DOTW : Is DV doin well as a show? - Page 3

ok..I wanna know from the makers..

1) There's a Raja, there's a rajya sabha, there's Yashwardhan. Rajya Sabha is not doing anything. They appear only when next Raja has to be announced or judges. They are not interested in everyday affairs of aryanagar..Raja never does anything n he's oblivious to his praja's plight from 15 years. Yashwardhan (who's he?) handles all the business of the empire , looks after the finances n almost everything. Aryawardhan is like a puppet in hands of Yashwardhan and Rajya Sabha.

2) Shramiks are making the same structures over 15 years n they r only involved in construction. Also, they never complain about their state to Rajya sabha or Aryawardhan ..

3) Agni and Yashwardhan plans r usually copied from ekta's crappy z grade ageing serial..n they never succeed in that too! They r conspiring inside the palace in front of soldiers n bodyguards against the raja's son but nobody is interested! they keep standing like statues!

4) Shera daku makes sure she's one above the men but refuses to cut her perfectly manicured nails! Till the time she gets a new n better feminine costume, no relief from her side!

5) Dharam-Veer and Sia are good but in 20 mins of DV, there r only 3-5 mins of them..

🥱
Charu

i think sagars should put good background scores like PRC.& i think everything is okay in this serial!

i can pick and sum up bits and pieces of what everyone has stated above...

even girls who are stating that they want to watch Veer and shera scenes are saying that only as a relief from the current track 😕 .. the tracks of the shramiks and Bhimsen and Nivritti are so boring.... inspite of being the actual crux of the story...

someone said its not an Aryavrat Vs Shramik serial... well Dharam and veer are an Aryavrat Vs a Shramik and that is the basis of this story.. 😕 if they dont show proper foundation of whos and whats happening from now... we can never relate to it when Dharam and Veer actually take up opposite sides of the war camp say many months later..

i cant relate to the age/country/kingdom of the story.. even if fictional, how can it be historical if it doesnt correspond to any particular era, place or time that the viewers can relate to..

someone mentioned again that slavery was not a part of India. slavery very much a part of Indian culture too... not only south Africa. Transporting slaves overseas (slave trade) was more prominent in SA, but how could you say slavery was not a part of India? 😕 The famous class systems were always here (the effects of which even remain today) - No education permitted for Shudras, they were not allowed to even touch the Brahmins or kshatriyas, they were not allowed to enter temples except those constructed by themselves, not permitted to take part in any religious activities from the front row, they were only allowed certain professions (mostly all involving menial labour) and because of all this it was very rare to find anyone from the shudra class 'rich' or capable of owning land and property. The only difference is that not everywhere were they whipped or beaten to follow this because this system was already set... and everyone just followed it quietly/blindly till we had Ambedkars, Gandhis and raja rammohan roys revolting against it..

even today in kanchipuram our famous silk sarees are weaved by children sold as bonded labour.. there was a long documentary on that one.... 😕 if this is not slavery what is?

and why do we keep saying Shramiks when the only shramiks they show over and over again are Sakshi pari and Bhimsen.. (kranti ko maar daala) and Babu is the only other odd person...

my i have diverted from the topic... but then i dont know where to start and where to finish with this story... 😕

Lashy u r 100% right but as far as slavery is concern we (india)never ruled any country so we cant compare SA situation with ours.Yes u r ight here that even in India there had been some shortfall in our society but dont u think u every country or society had and caste system is diff from slavery....in india cast was divided by manu on the basis of their karam for xample xperts of any field was called pundit (like he is an xpert of education,politics,science etc)brave & gladiators with brain who can protect others(praja) was called kshatriya similarly thoes who were good with business were called baniyas ....its a long list ours history shows that even dhritrashra was being rejected by rajya sabha(hastinapur) because he was a blind but that doesnt mean they were against handicapt though he was physically stronger than pandu....every person had to prove himself for a particular post even someshver had many wives according to some DU books & prithvi proved himself that he is better then others(his step brothers)yes some people took ADVANTAGE of their posts.
The main problem with DV is in their very 1st episode they told that there r only two cast aravrat and shramik.and i didnt like their idea......i'm sorry for such a looooong post

oh no no that is right.. what you are saying is right... there were many casts/classes and they are showing only two.. your point is right.. the class system originally started because some wise men thought it would work best for society... even today i personally feel because of environment/bringing up + genetic effects some classes are very good at business while others at skill while others at education etc....

however the system which originally was built because "people thought it would be best for society" was later an enforcement.

even if a shudra was adept at a skill he couldnt do it because he was a shudra.. even if he was intelligent enough he wouldnt be allowed entry into school or allowed to do business.. even if eklavya was excellent at archery he couldnt directly train under drona (apart from arjuns jealousy ofcourse) so that is all enforcement and taking away people's basic rights..

hence that is caste system taking the form of slavery and this existed in almost EVERY society... 😊 even the greatest greatest ones (far greater than any Indian civilizations, like the Egyptians and the Roman had slavery as part of them)

i searched up for slavery and ancient India and it has indeed been very prominent in our history .. I learnt quite a few interesting facts...

below is just a small paragraph i picked up from the net

Slavery has existed in India since the time of the Mauryas at least. However, since Indian society has throughout been subject to the strictly-enforced caste system, the differences between those in the lowest caste and the lot of the slaves are not very great and, in some cases, it may have been better to be a slave. For example, a low caste person had to work constantly to obtain food and water while slaves occasionally (although not very often) could have time off from work. Laws also existed as to what sort of treatment it was permitted to use with slaves: they could be beaten on the back but not the head. No one can minimize the misery of being enslaved and it is almost certain that many masters were able to disregard these kinds of rules but, nevertheless, at least some structure of protection were provided. These were supplemented by both Hindu and Buddhist precepts, which will also have been influential in affecting the behaviour of some people.
It was also possible for free-born Indians to become slaves, perhaps through a court decision after having committed a serious crime. Others might be enslaved as a result of war or trafficking but it was also possible for people to put themselves up for enslavement. They could put their freedom at stake as surety for a cash loan or for a gambling stake. However, enslavement need not be permanent. A financial arrangement could be made in these cases but, if worst came to worst, slaves were allowed one chance to try to escape and, if they managed to get away, they were permitted to claim their freedom permanently.

wowow lashy today in gurukul mood 😆 giving such nice long explanations…………….i understand what u hv written abt the caste system but I don't like it at all………why show such things regressive things I don't know, just see two epi without bhimsen and this sharmik aryawarth fiasco and both the epi were so nice to watch 😊

yes lashy u r right here slavery was very much part of india it was well organised trade in india but it was not caste based....have u heard the story of Raja Harishchander he was a kshatriya but when vikramaditya took every thing( rajya, wealth) from him he sell his son and his wife and even he had to sell off himself near ganga (banaras was the main market of slaves).....if cast system was there then why he had to do this...
As far as eklavya is concern he never was the candidate of dronacharya gurukul...its a long story but in short dronacharya he and drupad completed their qualification from purshuram's institute (meant only for elite class if any ksharitya or brahmin doesnt belong to the family of great kings or scholars..it was completly NO NO for them) when drona established his institute it was mainly for kaurav and pandav (hastinapur) so it was not eklavya's cast..as far as guru dakshina of eklavya is concern u can say it was an old version of intellectual property rights it happens even now......everywhere if u r benefited with our policies u have to give something in return
it was not because he was bheel............

Caste system exists in India from the time of epics (read..Ramayan and Mahabharat). In vedas, i don't know but in Gita i've read that ppl. were divided on the basis of their karma. At that time, karma was the factor, later it was like, if ur born to a shudra then ur a shudra too...Brahmins were the hightest caste , followed by kshatriya, then vaishya then shudras. and of course in the later stages, Brahmins and Kshatriyas started taking advantage of their positions and exploit others...in ancient India, another caste was made called as untouchables.....not sure of this though.....😕

Originally posted by: lashy

oh no no that is right.. what you are saying is right... there were many casts/classes and they are showing only two.. your point is right.. the class system originally started because some wise men thought it would work best for society... even today i personally feel because of environment/bringing up + genetic effects some classes are very good at business while others at skill while others at education etc....

however the system which originally was built because "people thought it would be best for society" was later an enforcement.

even if a shudra was adept at a skill he couldnt do it because he was a shudra.. even if he was intelligent enough he wouldnt be allowed entry into school or allowed to do business.. even if eklavya was excellent at archery he couldnt directly train under drona (apart from arjuns jealousy ofcourse) so that is all enforcement and taking away people's basic rights..

hence that is caste system taking the form of slavery and this existed in almost EVERY society... 😊 even the greatest greatest ones (far greater than any Indian civilizations, like the Egyptians and the Roman had slavery as part of them)

i searched up for slavery and ancient India and it has indeed been very prominent in our history .. I learnt quite a few interesting facts...

below is just a small paragraph i picked up from the net

Slavery has existed in India since the time of the Mauryas at least. However, since Indian society has throughout been subject to the strictly-enforced caste system, the differences between those in the lowest caste and the lot of the slaves are not very great and, in some cases, it may have been better to be a slave. For example, a low caste person had to work constantly to obtain food and water while slaves occasionally (although not very often) could have time off from work. Laws also existed as to what sort of treatment it was permitted to use with slaves: they could be beaten on the back but not the head. No one can minimize the misery of being enslaved and it is almost certain that many masters were able to disregard these kinds of rules but, nevertheless, at least some structure of protection were provided. These were supplemented by both Hindu and Buddhist precepts, which will also have been influential in affecting the behaviour of some people.
It was also possible for free-born Indians to become slaves, perhaps through a court decision after having committed a serious crime. Others might be enslaved as a result of war or trafficking but it was also possible for people to put themselves up for enslavement. They could put their freedom at stake as surety for a cash loan or for a gambling stake. However, enslavement need not be permanent. A financial arrangement could be made in these cases but, if worst came to worst, slaves were allowed one chance to try to escape and, if they managed to get away, they were permitted to claim their freedom permanently.

wow this is so informative. but the serial dv somehow fails to even evoke sympathy for the shramiks. i cant put my finger on it but something is missing, the depth in prc is surely missing. the serial lacks soul.i only watch it b coz of my fav stars in it. replace them n the whole show loses whatever charm it has. 😕 😕

Originally posted by: angel.4u

wow this is so informative. but the serial dv somehow fails to even evoke sympathy for the shramiks. i cant put my finger on it but something is missing, the depth in prc is surely missing. the serial lacks soul.i only watch it b coz of my fav stars in it. replace them n the whole show loses whatever charm it has. 😕 😕

yes... yes.. undoubtedly i think many of us agree that we are watching this serial only for the stars in it... precisely for three people Rajat, Mugdha and Vikrant 😆