Churning of the Ocean; note on pg 15 - Page 7

Originally posted by: sashashyam

Sensitive and anguished, my dear Sandhya, and I am glad I stumbled on this. But is there no rational thinking or logic left either in Jodha or in Jalal?

Now both of them share the bitterness of their love being the cause of Hussein's death.

How, pray? If Jodha had been on her toes around Hussein, he would have survived for a day or so longer, till he was returned to Ruqaiya, which would in effect mean to Zeenat. Then he would have been poisoned at the first convenient moment. So long as Zeenat was not unmasked, Hussein's fate was in any case sealed. So, the Jodha-Jalal night, or part thereof, together only advanced the timing a bit.

Why does Jalal not grasp this, and why does Jodha not verbalise this?

All this highfalutin' stuff that you and Divya and Adiana and Khushi have been writing, which is basically to console yourself that all is not lost, begs this fundamental fact. I vastly prefer the extract from the Akbar Nama that Divya quotes so often, the one about Jalal-Jodha's sober and mature reaction to the death of twins.

I found this whole track horribly OTT and crude,the only saving grace being the tender and deeply affectionate Jalal-Jodha scenes when he is consoling her after Hasan's death. Both the actors were pitch perfect there. Now this crass Jallad 2.0 is so artificial and forced, having been cooked up for the sole purpose of "explaining" the Chittor massacre.

As for the tilak/aarti scene, I never knew that Rajvanshi women performed this ceremony only when they had decided that the war their husbands were embarking on were morally justified dharmayuddhs!😉 Why, I had been under the mistaken impression that it was an unshakeable tradition meant to protect the warrior's life and gain him victory!!

And in the end she never applied the tilak to his forehead at all, only to the sword, and that sulkily and half-heartedly. If I had been Jalal, I would have been concerned about the efficacy of any such tilak, except of course that he wants to force her to do it to prove his point.

As for Jodha's sharp jibe about Rajvanshi blood, she has clearly forgotten all about the Raja of Panna, who was clobbered by Mansingh and Mirza Hakim for the same crime, of sheltering rebels against the Mughal rule. And does her repeated stress on the Rajvanshi angle mean that it would have been all right if the other side had been Afghans? And did Rajvanshi kings never attack one another for this very reason?

Jodha's objection that thousands of innocents would die was very strange. What did she think happened in wars waged by Rajvanshis among each other? Did she think they decided the outcome thru a dandiya match?

All in all, the only thing I liked about that scene was Jalal's face at the end, a throwback to the good old days.

But by all means carry on with this esoteric soul talk, saagarmanthan (it was Divya's determinedly positive title that brought me here in the first place) and complicated rationalisations. I for one was plain bored by Ekta's latest excess, clearly tailored for ulterior purposes.

After all, Jalal, after Hasan died, was deeply grieved but rational still. And in his heart of hearts he must have feared that Hussein too would die. Why then all this unconvincing melodrama? The kind of intensely protective love towards Jodha that he displayed after Hasan died - how was it transformed into this mixture of self-hatred, passing the buck, and such over loud nastikvaad?

Then again, losing faith in God does not automatically mean that Jalal has to deprive the executioner of his daily bread and cut throats himself, and then pummel the faces of his jungi riyaaz opponents to a bloody pulp. It was stupid and fake and very crude.

It is a clumsy yo yo exercise, and it is going to take all your skills to REALLY explain it. To yourselves, that is, not to me.

Shyamala Aunty

Originally posted by: sashashyam

Sensitive and anguished, my dear Sandhya, and I am glad I stumbled on this. But is there no rational thinking or logic left either in Jodha or in Jalal?

Now both of them share the bitterness of their love being the cause of Hussein's death.

How, pray? If Jodha had been on her toes around Hussein, he would have survived for a day or so longer, till he was returned to Ruqaiya, which would in effect mean to Zeenat. Then he would have been poisoned at the first convenient moment. So long as Zeenat was not unmasked, Hussein's fate was in any case sealed. So, the Jodha-Jalal night, or part thereof, together only advanced the timing a bit.

Why does Jalal not grasp this, and why does Jodha not verbalise this?

All this highfalutin' stuff that you and Divya and Adiana and Khushi have been writing, which is basically to console yourself that all is not lost, begs this fundamental fact. I vastly prefer the extract from the Akbar Nama that Divya quotes so often, the one about Jalal-Jodha's sober and mature reaction to the death of the twins.

I found this whole track horribly OTT and crude,the only saving grace being the tender and deeply affectionate Jalal-Jodha scenes when he is consoling her after Hasan's death. Both the actors were pitch perfect there. Now this crass Jallad 2.0 is so artificial and forced, having been cooked up for the sole purpose of "explaining" the Chittor massacre.

As for the tilak/aarti scene, I never knew that Rajvanshi women performed this ceremony only when they had decided that the war their husbands were embarking on were morally justified dharmayuddhs!😉 Why, I had been under the mistaken impression that it was an unshakeable tradition meant to protect the warrior's life and gain him victory!!

And in the end she never applied the tilak to his forehead at all, only to the sword, and that sulkily and half-heartedly. If I had been Jalal, I would have been concerned about the efficacy of any such tilak, except of course that he wants to force her to do it to prove his point.

As for Jodha's sharp jibe about Rajvanshi blood, she has clearly forgotten all about the Raja of Panna, who was clobbered by Mansingh and Mirza Hakim for the same crime, of sheltering rebels against the Mughal rule. And does her repeated stress on the Rajvanshi angle mean that it would have been all right if the other side had been Afghans? And did Rajvanshi kings never attack one another for this very reason?

Jodha's objection that thousands of innocents would die was very strange. What did she think happened in wars waged by Rajvanshis among each other? Did she think they decided the outcome thru a dandiya match?

All in all, the only thing I liked about that scene was Jalal's face at the end, a throwback to the good old days.

But by all means carry on with this esoteric soul talk, saagarmanthan (it was Divya's determinedly positive title that brought me here in the first place) and complicated rationalisations. I for one was plain bored by Ekta's latest excess, clearly tailored for ulterior purposes.

After all, Jalal, after Hasan died, was deeply grieved but rational still. And in his heart of hearts he must have feared that Hussein too would die. Why then all this unconvincing melodrama all of a sudden? The kind of intensely protective love towards Jodha that he displayed after Hasan died - how was it transformed into this mixture of self-hatred, passing the buck, and such over loud nastikvaad? 'Your faith in God, and your love for the mother of the dead child, can survive one child's passing and that too unchanged, but it collapses into a puddle of acrid, venomous despair after the second one dies? It is too much to digest.

Then again, losing faith in God does not automatically mean that Jalal has to deprive the executioner of his daily bread and cut throats himself, and then pummel the faces of his jungi riyaaz opponents to a bloody pulp. It was stupid and fake and very crude.

It is a clumsy yo yo exercise, and it is going to take all your skills to REALLY explain it. To yourselves, that is, not to me.

Shyamala Aunty

Originally posted by: sashashyam

As for the tilak/aarti scene, I never knew that Rajvanshi women performed this ceremony only when they had decided that the war their husbands were embarking on were morally justified dharmayuddhs!😉 Why, I had been under the mistaken impression that it was an unshakeable tradition meant to protect the warrior's life and gain him victory!!

I found her speech strange too. Wasn't Empire Expansion a part of the king's duties. Sometimes Jodha's words make you feel she was raised in an Ashram rather than a royal household. Then what about all those nirdosh in the human cone Sujamal made and those Khaibar killed?



As for Jodha's sharp jibe about Rajvanshi blood, she has clearly forgotten all about the Raja of Panna, who was clobbered by Mansingh and Mirza Hakim for the same crime, of sheltering rebels against the Mughal rule. And does her repeated stress on the Rajvanshi angle mean that it would have been all right if the other side had been Afghans? And did Rajvanshi kings never attack one another for this very reason?

The CVs have no guts to show Akbar as a very clever strategist. Either he wins due to Jodhaism or Jalladism. Akbar HAD to be shown wrong at Chittor. Since he is the hero (!) of the show the cvs have tried to give a reason for his wrong.

Jodha's objection that thousands of innocents would die was very strange. What did she think happened in wars waged by Rajvanshis among each other? Did she think they decided the outcome thru a dandiya match?

🤣

All in all, the only thing I liked about that scene was Jalal's face at the end, a throwback to the good old days.

😳



The kind of intensely protective love towards Jodha that he displayed after Hasan died - how was it transformed into this mixture of self-hatred, passing the buck, and such over loud nastikvaad? 'Your faith in God, and your love for the mother of the dead child, can survive one child's passing and that too unchanged, but it collapses into a puddle of acrid, venomous despair after the second one dies? It is too much to digest.

There was another to keep up hopes when Hassan died. No foulplay known and no guilt for being ineffective in protecting the children. Hence the venomous despair now.

Then again, losing faith in God does not automatically mean that Jalal has to deprive the executioner of his daily bread and cut throats himself, and then pummel the faces of his jungi riyaaz opponents to a bloody pulp. It was stupid and fake and very crude.

🤣. This is what i miss so much without your posts aunty.

Originally posted by: Sandhya.A

Aunty

Rationally thinking, you are right.

But self-guilt for a loss of something precious that was preventable at that point is corrosive as well.

A school friend of mine, quite an assured bubbly and a strong willed girl, lost her parents in an accident when they were off to book tickets for a movie she insisted and so stubbornly wanted to see. (No e booking then). It was quite possible that the accident occurred at any other time, may be when they went elsewhere or to shopping. Had that been the cause then she might have overcome the grief earlier. But the guilt of being the reason still stays with her. She never sees movies. She never insists for anything. Almost her personality has changed entirely.

A scarred mind can understand no logic aunty.😕 But yes. This is nr at its best so that cvs can accommodate Chittor and keep Jodha clean in the affair.

Originally posted by: sashashyam

Sensitive and anguished, my dear Sandhya, and I am glad I stumbled on this. But is there no rational thinking or logic left either in Jodha or in Jalal?

Now both of them share the bitterness of their love being the cause of Hussein's death.

How, pray? If Jodha had been on her toes around Hussein, he would have survived for a day or so longer, till he was returned to Ruqaiya, which would in effect mean to Zeenat. Then he would have been poisoned at the first convenient moment. So long as Zeenat was not unmasked, Hussein's fate was in any case sealed. So, the Jodha-Jalal night, or part thereof, together only advanced the timing a bit.

Why does Jalal not grasp this, and why does Jodha not verbalise this?

All this highfalutin' stuff that you and Divya and Adiana and Khushi have been writing, which is basically to console yourself that all is not lost, begs this fundamental fact. I vastly prefer the extract from the Akbar Nama that Divya quotes so often, the one about Jalal-Jodha's sober and mature reaction to the death of twins.

I found this whole track horribly OTT and crude,the only saving grace being the tender and deeply affectionate Jalal-Jodha scenes when he is consoling her after Hasan's death. Both the actors were pitch perfect there. Now this crass Jallad 2.0 is so artificial and forced, having been cooked up for the sole purpose of "explaining" the Chittor massacre.

As for the tilak/aarti scene, I never knew that Rajvanshi women performed this ceremony only when they had decided that the war their husbands were embarking on were morally justified dharmayuddhs!😉 Why, I had been under the mistaken impression that it was an unshakeable tradition meant to protect the warrior's life and gain him victory!!

And in the end she never applied the tilak to his forehead at all, only to the sword, and that sulkily and half-heartedly. If I had been Jalal, I would have been concerned about the efficacy of any such tilak, except of course that he wants to force her to do it to prove his point.

As for Jodha's sharp jibe about Rajvanshi blood, she has clearly forgotten all about the Raja of Panna, who was clobbered by Mansingh and Mirza Hakim for the same crime, of sheltering rebels against the Mughal rule. And does her repeated stress on the Rajvanshi angle mean that it would have been all right if the other side had been Afghans? And did Rajvanshi kings never attack one another for this very reason?

Jodha's objection that thousands of innocents would die was very strange. What did she think happened in wars waged by Rajvanshis among each other? Did she think they decided the outcome thru a dandiya match?

All in all, the only thing I liked about that scene was Jalal's face at the end, a throwback to the good old days.

But by all means carry on with this esoteric soul talk, saagarmanthan (it was Divya's determinedly positive title that brought me here in the first place) and complicated rationalisations. I for one was plain bored by Ekta's latest excess, clearly tailored for ulterior purposes.

After all, Jalal, after Hasan died, was deeply grieved but rational still. And in his heart of hearts he must have feared that Hussein too would die. Why then all this unconvincing melodrama? The kind of intensely protective love towards Jodha that he displayed after Hasan died - how was it transformed into this mixture of self-hatred, passing the buck, and such over loud nastikvaad?

Then again, losing faith in God does not automatically mean that Jalal has to deprive the executioner of his daily bread and cut throats himself, and then pummel the faces of his jungi riyaaz opponents to a bloody pulp. It was stupid and fake and very crude.

It is a clumsy yo yo exercise, and it is going to take all your skills to REALLY explain it. To yourselves, that is, not to me.

Shyamala Aunty

[/QUOTE

Edited by sashashyam - 10 years ago

Originally posted by: sashashyam

Sensitive and anguished, my dear Sandhya, and I am glad I stumbled on this. But is there no rational thinking or logic left either in Jodha or in Jalal?

Now both of them share the bitterness of their love being the cause of Hussein's death.

How, pray? If Jodha had been on her toes around Hussein, he would have survived for a day or so longer, till he was returned to Ruqaiya, which would in effect mean to Zeenat. Then he would have been poisoned at the first convenient moment. So long as Zeenat was not unmasked, Hussein's fate was in any case sealed. So, the Jodha-Jalal night, or part thereof, together only advanced the timing a bit.

Why does Jalal not grasp this, and why does Jodha not verbalise this?

All this highfalutin' stuff that you and Divya and Adiana and Khushi have been writing, which is basically to console yourself that all is not lost, begs this fundamental fact. I vastly prefer the extract from the Akbar Nama that Divya quotes so often, the one about Jalal-Jodha's sober and mature reaction to the death of the twins.

I found this whole track horribly OTT and crude,the only saving grace being the tender and deeply affectionate Jalal-Jodha scenes when he is consoling her after Hasan's death. Both the actors were pitch perfect there. Now this crass Jallad 2.0 is so artificial and forced, having been cooked up for the sole purpose of "explaining" the Chittor massacre.

As for the tilak/aarti scene, I never knew that Rajvanshi women performed this ceremony only when they had decided that the war their husbands were embarking on were morally justified dharmayuddhs!😉 Why, I had been under the mistaken impression that it was an unshakeable tradition meant to protect the warrior's life and gain him victory!!

And in the end she never applied the tilak to his forehead at all, only to the sword, and that sulkily and half-heartedly. If I had been Jalal, I would have been concerned about the efficacy of any such tilak, except of course that he wants to force her to do it to prove his point.

As for Jodha's sharp jibe about Rajvanshi blood, she has clearly forgotten all about the Raja of Panna, who was clobbered by Mansingh and Mirza Hakim for the same crime, of sheltering rebels against the Mughal rule. And does her repeated stress on the Rajvanshi angle mean that it would have been all right if the other side had been Afghans? And did Rajvanshi kings never attack one another for this very reason?

Jodha's objection that thousands of innocents would die was very strange. What did she think happened in wars waged by Rajvanshis among each other? Did she think they decided the outcome thru a dandiya match?

All in all, the only thing I liked about that scene was Jalal's face at the end, a throwback to the good old days.

But by all means carry on with this esoteric soul talk, saagarmanthan (it was Divya's determinedly positive title that brought me here in the first place) and complicated rationalisations. I for one was plain bored by Ekta's latest excess, clearly tailored for ulterior purposes.

After all, Jalal, after Hasan died, was deeply grieved but rational still. And in his heart of hearts he must have feared that Hussein too would die. Why then all this unconvincing melodrama all of a sudden? The kind of intensely protective love towards Jodha that he displayed after Hasan died - how was it transformed into this mixture of self-hatred, passing the buck, and such over loud nastikvaad? 'Your faith in God, and your love for the mother of the dead child, can survive one child's passing and that too unchanged, but it collapses into a puddle of acrid, venomous despair after the second one dies? It is too much to digest.

Then again, losing faith in God does not automatically mean that Jalal has to deprive the executioner of his daily bread and cut throats himself, and then pummel the faces of his jungi riyaaz opponents to a bloody pulp. It was stupid and fake and very crude.

It is a clumsy yo yo exercise, and it is going to take all your skills to REALLY explain it. To yourselves, that is, not to me.

Shyamala Aunty

Originally posted by: sashashyam

I understand, Sandhya, but Hasan too died when he was in Jodha's sole charge, as she understood it. Why then was there no such corrosive, self-destructive and alienated grief on the part of Jalal? Why only now for No.2, who would have clearly died in any case ? And why no equally illogical rage against Ruqaiya for having brought Zeenat in to care for Hussein?

At the time of Hassan's death there was no reason for guilt out of avoidable neglect. There was no foulplay that as a king and as a father he should have prevented and he didn't. It was thought of as a disaster due to illness. But now he is bitter about both. The time he should have spent in stepping up the security of Hussein he spent in wiping the tears of his beloved. The time he should have packed her to Hussein he spent with her. Hence the self destructive grief.

As for Ruqaiya not raged at, she only hired Zeenat who was already in the palace as his bhabhijaan welcomed by him with open arms in his usual style of 'forgive all sinners. '

Incidentally, it was bizarre that when the fire broke out, Hamida and Gulbadan did not grab a baby each and take them off to safety, which would have been the only instinctive reaction in such a case. Remember what Holmes says in A Scandal in Bohemia? But they did no such thing and left the babies in their cradles, which is how Zeenat in her baandi dress got at Hasan.

I was amazed at their callousness. In moments of unexpected danger you do grab what is most precious to you. And hb is queen mother. Didn't have a percent of sense as irene adler.

And why should Jodha have been blamed for Chittor even if she had not staged all this dramabaazi? She did not know what was going to happen, neither did Jalal. It was a routine war of conquest, one of many in which Akbar participated personally. Why all these pseudo objections from a Rajvanshi queen, because her kinsmen were going to be killed? I was interested in a piece that Adiana had shared with us some time back which touched, inter alia, on the traditional enmity between Mewar and Amer, which supposedly coloured the real Jodha's reaction to Chittor. Which was of course horrible, but hardly uncommon in those days, and in fact right down to the present in nasty miniwars.

As it is an oft repeated declaration that mp was the hero of Chittor and Akbar was the villain. The cvs are sticking to it. As for jodha given her portrayal of the most short sighted prefectionist she cannot be shown as not having objected to the war or supported Akbar the way the real HK would have.

Finally, I do not know if you know this, but Gandhiji's ailing father passed away when Gandhiji was in exactly the same situation with his wife Kasturba as Jalal-Jodha when Hussein died. The result was that Gandhji decision to adopt brahmacharya, and I am sure he never thought of consulting Kasturba in the matter. It is often very tough to be married to a saint!

I have read it. (i think in my experiments with truth) and so i was not surprised at Jalal's guilt and reactuon.

To diverge a bit, I saw some comments that by her unfortunate choice of Zeenat to be Hussein's daayi, Ruqaiya had in effect killed both the kids. I found this blindingly illogical. If Shehnaaz had killed Rahim when she in effect made him fall off the parapet, would that mean that Jodha, by bringing Shehnaaz to Agra, had killed him?

Then there seem to be even more bizarre speculations that Ruqaiya had at some point exchanged Hussein, who was sick, for the healthy Hasan, which rendered me in effect speechless, especially as Ruqaiya's "cruelty" in summarily executing Zeenat was seen as a way to silence her and prevent her from revealing these alleged dark secrets. What did they expect Ruqaiya to do? She simply repeated what she had done in the case of Benazir. Summary justice. How does it matter that Jalal was not a party to it? He would have done exactly the same himself.

Aunty, the forum wanted Ruqaiya to be kicked out of Jalal's life somehow or the other. Hence all the theories of what her crime could have been. It was even prophecied that she poisoned hassan and hussein died due to zeenat's poison at jashn. Had she done that she would have been buried in a wall in Agra and not in Kabul 60 yrs later.😆

All in all, seeing the way the serial is going, and the forum as well, I daily thank my stars that I am out of all this mess. This post was the exception that proves the rule!

Shyamala Aunty

Edited by Sandhya.A - 10 years ago