My dear Abhi (do I have that right? If not, my apologies),
I too hope that you and all the readers of this thread have had a wonderful Deepavali, and I send you and them my warm good wishes for the year ahead to be good for all of you.
I dropped in her just now and read thru this very interesting thread. You are really a very persuasive writer, and it is no wonder that all the ayes have responded with support of varying degrees, and the nays seem to have kept away. So you have achieved that rarity in any discourse, a consensus! Moreover, it is always to be appreciated when one ploughs one's own, different furrow, and so I admire your post.
By the same logic, I am sure you, and the others who are of a like mind, will not mind it if I plough my own furrow too.
Now I do not want to be the Grinch at this Deepavali, even though, in my infrequent posts over the last 2 months, I have left no one in any doubt as to what I think of Purvi these days. I would however like to make just one point, and that is concerning
the assertion, made so often in this forum without any evidence to support it, that Purvi would have been much worse off if she had not been adopted (formally or not is irrelevant) by Archana, and that is why she is terminally grateful to her, with all the consequences flowing from that. Plus what has been said in the section
@red in your excellent post about a similar conclusion re:Soham/Vishnu.
Why is this assumed to be inevitable? Purvi might have done equally well for herself from an orphanage - she has brains (before they were subsumed by the Karanjkar family pastime of rearranging other people's lives!), and I can cite you any number of very successful persons who were raised in orphanages.
Or else she might have been adopted by an equally loving
couple, who would moreover have spared her all the emotional baggage of her adoptive mother longing for her
parivaar for 18 years, that has been constantly heaped on her head.
She might in fact have turned out far better, with all her innate positives in place, and none of the Karanjkar-induced negatives which have now taken possession of her, body and soul.Secondly, how does Purvi, and how do you, presume that if Soham had been brought up in Archana-Manav's legendary
sanskaars, he would have turned out to be a paragon of all the virtues? There is no kind of upbringing that can assure that.
Sulochana's famed sanskaars produced an Archana who, by definition, can do no wrong. But the selfsame parvarish also produced the psychotic Varsha. So where do that leave the parvarish argument? There are any number of young criminals who hail from the best families and have been brought up in the best possible way. They still turn out to be criminals by choice. So none of us can predict what Soham would have been like if he had not been kidnapped, though the chances are that he would have gone straight.
Chances, not a certainty, for he is after all Varsha's nephew by blood.This said, each of us had a moral compass hardwired into us in our genes, and that decides what we will NOT do. Like not killing, or looting or kidnapping. This can last irrespective of the environment, which is why so many kids from the worst slums of Harlem turn out well despite growing up in horrible conditions.
Vishnu, who has never lacked for love from Varsha, does not seem to have this moral compass set right at all. He is shown taking to crime like a fish takes to water; he is not like the reluctant Michael Corleone in The Godfather.
And what is it with this constant refrain of Purvi's and Archana's that Vishnu should be excused since did not know he was planning to kidnap his father or that he had actually kidnapped his 'sister'? Do they (and all those who lap up this defence wholeheartedly) think that it was all right if he had planned to kidnap a Mr. Godbole and ended up kidnapping Miss. Godbole, with the 3 crores ransom being the same? Just because those people were not his kith and kin? Which has of course been all in the day's work for Vishnu Lala. Are these characters - Purvi and Archana - and their adherents for real? I do not think so.
Why is it that the CVs have not shown one single person, not even Arjun and the supposedly wise DK, asking this simple, logical question of Purvi? Shyamala B.Cowsik
QUOTE=arjunaluis]
Hai there..yes it is Abhi..Thanks for the lovely words and the comment…below I have written down my thoughts…I wouldn't say I am agreeing with everything Purvi does, sometimes what she does is downright dumb…but I do try and justify her actions when I think what she has done is ok…
First to the red, I have never said Purvi would be worse off if she wasn't brought up by Archana it is she herself that says it. I feel she thinks this way and feels endless gratitude because of Manju. Manju has constantly told Purvi that if it wasn't for Archana she would have ended up on the roadside. If you tell a child enough time that they are useless they will believe you one day and this is what has happen to Purvi. She has been told so many times that Archu is her savior so, she believes so and she feels that upbringing and sanskaar means everything. Yes, I agree that Purvi would/could have been successful if she was brought up in an orphanage but she wouldn't have got a mother's love. Archana and Purvi have this connection and love for each other that any child would have loved to have with their parents. Yes, Purvi could have been successful if she was brought up in an orphanage but she wouldn't have a mother's love and as a child all you want is to be loved. I feel that given the choice of an orphanage or living with the K clan sanskaar I would choose K clan. Also yes, she could have been raised in a loving couple home without baggage and that would be ideal but life is far from ideal. (I do feel she should run off now and start a fresh)
To the green, yes he has never lacked love from Varsha. Varsha has given him lots of love but she has given nothing else, she hasn't given him education, hasn't thought him right from wrong. This has been done by Archana. As a mother it is your job to tell your child when they are screwing up, if you don't you are not doing your job. I am sure most of us can agree our mother's would be screaming their heads off if we even did a small mistake. Varsha I think didn't care how Soham was being brought up as long as he remains her son. Her constant worry that Arman would come and take Soham away has made her not realize that he was being brought up the wrong way by Balan.
I feel Soham would have been better with Arman and not with Varsha and Balan because (this I can say for certainty) Soham I feel is doing the entire kidnapping job because of Balan. As a child, you don't care who your parents are, there are your hero and you will love them all you want is for them to love you back. He is a child who wants his father love and approval, and would go to any lengths to get it. He wants to give his father a lot of money so that his father would be proud of him. If he had Manav as his father, he would be cracking deals to make Manav proud; kidnapping would never become a choice for him because he would have never entered that world. He would have gone to school and college and with education he would be better. There is nothing in this world more valuable than education and with education he would have known the difference between right and wrong.
To the blue, I feel that Archana and Purvi especially Purvi feels it is ok that he kidnapped her because when you are kidnapped you are more forgiving then when someone you love is being kidnapped. Hence Manav's anger. As a father he can't believe his son kidnapped his daughter and Archana forgiving side as a mother. A mother will always let you off the hook. They are just more forgiving compared to fathers not in all cases but here yes.
Happy Deepavali to you and your family...😃
Edited by arjunaluis - 13 years ago