When did Archana support Manav???

Rich`

@cs-07

Dazzler

22

Posted: 13 years ago

#11

@TM

good and true facts
selective actions and selective behavior suits arch and sulo v well

Reply

Quote

sashashyam

@sashashyam

Sparkler

32

+ 3

Posted: 13 years ago

#12

Dear Tulsey,

@red. As far as I remember, and I watched those episodes very carefully (I have been with PR since the very beginning), the sequence of events wrt the chawl demolition project was as follows:

1) DK buys the chawl from the original owners for Rs. 45 crores. He asks Manav to handle the redevelopment of the chawl. Each kholi owner is to be paid Rs. 20 lakhs and given a flat in the modern high rise to come up in the place of the chawl. There is no mall talked about, only residential apartments.

2) Manav, initially reluctant to handle the project, comes around when DK tells him that the alternative would be for DK Enterprises to sell the chawl to a rapacious and crooked firm, who offer him Rs.60 crores, so that he can both recover his outlay of Rs. 45 crores and make a neat profit. That firm would have used very rough methods to oust all the chawl residents after paying them only a pittance. To save the chawl owners from this fate, Manav agrees to take up the project.

Archana, however, is against the project right from the beginning on sentimental grounds, and is unmoved by all of Manav's arguments or Sulochana's warnings about the negative impact her attitude could have on her relationship with Manav. Fair enough, for she has every right to hold her own views.

3) Manav has extensive meetings with the chawl families, and persuades many of them to accept the proposal, and also to canvass for sufficient support for it from the rest.

4) At this point Dharmesh gets to hear of all this, and spikes Manav's prospects by faking pages from DK Enterprises' accounts, to show that the compensation from the firm for each kholi was actually R. 30 lakhs, of which, he claims, Manav was pocketing Rs. 10 lakhs and paying them only Rs. 20 lakhs each. Predictably, many of the chawl residents believe Dharmesh and turn against Manav.

The most dismaying thing in the whole of this is that Archana too believes the false accusation against Manav, and talks of the saboot being against him.This was shocking, that she would believe Dharmesh,whose deviousness and wickedness she knows inside out, rather than her own husband, whom she says she loves. What is love without any faith?

Archana behaves at this point exactly as she had done much earlier in PR when, in the matter of the misinterpreted photos of Manav at a bordello, she chooses to believe not Manav, but the very same dalal, hired by Ajit, who had earlier made a water tight case that Archana was a call girl. That too was very strange.

5) Dharmesh then plans a coup de grace and, on a day when Manav is away at a distant project, gets Ajit to display a fake court order for the demolition of the chawl, and move a bulldozer in menacingly.

Archana calls Manav for help, but is unable to get thru as Dharmesh has switched the SIM card in Manav's cell phone with his SIM card, and thus diverted all the calls to Manav to his phone, where he cuts them off.

6) The logical thing for Archana to have done would have been to call Aashana or even DK. She does not do either. Instead, she goes to the police station and files a FIR against Manav and DK Enterprises.

When Manav returns late that evening and asserts that he knew nothing of the demolition order, Archana does not believe him,and says so to his face.

7) Next, Dharmesh persuades a leading chawl resident, who had earlier backed Manav pro-actively, to flatly deny the validity of the 15 consent letters for the new project that Manav had already got from 15 residents. That person now claims that all the 15 letters were forgeries, and he uses the anger stirred up by Dharmesh's canard - that Manav had appropriated Rs. 10 lakhs from the compensation offered for each kholi - to get the 14 other signatories to go along with this false claim that they had never signed any such letters and that the ones produced were thus forgeries.

Archana also believes this forgery accusation against Manav, citing the saboot again. By then, none of her actions surprised me.

8) The case drags on, and Manav is accused of both forging the 15 consent letters and of ordering the surprise demolition of the chawl without any notice. If he had been convicted, he would have gone to jail for several years for something of which he was totally innocent. Archana's testimony against him, though she tries, without success, to limit its impact, is very negative for Manav, as it is a case of a wife accusing her husband.

9) In the end, Manav gets off with a warning only because the turncoat friend makes yet another volte face and withdraws the claim that the 15 consent letters were forged. This part was shown very sketchily, and the developments indicated only thru conversations between Dharmesh and Ajit. That Manav escapes a stiff jail sentence is thus no thanks to Archana.

Meanwhile Teju and Ovi have been born. Manav is torn between his acute and understandable resentment at all the harm that Archana had done to him in the court case, and even more so at her lack of faith in him despite his pleading his innocence repeatedly, and his joy at the arrival of his twin daughters. His relationship with Archana has been irremediably damaged, and he can barely tolerate her, though he continues to live with her under the same roof. Anyone else would have moved out.

The Varsha-Soham tragedy, which occurred only because of Archana's incredibly stupid disregard of Manav's warning not to let Varsha get close to Soham, drives the last nail into the coffin of the Manav-Archana relationship, and paves the way for the move to Canada by the whole Deshmukh clan bar Archana, and then the 18 year leap.

Now, keeping all of the above facts in mind, one cannot argue that Archana was right in colluding with the chawl dwellers and totally disregarding all of her husband's explanations and pleas that he was innocent of all the accusations hurled at him.

As she had done once before, in a crunch situation when Manav desperately needed her support, she abandoned him and sided with his enemies. It is no use her having stood with him in tough times earlier, when she lets him down when he needs her the most.

The point to be remembered is this: it is not that she is siding with the truth against falsehood, even when it involved her own husband. That could at least have been understood as her sticking to principle over family. It is the exact opposite. She sides with the falsehoods propagated by Dharmesh and swallowed by the chawl residents, against the truth of which Manav tries , in vain, to convince her. In the process, she condemns her husband, whom she claims to love, to months of long drawn out anxiety and misery as the case drags on in the court.

If this is love, then it is not my idea of it. Love means that you understand the other so well that you trust him or her without needing proofs. After living with him for so many years, Archana knows her husband so little that she believes him capable of such deviousness, corruption and falsehood,and that too on the basis of testimony offered by someone like Dharmesh.

I am no admirer of Manav's, but any husband in his place would have filed for divorce at once. Instead, Manav, despite his grief and rage at the (supposed) death of Soham, for which Archana is solely responsible, plans to take her with him to Canada. That Savita spikes his plan is another matter altogether.

Now, after having insulted Manav's love once again in that very ugly scene at Punni's saakarpuda, Archana claims eternal love for Manav and insists that the two had an unsullied and idyllic married life! What can one call this but a very selective memory?

All of the above can of course be interpreted as the assassination of Archana's character by the CVs. What it cannot be interpreted as is a portrait of Archana as a sort of Joan of Arc crusading against her own husband's multiple misdeeds. No way.

Shyamala B.Cowsik

Originally posted by: Tulsey

When did Archu not support Manav, she was there for him thick or thin. People are entitled to have their opinion and support according to them and for the right things.
Let's talk reality regarding support.

In marriage, if you disagree with your spouse for what ever reasons does it qualify you as a bad person or a bad spouse?

If your spouse hits you and you don't say/do anything, you will keep getting abused. Is that what you call supporting your spouse?

You have to support your spouse for the right things as you see it. in one of the cases mentioned in this topic, Archana was with the chawl and against Manav...because she did not want to have the chawl converted to a shopping mall...she wanted to keep the chawl as is to save the childhood and growing memories of Manav and his family...'
I WILL ADVISE YOU TO WATCH THE SEGMENT AGAIN TO KNOW WHY ARCHANA DID WHAT SHE DID.

6

Reply

Quote

Kalapi

@Kalapi

Dazzler

22

Posted: 13 years ago

#13

Dear Tulsey,

@red. As far as I remember, and I watched those episodes very carefully (I have been with PR since the very beginning), the sequence of events wrt the chawl demolition project was as follows:

1) DK buys the chawl from the original owners for Rs. 45 crores. He asks Manav to handle the redevelopment of the chawl. Each kholi owner is to be paid Rs. 20 lakhs and given a flat in the modern high rise to come up in the place of the chawl. There is no mall talked about, only residential apartments.

2) Manav, initially reluctant to handle the project, comes around when DK tells him that the alternative would be for DK Enterprises to sell the chawl to a rapacious and crooked firm, who offer him Rs.60 crores, so that he can both recover his outlay of Rs. 45 crores and make a neat profit. That firm would have used very rough methods to oust all the chawl residents after paying them only a pittance. To save the chawl owners from this fate, Manav agrees to take up the project.

Archana, however, is against the project right from the beginning on sentimental grounds, and is unmoved by all of Manav's arguments or Sulochana's warnings about the negative impact her attitude could have on her relationship with Manav. Fair enough, for she has every right to hold her own views.

3) Manav has extensive meetings with the chawl families, and persuades many of them to accept the proposal, and also to canvass for sufficient support for it from the rest.

4) At this point Dharmesh gets to hear of all this, and spikes Manav's prospects by faking pages from DK Enterprises' accounts, to show that the compensation from the firm for each kholi was actually R. 30 lakhs, of which, he claims, Manav was pocketing Rs. 10 lakhs and paying them only Rs. 20 lakhs each. Predictably, many of the chawl residents believe Dharmesh and turn against Manav.

The most dismaying thing in the whole of this is that Archana too believes the false accusation against Manav, and talks of the saboot being against him.This was shocking, that she would believe Dharmesh,whose deviousness and wickedness she knows inside out, rather than her own husband, whom she says she loves. What is love without any faith?

Archana behaves at this point exactly as she had done much earlier in PR when, in the matter of the misinterpreted photos of Manav at a bordello, she chooses to believe not Manav, but the very same dalal, hired by Ajit, who had earlier made a water tight case that Archana was a call girl. That too was very strange.

5) Dharmesh then plans a coup de grace and, on a day when Manav is away at a distant project, gets Ajit to display a fake court order for the demolition of the chawl, and move a bulldozer in menacingly.

Archana calls Manav for help, but is unable to get thru as Dharmesh has switched the SIM card in Manav's cell phone with his SIM card, and thus diverted all the calls to Manav to his phone, where he cuts them off.

6) The logical thing for Archana to have done would have been to call Aashana or even DK. She does not do either. Instead, she goes to the police station and files a FIR against Manav and DK Enterprises.

When Manav returns late that evening and asserts that he knew nothing of the demolition order, Archana does not believe him,and says so to his face.

7) Next, Dharmesh persuades a leading chawl resident, who had earlier backed Manav pro-actively, to flatly deny the validity of the 15 consent letters for the new project that Manav had already got from 15 residents. That person now claims that all the 15 letters were forgeries, and he uses the anger stirred up by Dharmesh's canard - that Manav had appropriated Rs. 10 lakhs from the compensation offered for each kholi - to get the 14 other signatories to go along with this false claim that they had never signed any such letters and that the ones produced were thus forgeries.

Archana also believes this forgery accusation against Manav, citing the saboot again. By then, none of her actions surprised me.

8) The case drags on, and Manav is accused of both forging the 15 consent letters and of ordering the surprise demolition of the chawl without any notice. If he had been convicted, he would have gone to jail for several years for something of which he was totally innocent. Archana's testimony against him, though she tries, without success, to limit its impact, is very negative for Manav, as it is a case of a wife accusing her husband.

9) In the end, Manav gets off with a warning only because the turncoat friend makes yet another volte face and withdraws the claim that the 15 consent letters were forged. This part was shown very sketchily, and the developments indicated only thru conversations between Dharmesh and Ajit. That Manav escapes a stiff jail sentence is thus no thanks to Archana.

Meanwhile Teju and Ovi have been born. Manav is torn between his acute and understandable resentment at all the harm that Archana had done to him in the court case, and even more so at her lack of faith in him despite his pleading his innocence repeatedly, and his joy at the arrival of his twin daughters. His relationship with Archana has been irremediably damaged, and he can barely tolerate her, though he continues to live with her under the same roof. Anyone else would have moved out.

The Varsha-Soham tragedy, which occurred only because of Archana's incredibly stupid disregard of Manav's warning not to let Varsha get close to Soham, drives the last nail into the coffin of the Manav-Archana relationship, and paves the way for the move to Canada by the whole Deshmukh clan bar Archana, and then the 18 year leap.

Now, keeping all of the above facts in mind, one cannot argue that Archana was right in colluding with the chawl dwellers and totally disregarding all of her husband's explanations and pleas that he was innocent of all the accusations hurled at him.

As she had done once before, in a crunch situation when Manav desperately needed her support, she abandoned him and sided with his enemies. It is no use her having stood with him in tough times earlier, when she lets him down when he needs her the most.

The point to be remembered is this: it is not that she is siding with the truth against falsehood, even when it involved her own husband. That could at least have been understood as her sticking to principle over family. It is the exact opposite. She sides with the falsehoods propagated by Dharmesh and swallowed by the chawl residents, against the truth of which Manav tries , in vain, to convince her. In the process, she condemns her husband, whom she claims to love, to months of long drawn out anxiety and misery as the case drags on in the court.

If this is love, then it is not my idea of it. Love means that you understand the other so well that you trust him or her without needing proofs. After living with him for so many years, Archana knows her husband so little that she believes him capable of such deviousness, corruption and falsehood,and that too on the basis of testimony offered by someone like Dharmesh.

I am no admirer of Manav's, but any husband in his place would have filed for divorce at once. Instead, Manav, despite his grief and rage at the (supposed) death of Soham, for which Archana is solely responsible, plans to take her with him to Canada. That Savita spikes his plan is another matter altogether.

Now, after having insulted Manav's love once again in that very ugly scene at Punni's saakarpuda, Archana claims eternal love for Manav and insists that the two had an unsullied and idyllic married life! What can one call this but a very selective memory?

All of the above can of course be interpreted as the assassination of Archana's character by the CVs. What it cannot be interpreted as is a portrait of Archana as a sort of Joan of Arc crusading against her own husband's multiple misdeeds. No way.

Shyamala B.Cowsik

Shyamala,

It was only a few days back I wrote a post on Archana on similar lines. I could have hailed her truly as a person of caliber if Manav did something illegal that Archana's principles contradicted, and she went forward to punish him for his wrong doings, and suffered as a result, hardship and condemn. The truth is that, only few people in reality could do something for the larger good of the society suffering personal losses as a result. Common people (in general) almost always work for personal gains even if the means are anything but ethical. If this was the case, Archu could be exemplary. But alas, Cvs in their drive to make Archu the savior, an aggressor and the victim all at once mess her characterization once again. The single most complain that I have of this character's characterization – is that, we even now don't see any growth, maturity and depth in her characterization..I do lament at how the Cvs have failed to develop this important character in this serial.

Anyway, this is what I wrote in the following thread a few days back…

no self respected woman that can look upon to

About Archana standing for society, I could have liked it, if I felt she was standing for the 'right' cause…In fact, I could have applaud her if it was justified and went against her husband…what I felt in the whole chawl fiasco was that, she took other's words (who has actually her or her family harm) over her hubby, she failed to trust him, when he went on telling her that he will not harm his chawl people as they were his own. Manav wasn't wrong, if he was wrong and Archana stood for her 'righteous' principles I could have admired her, but this wasn't the case, to me. As a result of false allegations, Manav had a criminal case against him….this is where I couldn't support a lead character – her principles were all wrong here…her problem was more with 'riches' than anything else. The problem with these serials are that lead was always glorifying 'poverty' but never once showed how 'money' can help society..that message could in reality help much more Indian society than this court/criminal fiasco….

5

Reply

Quote

orianthi

@orianthi

Voyager

16

Posted: 13 years ago

#14

long back when Archana had abortion Manav was really down but she always supported the people who did not help them...

When did Archana have an abortion?

1

Reply

Quote

Rich`

@cs-07

Dazzler

22

Posted: 13 years ago

#15

Originally posted by: orianthi

i think the member meant miscarriage

2

Reply

Quote

zonan

@zonan

Voyager

19

Posted: 13 years ago

#16

There's a BIG different between abortion and miscarriage.

1

Reply

Quote

sashashyam

@sashashyam

Sparkler

32

+ 3

Posted: 13 years ago

#17

Dear Kalapi,

I am sorry that I missed your post on ' no self-respecting woman'. Your comments, on the prejudice that the CVs (and their characters) seem to have against riches per se, breaks new ground, and lifts the debate above the level of Archana's incomprehensibe follies.

I had not thought of this angle, but I quite agree with you. This mantra, however, is not exclusive to the Balaji CVs or CVs in general. It is there in the holy books of different religions: remember Jesus saying that it is more difficult for a camel to go thru the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, the Bible saying that the meek shall inherit the earth, and Gandhiji's daridranarayan concep?

This condemnation of the rich might be justified in part but not wholly, whereas the accompanying glorification of poverty is never justifiable.

Not that any of this is going to shake the CVs out of the muddy rut they are always wallowing in!

Shyamala

QUOTE=Kalapi]

Shyamala,

It was only a few days back I wrote a post on Archana on similar lines. I could have hailed her truly as a person of caliber if Manav did something illegal that Archana's principles contradicted, and she went forward to punish him for his wrong doings, and suffered as a result, hardship and condemn. The truth is that, only few people in reality could do something for the larger good of the society suffering personal losses as a result. Common people (in general) almost always work for personal gains even if the means are anything but ethical. If this was the case, Archu could be exemplary. But alas, Cvs in their drive to make Archu the savior, an aggressor and the victim all at once mess her characterization once again. The single most complain that I have of this character's characterization ' is that, we even now don't see any growth, maturity and depth in her characterization..I do lament at how the Cvs have failed to develop this important character in this serial.

Anyway, this is what I wrote in the following thread a few days back'

no self respected woman that can look upon to

About Archana standing for society, I could have liked it, if I felt she was standing for the 'right' cause'In fact, I could have applaud her if it was justified and went against her husband'what I felt in the whole chawl fiasco was that, she took other's words (who has actually her or her family harm) over her hubby, she failed to trust him, when he went on telling her that he will not harm his chawl people as they were his own. Manav wasn't wrong, if he was wrong and Archana stood for her 'righteous' principles I could have admired her, but this wasn't the case, to me. As a result of false allegations, Manav had a criminal case against him'.this is where I couldn't support a lead character ' her principles were all wrong here'her problem was more with 'riches' than anything else. The problem with these serials are that lead was always glorifying 'poverty' but never once showed how 'money' can help society..that message could in reality help much more Indian society than this court/criminal fiasco'.

The point to be remembered is this: it is not that she is siding with the truth against falsehood, even when it involved her own husband. That could at least have been understood as her sticking to principle over family. It is the exact opposite. She sides with the falsehoods propagated by Dharmesh and swallowed by the chawl residents, against the truth of which Manav tries , in vain, to convince her. In the process, she condemns her husband, whom she claims to love, to months of long drawn out anxiety and misery as the case drags on in the court.

If this is love, then it is not my idea of it. Love means that you understand the other so well that you trust him or her without needing proofs. After living with him for so many years, Archana knows her husband so little that she believes him capable of such deviousness, corruption and falsehood,and that too on the basis of testimony offered by someone like Dharmesh.

All of the above can of course be interpreted as the assassination of Archana's character by the CVs. What it cannot be interpreted as is a portrait of Archana as a sort of Joan of Arc crusading against her own husband's multiple misdeeds. No way.

Shyamala B.Cowsik

2

Reply

Quote

ranjarsh

@ranjarsh

Beginner

2

Posted: 13 years ago

#18

I completely agree with wats written. Archana is not just foolish, but v v irritaiting too.

All that u said was right. n even after seperation of 18 yrs she has not learnt a lesson , she wants to be the greatest human in the universe, thats the reason she listened to Sachin n rejected Manav. Even if our own son, says somthing so stupid, will any mom listen to him?

Arjun is a son of a wealthy bussiness tycoon, so that does not mean he has no identity. It was stupid of her to say all the crap she gave Arjun, coz his dad has establised the bussiness, but he is slogging in that company too... how is it that he has no stake in it, n no identity?? Ridiculous..!! if he was idle n swindering all his dad's money she cud have said that to him! Even if she had said that he cheated ovi it was fine, but this was ridiculous!!

Archana has proved again that she being illiterate, is also senseless!!!

god save manav from her!!!

4

Reply

Quote

Kalapi

@Kalapi

Dazzler

22

Posted: 13 years ago

#19

Shyamala,

My post to you was to say that I talked on similar lines (in my own way of course and in a bit of a different context) about Archana, and that she was not standing against her husband for a 'righteous principle' for an illegal and falsehood act committed by him (I highlighted your previous para in red, in which case I could have hailed her as exemplary) but that besides the point. The point is you are right that no relationship survives a major disaster of a court case against a spouse. So, in my view, before the 18 yrs leap, their relationship already underwent a fatal blow and Savita was the last piece in the mess, who drove the last nail in their relationship's coffin.

BTW, I found it interesting that you referred to two iconic figures (one father of a faith and other the father of a nation) in your post. Both these figures fought for different things and for different reasons with a lifetime committed and sacrificed for betterment of the society that we live in. I could go on about Gandhi's legacies and his inadequacies, but do not feel that this is the right context. Although, I do feel that comparing Archana (a fictitious character) with Gandhi's principle's is probably reading too much in her love for the chawl people (or glorification of poverty) or her single act of silent support for mom Sulo, when it was revealed during the early days of this serial, that Manav was a mere mechanic…any way as I say, it is my POV…

Originally posted by: sashashyam
Dear Kalapi,

I am sorry that I missed your post on ' no self-respecting woman'. Your comments, on the prejudice that the CVs (and their characters) seem to have against riches per se, breaks new ground, and lifts the debate above the level of Archana's incomprehensibe follies.

I had not thought of this angle, but I quite agree with you. This mantra, however, is not exclusive to the Balaji CVs or CVs in general. It is there in the holy books of different religions: remember Jesus saying that it is more difficult for a camel to go thru the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, the Bible saying that the meek shall inherit the earth, and Gandhiji's daridranarayan concep?

This condemnation of the rich might be justified in part but not wholly, whereas the accompanying glorification of poverty is never justifiable.

Not that any of this is going to shake the CVs out of the muddy rut they are always wallowing in!

Shyamala

QUOTE=Kalapi]

Shyamala,

It was only a few days back I wrote a post on Archana on similar lines. I could have hailed her truly as a person of caliber if Manav did something illegal that Archana's principles contradicted, and she went forward to punish him for his wrong doings, and suffered as a result, hardship and condemn. The truth is that, only few people in reality could do something for the larger good of the society suffering personal losses as a result. Common people (in general) almost always work for personal gains even if the means are anything but ethical. If this was the case, Archu could be exemplary. But alas, Cvs in their drive to make Archu the savior, an aggressor and the victim all at once mess her characterization once again. The single most complain that I have of this character's characterization ' is that, we even now don't see any growth, maturity and depth in her characterization..I do lament at how the Cvs have failed to develop this important character in this serial.

Anyway, this is what I wrote in the following thread a few days back'

no self respected woman that can look upon to

About Archana standing for society, I could have liked it, if I felt she was standing for the 'right' cause'In fact, I could have applaud her if it was justified and went against her husband'what I felt in the whole chawl fiasco was that, she took other's words (who has actually her or her family harm) over her hubby, she failed to trust him, when he went on telling her that he will not harm his chawl people as they were his own. Manav wasn't wrong, if he was wrong and Archana stood for her 'righteous' principles I could have admired her, but this wasn't the case, to me. As a result of false allegations, Manav had a criminal case against him'.this is where I couldn't support a lead character ' her principles were all wrong here'her problem was more with 'riches' than anything else. The problem with these serials are that lead was always glorifying 'poverty' but never once showed how 'money' can help society..that message could in reality help much more Indian society than this court/criminal fiasco'.

Originally posted by: sashashyam

The point to be remembered is this: it is not that she is siding with the truth against falsehood, even when it involved her own husband. That could at least have been understood as her sticking to principle over family. It is the exact opposite. She sides with the falsehoods propagated by Dharmesh and swallowed by the chawl residents, against the truth of which Manav tries , in vain, to convince her. In the process, she condemns her husband, whom she claims to love, to months of long drawn out anxiety and misery as the case drags on in the court.

If this is love, then it is not my idea of it. Love means that you understand the other so well that you trust him or her without needing proofs. After living with him for so many years, Archana knows her husband so little that she believes him capable of such deviousness, corruption and falsehood,and that too on the basis of testimony offered by someone like Dharmesh.

All of the above can of course be interpreted as the assassination of Archana's character by the CVs. What it cannot be interpreted as is a portrait of Archana as a sort of Joan of Arc crusading against her own husband's multiple misdeeds. No way.

Shyamala B.Cowsik