META Pyromaniac Padmini v Roaring Radha!! - Page 9

Looks like I missed quite the discussion because of my stupid net issues. Sigh

I found the point that Padmini continues to perform all the rituals of a married woman simply because that's what she's been taught quite valid. How many times do we actually analyze our actions? We just do things because that's what 'everybody does' or 'has always been done'. I understand that and I'm guilty of that too. My question, however, was a tad bit different. If Padmini escaped from an abusive marriage and has been scarred for life, then why does she choose to remind herself of that horrible time? I would think that anyone finally escaping a nightmarish existence would either choose to obliterate it from their memories or take a very public stand against it and work to eradicate that situation altogether. I just don't understand the sort of equation Padmini has with her past...

I agree that Padmini sees Ballu in RK, which is why she refuses to allow Madhu to live with him. Not going to debate that point. I don't think she'll ever be happy with the relationship, seeing as it will never be 'normal' as she wants it to be. Madhu and RK will always have an unhealthily obsessive relaionship, if the show sticks to its premise. But I digress. I think the one thing Padmini learnt from her marriage is to retaliate when threatened, which is what she's teaching Madhu now. She's not a doormat, neither does she advocate taking abuse of any sort, but at the same time she believes that a stable marriage is the route to happiness. Female emancipation, independence are words that barely exist in her dictionary; sure, she'll survive if she has to, but she'd rather have a doting husband who'll allow her to lead a carefree life. And that's what she wants for her daughters.


Radha is shrouded with mystery at the moment. Like I said before, I don't want to form any sort of opinion about her without knowing her entire backstory, but I don't think she's actually sat Rishabh down and explained to him the reasons why she needed to marry again. The result is that he thinks that she's replaced his father with a man who is completely unworthy and resents her. I would like to look at Radha's relationship with Bhatia here - he's not a Ballu chaap ka psycho, is he? He's a drunkard, embarrassingly crass, not a big fan of fidelity and very nasty to her son(again, not directly), but he's never raised his voice or hand to her. All his taunting and emotional blackmail has been Rishabh related, as well. Before y'all jump down my throats thinking I'm supporting him, let me just say that I DO NOT condone such behaviour AT ALL. All I'm saying is that such behaviour (unfortunately) is fairly common in men of a certain age and time who believe what they do outside the house is no concern of the wife. And wives of such men generally turn a blind eye to their ahem, activities, so long as their lifestyle isn't affected. So again, I do understand why Radha stays with him, even though I think she's either majorly spineless or coldly calculating to do so.

p.s. Just wanted to say that I totally agree with Shridevi's point about Paddy being a success as a mother but has failed at being a wife(through no fault of her's, of course) That is probably why she wants her daughters to have what she sees as the one major lacuna in her life. Extending that argument, Radha is a failure as a mother, while her experience with marriage hasn't been traumatising, so her entire being is fixated on changing that, on making Rishabh a better person so that she feels validated...

Originally posted by: shonuu

Thanks TM for making a discussion topic, that too a brilliant one 👍🏼

If we talk about both the mothers, one thing is common and that they couldnt be with their first husband, For Paddy has to leave the jek of a hubby to save her daughter, we appreciate it , she gave a new life to her daughters,but what about her own life? she lived a life being committed to a man who, if given a choice will again try to kill her and her daughters, was it fair to her? for me its such a waste of a life, she should have married Shamsher long ago, that could complete her life well as her daughters would be saved from the torture of being questioned about the father's identity.

on the other hand we have Radha ji who gave her life another chance after the death of her husband, but apparently her decision looks wrong, why? she chose a wrong guy... we dont know what pushed her into marrying bhatia ji, may be the man himslef created problems for her and her son, to make her realize that a woman alone can never protect and bring up her children and that she needs a man, may be. we dont know, in case of RK the issue is not the second marriage, the issue is the wrong man in his mother's life, i am sure sicky and bhatia must have tortured the baby rishab to earn the sheer hatred from him,
so for me, both the mothers were always honest and dutiful towards their children but Paddy should have married shamsher and radha ji could have tried to get a better man than bhatia jee.

Interesting thought..

I dont agree that Pads life was a waste of life... She is happy with the life she had post-Ballu. She wasnt very great ambitious. She had a good life once away from her husband. She lived for her daughters and for her that was enough. If she wished she could have married Malik. She didnt for whatever reasons (we have all agreed to disagree on this).

Apart for whatever reason it was that she didnt marry Malik, there is one important fact we all are forgetting. Even if Pads had wished to marry Malik, she couldnt. For the simple reason that she was still married to Ballu. To marry Malik means she had to legally break her ties with Ballu. For that she would have to let Ballu know that she was still alive. Something she very wisely chose not to do. To live with Malik under such a situation would be immoral of her, given what she does about her marriage. In her view, her life was complete (my opinion). She doesnt need another man in her life for that reason alone.

As to Radhaji, I agree with you that we dont know enough about her to judge her actions. It is too early to question the reasons of her remarriage. Did she choose Kuku Bhatia knowing his true character or unknowingly? Only if the writers show something more can we judge her actions...

Originally posted by: anjana.d

you are quite right. but in my life, i had to compromsie with attitudes of people which went against my ideals. infact for sometime i had to SUPPRESS my ideals too :(

but they did nto die. they r still very much alive alas i dont express them too much for now.

im not sure how to assess your idea abotu ideas dying. when ssituation becoems throughly hopeless, ideals can die too. when your being is stripped down to basic survival, they govern your ideals. however those are extreme circumstances. under ordinary circustances i do agree with you that compromises should eb with situations and not ideals.

and in the light of ur definition i would like to say radha

s ideals are dead while padmini's are still alive.

humm what you are doing is not compromsie, it is a struggle. glad you are able to hold ur ground even in the saudi.

Originally posted by: applenpeaches

Interesting thought..

I dont agree that Pads life was a waste of life... She is happy with the life she had post-Ballu. She wasnt very great ambitious. She had a good life once away from her husband. She lived for her daughters and for her that was enough. If she wished she could have married Malik. She didnt for whatever reasons (we have all agreed to disagree on this).

Apart for whatever reason it was that she didnt marry Malik, there is one important fact we all are forgetting. Even if Pads had wished to marry Malik, she couldnt. For the simple reason that she was still married to Ballu. To marry Malik means she had to legally break her ties with Ballu. For that she would have to let Ballu know that she was still alive. Something she very wisely chose not to do. To live with Malik under such a situation would be immoral of her, given what she does about her marriage. In her view, her life was complete (my opinion). She doesnt need another man in her life for that reason alone.

As to Radhaji, I agree with you that we dont know enough about her to judge her actions. It is too early to question the reasons of her remarriage. Did she choose Kuku Bhatia knowing his true character or unknowingly? Only if the writers show something more can we judge her actions...

Originally posted by: bhoomi.s

Looks like I missed quite the discussion because of my stupid net issues. Sigh

I found the point that Padmini continues to perform all the rituals of a married woman simply because that's what she's been taught quite valid. How many times do we actually analyze our actions? We just do things because that's what 'everybody does' or 'has always been done'. I understand that and I'm guilty of that too. My question, however, was a tad bit different. If Padmini escaped from an abusive marriage and has been scarred for life, then why does she choose to remind herself of that horrible time? I would think that anyone finally escaping a nightmarish existence would either choose to obliterate it from their memories or take a very public stand against it and work to eradicate that situation altogether. I just don't understand the sort of equation Padmini has with her past...

I agree that Padmini sees Ballu in RK, which is why she refuses to allow Madhu to live with him. Not going to debate that point. I don't think she'll ever be happy with the relationship, seeing as it will never be 'normal' as she wants it to be. Madhu and RK will always have an unhealthily obsessive relaionship, if the show sticks to its premise. But I digress. I think the one thing Padmini learnt from her marriage is to retaliate when threatened, which is what she's teaching Madhu now. She's not a doormat, neither does she advocate taking abuse of any sort, but at the same time she believes that a stable marriage is the route to happiness. Female emancipation, independence are words that barely exist in her dictionary; sure, she'll survive if she has to, but she'd rather have a doting husband who'll allow her to lead a carefree life. And that's what she wants for her daughters.


Radha is shrouded with mystery at the moment. Like I said before, I don't want to form any sort of opinion about her without knowing her entire backstory, but I don't think she's actually sat Rishabh down and explained to him the reasons why she needed to marry again. The result is that he thinks that she's replaced his father with a man who is completely unworthy and resents her. I would like to look at Radha's relationship with Bhatia here - he's not a Ballu chaap ka psycho, is he? He's a drunkard, embarrassingly crass, not a big fan of fidelity and very nasty to her son(again, not directly), but he's never raised his voice or hand to her. All his taunting and emotional blackmail has been Rishabh related, as well. Before y'all jump down my throats thinking I'm supporting him, let me just say that I DO NOT condone such behaviour AT ALL. All I'm saying is that such behaviour (unfortunately) is fairly common in men of a certain age and time who believe what they do outside the house is no concern of the wife. And wives of such men generally turn a blind eye to their ahem, activities, so long as their lifestyle isn't affected. So again, I do understand why Radha stays with him, even though I think she's either majorly spineless or coldly calculating to do so.

p.s. Just wanted to say that I totally agree with Shridevi's point about Paddy being a success as a mother but has failed at being a wife(through no fault of her's, of course) That is probably why she wants her daughters to have what she sees as the one major lacuna in her life. Extending that argument, Radha is a failure as a mother, while her experience with marriage hasn't been traumatising, so her entire being is fixated on changing that, on making Rishabh a better person so that she feels validated...

Originally posted by: applenpeaches

Apart for whatever reason it was that she didnt marry Malik, there is one important fact we all are forgetting. Even if Pads had wished to marry Malik, she couldnt. For the simple reason that she was still married to Ballu. To marry Malik means she had to legally break her ties with Ballu. For that she would have to let Ballu know that she was still alive. Something she very wisely chose not to do. To live with Malik under such a situation would be immoral of her, given what she does about her marriage. In her view, her life was complete (my opinion). She doesnt need another man in her life for that reason alone.

It would have been illegal for her to marry Malik, not immoral. There's a difference, isn't there? But I do agree with you that her life wasn't wasted. If she didn't feel the need to marry Malik, then so be it. No reason why she should've done that if she didn't want to. I do think she was a bit unwise in allowing Malik to give his name to the girls though; she just set them up for uncomfortable situations in the future. When your children bear the name of a man and you live with him, obviously people are going to assume you are married to/in a relationship with the man. Someone as worried about societal acceptance as Padmini is should've thought things through... I don't know if I'm making any sense here

Originally posted by: bhoomi.s

Looks like I missed quite the discussion because of my stupid net issues. Sigh

I found the point that Padmini continues to perform all the rituals of a married woman simply because that's what she's been taught quite valid. How many times do we actually analyze our actions? We just do things because that's what 'everybody does' or 'has always been done'. I understand that and I'm guilty of that too. My question, however, was a tad bit different. If Padmini escaped from an abusive marriage and has been scarred for life, then why does she choose to remind herself of that horrible time? I would think that anyone finally escaping a nightmarish existence would either choose to obliterate it from their memories or take a very public stand against it and work to eradicate that situation altogether. I just don't understand the sort of equation Padmini has with her past...

I agree that Padmini sees Ballu in RK, which is why she refuses to allow Madhu to live with him. Not going to debate that point. I don't think she'll ever be happy with the relationship, seeing as it will never be 'normal' as she wants it to be. Madhu and RK will always have an unhealthily obsessive relaionship, if the show sticks to its premise. But I digress. I think the one thing Padmini learnt from her marriage is to retaliate when threatened, which is what she's teaching Madhu now. She's not a doormat, neither does she advocate taking abuse of any sort, but at the same time she believes that a stable marriage is the route to happiness. Female emancipation, independence are words that barely exist in her dictionary; sure, she'll survive if she has to, but she'd rather have a doting husband who'll allow her to lead a carefree life. And that's what she wants for her daughters.


Radha is shrouded with mystery at the moment. Like I said before, I don't want to form any sort of opinion about her without knowing her entire backstory, but I don't think she's actually sat Rishabh down and explained to him the reasons why she needed to marry again. The result is that he thinks that she's replaced his father with a man who is completely unworthy and resents her. I would like to look at Radha's relationship with Bhatia here - he's not a Ballu chaap ka psycho, is he? He's a drunkard, embarrassingly crass, not a big fan of fidelity and very nasty to her son(again, not directly), but he's never raised his voice or hand to her. All his taunting and emotional blackmail has been Rishabh related, as well. Before y'all jump down my throats thinking I'm supporting him, let me just say that I DO NOT condone such behaviour AT ALL. All I'm saying is that such behaviour (unfortunately) is fairly common in men of a certain age and time who believe what they do outside the house is no concern of the wife. And wives of such men generally turn a blind eye to their ahem, activities, so long as their lifestyle isn't affected. So again, I do understand why Radha stays with him, even though I think she's either majorly spineless or coldly calculating to do so.

Agree with your opinion on Radhaji.. Too early to judge her..

@bold

Completely agree with you. You have put it what exactly I have been wanting to say so very clearly. For that 👏.

@red

A very interesting point and a valid one. I can think of two possible reasons.

1. The fact that she neednt mark herself as a married woman doesnt even cross her mind. I will bore you all once more and say she doesnt believe in the concept of divorce or may be she still believes herself to be married to Ballu (possible given her beliefs).

2. Wild probability: Like you said her nishaani's from marriage reminds her of her sad past life. She had to struggle a lot in her post-Ballu life as well. Perhaps those things reminded her that inspite of everything that happened in her old life, she has survived. If she has survived Ballu she can survive the unknown future too. Being reminded of her old sufferings, she gains some odd sort of courage and confidence to lead a better life for herself and her daughters. In her moments of desperation, it reminds her that she survived a bad marriage, a mad man; that she can survive anything else that life throws at her.

Originally posted by: Foucaults-qalam

Re jumping down throats. Do you really think this is a thread where anyone jumps down anyone's throat for presenting counter arguments? I don't think so, and thank god for that.

Once bitten, twice shy. I've had some weird experiences before. Have decided I'd better put disclaimers while making controversial (however slightly) points. I didn't mean to comment on the levels of acceptance on this thread 😃 😃

Originally posted by: bhoomi.s

It would have been illegal for her to marry Malik, not immoral. There's a difference, isn't there? But I do agree with you that her life wasn't wasted. If she didn't feel the need to marry Malik, then so be it. No reason why she should've done that if she didn't want to. I do think she was a bit unwise in allowing Malik to give his name to the girls though; she just set them up for uncomfortable situations in the future. When your children bear the name of a man and you live with hi, obviously people are going to assume you are married to/in a relationship with the man. Someone as worried about societal acceptance as Padmini is should've thought things through... I don't know if I'm making any sense here

Immoral: I was talking from her view point. Perhaps I should have said illegal. 😊

@bold

It did create unfortunate situations in her daughter life. For obvious reasons she couldnt name Madhu after Ballu. But by giving Madhu Malik's name, she ensured that Madhu's childhood was free of taunts. Had the unfortunate situation happened in Madhu's childhood days it would have created a lasting impression on her. Since it happened later in Madhu's life, once Madhu could understand her mother and her situation and love Malik, she was better able to cope with the situation emotionally and mentally.

Originally posted by: applenpeaches

Agree with your opinion on Radhaji.. Too early to judge her..

@bold

Completely agree with you. You have put it what exactly I have been wanting to say so very clearly. For that 👏.

@red

A very interesting point and a valid one. I can think of two possible reasons.

1. The fact that she neednt mark herself as a married woman doesnt even cross her mind. I will bore you all once more and say she doesnt believe in the concept of divorce or may be she still believes herself to be married to Ballu (possible given her beliefs).

2. Wild probability: Like you said her nishaani's from marriage reminds her of her sad past life. She had to struggle a lot in her post-Ballu life as well. Perhaps those things reminded her that inspite of everything that happened in her old life, she has survived. If she has survived Ballu she can survive the unknown future too. Being reminded of her old sufferings, she gains some odd sort of courage and confidence to lead a better life for herself and her daughters. In her moments of desperation, it reminds her that she survived a bad marriage, a mad man; that she can survive anything else that life throws at her.

Thanks! 😃

If she really is thinking on the lines of point 2, my respect for her just went up a notch. I hope, from the bottom of my heart, that that's it... Unfortunately, I have the bad feeling it might be on the lines of point 1. Allow me to say that Indian attitudes to marriage are THE WORST in the world!! Ugh.