Is it fair to blame Mastani only?

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

Mandy

@BeyondHorizon

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 8 years ago

#11

Originally posted by: mbloves
Well written don't worry soon many meghain ll join d forum btw baji doesn't believe in child marriage which Clearly shows that he is also not happy with his child marriage .even if he fall in love with mastani then he is responsible for kashi condition . Being a married man y he fall in mastani love maybe he likes fights , music and mastani beauty with brain & talented in every field . I seriously Did not like that ppl are bashing megha too much . If it ll continue dn soon her fans ll give reply so I don't want any battle here .we are good ppl if you do not like mastani megha dn keep quiet like megha fans are doing with kashi . M sure after month many ppl ll change their viewers towards her acting . So plz wait & trust me she is very talented n down to earth person .so plz one REQUEST don't bashing ,and blaming ...

The problem is not Megha. Maybe not even Mastani. But her entry happened too soon. Mastani is way younger than Kashi almost by a decade. Kashi may have not been a warrior, a singer or a dancer like Mastani but she was certainly a devoted wife and a loving mother. The fact that she raised Shamsher like her own son after Mastani's demise speaks volumes about her. He loved both the women maybe Mastani more. Or maybe the fact that Bajirao's family went against this alliance made it a forbidden love saga and hence it got highlighted before the world. Hence the world knows about Bajirao Mastani and little is said about Kashi. He sired children with Kashi even after he married Mastani and his younger son Janardhan (not shown in the movie) was born after Shamsher. If he felt nothing for Kashi then how was this possible? Even before Kashi Baji could sort out their feelings Mastani made an entry and it is being shown that Baji is attracted to her without even meeting her while he feels nothing for Kashi. Kashi had been his companion during his childhood and towards the end both had come to acknowledge and respect each other. Where have those feelings gone? Audience is more angry for that and that is why they are lashing out. I do agree its not fair to bash Megha. She may not be as beautiful as legends claim Mastani to be but she is pretty nonetheless. Its time audience realised that casting for a daily show is no cake walk esp when the show is ongoing. The actor gets very little window to get trained and there haven't been many actresses who have donned the role of a warrior before. Megha has already been the lead of a show before which means she is a seasoned actress like Ishita. Megha has been good in the few scenes shown but the inappropriate timing of her entry did not go well with most of us.

P.S - Its not about Megha 😊 So dont get offended. Even if Ishita was chosen to play Mastani people would have complained.

Quote

Blazemaster

@Blazemaster

Beginner

Posted: 8 years ago

#12

Originally posted by: daenerysnow
Nice to read some sensible and well researched comments from unbiased views. Unfortunately fictional Indian tv is very regressive in the sense that there are still rules and restrictions that limit a show from becoming true to its nature, value is given via aesthetic and the conceptual is pushed to one side- e.g instead of showing a realistic mature relationship between two individuals, we get a candy coated fabricated relationship that exists in all singing all dancing land where the individuals bear no real flaws. Indian tv has a long way to go, which is a shame because Indian history is so vast, rich and contains plenty of potential for epic retelling. Instead we are reduced to seeing the soppy romantic sides of the stories, because 'sex sells'?, even though ironically sex is non-existent in the Indian tv show in spite of its being about a man and a woman's relationship with one another.. hypocrisy of our age.

What you mentioned about Indian television daily soap is correct. If show makers what to show some love story in medival era they could do so by starting a Fictional show why using real historical characters for this is out of my mind. A person who doesn't know history much after seeing this distorted historical show will end up believing it...

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

486792

Hibernated

Posted: 8 years ago

#13

Originally posted by: daenerysnow
Nice to read some sensible and well researched comments from unbiased views. Unfortunately fictional Indian tv is very regressive in the sense that there are still rules and restrictions that limit a show from becoming true to its nature, value is given via aesthetic and the conceptual is pushed to one side- e.g instead of showing a realistic mature relationship between two individuals, we get a candy coated fabricated relationship that exists in all singing all dancing land where the individuals bear no real flaws. Indian tv has a long way to go, which is a shame because Indian history is so vast, rich and contains plenty of potential for epic retelling. Instead we are reduced to seeing the soppy romantic sides of the stories, because 'sex sells'?, even though ironically sex is non-existent in the Indian tv show in spite of its being about a man and a woman's relationship with one another.. hypocrisy of our age.

Exactly.👏

With all my experience from Indian TV,I have always observed that the protagonists are expected to be whitewashed and as far from reality as possible.Being flawed is basically a crime in Indian TV.For you can either be black or white.

Relationships on Indian TV are another mess.For the true nature of these relationships are never explored.Instead the audience are presented with a sugar coated fantasy which is no less than Disney movies.

Quote

tanvismile

@tanvismile

Sparkler

+ 3

Posted: 8 years ago

#14

Polygamy is acceptable but was it acceptable during bajirao s times? There were shows based on Chandragupta Maurya and Ashoka were polygamy was acceptable. In the ashoka program bindusar has many wifes but doesn't seem the same when it comes to bajirao s era.

Quote

kahiliginger

@kahiliginger

Inactive

Posted: 8 years ago

#15

The term polygamy implies the practice of having more than one wedded spouse at a time. Yes, polygamy was practised in 18th century Maharashtra. Maratha royalty and noblemen took many wives, mostly to form political alliances. Shahu had several wives and also a favourite mistress called Virubai. In fact Virubai was more influential than his wives and controlled the household until her death. Virubai achieved more success than Mastani ever did in her lifetime but her story is less familiar to us.

Bajirao belonged to the Chitpawan Konkanastha Brahmin community. His family was monogamous by tradition. Their men rarely took second wives while the first was living, unless the first wife failed to produce an heir. When Peshwa Madhavrao, Bajirao's grandson, was asked to take a second wife because his wife Rama was childless he flatly refused to comply and died issueless at the age of 27. He was Maharashtra's most respected Peshwa- both for his noble character as well as for the achievements in his short life- he managed to avenge the Maratha loss of Panipat.

Radhabai herself was Balaji's second wife, she was married to him after the death of his first wife. There is not much information about Balaji's first marriage, it is only known that the wife had died early into the marriage.

After Balaji became Peshwa the family's fortune transformed dramatically. Balaji took a mistress without Radhabai's knowledge and the other woman bore him a son called Bhikaji. Her other son was not sired by Balaji. Unlike Maratha and Rajput nobility the Brahmin Peshwas could not marry women from other castes. Such companions could never be accepted as wedded spouses, their status was restricted to those of concubines and children born to them were deemed illegitimate, though they were looked after well.

Rajputs performed a dagger/ khanda marriage while taking a non-Rajput woman under their wing. This custom was frowned upon in Maharashtra. Since Mastani was not born to Brahmin parents she could not be Bajirao's lawfully wedded wife in keeping with the norm of the day. But she was his favourite and was pampered a lot. Kashi had no say in the matter. Wives could not object to their wealthy husbands taking mistresses.

Radhabai and Chimaji opposed Bajirao's relation with Mastani only when he started to neglect Kashi after becoming obsessed with Mastani. He also began to drink and eat meat while in her company- habits which were taboo to Brahmins.

Bajirao and even the husbands of his sisters had mistresses. Chimaji was an exception, he never fell for such temptation, He did remarry after the death of his first wife but remained faithful to both his wives during their lifetimes.His devoted second wife Annapurna went Sati after Chimaji fell ill and died in December 1740.

Edited by kahiliginger - 8 years ago

Quote

daenerysnow

@daenerysnow

Inactive

Posted: 8 years ago

#16

Originally posted by: kahiliginger
The term polygamy implies the practice of having more than one wedded spouse at a time. Yes, polygamy was practised in 18th century Maharashtra. Maratha royalty and noblemen took many wives, mostly to form political alliances. Shahu had several wives and also a favourite mistress called Virubai. In fact Virubai was more influential than his wives and controlled the household until her death. Virubai achieved more success than Mastani ever did in her lifetime but her story is less familiar to us.

Bajirao belonged to the Chitpawan Konkanastha Brahmin community. His family was monogamous by tradition. Their men rarely took second wives while the first was living, unless the first wife failed to produce an heir. When Peshwa Madhavrao, Bajirao's grandson, was asked to take a second wife because his wife Rama was childless he flatly refused to comply and died issueless at the age of 27. He was Maharashtra's most respected Peshwa- both for his noble character as well as for the achievements in his short life- he managed to avenge the Maratha loss of Panipat.

Radhabai herself was Balaji's second wife, she was married to him after the death of his first wife. There is not much information about Balaji's first marriage, it is only known that the wife had died early into the marriage.

After Balaji became Peshwa the family's fortune transformed dramatically. Balaji took a mistress without Radhabai's knowledge and the other woman bore him a son called Bhikaji. Her other son was not sired by Balaji. Unlike Maratha and Rajput nobility the Brahmin Peshwas could not marry women from other castes. Such companions could never be accepted as wedded spouses, their status was restricted to those of concubines and children born to them were deemed illegitimate, though they were looked after well.

Rajputs performed a dagger/ khanda marriage while taking a non-Rajput woman under their wing. This custom was frowned upon in Maharashtra. Since Mastani was not born to Brahmin parents she could not be Bajirao's lawfully wedded wife in keeping with the norm of the day. But she was his favourite and was pampered a lot. Kashi had no say in the matter. Wives could not object to their wealthy husbands taking mistresses.

Radhabai and Chimaji opposed Bajirao's relation with Mastani only when he started to neglect Kashi after becoming obsessed with Mastani. He also began to drink and eat meat while in her company- habits which were taboo to Brahmins.

Bajirao and even the husbands of his sisters had mistresses. Chimaji was an exception, he never fell for such temptation, He did remarry after the death of his first wife but remained faithful to both his wives during their lifetimes.His devoted second wife Annapurna went Sati after Chimaji fell ill and died in December 1740.

This contains enough information to paint me a picture of the relationship and characters who were indeed flawed. But this is Indian tv and god forbid we glimpse the main characters in a flawed/bad light, ugh. Such a shame. The day when someone will decide to take storytelling up a notch by portraying both the good and evil in mankind.. This aggravates me somewhat making me want to recreate my own stories because tv is failing to do that. In fact I am in the process of writing/sketching a Mahabharat graphic/comic book style story which sheds light on the duality of good/bad/strength/weaknesses in a person. So I at least Indian tv has inspired/led me to protest against this kind of perfect, pure superhuman idealism in a productive way.

But yeah, Indian Tv has a long way to go yet. They still live in the candy floss land in their own fabricated world of perfection, which is far from gritty reality as we know it.

Edited by daenerysnow - 8 years ago

Quote

kahiliginger

@kahiliginger

Inactive

Posted: 8 years ago

#17

So true! Making martyrs out of Bajirao-Mastani is the ultimate pursuit of creatives who lack the imagination as well as the knowledge of true history to go beyond the cliche.

They should know that in reality the situation turned tragic for the entire Peshwa family. Radha empathised with Kashi as she had experienced her own husband's betrayal. It was not easy for her to oppose her son whom she had groomed and nurtured since childhood almost single-handedly. She had to live to see the passing of her husband and her three kids. Only Anu outlived her mother.

Bhiu was often torn between loyalty for Rau and for her mother. It upset her when Rau chose Mastani over the rest of them. The childless Bhiu died a few years after Rau.

Kashi suffered her husband's neglect silently for years. Chimna was so distraught after clashing with his brother that he fell ill and died within months of Rau's death. His wife immolated herself leaving an orphaned daughter Bayabai for the family to raise. Radha and Kashi also raised Chimna's son Sadashiv and Mastani's son Shamsher besides Kashi's children Raghunath and Janardan.

Consider this timeline carefully. Rau kept Mastani close to him for a decade between 1729 to 1739 preferring her company to anybody else's. All his family were asking was for him to restrain his drinking and to spend some time with Kashi and her kids as it was their right. But the stubborn Rau was so obsessed with Mastani that he paid them no heed. After 1738 he turned his back on them completely while he drank relentlessly.

Finally the family decided to separate him from her to set things right. Mastani was put under house arrest from mid-December 1739 to April 1740 to ensure that Rau could focus on his career as his king expected of him. War debts were mounting and it was Rau's job to repay them. He became ill and died while on campaign on 28th April 1740.

Unfortunately every film and TV show maker refuses to acknowledge what really took place and continues to contort history to their convenience. Ultimately Radha, Chimna, Kashi and Nana shall be shown as the villainous coterie that victimised the eternal lovers who could do no wrong!

Edited by kahiliginger - 8 years ago

Quote

daenerysnow

@daenerysnow

Inactive

Posted: 8 years ago

#18

@kahilinginger

and an awful contortion at that! I can take a little liberty but not to the point that the characters become dimensionless because that is what they are when they are portrayed in simple black and white. The world does not work that way! I cant believe the people they employ to write these shows, and they are paid to write all kinds of crap.

Makes me mad. At the end of the day its all about business no matter what the cast/crew tell you otherwise.

Quote

Sandhya.A

@Sandhya.A

Sparkler

Posted: 8 years ago

#19

Originally posted by: kahiliginger
So true! Making martyrs out of Bajirao-Mastani is the ultimate pursuit of creatives who lack the imagination as well as the knowledge of true history to go beyond the cliche.
They should know that in reality the situation turned tragic for the entire Peshwa family. Radha empathised with Kashi as she had experienced her own husband's betrayal. It was not easy for her to oppose her son whom she had groomed and nurtured since childhood almost single-handedly. She had to live to see the passing of her husband and her three kids. Only Anu outlived her mother.

Bhiu was often torn between loyalty for Rau and for her mother. It upset her when Rau chose Mastani over the rest of them. The childless Bhiu died a few years after Rau.

Kashi suffered her husband's neglect silently for years. Chimna was so distraught after clashing with his brother that he fell ill and died within months of Rau's death. His wife immolated herself leaving an orphaned daughter Bayabai for the family to raise. Radha and Kashi also raised Chimna's son Sadashiv and Mastani's son Shamsher besides Kashi's children Raghunath and Janardan.

Consider this timeline carefully. Rau kept Mastani close to him for a decade between 1729 to 1739 preferring her company to anybody else's. All his family were asking was for him to restrain his drinking and to spend some time with Kashi and her kids as it was their right. But the stubborn Rau was so obsessed with Mastani that he paid them no heed. After 1738 he turned his back on them completely while he drank relentlessly.

Finally the family decided to separate him from her to set things right. Mastani was put under house arrest from mid-December 1739 to April 1740 to ensure that Rau could focus on his career as his king expected of him. War debts were mounting and it was Rau's job to repay them. He became ill and died while on campaign on 28th April 1740.

Unfortunately every film and TV show maker refuses to acknowledge what really took place and continues to contort history to their convenience. Ultimately Radha, Chimna, Kashi and Nana shall be shown as the villainous coterie that victimised the eternal lovers who could do no wrong!

Exactly. And what sort of woman would keep a man away from his family, duties and hard earned name and fame? What is so great about a love that almost single handedly destroyed the peace happiness name and respect held by an entire family? It was not as though Kashi was an evil woman from whom poor Baji needed a break and sought solace in Mastani's company. Kashi remained the pillar of the Peshwa family along with Radhabai during and even after Baji's lifetime. If Mastani truly loved Baji she should not have distracted him from his duty. Even if we discount her keeping Baji away from his family as possessiveness, there is nothing appreciable about being the cause of his fall from a great warrior, from being a Peshwa, from being the king's most trusted most able man to someone who simply threw away everything to be with her.

That is why the BajiRao Mastani love story never strikes a chord. It didn't even with the gorgeous Deepika playing Mastani. And with this actress it is bound to be a disaster.

Quote

806047

Suspended

Posted: 8 years ago

#20

Originally posted by: kahiliginger

While I agree with some of your points, you're taking an equally biased opposite view.

History would not be bothered with Radhabai, Kashi, Mastani, or any of the extended family, had Bajirao not been the second greatest Maratha warrior. The Maratha empire was fractured and diminished when Bajirao at a very young age took on the role of the peshwa. He restored the glory of the empire to quite an extent. His own son lost plenty of power of the peshwai with satraps becoming more or less independent. Except for a brief resuscitation after Nanasaheb, the peshwai was never the same. Frankly, the whole later family seemed too power-obsessed with the amount of murderous infighting within itself.

If the serial is doing him injustice by reducing his grown-up history to one of an epic love story, you're doing exactly the same by reducing him to a negligent husband who did not care for his family.

Quote

1 2 3

Is it fair to blame Mastani only? - Page 2

Related Topics

Explore Topics