So according to Narrator, Nikumbh should have kept quiet?

Page

Next Last

KhatamKahani

@KhatamKahani

Stunner

Posted: 11 years ago

Episode 15 - 20 June.

According to Narrator,Nikumbh should not have back answered and should've understood the father is worried for his daughter. But this contradicts with his own words because he chides Yamini for being quiet while her father behaves so rudely with Nikumbh.

Nikumbh kept quiet during most of Raghvendra's rude behavior and spoke only twice. He didn't even say anything when Raghvendra rudely and ungratefully stared at him while asking Yamini if she was hurt in any way. Nikumbh kept quiet. Nikumb first tried to speak when he saw Raghvendra scolding her. Now my question is, Nikumbh should've kept quiet here? Then how is he different than Yamini whom the narrator chides? If Nikumbh had been quiet and not tried to explain then what would that say of Nikumbh? Nikumbh would then be in the same boat as Yamini.

The second time Nikumbh spoke was after Raghvendra was not only rude to him but put all the blame on him and acted with him in such a classless manner. Here too, actually Nikumbh keeps his composure remarkably well and doesn't at first say anything. Yamini again tries to speak up and Raghvendra again scolds her. Then Nikumbh tries to explain the situation, to which Raghvendra acts even more rudely and thanklessly.

So Nikumbh should have kept quiet while he saw Yamini getting scolded. That would be completely sahi and not ghalat. And speaking up a bit and trying to explain yourself (that too respectfully while you are being treated and spoken to beyond disrespectfully) is back answering.

Edited by KhatamKahani - 11 years ago

Quote

Frequent Posters

KhatamKahani

@KhatamKahani

Stunner

Posted: 11 years ago

I did consider that Narrator is expressing the three views audience may have been thinking. And after expressing those three views, goes on to chide the thinking related to the view about Nikumbh through his "aap ghalat hai" lines.

But then I came to the conclusion that, no those lines are in response to and regarding Yamini's timidity.

Edited by KhatamKahani - 11 years ago

Quote

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

Pallavi

@paljay

Dazzler

Posted: 11 years ago

I agree with you that he did gave contradictory statement.

Narrator said that Nikumbh shouldn't have back answered Raghvendra but according to me it was not back answer at all, Nikumbh was just clarifying the situation, in which neither of them were at fault. So Narrator was wrong in that too.

Quote

LoveToLaugh

@LoveToLaugh

Voyager

Posted: 11 years ago

Struck me as odd, too. I actually went back and saw the scene again, because I thought I had missed out on something. Because Nikumbh did not talk back at all. He was actually remarkably calm.

Quote

KhatamKahani

@KhatamKahani

Stunner

Posted: 11 years ago

Another thing is that by characterizing Nikumbh's two responses as back answering and saying that Nikumbh was not understanding of a father's worry for his daughter, Narrator is buying into the same broad line of reasoning which Narrator says is wrong ("aap ghalat hai").

Because the only reason why Nikumbh would be considered as reacting wrongly is if one believes Nikumbh should've kept his mouth shut completely and not said anything. And if one believes Nikumbh should not have said anything at all in that situation, then it's because one is applying the line of thinking that one should keep quiet in the name of respect to elders.

Edited by KhatamKahani - 11 years ago

Quote

Rishani

@rishani77

Rocker

+ 2

Posted: 11 years ago

Originally posted by: KhatamKahani
I did consider that Narrator is expressing the three views audience may have been thinking. And after expressing those three views, goes on to chide the thinking related to the view about Nikumbh through his "aap ghalat hai" lines.

But then I came to the conclusion that, no those lines are in response to and regarding Yamini's timidity.

Well, I was also confused about what he said but as u said I also thought that it might relate 2 our point of view. But the "aap ghalat hai" lines may indirectly goes 2 Yamini...😕

And 4 me, Nikumbh wasn't wrong at all, he only said 3 words, trying 2 explain the situation & he was really silent & controlling his anger in front of her Yamini's dad.

Quote

AnjaliPunia

@AnjaliPunia

Dazzler

Posted: 11 years ago

now u got me totally confused liks about what went wromg i already had a conception in mind but ur points make me think again i guess i have to watch that part again to exactly understand wt acc to narrator was 'ghalat'

Quote

KhatamKahani

@KhatamKahani

Stunner

Posted: 11 years ago

Originally posted by: AnjaliPunia
now u got me totally confused liks about what went wromg i already had a conception in mind but ur points make me think again i guess i have to watch that part again to exactly understand wt acc to narrator was 'ghalat'

What's confusing?😆

I shall break it down, maybe it's more simple. Maybe it makes it more complicated. LOL

1) Narrator says Raghvendra is rude.
2) Narrator then says Nikumbh wasn't understanding of a father's position and talked back.
3) Narrator chides Yamini for not speaking up and says she is timid.

Related to #3, Narrator says

4) Parents who think children shouldn't speak up and keep them in a state are wrong
5) Sons and daughters who don't speak up in the name of respect and elders are wrong.

Number 2 contradicts with #3, which I already explained in my main post--that if Nikumbh had kept quiet he would not be much different than Yamini.

Number 2 also exhibits the same societal thinking Narrator rallies against in #4 and #5--especially #5. Because there is no reason for one to say Nikumbh was not understanding that Raghvendra is a worried father. Nikumbh kept his composure and calm and only tried to speak up twice, both of those times respectfully. And both times he was cut off rudely by Raghvendra, to which Nikumbh did not react or talk back.

The only reason to point a finger at Nikumbh for his speaking up is if one believes he should've kept quiet and not said a word. A lame excuse is given that it's about understanding a father's worry. But the point is, Nikumbh was understanding. His composure and calm demeanor is ignored and instead focus is on the two times he spoke up. Why? Because in the end, Narrator plays into the same societal thought that it wasn't Nikumbh's place to speak up at that moment and that he should've kept completely quiet--which of course brings me back to the fact that it contradicts with point number 3.

Edited by KhatamKahani - 11 years ago

Quote

AnjaliPunia

@AnjaliPunia

Dazzler

Posted: 11 years ago

such a long reply can confuse an alraedy confused person liks .
but i am glad u tried to make me understand n i get it narrator is contradicting himself times he is overlooking d fact that nikhumbh is understandable n ws quiet but wen he felt he need to spk up he did
so overall well i still have nothing to say abt dis overall
i m just trapped at assumptions being a literature addict my guesses r in deep but i think i shud remain on top boat to save myself any harm or misconceptio n