Double standards of a shahenshah or the mom ? - Page 2

my dear archie why it seems to you a not enough investigation.. Moti has no proof and yet shahensha sends two horse-riders to mathura to check whether adham is present there or not, is it not enough in support of his fare judgement. And remember jalal is an illiterate person,not even was in love with anyone,so he has no idea for sure that a lover would never name his love if he wants to save his love from danger..;-):-D..so he is naive in love letter mamla..:-P..and hence naturally believed the letter

Originally posted by: aRchiE_frieNds

I think I should've clarified this in my post , I understand the other lady was pregnant , but what about the guy who got her pregnant. Even he was not given any punishment ( forget about death sentence )

And Jalal's mom should've atleast tried to talk to Jalal , not to forgive moti but to investigate the matter further or something on Jodhas request. How can she say that she doesn't speak in these matters when she has actually done that before.
Just my POV that this part shows even Jalal's mom in bad light who's supposed to be a nicer and just person.

The case is diff here...yeah Humida cud hav helpd bt she doesn wanna interfere in these matters wich was she tld

Originally posted by: PallaviDas003

my dear archie why it seems to you a not enough investigation.. Moti has no proof and yet shahensha sends two horse-riders to mathura to check whether adham is present there or not, is it not enough in support of his fare judgement. And remember jalal is an illiterate person,not even was in love with anyone,so he has no idea for sure that a lover would never name his love if he wants to save his love from danger..;-):-D..so he is naive in love letter mamla..:-P..and hence naturally believed the letter

Originally posted by: PallaviDas003

my dear archie why it seems to you a not enough investigation.. Moti has no proof and yet shahensha sends two horse-riders to mathura to check whether adham is present there or not, is it not enough in support of his fare judgement. And remember jalal is an illiterate person,not even was in love with anyone,so he has no idea for sure that a lover would never name his love if he wants to save his love from danger..;-):-D..so he is naive in love letter mamla..:-P..and hence naturally believed the letter

Now that part I didn't understand either. Even if adham is present in mathura why wouldn't anyone think he could've gone after all this happened ( which he actually did ) what was the point in sending someone to check if he was present there.

Originally posted by: aRchiE_frieNds

Now that part I didn't understand either. Even if adham is present in mathura why wouldn't anyone think he could've gone after all this happened ( which he actually did ) what was the point in sending someone to check if he was present there.

Yes...all this was discussed in a previous thread too...and me and AR were busy trying to defend Ek's creatives there too...😆

Well,im pretty sure Moti is not gonna die.

My disappointment is with Hamida , not with Jalal . She surely could've done something , she just did not want too .

Originally posted by: lashy

Yes...all this was discussed in a previous thread too...and me and AR were busy trying to defend Ek's creatives there too...😆

But leaving all this aside and the investigation into the case etc... you do realize that this is the 16th century right...I can't imagine any more investigation than this having happened to save the life of a slave girl even by the kindest of kings in that era...

We hail Akbar as a kind Mughal king... however, even under his regime hundreds of thousands of innocent Hindus have been slaughtered...(though many by his ruthless commanders...many by his own orders too)...

Most cases would have been solved at face value and just by the aid of initial proofs provided (which the more powerful could have adjusted to suit their needs)...just as Hameeda Banu stated, women would rarely have been allowed to interfere in politics (examples like MA are rare!) and proceedings/adjournings/investigations like a modern day case would not have been a regular occurrence!

Why, look at the Tudor series...all the powerful men had to do was point their fingers at a culprit and the accused was instantly sentenced to death...all the investigation was botched...all evidences fabricated...if the innocent didn't accept the crimes, they were tortured till they did...and the king had no idea about this (or chose not to!) Yet, his reign is claimed to be a successful one for England...

History is ugly, my friend!

That's the best explanation I agree for the whole situation. And I definitely agree with you 100% that. back in those days a king listening to a slave girl would be more than impossible. They showed he even went to the cell to ask her again. I was impressed by that.

But my concern is due to two things
1st - they have a disclaimer that the story is changed according to the needs of present time. So they could've shown that.
2nd - Jalal's mom did talk to Jalal in prev case , she could've atleast talked to him on Jodha's request. I think CVs didn't care that they had actually shown that before. The dialogues with Jodha didn't make sense to me. It did show her as being partial.