen the Golden and Silver Trees in full bloom in Valinor. She had witnessed their death. She has seen the majesty of the High-Elven Kings in Middle-Earth before their fall. She has seen the unsurpassed beauty of Luthien. Or Sir Ian McKellen as Gandalf, who was created before the creation of the World. Even now, when I see people watching Lord of the Rings movies (who, in all probabilities, have never heard of Silmarillion), I muse to myself : "Mere mortals!! They are trying to scratching the tip of the iceberg." I do not know how many people have felt like this.. but once I read the Silmarillion, world suddenly came to be divided into two in my eyes : between those who have read the book and those who haven't! I felt something like a superiority complex.. the world was never again the same.

What makes Silmarillion so special?.. at least to me? I have pondered over this many times. I think it is the very mind of the artistic genius that reveals to us through a creation of unparalleled beauty. Its beauty lies in the epic tragedy inflicted by fate upon many good-natured, yet less than perfect characters. I never knew that tragedy could have so much beauty. Silmarillion is also unique among mythical tales in that the focal point of the tale is not Men, but Elves. Accepted, most mythical tales have some or the other kinds of celestial beings, angels or fairies. But the focus is almost always on humans. Silmarillion has many tragic human characters, but they pale in comparison to the tragedies inflicted upon near-perfect immortal beings due to their own imperfection. Elves are, by body and soul, the most beautiful creations of God. They gave humans the gift of art and music. Yet how they committed mistakes and inflicted cruelty on themselves and others is what Simarillion is all about.

Also, amazing is the fact that the tale is not told in the usual good-versus-evil fashion. We have a Satan like figure. But he is no Satan. Yes, he was the most gifted of the gods who was corrupted by craving for power. He sought the power to bring into life his creations. But his rebellion was, ultimately, God's own creation. The events of Silmarillion and Lord of the Rings were all part of his Grand Scheme that He alone could fathom. Throughout the tale, there is the vision of an grand End where the perceived Good and Evil blends into one pure whole that signifies the end of creation. Morgoth is a mere actor in the drama unfolding in the World, drama that has been conceived from the beginning till the end by Iluvatar, and Iluvatar alone. The simple idea which I perceive in this story is that Evil is essential since Good assumes its true beauty only in its presence. It is impossible to gauge the beauty of the Light without the accompanying darkness. Just as Darkness gives fullness to Light, Evil gives fullness to Good. In that sense, Morgoth is Iluvatar's deputy, the chief executioner of God's plans, though he himself is unaware of it.

It is this literally heart-rendering combination of art, beauty and philosophy that makes Silmarillion special to me.

India, Pakistan and the Kashmir dispute

Recently, I have been an avid reader of the online edition of Pakistan's leading English newspaper - "The Dawn", as I was curious to know about the viewpoint of things from the other side of the border. Quite a few things surprised me when I read through the Pakistani perspective of domestic and international affairs.

One, the Pakistani press is surprisingly free and critical of the government, despite the military rule. I would say that they are as much free as the press on this side of the border.

Two, they view Pakistan's stand on Kashmir as legitimate. They consider the Kashmir issue as a genuine freedom struggle and consider the Indian government as an invader.

Three, the Pakistanis consider Indian Muslims as an oppressed lot. In some of the articles and letters, they were of the opinion that Muslims in South India were much better off than those on the North.

Four, the Pakistanis are extremely critical of the Hindu religion. This is quite natural, as I have noticed that whenever Pakistani press report on anything related to Hinduism, it is predominantly the oppression of Dalits or the isolated attacks of the Sangh parivar on Muslims or Christians. There are almost no articles describing the richness or other positive aspects of Hindu philosophy or culture.

Five, the Pakistanis have a tendency to glorify Muslim rulers and denigrate Hindu ones. They, as a rule, believe that only Muslim dynasties in India have given any viable cultural contribution to the Subcontinent. There is a widespread ignorance or disregard of the pre-Islamic culture.

Six, there is a tendency among the Pakistanis to identify themselves with the Middle-Eastern culture rather than that of the Indian subcontinent.

Seven, religion is given excessive importance in Pakistani life. Any article related to social, economic or political issues have an Islamic perspective or tone, with constant references to "Islamic Ummah" and world-wide Islamic unity.

Eight, Pakistanis stand by the "Two nation theory" with ever greater conviction (no doubt influenced by the stories of Muslim persecution in India). They genuinely believe that Muslims and Hindus constitute two separate nations, with nothing in common between them.

Nine, they perceive Hindus as very much intolerant (especially North Indian Hindus) and absolve the subcontinental Muslims from any acts of intolerance in history. This includes Muslim rulers as well.

Ten, they believe that Gandhi, Nehru and other members of the Congress were unfairly biased to the Hindus. They believe that the Congress wanted to avenge the thousand year Muslim rule in the subcontinent by ensuring a Hindu rule in post-independent India and that Jinnah saved them from Hindu persecution.

It is a fact that truth is uncomfortable and disturbing at times. I do not wish to start a flame war here. But this is my perception of what I could learn from the Pakistani press.

Indian press is equally free and is equally critical of the government. But I do see an equal bias against Pakistan in the Indian press as well. For instance, Indian press generally reflect views that reject the two nation theory. They consider the partition of India as a tragedy on an epic scale that could have been avoided. They standby the Indian stand that J&K is an integral part of India. They condemn what they perceive as Pakistan's hostile intentions and tacit support for "Pakistani terrorists" ("Kashmiri freedom fighters" in Pakistani view) in Kashmir. But a religious dimension is by and large absent in such criticisms, unlike in Pakistan. The reason is evident. India being a secular republic (or striving to be one) cannot afford to have religious dimension to the State. India has numerically large religious minorities. As a result, the respected Indian newspapers and media takes care to never publish chauvinist views as that might harm the social fabric of the nation. Therefore, criticisms of religion are, in general, rare in the Indian media (except in media owned by the right-wing outfits). The only religious discrimination that the Indian state can practice officially with the sanction of the constitution is the "reverse discrimination" - special privileges and reservations for the members of backward castes or religious minorities, some allege at the expense of the majority communities.

I am not trying to paint a rosy picture of the Indian system vis-a-vis Pakistan's. But I do believe that the concept of a theocratic state in this age is reactionary, faulty and utmost ridiculous. Being raised in a society which tries its best to not define a person in terms of his religion (though obviously unsuccessful at times), I have a question to ask the Pakistani intelligentsia. Why do countries like Pakistan try to define themselves in terms of religious dogmas? From my very limited knowledge of religions, I understand that no religion is perfect or of divine origin. Considering one as more true or better than the other is simply myopic. All world religions, and I mean ALL world religions, were merely humanity's answers to the unknown. Since different cultures developed under different circumstances, they developed different ideas regarding these. Being creations of humans, they are beautiful yet imperfect. In this age, when we have discovered over 200 planets orbiting our nearby stars, and scientists are more confident than ever in finding extra-terrestrial life, holding on to obvious human creations as divine revelations and creating dogmatic societies based on them, is nothing short of monumental folly. I am glad that independent India did not commit this mistake, despite pressure from right-wing Hindu groups. Wake up and face the truth, people of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Or be prepared to have soon the ignominious distinction of becoming an esteemed member of the most reactionary societies on Earth.

Now, let us come to the polarization of the Indian subcontinent on the issue of Kashmir.

The Pakistani version of the Kashmir dispute is as follows. The people of Kashmir is overwhelmingly Muslim and they wish to join Pakistan. But India forcefully annexed the kingdom and pressured Maharaja and Sheikh Abdullah into signing the instrument of accession. After that, Kashmiris have been silently suffering the oppression by the Indian state, believing that India would give them their right of self determination under international pressure by conducting a plebiscite. But when India showed no such intention and began to repeatedly manipulate polls in J&K to their own designs, Kashmiris rose up in revolt. India has since been violently suppressing the Kashmiri revolt and is committing numerous human right violations in the valley. When the Kashmir issue was brought to the UN after the war in 1948, UN instructed India and Pakistan to demilitarize the regions of Kashmir under their control and hold a plebiscite so that the people of Kashmir can decide whether they want to join India or Pakistan or remain independent. Even though Pakistan is ever ready to do this, India has consistently dismissed this idea by citing lame excuses. Pakistani point of view is that Pakistani and Indian Kashmir must be demilitarized and a plebiscite be conducted to decide the future of Kashmir.

The Indian point of view is simple. At the time of independence, the rulers of the princely states were given the right to decide whether their state should join India, Pakistan or remain independent. The Maharaja of Kashmir, Hari Singh, with the support from Sheikh Abdullah, the leader of the popular National Conference party signed the instrument of accession to India after tribals aided by Pakistan invaded Kashmir to annex it to Pakistan. Therefore the whole of Jammu and Kashmir belongs to India - including Jammu, Kashmir valley and Ladakh that is under Indian control, as well as Pak-occupied Kashmir (Azad Kashmir and the Pakistani province of Northern Areas to Pakistanis). Religion cannot be used as a factor in deciding whether a state should join India, as India is a secular republic. To capture Kashmir, Pakistan has been infiltrating militants to the valley and waging a proxy war against India. The plebiscite cannot be conducted under the current circumstances as Pakistan has diluted the demographics of Pak occupied Kashmir (PoK) by bringing in Pakistani residents. Therefore a plebiscite under the current conditions will not reflect the true will of the people. Though India has never adopted such tactics on its side, the demographics of the Indian part also was altered by the Pakistan-supported terrorism in the valley as Kashmiri Hindus had to flee due to attacks from militants. In India's point of view, a plebiscite is out of question.

Usually in such bilateral disputes, the thumb rule is that the truth is somewhere in between. Lets see what might be the reality. The Indian media stick to the official Indian view, by highlighting the "plight" of Kashmiris under militants and scarcely turn their attention to the excesses that possibly are being committed by the Indian security forces in Kashmir. And the fact that Bollywood continues to churn out crap, hollow patriotic flicks for morons, usually maligning Pakistan, doesn't help either. So there might be truth in the human rights violations that Pakistan allege. (It is difficult for any Army to remain efficient in their job if they start to give emphasis for human rights.) Maybe what Kashmiris really desire today is independence, irrespective of whether they had a pro-India sentiment at the time of accession. They might have been disillusioned by the violence of both militants and security forces on ordinary Kashmiris. So, what could be the way forward for them? Independence for Kashmir is something the Indian state can never accept, even if Kashmiris genuinely desire it. That would mean that the "heroic deaths" of Indian soldiers fighting separatists in Kashmir was all for nothing. If a plebiscite is indeed conducted, and if the Kashmiris vote for independence (which I believe they will), India will be obliged to accept it. Kashmir's loss is something that any right minded poltical leadership in India cannot even comprehend. If they do so, such a leadership will be discredited in the eyes of the public and will fall. There is a strong possibility of an even greater, sinister repercussions should a Kashmiri secession from India come to pass. There will be widespread riots and communal violence across India. Hindutva fundamentalists, emboldened by the popular discontent, will unleash large scale pogrom against Muslims far surpassing any which happened Indian history. This is not a mere possibility, but a certainty. Can India afford it? Never. Both Indians, Pakistanis and Kashmiris might find this hard to digest. But Kashmir is the glue with which Indian secular fabric is maintained. A loss of this glue would be nothing short of catastrophic.

So, what is the way out? The Indian government cannot budge an inch from its stand on Kashmir. It is prepared to go to any extent to keep Kashmir firmly within Indian control. This determination is reinforced by the popular sentiment and support. People in the Indian states may bicker with each other over petty issues. But when it comes to the question of Kashmir, they speak with one voice - "Kashmir belongs to India. No one can snatch it away from us". Equally, chances of India securing PoK from Pakistan is unrealistic as well. So, the only plausible solution is to maintain the status quo. India will keep its portion and Pakistan will keep its portion, and Pakistan could keep Kashmir problem in the back burner for the time being. Both sides could provide greater emphasis on economic cooperation. When the militancy wanes in due course of time, tensions will ease and the presence of military can be decreased on both sides. In such a situation, the Kashmir issue could be addressed again. The border can be made porous to facilitate free movement of people between two sides. I believe that only such an approach can bring lasting peace to the Indian subcontinent. Its true that even in this case Kashmir people will be held hostage by both sides, against their wishes. But there is no other way. If the Kashmiris aspire for independence, they do have the right to fight till the end for it. But they must keep in mind that the Indian forces will be equally prepared to fight till the end and they will have the moral support of the whole Indian nation. Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs and Parsis of India will unanimously support the Indian claim on Kashmir, irrespective of their religious affiliations. The end result will be that Kashmiri separatists will probably reach nowhere despite heavy losses on both sides.

For the time being, a compromise solution could be providing greater autonomy to Kashmir within the federal India. But the demand for autonomy is based on the assumption that the Kashmiris have an identity of their own. But so do all Indian states, with their distinct language, culture, customs, traditions, dress and cuisine. Therefore, the question of greater autonomy for Kashmir should be viewed in the larger perspective of granting greater autonomy to all Indian states. Personally, I am of the opinion that Indian states (including Kashmir) could be given far greater freedom in dealing with their affairs, in recognition of their distinct identities. But this still has to be within the framework of a strong Indian Union. I think India will be prepared for such a solution once the militancy wanes. But as long as the Kashmiri militants continue their violent campaign, expect the Indian stand to remain stubborn.

I am not defending the Indian actions in any way. India has committed a lot of mistakes in Kashmir, I know. I, for one, am a person who sincerely believe that Kashmir's accession to India was a big mistake. But just as Pakistanis say that the partition of India cannot be undone, Kashmir's accession to India equally cannot be undone as well.

Take my word for it. The Indian government is never going to give up on Kashmir issue as long as they have the support of one billion Indians behind them.