Kool's commentary on March 3 PR - Page 4

But to say that she is a wrong woman and Shravani is the right woman...I don't think so ....

Not in my books .

Archana has faults , not asking for her rights as baba very rightfully pointed outto her ... I have always said that her guilt for wronging Manav is just destrying her also this love she has for him and I will always hope that she comes out of this ..

So Ok I accept that she is also wrong in her ways , but to say that Shravani is the right way to go.................

No way ........I don't believe in messing up other peple's lives and Kool neither do you, good decent people don't do that yaar .

Call Archana a weak person and frustratingly sacrificing but the other person Shravani ...she is no way a woman to be held as an example as well ...

OFhte two evils , if I were to pick the lesser evil than I would definitely pick Archana .....

First of all , Im NOT saying go the Shravni way .She did some mistakes and she is trying to live her life on her terms .

But if u ask me which is the lesser evil it is Shravni .Coz Archna will increase multiple evil by tolerating it .Evil will sprout around her like weeds . Ajit , Savita , Manu , Rasika , many more , coz she cannot check it .

With Shravni evil will remain contained .it wont grow at least .It will get curbed .See how she controlled Savita !

On a serious note ....one who lets evil flourish is greater criminal . Evil spreads only if it is unchecked , like a virulent disease .

@ All:

Please read the following in light of my constant reminders that these are all fictional characters and arguing over their morals seems to be a liitle moot, given the roles they play in extending a popular and profitable serial. Since many of you are in this discursive fray however, I'll step back from my usual reserve about saying who's right and who's wrong. Only for today:

Frankly I don't think a woman should be defined as gutsy purely because she wants to carry an illegitimate pregnancy to full term. Why is protecting an unborn child such a big deal? Especially in Indian circumstances, where it causes distress to so many others whose lives are closely involved with that of the unwed mother. I don't have a narrow view of sexual morals; if people want to have sex before marriage they should be entirely free to do so. Such an act in my books is not immoral; in a conservative society like India it's simply unwise and impractical. Morality is not about abstention per se; in this case it's about dealing in the least hurtful way possible with the consequences of one's actions. Unless a woman has both the resources and the nerve to do so entirely on her own steam, keeping an illegitimate baby means hurting other people, whether Girish, had Shravani decided to do it single, or, as is happening now, Manav, the man who agrees to take on the problem of someone else's lack of circumspection. In calling a woman "gutsy" for showing stubborness of this sort we're in danger of falling into the same kind of ideological trap that so many of us on this forum have already critiqued: the tendency to valorize motherhood above all other states.

If Shravani's point was to keep some part of Sachin with her, that point seems to have fallen by the wayside somewhere, given this new attraction towards Manav. Nobody can say Manav is a "substitute" for Sachin (as sometimes brothers very like each other can be) because they were very different personalities, and it was Sachin's wayward and jocular habits that Shravani fell for.

If Shravani has tried to look reasonable about "permitting" Manav to do certain things it's not because she's basically good or unselfish or considerate, but because so far she has been smarter than Savita and understood from everything she's seen and heard that Manav can only be pushed so far, and that they shouldn't get him to the edge where he'll turn around and tell them all to back off and then grab the woman he really wants and walk. At this point it appears, though, that her good sense even in this regard is deserting her; as most people can now see, the man has started getting restive under this severe dual monitoring, and Archana's non-abrasive generosity is becoming more and more appealing after every skirmish.

And yes, I agree that Archana needn't have chatted up the chawl women in defense of either Manav or Shravani. Characters - even in popular serials! - should be able to make some claim to credibility.

C

On a serious note ....one who lets evil flourish is greater criminal . Evil spreads only if it is unchecked , like a virulent disease

Kool,when she curbed Savita she created a more evil version of savita i.e. herself.

Shravani controlled savita alright but not her evil intentions or actions...its too early to say tht.

If Archu lets evil flourish,Shravani is evil personified.

Evil will only flourish when there r evil persons like shravani,rasika etc.

Evil will only flourish when it exists...why choose who helps in flourishin why not the one whose mere existence is the root cause.

As Tanya says...difference of opinion

All your posts are like an English lesson to me .. I learn new words , I swear I do ..

And even though I liked the way archan spoke in such a civil way to the chawl women , I have been convinced after reading many posts that perhaps she didn't have to be this supportive of manav's wrong actions .....She is going right to the other end of the world for this man , maybe go a little easy on defending Manav , though I don't think she will ever stop ...🤢

I love your posts. You should step back from your reserve more often.

Ur posts do enhance my word power😊