Decency and its cost - Page 2

But should it be considered as weird. It is alarming to see number of people who actually make mockery of Archana's goodness so much so that it looks like an undesirable quality in today's world and not just weird. No one can emulate or relate to Archana and hence her actions are ridiculed, her good deeds are questioned but Varsha's actions are applauded, as everyone can relate to her even though there is nothing exceptionally good about her. So it looks like people are comfortable with the average goodness that they come across but extreme goodness does not go well with people.

Goodness can be seen in simple people, who have no sly bone, no notion of self preservation and they simply continue to be good because it keeps them happy and life uncomplicated. And Archana clearly believes that one must be good because it is good to be good.

Good point. Well if doing good deed gives you happiness then by all means you should do good deed but what is being shown in PR is that Archana's good deed is causing lots of misery to Archana herself but both Archana and Manav are giving up their happiness for some higher cause and for other person's happiness. It was a battle between their conscience and their happiness in which both chose their conscience.

Apart from such few people, many people also are sometime good, what I call as "situational goodness". example: Manju was good for a brief period when Manav made her believe that she is Sharif. Savita became good to Sharavni, once the PB was born. Savita became good to Archana when she benefitted from Archana' s goodness.

Goodness is a trait of one's personality, something that cannot change with one incident or temporarily.
People cannot change their personality in real life i.e. a person with evil disposition cannot transform into a good person. Their attitude or feeling for a person may change due to some incident but their nature will not change.

But my question is Should good people continue to be good irrespective of its cost. Taken out of much context, they can be seen as one with no backbone, a subservient person and frequently be taken advantage of.

It's not like a control switch that can be turned on and off. Like you said, it's an innate quality and hence good people will continue to be good because that's their nature.

May be such people are needed in this world just to balance out all the evilness. there may be a personal cost to them as result of goodness, but the good acts and good thinking helps balance the scale on a macro level.

They are very much needed. People who bring smile and happiness to other people are always needed.

This kind of extreme goodness is foolish and unrealistic . The writers of PR want to show it as a story of two loosers so they seem very proud of the fact that they are showing this kind of crap .

Kool, you are right , Archana made a wrong decision by giving up Manav for Shravani . Now no one is happy .

I love Archana and like Manav , but they are both loosers .

Tanya , I won't even go into the Archu is wrong or Shravni is wrong thing today . I am talking from general , larger perspective in this thread . And I ask you ..........who destroyed a sacred institution like marraige which adds to the solidificatiion of society ? The answer is Archna and Manav . Not Shravani . So Simple.

I don't know if you have read the Mahabharatha , it is a great Hindu Epic and in it we have the character of Bheeshma who was a very great warrior . He was ideal to be king as he had goodness and strength both in him . But his father.............King Shantanu wanted to marry a common fisherwoman simply bcoz he had the hots for her . Now this fisherwoman's father was an astute man . Seeing how crazy the aged King was for his daughter he decided to get the best deal out there for his daughter . When Bheeshma went to him with the marraige proposal on behalf of his father [ see what a dutiful Manav he was] the fisherman said ..........But you have been crowned as crown prince . Your father is aged , he will die and my young daughter will be widow . You will become King and what position will MY daughter and her children have ?NOthing ! Only if My daughter's heirs get a part in this Kingship , I am interested in accepting this proposal . Bheeshma gave a promise ..........I will not become King , I wont accept the crown . The astute fisherman glibly said .........Oh , I know YOU will keep your promise . YOU are good , honourable. But what about your children ? Will they be like you ?You cannot guarantee that ! Tomorrow what if they start fighting with MY daughter's children saying Our Father gave up the throne , but WE did not make that promise ? Then what ? Then Bheeshma took an oath ....................it is called today in history as THE BHEESHMA PRATIGYA . He promised ..........I WON"T MARRY AND SHALL ETERNALLY REMAIN A BACHELOR . WHATS MORE I WILL PROTECT THE THRONE WITH FULL DEDICATION BUT NEVER CLAIM KINGSHIP . . Well as it happens This Fisherwoman's great grandchildren ultimately fought the bloodiest war out there called the Mahabharatha war and it destroyed the system of society in an irrepairable way . Bheeshma only watched it helplessly . Actually hE was fit to be king , curb these two warring factions and rule with an iron hand and ensure the good of people , but bound by his PERSONAL WORD he cOULDN"T AND DIDN"T . He watched society being destroyed helplessly . . Krishna later told him ..............You are good , VERY VERY GOOD , but A Personal promise is NOT Greater than the ultimate good of society . Sorry , It hAs to take a backseat . He ordered Arjun to kill his great grandfather Bheeshma as Bheeshma , true to his promise was protecting ANYONE WHO SAT ON THE THRONE . And currently an EVIL GRANDCHILD of THe FIisherwoman's lineage was sitting on the throne who paid No heed to Bheeshma's sound advices but used his seervices ruthlessly coz he knew he wud NEVER break his word and go away . Who had the promise been given to ?A common , greedy fisherman ! At what cost ? Destruction of society .

Originally posted by: koolsadhu1000

I wish to respond to Taran's statement that 'Even if we cannot relate to extreme goodness they deserve our respect and not censure ."

I wish to differ here .

Look at the society we live in and around us . It is Kaliyug .........the age of evil . Good people are only a handful ..........the majority is fast joining the materialism club that ultimately kills humanity . We see sons listening to wives and dumping parents in old age homes after getting them to sign away their properties to them , dragging brothers to court , having extra marital affairs . How the balance between good and evil is done depends on the handful good that are left . The evil care a damn about the balancing equation and aim to outweigh the good . So the onus of this great social responsibility of balancing it out rests on the good people . And if they don't do it properly , the society crumbles . Extreme goodness which is often construed as weakness , is often bluntly taken advantage of . It actually flourishes evil . It was applicable in an age like the Satyayug where ALL people entered any situation in life with a spiritual goal only .But this is NOT the age . So the concept of 'goodness' changes with the age .

How will these good people do this balancing job if they r trampled upon and die ? Then only evil will remain , good won't be seen or understood by anyone. So Keeping this larger perspective in mind ..........that we owe it to our children to understand what 'goodness' actually means......what 'values' actually mean we have to become strong and fIGHT sometimes to keep this flag of goodness flying . We most emphatically CANNOT lie down and tell a rapist go on , rape me [ Vandu] , Or we cannot just give up our husbands and marraiges on a platter just coz a girl is in trouble and needs a prop to cover up the illegitimacy issue . { Archu } .In the former case we set a rapist free and uncurbed and in the latter , we destroy a sacred institution like marraige by resorting to a flourishing social evil cum means ......DIVORCE . That which is solid , secure , and necessary to society .........MARRAIGE , we replace with DIVORCE and make its foundations shaky . And all for what ?To help a girl when that help can be given in numerous other ways . In the zing of committing a personal good we lose the larger perspective here and thats not beneficial to society .And That which is not beneficial to society deserves censure , not respect . Thats what both ........Vandu and Archu did . One encouraged rape and the other shook the foundation of a solid pillar of society .....mARRAIGE , by adding one more Divorce to the base instead of the value of permanent love and security solidified in MARRAIGE that we can pass on to the generations that come later and look up to us.

Archu's divorce was unecessary . She did not take divorce coz she was suffering domestic abuse , marital rape , bigamy , impotency on husbands part . She took it simply coz her husband had given his word to a girl . Had she taken divorce because of the former reasons , She would indeed be doing a good to society and herself by curbing evil . But by simply taking it for a personal zing of goodness , she made a mockery of the solid institution of marraige and reduced it to a gudda guddi ka khel . To do good to Shravni there was no need to give her own marraige up . If her husband had given his word , it was her duty to remind him that he alone cannot take decisions , that this word was given by him but not HER . That she did NOT believe it would achieve anything good . Which is perfectly true . That divorce has NOT acheved anything good . Her Husband is miserable from inside , she cannot move on , the spoilt young gal she tried to protect feels tremendously unloved , both families r unhappy and some sicknesses and deaths occured [ Damodar and Kaka] . The divorce has hardly spread joy or positivity , it has spread unhappiness . Not to mention , little Sachu has been born but should we shake the foundation of marraige for our children ? I think NOT .

Archu's parents transferred the whole house on son's name instead of giving the daughters equal share in the property when all the daughters contributed equally to the household running smoothly .Varsha gave a portion of her salary and Archu contributed by working like a maid . Why should only Vinod get the house ?We don't see Archu as an elder sister asking her parents to give fair rights to her sisters too . Instead we see Archu encouraging them to sell all their jewellery so that they can give all the money to their brother to book a SECOND FLAT . This it seems was goodness . Well this goodness defrauded her sisters from clinging on to their rightful share .......their jewellery , their STRI DHAN which is legally only theirs . Stripping her sisters financially to fill the coffers of one sibling is hardly goodness , it is foolishness . And such extreme goodness which threatens to become dangerously foolish deserves STRICT CENSURE .

We cannot expect people around us to understand this extreme goodness or respect it . People will go their way only . They are not within our control .Manju should change , Rasika should change , Shravni should change , Ajit should change .........all should change and understand how good Archu Manav are is a wrong expectation . How many people will change ? Why ? How ? When ? No , this expectation is wrong .In the Mahabharatha war , NO ONE CHANGED from the evil side . They remained with their limitations only . Right till the end .Duryodhan , Karna , Ashwathama , Drona .........no one changed . Dhrirtharashtra didnt change even after his hundred sons died . THAT is the reality of life for you . But who changed was the good one ......ARjun . He modified his goodness a little and fought the evil to balance out the ultimate effect , under the direction of Krishna. God told HIM to change .....the good one to change . Initially he was under the misconception that goodness means giving up without a fight . But God told him that goodness is not giving up as it encourages evil and such goodness that encourages evil is not goodness at all and deserves strict censure .

See how much Manju has flourished coz she has gone UNCHECKED . They are six of them , the Karanjkars and had they been jointly sTRICT with her unitedly right from the beginning , both she and her mother would be kept properly in place .As it happens she was wrongly pampered and they went so unchecked that they destroyed innocent lives and broke a marraige .[ ARMAN} .

Extreme goodness that borders on foolishness desrves censure as it will ultimately destroy real goodness ...........which is being fair , strong , secure , positive and happy . If these values are to be preserved for our children then we have to be strong and good to protect them .........being extremely good and weak will nOT ensure protection of these values but may lead to their destruction . So it is better to squash foolishness impatiently right at the outset and encourage STRENGTH with a GOOD NATURE .

.

KS, Another good post and hopefully start of another good discussion. I couldnt agree more on most of your points stated. I think all the PR characters are mockeries of goodness. They are actually non confrontational cowards who albeit being very good rarely stand up for themselves and let people (esp) wicked ones walk all over them.

You know KS, the marriage between Archana and Manav was a victim of all the characters. This reminds me of the story of Karna - when he is finally killed, Arjuna starts to celebrate and Krishna then reminds him Karna was not just killed by Arjuna, he was killed by Karna's own mother, his teachers, his life in general was doomed to fail. On a similar note, the marriage had no chance. There was no strong advocate for it. The two people in it let everyone else's whim decide the fate of the marriage. I think these two people are so used to giving up for the others, they figured the only tangible thing they had was marriage so they could give that up as well. I really dont know anyone who remotely thinks that. Some of their sacrifice would have made sense if Shravani was carrying Manav's child. ..Anyways, I think we dont disagree here that the actions of Archana, Manav, Sulochana, Karanjkars in general, Savita, Manju, Rasika, Ajit all led up to their divorce.

Further, a good story is an extremely nuanced creation where the story emulates a potential life situation so well that you start to live with the characters so closely and then wonder if you would react the same.. Now, the PR story has no nuances except for in the grossly portrayed love traingle. Everything else is just plain bizarre and nothing that happens to anyone or can be relatable. I dont think the creatives know or intended to portray anyone with the kind of goodness I am referring to. They chose to put people like Manav and Archana who are innately decent and nice through such bad situations and in reaction to those, both characters capitulated hard. Manav has been managing the affairs of his family from childhood and runs the household. This alone should have been reason enough for Savita to treat his feelings with respect. She knows he is very good so takes him for granted and starts messing with his marriage based on her agenda. Archana too is a sweet person who gave up a lot for her mom and stood up for her family. The decent thing to show then in her case would have been that, when the family found itself on stable ground, everyone pitched in and had her get some education so she can be finally on equal footing as the other kids. However, they chose to bring mismatched suitors for her who rejected her left right and center and resulting in further loss of self esteem. Both are examples of how the people around this essentially good people failed them.

Manju and her family are too funky a bunch. She plots and plots and gets away with everything totally unchecked - reason enough for people to wonder if this is what being evil and manipulative results. In real life though, a daughter in law who plots against her in laws so very rarely gets away. Vandita is decent and educated however, apparently very suicidal and a huge coward. She was not protected from herself either. I see her marriage to Ajit notwithstanding his supposed turnaround no less than a suicide. Her retribution is apparently that she is valued by this monster after he has been ruined. How is that justice???? Clearly, the creatives dont know the start of it.

To reiterate, we need strong, successful people in the world to have more of good in them. Only then will the world survive. Actually, that is how the world is surviving. The majority of people are decent, mind their own business and try to help when they can. They do good but not at the cost of their existance. Such people can stand up to most of the evil. We can call these people 'good and strong'. On the other hand, there do exist a very very small % of people who are selfless beyond the definition and do only the best for everyone around them. These people do not balance the evil materially so they are prone to extreme exploitation. It is for the good and strong to surround such people and shield them. Such selfless people are innately selfless and so cannot be taught to be different but again, the % of such people is verrry small.

You know one of the comments made by one of the writers about Archana and Manav being loosers is very very telling. It just shows how much they value the innate goodness in these people. They created decent people and set them up to loose always so the viewers can relate to these when they fail..Such a negative agenda. They could instead have chosen to show how they triumph because their endeavours are always blessed.

In the Mahabharata as you rightly siad, the evil side never repents or changes .. but ends up being annihilated. That is because the story (and the narration of it) was in the very capable hands of a Mahamuni who knew what needed to be highlighted and who needed to win and win extremely convincingly. The Lord Himself encourages the annihilation of the evil. That should be the lesson for all the good people. Its not enough to just be good and let people walk all over you, stand up for yourself. Only then is greater good served. I wish the telly land creatives read some of these and understood what injustice they are doing to their viewers by projecting so much negativity and rewarding it.

Wow Kool, the stories yo uhave told are extremely interesting .

Taran , Kool....the CVs are only interested in showing manav and Archana as two loosers ...