Posted:
I don't understand why on earth Rudra doesn't give Paro the clues he found to doubt Takhursa. Why does he think blackmailing is the only resort especially on a girl who chose to come back to him over giving away her mamisa/village?
Why doesn't he consider following points to even doubt once that she wouldn't go against her village or Takhursa.
1. Doesn't he see that she strongly believes that Takhursa is not at fault.
2. She did not sign even the day her mamisa, Takhursa and entire village disowned her.
3. Knowing that he was following her, she chose to come back rather than giving away her mamisa.
4. She came back instead of committing suicide because she believes he might kill the whole village. So she chose to take the punishment by being with him.
5. She hated to hear him when he tried to tell about brides. She strongly stated that she doesn't believe him. Doesn't that show to him she like other villagers is also under the illusion that all is well and doesn't know anything about Takhursa. What makes him still think she knows it all.
6. She told him so confidently that she would dare not to go against her country and she is not a culprit. What makes him doubt her intentions?
For him to think that blackmailing would work he has to be very strongly believing that Paro knows about takursa. Shouldn't he at least once give the benifit of doubt that may be the takursa is doing this all under cover and no villagers know it. I mean it's no rocket science to understand that villagers blindly believe takursa and to get that kind of respect they sure should have known nothing about him. Or on the other hand if he thinks the entire village knows about his deeds and are supporting him then shouldn't one doubt knowing it all why would villagers put their own daughter's life at stake? If he thinks in this perspective he would have spent more time to prove those villagers who gave away their daughters who never came back. Leave convincing villagers to later, why doesn't he try to convince Paro. Why doesn't he show her the clues that he might have got against takursa to suspect him in the first place. Say there are none and he went by his strong guts, why wouldn't he do the following at the least:
1. Tell her that her hubby tried to use her to cross the border. She wouldn't believe but why hasn't he told that?
2. Why couldn't he show her the money and arms he confiscated?
3. Why wouldn't Aman tell her about how barati's were the one's who started firing first?
4. Why wouldn't he ask her all the crimes that takursa told BSD people did and prove her that they weren't done by BSD?
I guess if all above are done then the story ends. But i still feel they should have shown few more instances where he tried to prove to her what takursa is rather than always assuming she knows it all and forcing her to accept it. Few attempts where he tried and failed because of her blind trust over takursa would have been more convincing plot.
Since I had all above alternatives in the back of my head, I hated him using self pity today to prove he is right instead of using a major's mind who should rely on showing proof not emotions to prove to someone what he believes in.
I hope a few of u share my opinion. If not bring on your counter reasons so we have a healthy discussion to justify current plot.
-Su
Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi 2
