Originally posted by: an_chau
@ Beagle: Yes, I agree with most of the thoughts you laid out in your reply.
Honestly, my response was much less to the Shravan-Adi equation in the show and more a reflection on the way the blame was getting shifted away from the perpetrator. It was the real-world impact of our thoughts that concerned me more than the show. Having said that, since we are discussing aspects of the show here, there are some angles that I would like to comment on:
"If a hitman commits a murder, both the hitman and the person who hired him are culpable in the murder"
The difference here is intent. The person who hires the hitman wants the murder committed. Shravan uses Sumo to even scores with Nirmala and Adi, he puts her in harm's way. He is callous, uncaring even. But intent upon harming Sumo - don't think so.
Also, in the hitman scenario you gave in your post - the hitman has the choice of saying no, but the person plotting the murder is the real mastermind. They will only move ahead and find another hitman. In the Shravan-Adi scenario, Adi is no hitman. Had he chosen not to act upon Shravan's words, the entire scenario could have been averted. If anything, we might even have found ourselves advocating for a AdiMan wedding. 😊🤢
And finally, @ "Both are equally wrong and the onus of this crime rests squarely on both shoulders."
I believe both are wrong and must share the burden of guilt. But the crime belongs to Aditya. Shravan is morally wrong. But not an accomplice here because he does not share the intent or knowledge of the crime. He is not egging Adi on to commit the crime in question. (I don't see him picking up on Adi's psycho shades. Right now, Shravan is too self-engrossed to see anything else). That doesn't absolve Shravan of his wrongs. It's just a different set of questions that he has to answer to...
@An -Totally agree with you here. Shravan is too self possessed to see beyond Shravan. And as I said, he could not have guessed that he released Frankenstein in Aditya. And you are correct to point out intent, which is very important in the eyes of law, as is the difference between a moral crime and a real crime. But I still cannot ignore the fact that Shravan started something that set off a chain of reactions, and so my point is, if Shravan were to feel guilty tomorrow, if he were to feel responsible for the crime tomorrow, he would be justified. And just as I cannot absolve Aditya of the crime, I cannot absolve Shravan either of his pervasive behaviour. I concede that your argument on the hitman example is correct and it was a poor example, but inadvertently Shravan did hand Aditya the gun and Aditya, in his madness, pulled the trigger.
The serial aside-
Don't you think that we, as a society collectively, spend a lot of time in trying to place the blame on something or someone, rather than focusing on the crime and the reason for the crime. If you look at what Aditya said (and I have not watched it), he said she was not 'sanskaari', and so it was his right to get intimate with her, and hence he thought it was ok to molest her. But this behaviour, this preposterous thinking stems from the society or sections of it, does it not? It stems from antiquated notions of women and the gender debate which is skewed in favour of men. Why do men treat women as objects, playthings? Even in the West, women get wolf whistles, why not men? Why objectify women and not men? In India, despite the huge public outcry when rapes happen, despite the loud media campaigns, why do we have such a large rate of reported and yet more unreported cases of rape, domestic violence, sexual abuse and other crimes against women? Despite the fact that women enjoy greater freedoms in India than some countries in the world, is India or parts of it safe? Is the gender bias in our society so entrenched that despite noisy hard hitting campaigns in favour of women, and condoning crime against women, a great number of women find that their conditions have not yet improved?
CID
