Mixed signals - Page 12

The argument about somebody else's belongings would make sense if a claimant came very soon to claim that belonging.

If Anandi had arrived in a couple of years to claim Nimboli then there would be no issues about the child being given to her despite the fact that the child was lost by her negligence.

Here the negligence has been compounded by failure to claim for 11 years. How is anyone to know if the mother will arrive, when she will arrive, today or another 30 years later, or if she will arrive at all.

During this time no love or attachment should develop for the child?

There are cases where wives get married a second time because the husband has been missing for several years, and there is presumption of death. If somebody occupies a vacant land and nobody claims it for 12 years, the advantage would be with the person in possession.

Here we are taking about a blood and flesh child. How can anyone wait endlessly for the claimant to arrive and in the meantime showno attachment to the child?

Mangala's motherly feelings could have been easily squashed by Anandi turning up to claim N. So why blame M?

Originally posted by: leavesandwaves

Atlest that selfishness will not make someone bonded labour.😉

Originally posted by: rohini55

The argument about somebody else's belongings would make sense if a claimant came very soon to claim that belonging.

If Anandi had arrived in a couple of years to claim Nimboli then there would be no issues about the child being given to her despite the fact that the child was lost by her negligence.

Here the negligence has been compounded by failure to claim for 11 years. How is anyone to know if the mother will arrive, when she will arrive, today or another 30 years later, or if she will arrive at all.

During this time no love or attachment should develop for the child?

There are cases where wives get married a second time because the husband has been missing for several years, and there is presumption of death. If somebody occupies a vacant land and nobody claims it for 12 years, the advantage would be with the person in possession.

Here we are taking about a blood and flesh child. How can anyone wait endlessly for the claimant to arrive and in the meantime showno attachment to the child?

Mangala's motherly feelings could have been easily squashed by Anandi turning up to claim N. So why blame M?

If somebody does not turn up, to claim, one should not assume ownership. Hiding the fact that Nimboli is a BV, one is preventing that possibility of that girl being found out who she was.

If positive act come with some baggage, then that positive act loses its sheen.

Don't understand how it is right to claim ownership by hiding a lot of things from the child as well as the from the people who can rescue her.

Not telling about the dress belonging to Nimboli. To prevent Nimboli to dwell into her past too much and thinking about the mother who dressed her in those clothes. Thereby emotionally going away from her.

How telling the facts that she was brought here to be killed is going to help the child? And just like there is no perfect age to tell a child that he was adopted (as we have seen in Mannu's case) there is no perfect age to tell the child all those grim facts. Even Anandi hid the fact that Shivam has a sister for 11 years and even when he asked - he was told just half truth. And people are expecting Mangala to tell a girl the cruel fact that she was brought here to be killed and Mangala saved her (that means mangala to praise herself). What Shivam was to be told - at least the part that he has a twin sister - was simple fact and the other part how she was lost - would have made it clear that the mother is guilty in this. But Shivam was not told even the first part until one day he asked. And even after asking he was not told the second part - because of obvious reasons😛. Compare this to Nimboli's situation - telling her the first part (of her being brought here to be killed) will make Mangala praising herself to be the saviour). The second part - that she improvised to save the child and suggested Akhera to marry her to Kundan is also not bad - because in that split second - she could think only that - may be because Akhera went for Kundan's marriage itself. And after seeing this serial - I don't think bal vivah is wrong. Anandi is still with the balak var and the family she gained though bal vivah. She left her father, she left the family she gained through her marriage at adult stage - and she is with her bal-vivah family. They are her strength, she celebrates the festivals with them etc. etc. This serial propagates the myth that bal vivah is wrong - but shows that bal vivah is good - just balak var and his family are wrong and they will come around in future.

Originally posted by: rohini55

The argument about somebody else's belongings would make sense if a claimant came very soon to claim that belonging.

If Anandi had arrived in a couple of years to claim Nimboli then there would be no issues about the child being given to her despite the fact that the child was lost by her negligence.

Here the negligence has been compounded by failure to claim for 11 years. How is anyone to know if the mother will arrive, when she will arrive, today or another 30 years later, or if she will arrive at all.

During this time no love or attachment should develop for the child?

There are cases where wives get married a second time because the husband has been missing for several years, and there is presumption of death. If somebody occupies a vacant land and nobody claims it for 12 years, the advantage would be with the person in possession.

Here we are taking about a blood and flesh child. How can anyone wait endlessly for the claimant to arrive and in the meantime showno attachment to the child?

Mangala's motherly feelings could have been easily squashed by Anandi turning up to claim N. So why blame M?