Originally posted by: soapwatcher1
Kools, if we are taking Manav's words to Archana as proof that he put Purvi in the will and his words to Ovi and Arjun that he bought that property for Pari, let us not discredit his words then as far as including Soham in his will, fair is fair :)
Also, when did Manav sign Sachin's birth certificate as his dad? If he did, that does not make Sachin's adoption by Manav (note I did not say grandparents) any more legal than Purvi's. Both adoptions are made by the heart and are equally viable as far as adoptions go, the legality of it is questionable in both situations.
Archana adopted Purvi as much for herself as for Purvi, it was said often enough in the soap that after the twins were taken away by Savita, Purvi was the only reason for her living.
Charity should never be touted because then it loses its value and the good karma that comes along with doing a good deed. By constantly repeating that sadak se utai hui bacchi, they are nullifying any good deed these women did in going along with the kindness of Archana. The adoption is Archana's business and they had no say in it, she gave her name to the child (Deshmukh was her legal name) and Manav is her husband, expecting him to go along with her decision is a matter bet/ husband and wife. She accepted Sachin as her own and was even foolishly prepared to give up on her family for the sake of his happiness (the apple does not fall too far from the tree in purvi's case).
As for Sachin being the heir to an empire, I remember the earlier episodes when his grandfather was a rich man in Mumbai, no talk of an empire that was transported to the US though. That to me remains a moot point, Sachin is entitled to everything Manav has as he is technically Manav's son, legally adopted or not, same as Purvi is Archana's daughter.
Forgive any typos, on my phone, and won't be able to get to the forum until much later. Happy PR watching!
See SW i see it this way .
I don't regard being raised on charity as degrading at all . A lot of deserving children who wanted to study were funded by the Maharajah of Baroda as he was a great one for funding education as a cause . They went on to occupy high positions professionally later on . Nothing about those living on charity is degrading . It is just a fact of life , and facts of life like charity , poverty , sickness , hunger are not degrading at all . They simply exist . No poor person is undeserving of respect and no person who helps a charitable cause is greater then the one receiving that help . He is just luckier .
I say she was raised on the kindness of Archana's heart coz it was shown in the serial . It is assumed she was adopted but nothing was shown , infact that fact is not even uttered . And also it cannot be possible . To adopt , spouse's signatures and consent r required . And Archana did not even know where Manav was . Neither was she divorced to adopt Purvi as a single parent . So u see , inferring that Purvi was just raised on humanatarian grounds just like that is not because i don't like the character and want her identity to be something degrading . How can it be humiliating or degrading when i don't regard charity as something humiliating at all ? It is a thing to be proud of when u grab the olive branch that life offers u and make something worthwhile of life .
But each fact of life has to be accepted as it is , with it limits . Everything has a limit . If rich kids cannot be spoilt enough to run a car over poor people sleeping on roads , those raised by the kindness of certain families cannot wish the children of that house dead or swap babies or deprive the daughter of that house to mourn on the basis of a past love story . Nobody can do it , bio , adopted , charity raised , no one .
Purvi does not become more or less because she was raised on charity and the 'adopted' status makes her more respectable somehow ...at least to me it doesn't . Her deeds do . They r complex and destructive . Period , for me . She will be respectable to me when she stands by Onir and does not even look at Arjun . If she would have accepted Punni's blackmail and saved Onir's career , she would have gone up in my eyes . It would not have been damned if she did and damned if she did not for me . She would have been more human somehow , a human at last truly falling in love , realising that her husband faces danger of losing his career for her . I put him in this mess , i will pull him out should have been her attitude. Even if she had betrayed Sulochana and got slapped , she would have gained tremendous respect for taking a stand . Onir took a stand ...come what may , i will stand by Purvi . Same thing she should have done .
It doesn't matter if Soham is in Manav's will or his money is in a trust ...that fact does not alter the fact that Sachin Deshmukh has more rights on the house , legal and ethical , than her . Even if he is just a nephew he has more rights . But the fact remains he is not . His legal identity was talked about and both Manav and Archana were living together then to be available for consent and signatures .
Archana's deed of humanatarian kindness cannot be blotted by anyone saying anything ...that deed stands by itself with its own merit . The way i see it ...Manju telling Purvi that u r back on the roads again is very true in a deeper sense as she had many wonderful chances but she blew them all . She had a wonderful upbringing at the Karanjkars but she blackened their faces , she was given a warm acceptance by Deshmukhs but she backstabbed them , she was getting married to a rich tycoon but she ditched him and made him miserable and she was lucky enough to marry a talented doctor inspite of an unwed pregnancy but she destroyed him too with her rash , immature decisions . She blew all those chances and went back on the roads from where she once came . Although harshly spoken , Manju's words have a deeper significance ...thats what i feel .
Savita said that people will taunt them that look u took in a girl from the streets , see how she has repaid u . Many did not like that . But people do say exactly that . They cannot do unselfish actions themselves and they r the first to snigger at any good or humanatarian action as they themselves cannot do these actions and feel small in front of people who have the capability to rise above themselves and do them . So what Savita said is very true ...people do taunt that way .
My most favorite literary characters r Jane Eyre and Heathcliff , both raised on charity but strong individuals on their own . Charity , poverty , richness r mere states of life ...neither r they degrading nor uplifting . It is the individuals that interest me and Purvi would have if she had saved Onir .
Edited by koolsadhu1000 - 12 years ago
Indian Mythology
Sampoorna
CID
Current Affairs
