Article- Varun justifies TVS - Page 2

Originally posted by: Kalapi

Hmm'not sure why I couldn't just use the later part of the same story in my discussion of this serial when the honorable member time and again drew parallel between TVS and Mr. Rochester...hm, am I falling prey of some unknown copyright infringement or the later part of the story isn't liked by this honorable member??

Jane couldn't live in sin, so why are we arguing that Sugni might 'choose' to live in sin. Who are we to decide that living in sin and being the 'illegal wife of an illegal marriage' doesn't constitute the same sin and is equivalent to the life of indignity? Is it because Sugni is a bedni and we think we know which the better of the 2 evil is? Or rather that TVS does a fake weeding and make her a fake wife bed her and under the pretense of 'the' respect of an wife...The honorable members says some women might 'choose' to live in sin, I hope not. I hope most women will prefer a life of dignity above all else, even above love. Because as dear friend said recently to me, after the (love) marriage, loves goes out of the window and the stark reality of marriage stays. I hope modern women can choose wisely and not under emotional blackmail ...and absolutely not trust a man blindly enough that destroy their own life'.Btw, Bronte, did show a poetic justice to Mr.Rochester's deception, so maybe TVS will have some form of Karmic punishment too??? that storyline is also acceptable. Also, I could argue that jane's had a different kind of love than that of Mr. R., right???

There are of course, different types of love and physical love is of course a love too. Let me tell you a true story...A man loved a young girl to destruction. He loved her so much that he went on trying to convince her. But the girl considered him simply a friend. So, the boy decided to 'show' the girl the depth of his love. What did the guy do?? Yes, he forced himself and raped the poor girl...Think this isn't a real story, try crime patrol, you will be able to dig that episode. So, he, to you was right, shouldn't be punished by society, right???? Come-on he loved the girl and wanted to show his depth?? Yes, society should accept this man with open arms...because what he did ...he did it for love only??? Why hold in to some unattainable ancient code of mortality or ethics? ? He should be allowed his 'form' of love too??

What is that love that can't look beyond the immediate need of the self?? There other examples of selfless love too, that of platonic one. Loving another human being and expecting nothing in return. Maybe, this love isn't that popular anymore over the materialistic love that society seems to 'love' so much these days, but I am still part of that dying group that believes in love that can be selfless and totally loving without any expectation of a return...and there are sanctity of marriage vows and importance of trust...I am sure there are all sorts of society that people live in and approve, but definitely hope a serial telecasted on National channel will not promote such behaviors and promote such choas ...I don't hold anyone to any moral or ethical standards, but do hope the young men and women does show the strength in character and an inbuilt value system, so that when they themselves look in the mirror, only pride reflects back...

Laila, my intentions were anything except to be respectful towards all members of the forum, but I did not appreciate you questioning me the validity of using the same novel to argue the contrary side. But now I get it. So let me explain again hopefully clearly… You used Mr. R to compare TVS, I used the female lead in the same novel to compare Sugni' status and decision. It seems I wasn't fully able to explain why Jane did not go to S France, it was simple because there is but a very small difference between being a 'wife' or a 'mistress' and that is the 'legality of marriage', as there is a very small difference in 'love making/sex' and 'rape' (the example of the true story – love that the aggressor used in his defense) and that is 'consent'. That is why Jane didn't go to S France, because ever if people around didn't know the truth of their 'relationship', the relationship they could share would be anything but legal. Here is the post I wrote before (Jane Eyre, I believe didn't 'marry' Mr. R even after all his pleas ad even when he proposed that they could move to S outh of France, where no one would know them and live a life of man and wife. Why didn't Jane jump to this proposal??? Because, even though in France, no one could know their true identify or the fact that they can never be married as Mr.R's wife is still alive and well, in hearts of hearts, Jane would jnow the truth and she is anything but his wife. That is why she leaves him and come back to him, when only his wife was dead and he himself was handicapped)

Laila's quote

Third, Mr. R. was punished because during the Victorian moral Christian code of the time, that was considered necessary. Some modern readers of the story (as we discussed in our class) did not feel the need for Mr. R to be punished for his actions. We were not moral arm chair judges as VB so aptly put it in his articles. We explored his actions and considered them forgiveable. Some people would not. i also view TVS' actions as forgiveable as well. Wrong YES, evil NO. Now, does that mean my moral codes are LESS than yours? That's a matter of personal choice.

Wrong and right is defined by society and the age we live in. I said before and I say now, I find TVS wrong and evil too now, because he was trying to hide a 'sick' wife and may have parceled her to live a life of 'solitude' and loneliness in a deserted haveli…is that we are expected to treat the mentally sick people or the terminally ill??? May be according to some…but there was a case in USA recent, where a couple locked mentally challenged and sick people in basement. Criminal charges including negligence, were brought against these accused people, was that wrong according to you then???

Now let me put forward a question to all members of the forum. What I the status and respect of a women that becomes merely a 'replaceable commodity' who is changed freely and even without the 'courtesy' (in failing to find a more apt word) of a divorce. You say there are societies that respect more a second wife when the first wife fail to fulfill her duty…what happens when due to any reason that very loved second wife fails in her 'wifely' duty and is also changed for a third and say younger wife??? Can modern women become such commodities by men are prefer being changes so easily and freely?? Can anyone of us put ourselves in the shoes of Reva or Varun's friend 'sick' wife and say that if we have cancer or some other ill health that we will be happy if our husband hopes that we die soon so that they can move on and be happy??? Isn't divorcing rather a better option for that 'sick' wife even??? What about the family of this departed wife's feeling reading such openly discussed news in the media…what about their feeling or the code of conduct of Varun (and yes, I am disgusted he pulled in a death soul to justify a serial) or that 'husband'.

Last and not the least, can the female members of this forum tell me if men can take more than one wife freely and without any conscious dilemma, why can't the same be applicable for women, why cant women marry more than one man and live together without a 'legal' divorce in these societies??? Who decide what a man does is right, but isn't applicable to the women??? Really, am hoping to get come feed back to my questions here…

Originally posted by: anastasia211092

Why do you people bring Muslim community as an example here?In Muslim community the man is supposed to take permission from first wife before marrying another woman. The first wife can bring charges on her husband if this clause is not fulfilled. Had TVS taken permission from his first wife and she had given that permission I would have considered it acceptable. Reva might be insane but she is sane enough to say she doesn't want to share her husband with anyone. I don't mind TVS and Sugini getting married after TVS divorces Reva.

Regarding the article the man did take care of his wife as long as she lived and moved on after she died. Hence it is acceptable in that situation.

Originally posted by: anastasia211092

Why do you people bring Muslim community as an example here?In Muslim community the man is supposed to take permission from first wife before marrying another woman. The first wife can bring charges on her husband if this clause is not fulfilled. Had TVS taken permission from his first wife and she had given that permission I would have considered it acceptable. Reva might be insane but she is sane enough to say she doesn't want to share her husband with anyone. I don't mind TVS and Sugini getting married after TVS divorces Reva.

Regarding the article the man did take care of his wife as long as she lived and moved on after she died. Hence it is acceptable in that situation.

Originally posted by: Kalapi

Laila, my intentions were anything except to be respectful towards all members of the forum, but I did not appreciate you questioning me the validity of using the same novel to argue the contrary side. But now I get it. So let me explain again hopefully clearly' You used Mr. R to compare TVS, I used the female lead in the same novel to compare Sugni' status and decision. It seems I wasn't fully able to explain why Jane did not go to S France, it was simple because there is but a very small difference between being a 'wife' or a 'mistress' and that is the 'legality of marriage', as there is a very small difference in 'love making/sex' and 'rape' (the example of the true story ' love that the aggressor used in his defense) and that is 'consent'. That is why Jane didn't go to S France, because ever if people around didn't know the truth of their 'relationship', the relationship they could share would be anything but legal. Here is the post I wrote before (Jane Eyre, I believe didn't 'marry' Mr. R even after all his pleas ad even when he proposed that they could move to S outh of France, where no one would know them and live a life of man and wife. Why didn't Jane jump to this proposal??? Because, even though in France, no one could know their true identify or the fact that they can never be married as Mr.R's wife is still alive and well, in hearts of hearts, Jane would jnow the truth and she is anything but his wife. That is why she leaves him and come back to him, when only his wife was dead and he himself was handicapped)

Laila's quote

Third, Mr. R. was punished because during the Victorian moral Christian code of the time, that was considered necessary. Some modern readers of the story (as we discussed in our class) did not feel the need for Mr. R to be punished for his actions. We were not moral arm chair judges as VB so aptly put it in his articles. We explored his actions and considered them forgiveable. Some people would not. i also view TVS' actions as forgiveable as well. Wrong YES, evil NO. Now, does that mean my moral codes are LESS than yours? That's a matter of personal choice.

Wrong and right is defined by society and the age we live in. I said before and I say now, I find TVS wrong and evil too now, because he was trying to hide a 'sick' wife and may have parceled her to live a life of 'solitude' and loneliness in a deserted haveli'is that we are expected to treat the mentally sick people or the terminally ill??? May be according to some'but there was a case in USA recent, where a couple locked mentally challenged and sick people in basement. Criminal charges including negligence, were brought against these accused people, was that wrong according to you then???

Now let me put forward a question to all members of the forum. What I the status and respect of a women that becomes merely a 'replaceable commodity' who is changed freely and even without the 'courtesy' (in failing to find a more apt word) of a divorce. You say there are societies that respect more a second wife when the first wife fail to fulfill her duty'what happens when due to any reason that very loved second wife fails in her 'wifely' duty and is also changed for a third and say younger wife??? Can modern women become such commodities by men are prefer being changes so easily and freely?? Can anyone of us put ourselves in the shoes of Reva or Varun's friend 'sick' wife and say that if we have cancer or some other ill health that we will be happy if our husband hopes that we die soon so that they can move on and be happy??? Isn't divorcing rather a better option for that 'sick' wife even??? What about the family of this departed wife's feeling reading such openly discussed news in the media'what about their feeling or the code of conduct of Varun (and yes, I am disgusted he pulled in a death soul to justify a serial) or that 'husband'.

Last and not the least, can the female members of this forum tell me if men can take more than one wife freely and without any conscious dilemma, why can't the same be applicable for women, why cant women marry more than one man and live together without a 'legal' divorce in these societies??? Who decide what a man does is right, but isn't applicable to the women??? Really, am hoping to get come feed back to my questions here'

Originally posted by: stephhh

I totally agree with u...you r right about wedding in Muslims...and I wud request all members/friends to not to misinterpret or refer to other religious views without properly knowing the norms and beliefs of it...please dont disrespect or cause contradictory statements using religious views

Originally posted by: Laila2009

Still very lost at the anaolgy of why you are using rape and rapists to compare what what TVS or Mr. Rochester are doing. Do you see what they have done as one in the same? Are TVS and Mr. Rochester's actions similar to that of rapists in your viewpoint? that's exactly what I gettting from your posts.

Absolutely not, but the analogy was use to justify the action of the rapist. The rapist thought he love the girl and took her for granted. I am absolutely not implying that what TVs did was equivalent to that done by the rapist. But TVS in the name of 'love' was leading on an innocent girl without taking her consent of if she could be willing not to be the so called legal 'wife'. We know Reva was still TVS lawful wife. Now, let us consider that Sugni didn't know that there is a thing as divorce...well could she still be the second wife willingly. Secondly, TVS lived in Delhi before, so as this drama is unfolding 'at the present' time he knows about the concept of divorce. So, why wasn't there a divorce procedure started...well, an accidental overlook by the CVs or an intentional one...we may never know.

So TVS is evil in your view as to how he is treating Reva? Let us clarify a few things here. First Dhanuma put her in the Haveli. Second, she never seemed to have problem being there. Third we knew she was at one time in a mental home/hospital. And fourth, I have pointed out before that her being housed there was not appropriate. Even then her being housed there to me did not make him evil. Fifth, his overall treatment of her has always been civil, respectful and to a degree shockingly caring! Was he going to leave her there permantely at the Haveli? We do not know but I do not see that as happening.

First Point : Dhanuma couldn't have the nerves to put anyone in the Haveli without the prior consent of TVS. I know, no one in the forum appreciated the fierce sense of loyalty towards TVS, but she was just that...a very loyal servant of TVS, who TVS could trust blindly. Remember, what she said to jiji...that her salt belongs to TVS. The truth is there are people like her whose loyalty can't be brought. That is how I see Dhanuma. She did everything as TVS wanted and TVs trusted her blindly and so was given the responsibility of looking after Reva and hiding her until the marriage.

Second Point: Can a mental patient know what is right for her...the modern medicine encourages an 'normal' atmosphere for mental patients. So, her housing in that deserted haveli was absolute a cruel act done to hide her from all. Since, the havelli was deserted; no one could guess anyone was living there, right...

The rest of your post goes back to a discussion we had as to whether Sugni could hvae been better off as TVS' second wife; again, it is quite possible considering the options she had in the past and what options she had in the future. Does it make it the BEST option overall? No, and I have said that in the past. However, under the circumstances it migt have been.

But the choice wasn't Sugni to make...it was being decided on her behalf by TVS

And I still hold my ground; in this case I do not feel anyone who is obligated/presured to marry someone who was mentally ill stay married to them as in the case of TVS or Mr. Rochester. Would it make them less than or immoral for divorcing and moving on with someone else? No. As long as they are able to tend to needs of wife No. 1 indirectly..what's wrong with it? I know you vehmently disagree and that is where will have to agree to disagree.

Absolutely not, no one should be held in any relationship against anyone wish...but the divorce track wasn't shown...and so all the debates😉

Actually we do have some societies and some people who practice polyandry. If it is consensual, who are we to tell them otherwise😉

I am not even comfortable discussing other religions, societies and culture, members here are sensitive to the issue. Maybe we can take in up in another forum, where members are less sensitive😃. But in an Indian Hindu culture setting, polygyny and polyandry isn't practiced anymore. The law of the land has stated that firmly and irrevocably and anyone other than the first 'spouse' don't get the respect of a husband or wife...so, in this serial, without Reva being divorced Sugni's status was nothing better than that of a mistress..

And as for VB discussing a family friend - From reading it do any of us even KNOW who he is talking about? If not, then why jump down the poor actors throat for using it as an example? Goodness.

Thank god we do not who is being discussed here, but hope Varun has taken the required permission from the husband and the family in question...there are privacy issues as well... in the West this could quickly spell a lawsuit on the terms of Privacy, defamation and confidentiality😉 for Varun...

Originally posted by: Kalapi

Laila, I deleted the older post as it was getting confusing...my comments in red..