| Baahubali | Official Updates & Discussion Thread #13 | - Page 42

Originally posted by: bahubalifan

In part 1 Kattappa regretfully says he's the traitor who killed Baahubali so it must be true. Why ? That's the question we don't have an answer. Not really.. he believes that he is the traitor who did that & says so..but we don't know for sure as we haven't yet seen the sequence.. It's possible he is made to believe that or if he is taking the blame for some one else's deed because he feels guilty about not saving Baahu (maybe he had the opportunity to save him but was too late)

1) Yeah hope it would something that we would have never imagined. Exactly! Otherwise, everyone would be disappointed!

2) I don't think so too. Everyone saw how he fought for Mahishmathi and his mother in part 1. He boosted his soldiers morally and got them to fight. Sivagami praised him for saving his people and killing the enemies, framing him as a traitor ? No one would believe. Besides everyone started hailing Baahubali during erection of Bhalla statue, if he was framed as a traitor people wouldn't be adoring him. All love him as their King and look up to him as their God even after his death. It was just a possibility and I don't believe this will be the case either. As to if anyone would believe that ? True it won't be easy to frame him as a traitor to all but possibly to Sivagami?? And Bhalla is evil.. That's a good point, everyone still adored him during the statue.. Is it because over time they realized Bhalla is the evil one (having gone thru so many years of torture in his rule..) & realized the real situation? or is it because they always loved Baahu more?

3) True but what if someone who is so precious to Baahu, her/his life is in danger and the only way to save them is death of Baahu...why wouldn't Kattappa kill him ? Probably at that time he would have thought i'd rather kill Baahu then see him grieve over his dead son and wife who are his everything ??? I know its weird...😕 Even if it was to save Mahendra (who is the future of Maahishmathi), is killing Amarendra the only way? If he teamed up with Amarendra (who is the true heir to the throne & he knows Amarendra's good heart too), they could've beaten Bhalla & his army.. Kattappa has his own set of warriors remember?

I don't think so it was a case of mistaken identity. Last part showed Baahu fighting with someone while Kattapa attacks him from behind. Being with Baahu and knowing him in and out wouldn't Kattappa be able to make out it is Baahubali ? The height, the stature, the way of fighting.Doesn't seem like an accident. If Baahu came in unknowingly then he would have been stabbed in the front instead of back. Well, we know one thing.. Kattappa couldn't figure out Shivudu (who looks exactly same as Amarendra) until he saw his face.. But yes, Kattappa has raised Amarendra (unlike the case of Shivudu) & so it should be easier for him to identify Amarendra.. If Baahu had come in knowingly toward Kattappa (or in b/w kattappa & 3rd person), yes he would've stabbed in front.. But what if he had not seen Kattappa and had rushed to the other person? Again, I am saying it for argument sake only.. I don't believe this is the case either..

Yes maybe she knows more than what others don't. Her vengeance is on Bhalla( not even Bijjala ) that means she knows he's the mastermind behind everything. She is accused of being an adultress but she wasn't able to do anything similarly she understood Kattappa was being used by Bhalla, he's also been facing the same plight as her.Same with Sivagami. Initially she must have listened to Bhalla and acted against Baahu but after realizing her blunder she left with baby Mahendra.If Deva has to trust her with her baby inspite of Sivagami playing a part ( directly or indirectly) in her husband's death, she has understood the trap laid on them. Except Bhalla and his dad everyone are basically good but have been victims of circumstances. Well, coz Bijjala is only like Sakuni in Mahabharata.. Duryodhana is the main one.. just like Bhalla here. She is accused of being an adulteress now.. when she is captured by Bhalla and her husband is no longer alive.. I won't say, "she wasn't able to do anything".. it's more like she isn't trying to do anything about it. If she had to clear her name, she had to first get out of this prison but she is determined to only do it when her son arrives.. Probably because she has challenged Bhalla of the same.. Kattappa on the other hand, could've done something @ that time.. Yes he is bound to the throne but he very well knows that Amarendra is the more fitting person to the throne.. so by saving him, he would've still served the throne, no? But yes, maybe there is a reason why she understands Kattappa's plight - something that only she, Baahu, Sivagami & Bhalla knows.. And I agree, it's a big thing for her to trust Sivagami (if she had played a part in Baahu's death). So if she had trusted her, it means Sivagami had said/done something to earn her trust.. what could that be? Is it a mere understanding of the trap laid by Bhalla? or something more?

In the recent B2 interview with Anupama, she asks D why his hands are all bloody and he replies I have to save someone. That someone could be only Deva( pregnant or with baby). He's fighting with Bhalla's guards and maybe Kattappa begs him to leave Deva and he agrees to that provided Kattappa killed Baahu.As all villains Bhalla doesn't keep up his word and tries to kill the child. Sivagami runs away with him and the rest is history.Yes, saw that interview.. but why does it have to be only Deva? The chances of it being Deva are high..considering she is his wife and he would've risked anything or done anything to save her.. but there maybe some other character we are not thinking of.. even Sivagami..We know Bhalla doesn't care about his mother either.. Again, killing Baahu for Deva&Baby seems unreasonable to me.. especially knowing Bhalla is so evil..