Compare Shankar's and Sid's cases!!!

Hi All

We all know that when Shankar was arrested by the police, with shanti's identification and marks on skin, Simran did believe that the proof given were so very strong. She infact, lost her trust in Shankar. Not even once, did she say that Shankar might be innocent, might have been framed.

But now, when Sid is faced with more or less same situation, where all proof are against him, will Simran think he is being framed, or will she again think that he might have done the mistake? What do you all think?

If your answer is that Simran will not believe the false implications on Sid, as she very well knows he is innocent, then justify that with the other case.

Simran very well might know Sid from childhood, but he was away from her for a solid 18 years or so. So does she know him so very well , to know what he can do and what not?

In case of Shankar, yes, he might have done certain mistakes in life. But Simran very well knows that Shankar has had a change of heart. She has seen his loyalty for her and for her hospital over the past 18-20 years. So why did she not believe him?

If Simran is so very principled that she will not believe anything other than proof and witness, then she should not believe Sid's innocence too.

What do you think about this comparison friends?

Very good topic Sree 😊

After watching today's episode in Canada, I realized that Simran showed her selfishness by telling Shaguna that "There is no comparison between Abhi & Shankar" She should understand what Shaguna meant by saying that Shankar has changed his nature and bad deeds just like Abhi but instead of understanding the pain of her loyal and sincere maid, Simran just showed that she is sensitive only for her personal issues 😡 If I was Shaguna then I would have left Simran and her family after hearing those insulting statements about Shankar....I mean why Simran always needs sympathy and support from others in her sensitive moments when she can't do the same, not even for her trustworthy ppl. 😡

Just becuase Shaguna-Shankar are poor ppl, she let the police arrest him and believed that the proofs are against him. On the other hand she has full faith on Sid that he can't do such a shameful thing....Its very obvious from these 2 incidents that Simran can never judge a person's truth or loyalty.

Good topic.. I watched the episode yesterday and to I did notice the dilemna/confusion in Simran's mind. Initially she told Shaguna that if he were innocent, he would surely get justice...Of course she swayed towards believing the police over Shankar as soon as she heard the evidences!! It was also silly - the way she said don't compare Shankar and Abhi. But while watching the episode I also realized that she probably said that partly because she said that in front of Abhi and was probably afraid that Abhi would feel bad. Fortunately I was happy to see that Abhi took that statement in a sensible way (For a change!!).

Sid's case though somewhat similar is different. One thing is Simran has probably learnt not to just believe what one sees. It seems to me that she believes Sid here, when surprisingly even his mom suspected him a little..

Also, she knew Sid since he was a baby and another big difference in influencing Simran's opinion is that Sid did not have a dark or a crimnal past!! We discussed this earlier and I *know* that we cannot and should NOT judge people on someone's past but it is human tendency to do so at times.. A person will be very mahaan to not do that at all. And that was a big point in Sid's favour..So, it was easier for her to believe Sid considering she has worked with him closely for years and has seen him grow up. He was away from her - don't know if it was for 18 years, though? I think it was more for 12 years or so since I think he has been working for Simran before the leap - and the two tried to search for Urmila for some years, etc..(I remember they showed that in the beginning of the leap) 12 years is still a long time, but nevertheless she has still known him as a child and then again as an adult for quite a few years. I don't mean to say that Simran was right but just to say that the 2 cases are not entirely the same, though to some extent there was a similarity..

Originally posted by: scorpio_pk

Very good topic Sree 😊

After watching today's episode in Canada, I realized that Simran showed her selfishness by telling Shaguna that "There is no comparison between Abhi & Shankar" She should understand what Shaguna meant by saying that Shankar has changed his nature and bad deeds just like Abhi but instead of understanding the pain of her loyal and sincere maid, Simran just showed that she is sensitive only for her personal issues 😡 If I was Shaguna then I would have left Simran and her family after hearing those insulting statements about Shankar....I mean why Simran always needs sympathy and support from others in her sensitive moments when she can't do the same, not even for her trustworthy ppl. 😡

Just becuase Shaguna-Shankar are poor ppl, she let the police arrest him and believed that the proofs are against him. On the other hand she has full faith on Sid that he can't do such a shameful thing....Its very obvious from these 2 incidents that Simran can never judge a person's truth or loyalty.

I totally agree with you..very well said

I was surprised too see what made Simran to take it defensively. If Simran would have compared Abhi & Pranay or Manas for some reason (anyways they are not close to each other) and if Rashmi or Urmila would have defended in the same way, I dont know how Simran would have reacted!!! She would have brought the whole house down and the whole clan standing around her😛

Just because it was Shaguna & Shankar, she cant behave that way

I dont think because somebody is poor, Simran acted that way. What Simran did with Shankar was wrong.. but I think it is because he had a past history. It is human to first go back in time and recollect the past behaviour and not trust them that easily. He had affairs with woman and Shaguna was always complaining about him in the intial days and then there was the acid throwing incident. (I am still waiting for Urmila to own that one.. Mr Ajai Sinha has been avoiding it totally... 😕 )
Simran was at fault at not believing in Shankar and Shankar also stood his ground about not coming back, which is a good punishment for Simran, as she has lost a very responsible person. Simran was punished which is only fair.
With Sid, he has had no issues in the past. He has never taken advantage of her 2 daughters, when he had ample opportunities.

Originally posted by: vazz

I dont think because somebody is poor, Simran acted that way. What Simran did with Shankar was wrong.. but I think it is because he had a past history. It is human to first go back in time and recollect the past behaviour and not trust them that easily. He had affairs with woman and Shaguna was always complaining about him in the intial days and then there was the acid throwing incident. (I am still waiting for Urmila to own that one.. Mr Ajai Sinha has been avoiding it totally... 😕 )

I agree with you completely especially on the above. I don't think Shankar being poor was the reason that Simran was so upset or that she disbelieved Shankar..She has never been ashamed to take Shaguna out for dinner to various restaurants with the rest of her family and has always treated her as a family member..On the contrary she was furious when Aastha (junior) called Shaguna a "maid servant" and told her that she was more of a mother to her and never to dare calling her that..

Yes, this was gross misjudgement on Simran's part but I too don't think poverty was the reason..Certainly a past crimnal record/history was what swayed Simran's opinion though she was wrong in this particular scenario..

Originally posted by: xyzzee

Good topic.. I watched the episode yesterday and to I did notice the dilemna/confusion in Simran's mind. Initially she told Shaguna that if he were innocent, he would surely get justice...Of course she swayed towards believing the police over Shankar as soon as she heard the evidences!! It was also silly - the way she said don't compare Shankar and Abhi. But while watching the episode I also realized that she probably said that partly because she said that in front of Abhi and was probably afraid that Abhi would feel bad. Fortunately I was happy to see that Abhi took that statement in a sensible way (For a change!!).

Sid's case though somewhat similar is different. One thing is Simran has probably learnt not to just believe what one sees. It seems to me that she believes Sid here, when surprisingly even his mom suspected him a little..

Also, she knew Sid since he was a baby and another big difference in influencing Simran's opinion is that Sid did not have a dark or a crimnal past!! We discussed this earlier and I *know* that we cannot and should NOT judge people on someone's past but it is human tendency to do so at times.. A person will be very mahaan to not do that at all. And that was a big point in Sid's favour..So, it was easier for her to believe Sid considering she has worked with him closely for years and has seen him grow up. He was away from her - don't know if it was for 18 years, though? I think it was more for 12 years or so since I think he has been working for Simran before the leap - and the two tried to search for Urmila for some years, etc..(I remember they showed that in the beginning of the leap) 12 years is still a long time, but nevertheless she has still known him as a child and then again as an adult for quite a few years. I don't mean to say that Simran was right but just to say that the 2 cases are not entirely the same, though to some extent there was a similarity..

Very well said.👏Exactly my thoughts.

Also, I would like to state my oft repeated view here, that this the best thing about Astitva.With all it's flaws,Simran,although the main protagonist is not a flawless human being.

However fair and principled we may consider ourselves to be ,we do go through the dilemna of judging persons at some point of time in our life.

Good topic Sree and excellent analysis,xyzzee.

Cheers

Originally posted by: Akshata

Also, I would like to state my oft repeated view here, that this the best thing about Astitva.With all it's flaws,Simran,although the main protagonist is not a flawless human being.

However fair and principled we may consider ourselves to be ,we do go through the dilemna of judging persons at some point of time in our life.

Good topic Sree and excellent analysis,xyzzee.

Cheers

Thanks Akshata😃. I liked this sentence of yours very much -

"However fair and principled we may consider ourselves to be ,we do go through the dilemna of judging persons at some point of time in our life."

Those are my thoughts too!

Fabulous points here friends!!! I enjoyed reading them. Akshata, i 100% agree with you that the nice aspect of Astitva the serial is that no protagonist is flawless. This is so true. We have so many serials running where all protagonists do something bad, but their cause will be for the good... 😡So, unlike this melodrama, Ajai showing Simran as a confused woman now is nice to see...

With regard to this topic, i do agree with few here, that Simran did not believe Shankar bcos he was poor and poverty in Shankar made her do this. I dont think Simran would have thought like that.

Even in yesterday's episode, we saw the men in the meeting ask the same question to Simran, which probably we at IF have asked even before this happened.!!! They asked Simran whether the reason for her bias over Sid when compared to Shankar and Suresh bhai was that, Sid was going to be her son in law... ??? This is so true. Simran made a grave mistake in not having the same trust on Shankar. She remained neutral. But in Sid's case, she vociferously argues with Abhi that Sid is innocent. Why this bias?

Now I would like to include another topic in this thread for discussion... Why is Abhi behaving cranky? What is now wrong with him? Where are his "Understanding of Human Relationship and Values" concept gone? He even went to the extent of telling all that we should not have our own thought process, it might be wrong sometimes.

Though i would have expected Abhi to be more rational in thinking, i also get a feeling that he is far better than what Simran is.... even now... Abhi, during the case of Shankar too, did not open his mouth to prove to all that Shankar was innocent. At the same time, he never told all that Shankar could have done it... Now, with Sid in jail, Abhi has now pointed to Simran his viewpoint, where he feels if Sid was not known to them, it would have been natural for them to believe the girl, rather than the boy... So what is wrong in this thought process? He also stresses the point that whatever they feel is not going to help Sid. If they feel he is innocent, nobody can help him. We cannot stop people from talking all nonsense. We cannot stop people from thinking that Sid has committed a mistake. This is also so true!!! What is Simran now trying to put forward, but not wanting Sid to resign, by claiming in each of her sentence that Sid is innocent? What is she going to achieve by doing this?

Though i am shocked to see Abhi reacting like this, i would also press the fact that Abhi has a better thought process and way of approaching the problem than Simran. Simran is just showing her biased attitude. She is a complete confused woman now. But Abhi, is not!!! Though I feel he is going overboard by saying, Astha should not be so very attached to Urmila and all such nonsense, I personally feel he is not allowing his emotions and concern for Sid to affect his thought process. I would say that though he is not following the best path, he is atleast better than his better-half, Simran😳

Originally posted by: sree_20

Even in yesterday's episode, we saw the men in the meeting ask the same question to Simran, which probably we at IF have asked even before this happened.!!! They asked Simran whether the reason for her bias over Sid when compared to Shankar and Suresh bhai was that, Sid was going to be her son in law... ??? This is so true. Simran made a grave mistake in not having the same trust on Shankar. She remained neutral. But in Sid's case, she vociferously argues with Abhi that Sid is innocent. Why this bias?

As simple as that, simran is a greedy selfish lady with no brain