🐎⚔️ KATTABOMMAN, THE COMPANY LEDGER & THE STATUE THAT REFUSED TO EXPLAIN ITSELF: When Tamil Cinema Gave Us a Hero, History Sent a Charge Sheet...
🗞️THE WTF GLOBAL TIMES
He was a Palayakkarar, not a Twitter-era freedom fighter. He was loved by his own, feared by others, hunted by the Company, hanged at Kayathar, polished by theatre, thundered by cinema, garlanded by politics, and finally promoted into marble with zero footnotes.
👁️🗨️This Blog uses WTF strictly in the context of: Weird, True & Freaky. Not as profanity. Unless the East India Company returns from the archive, demands arrears with interest, and asks Tamil cinema to submit historical receipts in triplicate. At that point, even the statue may need legal counsel.
Tamil Nadu has a unique talent.
It can take one man, one fort, one noose, one cinema performance, one political memory, one folk song, one school textbook paragraph, one village accusation, one colonial record, one nationalist speech, one stage dialogue, one garlanded statue, and turn the whole thing into a permanent emotional dispute.
At the centre stands Veerapandiya Kattabomman.
Or rather, several Kattabommans.
There is the schoolbook Kattabomman.
There is the Sivaji Ganesan Kattabomman.
There is the theatre Kattabomman.
There is the folk-song Kattabomman.
There is the colonial-record Kattabomman.
There is the counter-myth Kattabomman.
There is the Panchalankurichi Kattabomman.
There is the Kayathar Kattabomman.
There is the statue Kattabomman.
And somewhere under all these layers, buried beneath hero worship, accusation, political memory, cinematic thunder and administrative paper dust, there is a man.
The problem is that Tamil popular memory does not like disturbing statues.
A statue is convenient.
It does not contradict you.
It does not ask for source verification.
It does not say, “Please also examine allegations of cattle-lifting.”
It does not mention tax arrears.
It does not ask whether a Palayakkarar was a nationalist, a feudal chieftain, a local strongman, a clan protector, a revenue defaulter, a raider, a rebel, a victim of imperial framing, or all of the above depending on which village you are standing in.
A statue simply stands.
We garland it.
We salute it.
We photograph it.
We convert it into memory.
Then history arrives wearing spectacles and says:
One small question.
And suddenly the whole function hall goes silent.
I. THE HERO WE RECEIVED WAS NOT BORN; HE WAS EDITED
The Kattabomman most people know is not merely a historical figure.
He is a performance.
He is voice.
He is posture.
He is moustache.
He is sword.
He is eyes blazing against empire.
He is Tamil pride shouted from the diaphragm.
He is that cinematic image where the East India Company appears not merely as a political force, but as a moral insult requiring immediate theatrical correction.
That image is powerful.
It is culturally important.
It gave Tamil audiences a defiant anti-colonial icon. It turned Kayathar into emotional territory. It made a Palayakkarar into a national symbol long after the world in which he lived had disappeared.
But cinema does not simply preserve history.
Cinema selects.
Cinema enlarges.
Cinema cleans.
Cinema sharpens.
Cinema paints the hero in permanent lighting and tells the awkward background characters to stand slightly outside the frame.
The classic Kattabomman image gave us rebellion. It gave us pride. It gave us the man who would not bow.
But the uncomfortable question is:
Before he refused to bow to the Company, who had bowed before him?
Before he became a symbol of Tamil resistance, what did he represent to neighbouring villages, rival poligars, revenue officials, cattle owners, grain holders, poorer subjects and people outside his clan protection?
That is where the story becomes interesting.
Also dangerous.
Because in Tamil Nadu, if you touch a historical icon without proper emotional safety gloves, someone will accuse you of betrayal before the opening credits.
II. THE WRONG QUESTION: SAINT OR ROBBER?
The common public argument reduces Kattabomman to a useless binary.
Was he a freedom fighter?
Or was he a கொள்ளைக்காரன்?
Was he a patriotic hero?
Or was he a violent tax-defaulter?
Was he Tamil pride?
Or was he local terror?
This is not history.
This is a tea-shop shouting match with better vocabulary.
The stronger question is not whether he was saint or robber.
The stronger question is:
How did a violent, proud, locally powerful eighteenth-century Palayakkarar become a permanent symbol of Tamil resistance after colliding with the East India Company?
That question allows complexity.
It allows a man to be brave without being spotless.
It allows a rebel to be real without pretending he was a modern democrat.
It allows local oppression and imperial oppression to exist in the same frame.
It allows villagers to fear him and his own people to love him.
It allows Company records to contain information and bias at the same time.
It allows folk songs to preserve pain and exaggeration.
It allows cinema to preserve emotional truth while editing moral complexity.
It allows memory to be political without being meaningless.
In other words, it allows history to behave like history, not like a fan club poster.
III. THE PALAYAKKARAR WORLD WAS NOT A SCHOOL CIVICS LESSON
To understand Kattabomman, one must first remove modern expectations from the room.
He was not a constitutional leader.
He was not an elected representative.
He was not a social-justice activist issuing press releases.
He was not a nationalist politician using the language of sovereignty as we understand it today.
He was a Palayakkarar.
That word matters.
The Palayakkarar world was built around fort, land, tribute, armed retainers, kaval rights, clan loyalty, cattle, grain, honour, local rivalry, coercion, protection and violence.
In such a world, the line between ruler, protector, raider, tax collector, warlord and local administrator was not always neatly drawn.
A Palayakkarar could protect one village and extract from another.
He could be justice to his own people and danger to someone else’s.
He could be honourable in council and ruthless in the field.
He could give patronage, receive tribute, punish enemies, shelter dependents, intimidate rivals and still be remembered as a good lord by those under his protection.
This is not a bug in the historical system.
It is the system.
Modern viewers often want the past to behave like a moral courtroom.
But eighteenth-century local power did not come with a human-rights compliance department.
Power was physical.
Power had horses.
Power had swords.
Power had men who arrived at night.
Power counted cattle.
Power seized grain.
Power demanded loyalty.
Power protected the inside and frightened the outside.
So when the project asks us to see Kattabomman as both protector and predator, it is not trying to create cheap controversy. It is trying to recover the operating system of his world.
And that operating system was not Windows Democracy 2026.
It was Palayam Version 1790: Clan Edition, with optional raid module.
IV. ENTER THE COMPANY: EMPIRE WITH A LEDGER AND A HANGING ROPE
The East India Company is often represented in simple historical drama as the villain with boots, guns and pale arrogance.
That is true, but incomplete.
The Company’s genius was not merely violence.
It was paperwork.
It conquered through accounts before cannon.
It arrived with ledgers before military columns.
It turned tribute into obligation.
It turned delay into arrears.
It turned arrears into defiance.
It turned defiance into rebellion.
It turned rebellion into legal justification.
It turned legal justification into military action.
It turned military action into public execution.
And then it filed the report.
Empire did not always need to shout.
Sometimes it stamped.
That is what makes the Kattabomman conflict so dramatically rich. His world ran on honour, clan power, personal authority, territory and armed reputation. The Company’s world ran on notices, revenue tables, correspondence, orders, interpreters, seals, maps, collectors, military reports and procedural violence.
Kattabomman had fort walls.
The Company had files.
He had retainers.
They had clerks.
He had pride.
They had policy.
He had a sword.
They had a revenue system.
He had memory.
They had archive boxes.
In the long run, the archive box is disturbingly powerful.
A sword can kill a man.
A file can define him for 200 years.
V. THE ARCOT NAWAB, THE DEBT MACHINE AND THE COMPANY’S GREAT TAX UPGRADE
Behind the Kattabomman conflict stands a larger political transition.
The older Nayak order had faded. The Arcot Nawab had become financially weakened. Wars, debts, lifestyle, obligations and political pressures had pushed power away from traditional structures.
The Company did not arrive as a neutral accountant helping a struggling finance department.
It arrived as a creditor with imperial ambitions.
Once revenue rights shifted, the Company became not merely a trading body but an administrative power. It gained the ability to demand tribute, enforce payment, discipline local rulers and convert political resistance into criminal misconduct.
This is the moment where the old Tamil warrior-administrative order began to meet the new imperial revenue state.
Imagine a group of Palayakkarars accustomed to inherited privileges, local autonomy, armed negotiation and flexible tribute arrangements suddenly being told:
Please comply with the new revenue protocol.
Also, the protocol has soldiers.
This was not simply tax collection.
It was sovereignty transfer.
The Company’s demand was not merely:
Pay us.
It was:
Recognise that we now have the right to demand payment.
That distinction is everything.
One is money.
The other is submission.
Kattabomman’s conflict therefore cannot be reduced to whether he paid or did not pay.
The question is what payment meant.
To the Company, payment meant administrative order.
To Kattabomman, payment may have meant accepting a new master.
To villagers, both sides may have looked expensive.
VI. THE VICTIM VILLAGES: THE PEOPLE OUTSIDE THE HERO FRAME
Every heroic legend has a problem.
The camera loves the hero’s face.
It rarely turns toward the people who paid for his greatness.
The available material forces that turn.
It brings in folk complaints, cattle taken, grain seized, gold lost, villagers frightened, rival communities caught between Palayakkarar violence and Company violence.
This is the moral counterweight.
A man may be hero to one memory and wound to another.
One community may remember protection.
Another may remember armed men.
One bard may sing of honour.
Another village may preserve a complaint.
One child may hear that he resisted the white man.
Another family may remember that their cattle disappeared before any British cannon arrived.
This does not automatically make the accusations final truth.
Folk memory can exaggerate.
Colonial records can manipulate.
Rival poligars can accuse strategically.
Victims can remember selectively.
Heroes can be demonised by enemies.
But the opposite is also true.
Heroic memory can erase victims.
Cinema can silence complexity.
Political pride can remove inconvenient witnesses.
Nationalist retellings can convert every local strongman into a freedom fighter if he happened to fight the British at the right moment.
Therefore, the victim villages are not optional.
They are the missing witnesses in the courtroom.
Without them, the story becomes flattery.
With them, it becomes history.
VII. CATTLE, GRAIN AND GOLD: WHEN THE HERO’S ACCOUNT BOOK BECOMES UNCOMFORTABLE
The phrase itself is cinematic:
Cattle, grain and gold.
It sounds like the title of a lost western.
But in the Kattabomman debate, these are not decorative nouns. They are the alleged material of coercive power.
Cattle mattered because cattle were wealth, labour, milk, mobility and survival.
Grain mattered because grain was food, tax, stored value and village security.
Gold mattered because gold was portable wealth, family savings, ritual security and social status.
To seize these was not merely to commit theft in a modern police-station sense.
It was to break household stability.
It was to announce dominance.
It was to make one community pay for another ruler’s power.
It was to tell the village that protection has geography, and unfortunately, you are outside it.
This is why the line - protector to some, predator to others - has dramatic force.
It recognises that power is not experienced uniformly.
Inside Panchalankurichi, Kattabomman may have been loyalty, honour, pride and protection.
Outside his circle, he may have been fear, demand, raid and loss.
To the Company, he was disorder.
To memory, he became defiance.
The same man, four invoices.
VIII. MAXWELL, JACKSON AND THE BUREAUCRATIC SOAP OPERA OF EMPIRE
History often pretends empire was a smooth machine.
It was not.
It was also ego, delay, personality clash, bad communication, jealous officials, interpreters, insults, letters, reports, and men who believed authority was measured by how long they could make someone wait.
The material places Maxwell and Jackson inside this messy escalation.
Maxwell waits for Kattabomman to be caught in a serious case. Complaints pile up. Local disputes intensify. Company officials attempt settlement. The world of local Palayakkarar rivalry enters the Company file system.
Then comes Jackson.
Jackson is the gift that history gives to drama.
He represents the arrogant administrative personality who turns procedure into theatre and theatre into crisis.
The summons to appear, the movement from place to place, the failure to meet, the chase-like indignity, the communication gaps, the language problem, the insult, the fear, the confusion - all this becomes combustible.
The Palayakkarar does not want humiliation.
The Collector does not want disobedience.
The interpreters carry meaning like clay pots in a battlefield.
Somebody misunderstands.
Somebody overreacts.
Somebody threatens.
Somebody escapes.
Somebody writes a report.
And suddenly the conflict is no longer about tax.
It is about authority.
That is the turning point.
Once empire is insulted, payment alone rarely solves the matter.
The ledger has become personal.
IX. JACKSON’S EGO VERSUS BANNERMAN’S MACHINE
Jackson is noise.
Bannerman is system.
Jackson represents the human arrogance of empire - impatient, insulting, ego-driven, emotionally involved.
Bannerman represents the next phase - colder, procedural, military, final.
That distinction matters.
The Company learns from Jackson’s messy confrontation.
It no longer merely wants arrears.
It wants submission.
It wants an example.
It wants a lesson sent across the Palayakkarar world:
Local forts are not sovereign islands.
Delay will not become negotiation.
Defiance will not become custom.
The Company will decide which local ruler survives, which fort stands, which tribute is owed, which accusation becomes legal charge, and which body becomes warning.
This is the moment the story changes temperature.
Jackson is hot arrogance.
Bannerman is cold empire.
One shouts.
The other calculates.
One creates humiliation.
The other creates execution.
X. PANCHALANKURICHI: FORT, HOME, SYMBOL, TARGET
Panchalankurichi was not merely a location.
It was a claim.
A fort is never just a wall. It is a political sentence written in mud, stone, timber and armed men.
It says:
Here, authority is ours.
Here, outsiders must negotiate.
Here, the clan has memory.
Here, the ruler has face.
Here, the land is not merely revenue.
Here, men will fight.
To the Company, such a fort was a problem.
A fort under a loyal subordinate is useful.
A fort under a defiant Palayakkarar is a disease.
And empires do not like political disease.
They isolate it.
They diagnose it.
They write about it.
They surround it.
They shell it.
They dismantle it.
Then they call the cure necessary.
Panchalankurichi therefore becomes more than Kattabomman’s stronghold. It becomes the physical conflict between two worlds:
Palayam sovereignty versus Company administration.
Clan honour versus imperial precedent.
Local memory versus official report.
Mud fort versus paper empire.
The tragedy is that the paper empire had cannon.
XI. ETTAPPAN AND THE PROBLEM OF SIMPLE TRAITORS
Tamil popular memory loves a traitor.
It is dramatically convenient.
A hero needs an enemy outside and a betrayer inside. The British provide the outside. Ettappan provides the inside. The audience receives moral clarity. Everyone goes home emotionally satisfied.
But history is rarely that generous.
Rival poligars should not be written as cartoon traitors twirling moustaches while whispering:
How can I betray Tamil pride today?
They lived in a dangerous world.
They had to survive between stronger powers.
They may have feared Kattabomman’s raids.
They may have feared Company punishment.
They may have hated Panchalankurichi dominance.
They may have calculated that Kattabomman would lose.
They may have preferred dishonourable survival to heroic hanging.
They may have been opportunists.
They may have been victims of later myth’s need for villains.
The point is not to purify them.
The point is to humanise their fear.
History becomes stronger when even betrayal has motive.
A cartoon traitor is easy.
A local rival choosing the winning side because he has seen what the Company can do - that is more frightening.
That is politics.
XII. THE THREE VOICES: RECORD, VICTIM, LEGEND
The strongest framework is the three-voice structure.
Voice One: The Record.
This is the Company voice. It says defaulter, plunderer, disturber, rebel, criminal, dangerous example.
This voice is useful but not innocent.
Empire writes records to govern reality. The Company’s file may contain facts, but the file also serves power. It converts local politics into administrative language. It makes elimination sound like order.
Voice Two: The Victims.
This is the village voice. It says cattle taken, grain seized, gold lost, men came at night, our fear did not become cinema.
This voice is morally necessary but also must be examined. Pain can preserve truth. Pain can also become inherited accusation. Still, without this voice, the story becomes dishonest.
Voice Three: The Legend.
This is the public memory voice. It says he stood up, he refused humiliation, he died without bending, he became ours.
This voice is not useless. Myth is not garbage. A people’s emotional memory contains truth too, but it is emotional truth, not necessarily complete evidence.
Between these voices stands the man.
And the man is not comfortable.
That is why the story is worth telling.
XIII. THE FREEDOM FIGHTER PROBLEM
Was Kattabomman a freedom fighter?
The answer depends on what century you are asking from.
If you ask from the twentieth-century nationalist imagination, he becomes a precursor to anti-colonial resistance. He opposed the Company. He refused submission. He was executed by imperial power. That pattern easily becomes freedom struggle.
If you ask from his own eighteenth-century world, the language becomes different.
He was defending local authority.
He was protecting Palayakkarar autonomy.
He was resisting Company revenue control.
He was preserving inherited rights.
He was not speaking the vocabulary of modern nation-state freedom.
He was not issuing a manifesto for democratic India.
He was not mobilising all Indians against colonialism as a national idea.
He was fighting for power, honour, survival and autonomy in a changing world.
That does not make him insignificant.
It makes him historically real.
Later nationalism can adopt him, but it should not erase his original world.
Retroactive nationalism is a powerful editing machine.
It takes older conflicts and upgrades them into freedom struggle.
Sometimes the upgrade is meaningful.
Sometimes it becomes too clean.
Kattabomman’s resistance to the Company was real.
But calling him a modern freedom fighter without qualification is like installing Wi-Fi in a bullock cart and pretending it was always a smart vehicle.
XIV. LOCAL VIOLENCE VERSUS IMPERIAL VIOLENCE
The most important moral point is this:
Acknowledging Kattabomman’s alleged local violence does not make the Company innocent.
This is where lazy debate fails.
One side says:
He was a hero; therefore accusations are British lies.
The other side says:
He had accusations; therefore the British were justified.
Both are too simple.
A local chieftain may be violent.
An empire may still be worse.
A Palayakkarar may raid villages.
The Company may convert that disorder into an excuse for destroying autonomy and expanding revenue control.
A victim may suffer under Kattabomman’s men.
The same victim may later suffer under Company taxation.
One violence does not cancel the other.
This is not a moral cricket match where the side with fewer atrocities wins the trophy.
The real story is a violent local power-holder colliding with a larger, colder, better organised imperial violence.
Kattabomman’s world used fort, cattle, sword and raid.
The Company’s world used debt, arrears, law, cannon and execution.
Both worlds could crush ordinary people.
The difference was scale.
The local chief frightened villages.
The Company redesigned the political order.
XV. KAYATHAR: WHERE THE MAN ENDS AND THE MYTH BEGINS
Kayathar is not merely an execution site.
It is a conversion machine.
Before Kayathar, Kattabomman is a contested man.
After Kayathar, he becomes available to memory.
The Company believed the hanging ended a rebellion.
But execution has a dangerous side effect.
It simplifies the dead.
A living man has contradictions.
A dead martyr has posture.
A living chieftain can be accused, questioned, negotiated with, feared, resented, loved, chased and punished.
A hanged man becomes symbol.
The noose killed the body.
Memory edited the file.
Folk songs began to reshape him.
Stage performance gave him voice.
Political pride gave him purpose.
Cinema gave him immortality.
Statues gave him silence.
And silence is powerful because people can project anything onto it.
The statue does not say:
Please remember the folk complaints too.
It also does not say:
Please believe the Company blindly.
It simply stands, absorbing garlands and arguments.
XVI. CINEMA DID NOT LIE; CINEMA DID WHAT CINEMA DOES
The old heroic cinema version should not be dismissed as mere falsehood.
Cinema is not an archive.
Cinema is an emotional technology.
It creates a shared feeling.
It condenses history into performance.
It turns complexity into identification.
It gives the audience a shape for pride.
The classic Kattabomman image did something politically and culturally important. It helped Tamils imagine defiance. It made colonial arrogance visible. It preserved the emotional truth of refusing humiliation.
But emotional truth is not the whole truth.
Cinema gave us the statue.
Now the new story must give us the man before the statue.
This is not betrayal.
It is adulthood.
A culture becomes mature when it can love its icons without demanding that they remain morally laminated.
A hero who can survive complexity is stronger than a hero who requires censorship.
If Kattabomman can only be respected by hiding half the record, then the respect is fragile.
If he can be shown as protector, predator, rebel, fugitive, prisoner, executed man and later icon, then he becomes more powerful because he becomes human.
XVII. WHY THIS STORY MATTERS NOW
Modern audiences are ready for complicated history.
They watch anti-heroes.
They understand moral ambiguity.
They know empire was brutal.
They also know local rulers were not automatically angels because they opposed empire.
The older generation may hold the cinema image in its heart.
The younger generation may ask for the record.
This story can speak to both.
It can say:
The old film mattered.
But now let us go deeper.
It can say:
Tamil pride does not require historical blindness.
It can say:
The Company was not a civilising force just because it wrote neat reports.
It can say:
A local hero may also have victims.
It can say:
A victim’s memory is not anti-Tamil.
It can say:
A legend can be respected and investigated at the same time.
That is exactly why this project has cultural fire.
It is not another historical serial with swords.
It is a trial of memory.
And Tamil Nadu loves trials of memory, especially when everybody is emotionally involved and nobody agrees on the evidence.
WTF EDITORIAL DIAGNOSIS
The Kattabomman problem is not that history contradicts cinema.
The problem is that cinema became history for many people.
The Kattabomman we inherited is not wrong in one simple way. He is incomplete in many interesting ways.
He resisted the Company.
He was executed.
He became a symbol.
But before that, he was a Palayakkarar inside a violent order. He had clan loyalties, rivalries, revenue pressures, allegations of raids, political calculations and a dangerous misunderstanding of how cold the Company machine could become.
The Company, meanwhile, was not a neutral judge.
It was a profit-seeking imperial power using revenue language to expand control. It could take real complaints and convert them into a convenient case for domination. It could transform local disorder into legal authority. It could pretend the hanging rope was administration.
So the audience must hold two truths:
Kattabomman was not as spotless as cinema made him.
The Company was not as lawful as its paperwork made itself.
Between those two lies the real drama.
The man before the statue.
The file before the myth.
The fort before the noose.
The noose before the legend.
And the legend before the next film.
TRUMP COMMENTS
The following is satirical editorial theatre, not an actual historical statement, presidential transcript, Company report or Kayathar archive document.
On Kattabomman:
Strong man. Very strong. Great posture. Tremendous voice. Maybe too much local raiding, we will look into it, but very strong branding. The statue is doing well.
On the East India Company:
I know companies. This was a company with army, tax rights, cannon, clerks, flags, everything. Very aggressive business model. Not easy to compete.
On revenue arrears:
They said tax. He said honour. That is a negotiation problem. You need a deal. Nobody made a deal. Then came Bannerman. Bad for deal-making.
On Jackson:
Jackson sounds like a man who made things worse. Every administration has one Jackson. Very loud, very confident, terrible for peace.
On Bannerman:
Quiet guy. Dangerous guy. When the quiet guy arrives after the loud guy fails, usually someone is getting arrested.
On statues:
I like statues. Very powerful. But statues should maybe come with QR codes. You scan and it says, please check full historical context before shouting.
On cinema myth:
Cinema made him bigger. I understand that. I have also been made bigger by television. Sometimes television improves history. Sometimes too much.
On final verdict:
Protector to some, predator to others, rebel to empire, hero to memory. That is a complicated résumé. But very successful after death. Huge posthumous numbers.
TOP COMMENT PICKS
FINAL THOUGHT
Kattabomman does not need another simple heroic retelling.
He also does not deserve a cheap character assassination.
He needs a story that can hold contradiction.
A story brave enough to show the protector and the predator.
A story wise enough to distrust both colonial paperwork and sentimental cinema.
A story that understands the Palayakkarar world before judging it by modern slogans.
A story that shows ordinary people trapped between local strongmen and imperial accountants.
A story that gives Panchalankurichi its pride, victim villages their fear, the Company its cold violence, Jackson his ego, Bannerman his procedure, Kayathar its silence, and the statue its delayed cross-examination.
The real Kattabomman is not smaller than the myth.
He is larger because he is more difficult.
The myth gives us a hero.
The record gives us a charge sheet.
The folk song gives us complaint and praise.
The Company gives us paperwork.
Cinema gives us thunder.
Memory gives us a statue.
History gives us a question:
Before he became immortal, what kind of man was he?
That is the story worth telling.
That is the WTF of Kattabomman.
Not that a hero had shadows.
But that the shadows may be exactly what made the hero necessary.
NEXT WEEK ON WTF GLOBAL TIMES
Exclusive Investigation:
The East India Company HR Manual:
How to convert tax arrears into rebellion, rebellion into execution, and execution into a permanent public-relations problem.
Special Report:
Statues Demand Footnotes:
Tamil Nadu monuments request QR codes, source criticism and slightly less garlanding during political season.
Coming Soon:
Jackson vs Kattabomman:
The meeting that began as administration, became insult, produced escape, and handed empire a better excuse.
Also Next Week:
Folk Songs in Court:
One bard praises, one village complains, one historian cries, and one producer says this is definitely an OTT series.
Survive weird. Thrive freaky. Stay tuned to The WTF Global Times!
Because when history becomes cinema, cinema becomes memory, and memory becomes statue, always ask who paid the tax, who lost the cattle, and who wrote the final report.
Comments
Post a Comment