Posted:
Some tracks of BV made me think about right of fathers over their children. Do mothers have more right over a child?
First was Basant's true identity track. His mother unilaterally decided that if she is not going to live - let the child be raised by her devrani and the father should not even know about existence of his child and even the child should not know his real parents. Basant came to know about his parents when he was perhaps more than forty years old. He grew up father-less even though his father was alive.
Next Shiv's identity track. Very similar to Basant's track - only here the mother was alive and gave up her child without knowledge of her husband. Shiv was about 30 years old when he came to know about his real parents. Strangely, Anup never questioned his wife about the baby swap - did he not had a right to know about his first born? Even if he would not have any objection in giving away his child for the happiness of his own brother and bhabhi, was not it his right to know what happened?
Next is hypothetical situation - if Gauri had not aborted and is living with her child - is it not violation of Jagya's right as father? Jagya does not even know about his first-born child, even if Gauri has the means to raise the child all alone- it is father's right to at least know about his son/daughter [Creatives had not divulged any information about Gauri - but making her pregnant at that time means - they have left a lot of options open].
Again comes the current track. Rat is evil - but he and his family loved Mannu (even if it was because he is the male heir - it is the norm in that society - even Jagya was ladesar because of being male heir - Sugna never got that much love from DS). He was tricked into giving away Mannu in adoption (he did not know that remarriage can open custody battle and that giving alimony after remarriage does not arise). Till adoption track, it did not look very bad because nobody could have sympathy with a person like Rat. But in current track - he is required to give his bone marrow - to save the child and is still expected to not claim his child. Is it not injustice to the father? I think, if he asks only Mannu's custody - I will not find any fault in it - if he asks for Ganga or any other evil thing - then it is another matter.
I want to know what other members think - whether as a father, Rat has a right over Mannu or whether Jagya-Ganga-Singhs are right to expect him to save the life of child (on philanthropic basis) and not to claim any right over the child? Considering Mannu is the only waris of his family while Singh family already have their own waris - is it justified if Rat or his parents to want Mannu back? Whether criminals have no right over their own children?
And whether fathers and mothers have equal right over their children- or mothers have more right?
Fan Fictions
