entire reversal of concept

Hiii I am a silent follower of this forum but with the recent track of gauri suddenly turning negative and all the drama she is creating in the haveli, i have come to think that the CVs are actualling taking a complete U-turn from their past ideologies.

no i think they r going to show even all educated people cannot be correct like jagya used to say anandi is uneducated and thinks her lower dan gauri ,he is attracted to gauri as she was educated and in time with him so i think they'll show in marriage only declining some one who is uneducated is not correct

Originally posted by: big_vikrant_fan

Hiii I am a silent follower of this forum but with the recent track of gauri suddenly turning negative and all the drama she is creating in the haveli, i have come to think that the CVs are actualling taking a complete U-turn from their past ideologies.

CVs are already showing gauri in the lights of teepri. She is already teepri in making. But remember at the end of the teepri track what shyam had said??? He said that it was teepris lack of education that made her like that. If she had been educated she wouldnt have behaved like that. What i dont understand is- why are the CVs going against their own concept. Now they are showing an educated girl like gauri turn into something like teepri. why?? This only is giving out the wrong message that education or not, anyone is bound to turn into a maniac. In this present situation, Gauri being more educated than anandi should have sounded and acted mature but what do we find...??? If CVs are anyhow going to portray an educated woman as immature and selfish and an uneducated woman as mature and selfless...then i guess they are reversing the whole concept and giving out the wrong message. Instead of highlighting jagyas mistake, they are unneccessarily going into petty kitchen politics. This is getting the audience to hate gauri instead of jagya who is actually the main culprit. Though i agree gauri too is at fault, but jagya is the main culprit here and instead of making audience hate jagya they are unneccessarily turning gauri negative and showing the "so called" difference between an educated and uneducated soul.

completely agree with you..all of a sudden these cv's r trning gauri character negative jst to potray anandi as a mahaan character..🤢🤢looks like these cv's want jagys to go back to anandi n that gauri is ot as good as anandi..😕

Originally posted by: siyona

completely agree with you..all of a sudden these cv's r trning gauri character negative jst to potray anandi as a mahaan character..🤢🤢looks like these cv's want jagys to go back to anandi n that gauri is ot as good as anandi..😕

why jumping on conclusion so soon...track is still on...let CV finish it then decide...

I think there are several issues that the CV's are trying to hightlight in one go that it what is being said in being misconstrued with past action.

1. I think they are trying to show whether you are educated or not, child marriages affect you in your adulthood and cause mental trauma, no amount of education can change that.

2. Using education as the reason for ditching someone is not correct either, education does not teach you fundamentals of social values, interaction, family values, the foundations of all education relies on a stable upbringing.

3. Whether you are educated or not, what you do with what you already have is what matters, because some things education cannot give you, its either inherent to you or it isn't.

4. Also that going against family has repercussion far exceeding our understanding, and there are some things in life which, just through common decency, we should take advice on.

5. Marriage/Wife is a sacred bond which cannot be overthrown on a whim, it is not a toy that you stop using because you are tired of it and try to purchase a new one.

Sometimes with episodes the moral issues get a bit confusing as to what they are referring to, therefore we mis-interpret what the CV's are saying

Originally posted by: Illyria

I think there are several issues that the CV's are trying to hightlight in one go that it what is being said in being misconstrued with past action.

1. I think they are trying to show whether you are educated or not, child marriages affect you in your adulthood and cause mental trauma, no amount of education can change that.

2. Using education as the reason for ditching someone is not correct either, education does not teach you fundamentals of social values, interaction, family values, the foundations of all education relies on a stable upbringing.

3. Whether you are educated or not, what you do with what you already have is what matters, because some things education cannot give you, its either inherent to you or it isn't.

4. Also that going against family has repercussion far exceeding our understanding, and there are some things in life which, just through common decency, we should take advice on.

5. Marriage/Wife is a sacred bond which cannot be overthrown on a whim, it is not a toy that you stop using because you are tired of it and try to purchase a new one.

Sometimes with episodes the moral issues get a bit confusing as to what they are referring to, therefore we mis-interpret what the CV's are saying

@ illyria & sweta2005 well said & i completely agree wid u!!👏👏👏👏⭐️⭐️ i was also thinking on the same lines that educn may make u independent but its not sure that it"ll make u follow moral & human values & consider marriage as sacred institution & can't b overthrown!!

Originally posted by: Illyria

I think there are several issues that the CV's are trying to hightlight in one go that it what is being said in being misconstrued with past action.

1. I think they are trying to show whether you are educated or not, child marriages affect you in your adulthood and cause mental trauma, no amount of education can change that.

2. Using education as the reason for ditching someone is not correct either, education does not teach you fundamentals of social values, interaction, family values, the foundations of all education relies on a stable upbringing.

3. Whether you are educated or not, what you do with what you already have is what matters, because some things education cannot give you, its either inherent to you or it isn't.

4. Also that going against family has repercussion far exceeding our understanding, and there are some things in life which, just through common decency, we should take advice on.

5. Marriage/Wife is a sacred bond which cannot be overthrown on a whim, it is not a toy that you stop using because you are tired of it and try to purchase a new one.

Sometimes with episodes the moral issues get a bit confusing as to what they are referring to, therefore we mis-interpret what the CV's are saying

The race for trps have made the creators forget the reason why they made BV in the first place...all the messages to be given out are forgotton, and kitchen politics is thriving

Originally posted by: Illyria

I think there are several issues that the CV's are trying to hightlight in one go that it what is being said in being misconstrued with past action.

1. I think they are trying to show whether you are educated or not, child marriages affect you in your adulthood and cause mental trauma, no amount of education can change that.

2. Using education as the reason for ditching someone is not correct either, education does not teach you fundamentals of social values, interaction, family values, the foundations of all education relies on a stable upbringing.

3. Whether you are educated or not, what you do with what you already have is what matters, because some things education cannot give you, its either inherent to you or it isn't.

4. Also that going against family has repercussion far exceeding our understanding, and there are some things in life which, just through common decency, we should take advice on.

5. Marriage/Wife is a sacred bond which cannot be overthrown on a whim, it is not a toy that you stop using because you are tired of it and try to purchase a new one.

Sometimes with episodes the moral issues get a bit confusing as to what they are referring to, therefore we mis-interpret what the CV's are saying

I agree completely with you. But here in this case, there is an issue of child marriage.When JA were bound in a lifelong relationship and commitment hey don't even know the meaning of marriage.

If we just see JA's life - J and A got married in childhood. They developed a strong bond of friendship. As they grew up, both of them accepted that they have to live together as husband and wife and they started their life as a couple. J and A stayed together but they did so, only because they were married in childhood.

They did not question whether they are compatible with each other or not. But it was clearly evident that J and A has almost no mental match - their dreams, their opinions, their perspective towards life are completely different.

At the age of 18-19, J could not think of deviating from the social norm . But can we really take major decisions at 18?

It was after J came to Mumbai, he realized what he wants in life. His self realization is neither wrong nor unnatural - we realize what we want and what are our expectations from our life partners only after we face this world and start taking responsibility of our own life.

J realized that A is not the kind of the life partner that he wants. It's another matter that he is of shallow mentality and looked at only the external qualities. But don't we look at education, career and all these external qualities while choosing the life partner? So why can't J do that? Just because he was married off by his parents in his childhood??

Marriage is a commitment for life and two individuals can only make such commitment once they are sure what are their expectations from life and life partner.

Why would two individuals will go out of their way to fulfill the commitments which were not made by them but made in the of evil social norm?

Infidelity is surely not acceptable and breaking of marriage is also not right. But here, if we speak about promises, then Jagya made commitment in a real sense to G - he knew what he is doing and why he is doing.

J should definitely be criticized for his rude, atrocious behavior with A; his dishonesty; for taking Anandi for granted - but his decision to end his marriage can't be just criticized as infidelity.

@doyelpakhi:

What would you call an arranged marriage in which the guy marries a girl of his parents' choice and then later falls in love with someone else? Will that be called an infidelity? Or just asserting a choice? Should have guy go through a proper procedure of divorce or just break up over phone? If that is justified then 90% of Indian men have the right to walk out of their marriages without being apologetic to their wives!!

Jagya is not called infidel because he played happy husband with Anandi at the age of 18/19. He is an infidel because when he was 20-21-22-23-24 he was still playing husband to Anandi and romancing Gauri at the same time. An 18 year old boy may not know the meaning of marriage but if a 20+ year man doesn't understand what it means to be married and still decides to keep his wife in dark and then justify his actions as a victim of child marriage, then there is certainly some problem.

The clause of annulling child marriage within 2 years after attaining adulthood in PCMA 2006 is not there without any reason----the assumption is a guy between 21-23 is old enough and mature enough to understand whether he wants to carry on with his child marriage or not. If he still carries on with his marriage after 23, then he is responsible for it. If he gets a second wife, it's bigamy.