Episode Discussion Thread #4 28 Sept to 4th Oct 2015 - Page 56

Created

Last reply

Replies

558

Views

27.5k

Users

26

Likes

1.6k

Frequent Posters

Kaana thumbnail
11th Anniversary Thumbnail Voyager Thumbnail
Posted: 10 years ago

Originally posted by: MaddyO





<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Is there even an element of suspense/surprise left?
Some on this thread had already predicted how Dharma Ashok convo will go after the flogging.
It went exactly like that word for word. 🤢

CVs have turned Ashok so snow white that even a usually dumb Sushim knows how to manipulate Ashok. All he has to do is insult Dharma or Ahan to get desired reaction from Ashok.
Sushim knew Ashok would protest against an innocent taking the flogging & will have to take 100 kode

We can practically write the dialogues of THIS Ashok & Dharma
This so naive gullible Ashok is hard to take - is this the same Samrat Vanraj who talked about B's blind trust causing him problems, Unani & Khorasani after the singhasan? Is this the same Ashok who showed self respect & attitude to Helena refusing to take handout of 50 pans she offered for his freedom?

Where is the Ashok who impressed even the mighty Chanakya with his smartness his bravery his chutzpah?

</font>


Totally. Where is the Ashok who impressed Chanakya? It's painful to see Ashok reduced to this. I just just dreaded this. They didn't spare Ashok also.
441597 thumbnail
Posted: 10 years ago
Meet the Prodigy of Ujjain:
Ahankara's brother, the First Silent-Crying Baby on the planet.
FarhaadkiMahi thumbnail
12th Anniversary Thumbnail Achiever Thumbnail Visit Streak 30 Thumbnail
Posted: 10 years ago

Originally posted by: krystal_watz

Meet the Prodigy of Ujjain:

Ahankara's brother, the First Silent-Crying Baby on the planet.


my mother said the same thing lol
guenhwyvar thumbnail
14th Anniversary Thumbnail Rocker Thumbnail + 2
Posted: 10 years ago

Originally posted by: MaddyO



Kaana, fantastic thought provoking post 👏


So allow me to present counter arguments 😆

There are 2 sides to this so called punishment - what punishment Acharyas "had" to give
AND
what opinions they formed & voiced about Ashok during flogging


Firstly these are learned men and they are supposed to have vastly superior brains to the layman right? This is why they were chosen during competition

It should have been clear to them that Charu was lying - why?
Even though Charu did not want to get into the delicate circumstances - the least they should have asked was

Did Ashok go to Sushim's room to attack him? - NO

Were very clearly Charu Dharma present at the time of the incident? - YES

Is Ashok so stupid - from what they have seen of him & praised in the competition - that he would go to kill Sushim in front of the witnesses? - NO!


Did Ashok hit Sushim? Yes - even Ashok admitted to it - BUT - Ashok vehemently protested that he only hit Sushim because he insulted Dharma. Even Sushim admitted to it.

So Ashok's reaction in the "incident" - not "attempt" on Sushim - was caused by what Sushim said to Dharma.

Ashok was protesting all along, Radhagupta also tried to intervene from Ashok's side but both were silenced & only Dharma was allowed to speak. It should have been crystal clear to Acharyas that Dharma was scared & Charu tried to browbeat her so did Sushim.

Ashok ONLY CONFESSED after his mother started crying at the verbal hammering Charu gave her.
Acharyas should have realized Ashok changed his statement to stop his mother's aggravation.

So the punishment should have been given keeping all this in mind. Acharyas did not ask any of this but just went by Ashok attacked Sushim - attack is wrong conclusion on their part.

Still let us presume they just went by convention without using brains & punished Ashok cos he admitted to the crime.


The comments by Acharyas against Ashok

They must rank as the silliest ones made by these learned men.

If Ashok was so arrogant - why did Ashok stop an innocent boy from taking punishment on his behalf? It was 10 kode but it was NOT OK with Ashok that an innocent person take his punishment.

Ashok CHOSE to intervene and actually took 10 times punishment than let an innocent person suffer. Why would these "brain surgeons" not remember this when they made stupid comment about Ashok's arrogance and attitude!
As for attitude it came from being innocent!!!


So like everybody in this track - these learned Acharyas brains were in deep freeze when they made these stupid comments.

Excellent post Medha! Wrote a huge response last night and just when I went to submit it, my ISP had some issues and I lost everything.

There were a few points regarding that episode that never connected:

1) Charu, Khallu, and Soldiers:
All three of these parties gave their written statement, but refused to give a verbal statement during the trial. Now, we could assume that the two judges read the statements, but again - the authenticity of a written statement should be questioned if the parties refused to give a verbal statement, given that they weren't suffering from any injuries and made it to the trial.

Point 0: The soldiers were never brought in as witnesses. They didn't witness the actual attack, but they could have offered some statements that would have changed the entire perspective. More on this later.

Further, if this had been a proper trial besides the obvious joke the CVs made it to, things just don't add up.

When Ashok punched Sushim, Charu called for soldiers to appear because the Prabhari Raja was being attacked. If we think about this logically, we have someone yelling that the future king is being attacked, what is the first thing that should happen? We should get a bunch of soldiers to come (maybe not the entire army, but close by guards initially, which slowly adds ups). What ended up happening was we got Khallatak appearing with two soldiers. Now, Khalltak is a warrior -- if there was an attack on the future King, 2 soldiers isn't going to cut it, especially when the Maharani (I'd guess that the guards are familiar by now with the voice of their Queen) was the one yelling. Why? Think about it -- if you're standing some distance away, your queen yells for help because the future king is being attack, you don't immediately think that only the future king is being attacked; you also think about the queen, she's also there / she might be in danger.

Point 1: It's odd that when a future king is being attacked, 2 guards and 1 non-warrior are there to save him. The queen was also present and thus if the future king was being attacked, the queen's life might also be in danger.

Let's continue... when Charu gives the order for Ashok to be arrested, both of the soldiers attack Ashok. That part wasn't too clear, but Ashok blocks the swords with CGM's sword. The soldier's swords were inches from Ashok's face, so maybe the soldiers felt threatened and proceeded to attack or maybe that's how they arrest people. Again, that scene wasn't clear. The important thing to highlight though is ... CGM's sword was present in the room, and Ashok wasn't pounding Sushim's face when they arrived.

Point 2: The soldiers didn't have to pull Ashok off Sushim - this implies that Ashok wasn't attempting to kill Sushim. Why would a person, who is trying to kill another, stop with just one punch to the cheek -- which isn't as deadly as bashing someone's skull per se. Also, if CGM's sword was present in the room -- and Sushim was in a drunken state -- it wouldn't be difficult to grab the sword and kill Sushim. Clearly, killing was not the intention of Ashok, because had he chosen to do so, a) he would have been beating Sushim when the soldiers arrived with his fists or b) Sushim would have sword wounds on his body.

As we progress ... one nauseating thing that occurs is Charu, though reluctant to give her statement to the court, has no issues with forcing Dharma. A rough quote of what Charu said to Dharma was, "Did you not see what I saw, did you not hear what I heard..." The court does not know what Charu heard or saw though, so urging Dharma to make her statement did not make sense. If Ashok hadn't intervened, and if the judges were actually intelligent, they would have seen clean through this, because it's a bit weird for the Queen who called in the "life-threatening attack" to urge Dharma to defend her son.

Point 3: Sushim giving the opportunity for Dharma to speak makes sense - he is the Prabhari Raja, he has to make fair rulings. What doesn't make sense is Charumitra's lines. She urges Dharma to make a statement, even though Dharma was supposed to speak in defense of Ashok. This is where Kaana's theory fits perfectly. However, if we momentarily forget her theory, we can see the folly in Charumitra's urge. Like I mentioned before, the judges do not have a clear idea of what happened. Even if they read the statements, they - being doing a public trial - should have said some words or reacted to when Khallatak said that their statements were all written, you know with a nod. None of this happened though, so we as the audience can only assume that the judges perhaps did not read the statements, after all the verdict wasn't based on an accumulation of the evidences; it was Ashok agreeing to the charges -- which is an incredibly stupid thing (but again more on that later).
Charu's urge signifies something odd. The judges had to aware of everything - they would have noticed Dharma's panicking, Charu's surprised look when Sushim gave the opportunity for Ashok to have a defense, and the most important of all - Charu's urge. She wasn't willing to reveal her statement, but was hell bent on getting Dharma to say stuff -- which as she said, should be what she, Charu, saw / heard. She was in a sense coercing Dharma into a corner where she had no option but to agree with Charu. In a court, the defendant lawyer would stand and say, "Objection my lord. Prosecuting attorney's mom is confusing witness and the court. Charu did not give her statement but is forcing Dharma to agree with her." The judge would be like, "Objection Sustained."

Coming to the conclusion -- Ashok's stupidity, Dharma's stupidity, Kaana's theory -- it all has one huge flaw that should have been recognized as soon as the two baldies walked into court. If Sushim wasn't going to decide the fate of Ashok, but two judges to ensure fairness, the slate is completely clean. Kaana's theory doesn't work here because Dharma knew that the two judges were going to decide the fate, it was clearly announced. She may have been worried that judges were bought out, but since Helena set the bar for how a RajMata should act when her own son is accused of being a traitor, Dharma should have followed suit. It would have shown not only a rise in character, but an adoption of her queenly position. All Dharma had to do was say the truth and see what happens, after all isn't she spouting stuff about how being truthful and honest will ultimately be in your favor.

Ashok's "quick thinking" when his mom was set up to be "insulted" was plain stupid and silly. "These people are trying to humiliate my mom in public, I'll accept the punishment to save her." No Ashok. Your mom is not a damsel in distress that needs to constantly be protected and saved. She need to grow out of her village mentality and embrace being a queen, with all its powers.

While the messiha stuff sounds interesting, I think it would have been more of a treat for us to see an internal war between Dharma and Charu. For example, when the soldiers came to arrest Ashok and Charu was like "Arrest Ashok!", Dharma should have stepped in and said, "Stop. As queen, I forbid you to arrest Ashok."

Charu would be pissed and retort, "As MahaRani, these are my orders. You have to follow them Rani Dharma."

Dharma: "If the Maharani is blinded for no reason other than revenge, she is not fit to be the Maharani. Your son insulted me, Maharani. He may be Prabhari Raja, but don't forget Prabhari doesn't mean now. If you arrest Ashok, I'll have your son arrested." She turns to the soldiers, "You lay your hands on Ashok and I will personally see to it that you are properly punished."

Or something like that. This allows the characters -- besides Ashok -- to grow.

On a side note though -- when Sushim ignored Dharma before the intelligence contest, why didn't Ashok jump to Dharma's rescue then and call Sushim out for insulting his mom. Sushim humiliated Dharma there too, but Ashok just brushed it aside. What's the difference between family and public if you're part of the royal family.


Edited by shyam09 - 10 years ago
babur1527 thumbnail
9th Anniversary Thumbnail Voyager Thumbnail
Posted: 10 years ago

Originally posted by: shyam09

Excellent post Medha! Wrote a huge response last night and just when I went to submit it, my ISP had some issues and I lost everything.

There were a few points regarding that episode that never connected:

1) Charu, Khallu, and Soldiers:
All three of these parties gave their written statement, but refused to give a verbal statement during the trial. Now, we could assume that the two judges read the statements, but again - the authenticity of a written statement should be questioned if the parties refused to give a verbal statement, given that they weren't suffering from any injuries and made it to the trial.

Point 0: The soldiers were never brought in as witnesses. They didn't witness the actual attack, but they could have offered some statements that would have changed the entire perspective. More on this later.

Further, if this had been a proper trial besides the obvious joke the CVs made it to, things just don't add up.

When Ashok punched Sushim, Charu called for soldiers to appear because the Prabhari Raja was being attacked. If we think about this logically, we have someone yelling that the future king is being attacked, what is the first thing that should happen? We should get a bunch of soldiers to come (maybe not the entire army, but close by guards initially, which slowly adds ups). What ended up happening was we got Khallatak appearing with two soldiers. Now, Khalltak is a warrior -- if there was an attack on the future King, 2 soldiers isn't going to cut it, especially when the Maharani (I'd guess that the guards are familiar by now with the voice of their Queen) was the one yelling. Why? Think about it -- if you're standing some distance away, your queen yells for help because the future king is being attack, you don't immediately think that only the future king is being attacked; you also think about the queen, she's also there / she might be in danger.

Point 1: It's odd that when a future king is being attacked, 2 guards and 1 non-warrior are there to save him. The queen was also present and thus if the future king was being attacked, the queen's life might also be in danger.

Let's continue... when Charu gives the order for Ashok to be arrested, both of the soldiers attack Ashok. That part wasn't too clear, but Ashok blocks the swords with CGM's sword. The soldier's swords were inches from Ashok's face, so maybe the soldiers felt threatened and proceeded to attack or maybe that's how they arrest people. Again, that scene wasn't clear. The important thing to highlight though is ... CGM's sword was present in the room, and Ashok wasn't pounding Sushim's face when they arrived.

Point 2: The soldiers didn't have to pull Ashok off Sushim - this implies that Ashok wasn't attempting to kill Sushim. Why would a person, who is trying to kill another, stop with just one punch to the cheek -- which isn't as deadly as bashing someone's skull per se. Also, if CGM's sword was present in the room -- and Sushim was in a drunken state -- it wouldn't be difficult to grab the sword and kill Sushim. Clearly, killing was not the intention of Ashok, because had he chosen to do so, a) he would have been beating Sushim when the soldiers arrived with his fists or b) Sushim would have sword wounds on his body.

As we progress ... one nauseating thing that occurs is Charu, though reluctant to give her statement to the court, has no issues with forcing Dharma. A rough quote of what Charu said to Dharma was, "Did you not see what I saw, did you not hear what I heard..." The court does not know what Charu heard or saw though, so urging Dharma to make her statement did not make sense. If Ashok hadn't intervened, and if the judges were actually intelligent, they would have seen clean through this, because it's a bit weird for the Queen who called in the "life-threatening attack" to urge Dharma to defend her son.

Point 3: Sushim giving the opportunity for Dharma to speak makes sense - he is the Prabhari Raja, he has to make fair rulings. What doesn't make sense is Charumitra's lines. She urges Dharma to make a statement, even though Dharma was supposed to speak in defense of Ashok. This is where Kaana's theory fits perfectly. However, if we momentarily forget her theory, we can see the folly in Charumitra's urge. Like I mentioned before, the judges do not have a clear idea of what happened. Even if they read the statements, they - being doing a public trial - should have said some words or reacted to when Khallatak said that their statements were all written, you know with a nod. None of this happened though, so we as the audience can only assume that the judges perhaps did not read the statements, after all the verdict wasn't based on an accumulation of the evidences; it was Ashok agreeing to the charges -- which is an incredibly stupid thing (but again more on that later).
Charu's urge signifies something odd. The judges had to aware of everything - they would have noticed Dharma's panicking, Charu's surprised look when Sushim gave the opportunity for Ashok to have a defense, and the most important of all - Charu's urge. She wasn't willing to reveal her statement, but was hell bent on getting Dharma to say stuff -- which as she said, should be what she, Charu, saw / heard. She was in a sense coercing Dharma into a corner where she had no option but to agree with Charu. In a court, the defendant lawyer would stand and say, "Objection my lord. Prosecuting attorney's mom is confusing witness and the court. Charu did not give her statement but is forcing Dharma to agree with her." The judge would be like, "Objection Sustained."

Coming to the conclusion -- Ashok's stupidity, Dharma's stupidity, Kaana's theory -- it all has one huge flaw that should have been recognized as soon as the two baldies walked into court. If Sushim wasn't going to decide the fate of Ashok, but two judges to ensure fairness, the slate is completely clean. Kaana's theory doesn't work here because Dharma knew that the two judges were going to decide the fate, it was clearly announced. She may have been worried that judges were bought out, but since Helena set the bar for how a RajMata should act when her own son is accused of being a traitor, Dharma should have followed suit. It would have shown not only a rise in character, but an adoption of her queenly position. All Dharma had to do was say the truth and see what happens, after all isn't she spouting stuff about how being truthful and honest will ultimately be in your favor.

Ashok's "quick thinking" when his mom was set up to be "insulted" was plain stupid and silly. "These people are trying to humiliate my mom in public, I'll accept the punishment to save her." No Ashok. Your mom is not a damsel in distress that needs to constantly be protected and saved. She need to grow out of her village mentality and embrace being a queen, with all its powers.

While the messiha stuff sounds interesting, I think it would have been more of a treat for us to see an internal war between Dharma and Charu. For example, when the soldiers came to arrest Ashok and Charu was like "Arrest Ashok!", Dharma should have stepped in and said, "Stop. As queen, I forbid you to arrest Ashok."

Charu would be pissed and retort, "As MahaRani, these are my orders. You have to follow them Rani Dharma."

Dharma: "If the Maharani is blinded for no reason other than revenge, she is not fit to be the Maharani. Your son insulted me, a Maharani. He may be Prabhari Raja, but don't forget Prabhari doesn't mean now. If you arrest Ashok, I'll have your son arrested." She turns to the soldiers, "You lay your hands on Ashok and I will personally see to it that you are properly punished."

Or something like that. This allows the characters -- besides Ashok -- to grow.

On a side note though -- when Sushim ignored Dharma before the intelligence contest, why didn't Ashok jump to Dharma's rescue then and call Sushim out for insulting his mom. Sushim humiliated Dharma there too, but Ashok just brushed it aside. What's the difference between family and public if you're part of the royal family.



Excellent post Shyam. This court scene was Radhagupt's opportunity to step into Chanakya's shoes. And also a good way to show Dharma's transition into being an actual Raani.

Seriously CVs. If you want to save money and want some free plots we will gladly provide it for you.

CVs you have a unique opportunity to make CAS the best historical show on TV. Don't ruin it with your nonsense just to please some masochist viewers.
441597 thumbnail
Posted: 10 years ago
Shyam, the CVs should pay you out of gratitude for bothering to dissect this jokeling of a show. 😆
Kaana thumbnail
11th Anniversary Thumbnail Voyager Thumbnail
Posted: 10 years ago

Originally posted by: shyam09


Excellent post Medha! Wrote a huge response last night and just when I went to submit it, my ISP had some issues and I lost everything.

There were a few points regarding that episode that never connected:

1) Charu, Khallu, and Soldiers:
All three of these parties gave their written statement, but refused to give a verbal statement during the trial. Now, we could assume that the two judges read the statements, but again - the authenticity of a written statement should be questioned if the parties refused to give a verbal statement, given that they weren't suffering from any injuries and made it to the trial.

Point 0: The soldiers were never brought in as witnesses. They didn't witness the actual attack, but they could have offered some statements that would have changed the entire perspective. More on this later.

Further, if this had been a proper trial besides the obvious joke the CVs made it to, things just don't add up.

When Ashok punched Sushim, Charu called for soldiers to appear because the Prabhari Raja was being attacked. If we think about this logically, we have someone yelling that the future king is being attacked, what is the first thing that should happen? We should get a bunch of soldiers to come (maybe not the entire army, but close by guards initially, which slowly adds ups). What ended up happening was we got Khallatak appearing with two soldiers. Now, Khalltak is a warrior -- if there was an attack on the future King, 2 soldiers isn't going to cut it, especially when the Maharani (I'd guess that the guards are familiar by now with the voice of their Queen) was the one yelling. Why? Think about it -- if you're standing some distance away, your queen yells for help because the future king is being attack, you don't immediately think that only the future king is being attacked; you also think about the queen, she's also there / she might be in danger.

Point 1: It's odd that when a future king is being attacked, 2 guards and 1 non-warrior are there to save him. The queen was also present and thus if the future king was being attacked, the queen's life might also be in danger.

Let's continue... when Charu gives the order for Ashok to be arrested, both of the soldiers attack Ashok. That part wasn't too clear, but Ashok blocks the swords with CGM's sword. The soldier's swords were inches from Ashok's face, so maybe the soldiers felt threatened and proceeded to attack or maybe that's how they arrest people. Again, that scene wasn't clear. The important thing to highlight though is ... CGM's sword was present in the room, and Ashok wasn't pounding Sushim's face when they arrived.

Point 2: The soldiers didn't have to pull Ashok off Sushim - this implies that Ashok wasn't attempting to kill Sushim. Why would a person, who is trying to kill another, stop with just one punch to the cheek -- which isn't as deadly as bashing someone's skull per se. Also, if CGM's sword was present in the room -- and Sushim was in a drunken state -- it wouldn't be difficult to grab the sword and kill Sushim. Clearly, killing was not the intention of Ashok, because had he chosen to do so, a) he would have been beating Sushim when the soldiers arrived with his fists or b) Sushim would have sword wounds on his body.

As we progress ... one nauseating thing that occurs is Charu, though reluctant to give her statement to the court, has no issues with forcing Dharma. A rough quote of what Charu said to Dharma was, "Did you not see what I saw, did you not hear what I heard..." The court does not know what Charu heard or saw though, so urging Dharma to make her statement did not make sense. If Ashok hadn't intervened, and if the judges were actually intelligent, they would have seen clean through this, because it's a bit weird for the Queen who called in the "life-threatening attack" to urge Dharma to defend her son.

Point 3: Sushim giving the opportunity for Dharma to speak makes sense - he is the Prabhari Raja, he has to make fair rulings. What doesn't make sense is Charumitra's lines. She urges Dharma to make a statement, even though Dharma was supposed to speak in defense of Ashok. This is where Kaana's theory fits perfectly. However, if we momentarily forget her theory, we can see the folly in Charumitra's urge. Like I mentioned before, the judges do not have a clear idea of what happened. Even if they read the statements, they - being doing a public trial - should have said some words or reacted to when Khallatak said that their statements were all written, you know with a nod. None of this happened though, so we as the audience can only assume that the judges perhaps did not read the statements, after all the verdict wasn't based on an accumulation of the evidences; it was Ashok agreeing to the charges -- which is an incredibly stupid thing (but again more on that later).
Charu's urge signifies something odd. The judges had to aware of everything - they would have noticed Dharma's panicking, Charu's surprised look when Sushim gave the opportunity for Ashok to have a defense, and the most important of all - Charu's urge. She wasn't willing to reveal her statement, but was hell bent on getting Dharma to say stuff -- which as she said, should be what she, Charu, saw / heard. She was in a sense coercing Dharma into a corner where she had no option but to agree with Charu. In a court, the defendant lawyer would stand and say, "Objection my lord. Prosecuting attorney's mom is confusing witness and the court. Charu did not give her statement but is forcing Dharma to agree with her." The judge would be like, "Objection Sustained."

Coming to the conclusion -- Ashok's stupidity, Dharma's stupidity, Kaana's theory -- it all has one huge flaw that should have been recognized as soon as the two baldies walked into court. If Sushim wasn't going to decide the fate of Ashok, but two judges to ensure fairness, the slate is completely clean. Kaana's theory doesn't work here because Dharma knew that the two judges were going to decide the fate, it was clearly announced. She may have been worried that judges were bought out, but since Helena set the bar for how a RajMata should act when her own son is accused of being a traitor, Dharma should have followed suit. It would have shown not only a rise in character, but an adoption of her queenly position. All Dharma had to do was say the truth and see what happens, after all isn't she spouting stuff about how being truthful and honest will ultimately be in your favor.

Ashok's "quick thinking" when his mom was set up to be "insulted" was plain stupid and silly. "These people are trying to humiliate my mom in public, I'll accept the punishment to save her." No Ashok. Your mom is not a damsel in distress that needs to constantly be protected and saved. She need to grow out of her village mentality and embrace being a queen, with all its powers.

While the messiha stuff sounds interesting, I think it would have been more of a treat for us to see an internal war between Dharma and Charu. For example, when the soldiers came to arrest Ashok and Charu was like "Arrest Ashok!", Dharma should have stepped in and said, "Stop. As queen, I forbid you to arrest Ashok."

Charu would be pissed and retort, "As MahaRani, these are my orders. You have to follow them Rani Dharma."

Dharma: "If the Maharani is blinded for no reason other than revenge, she is not fit to be the Maharani. Your son insulted me, Maharani. He may be Prabhari Raja, but don't forget Prabhari doesn't mean now. If you arrest Ashok, I'll have your son arrested." She turns to the soldiers, "You lay your hands on Ashok and I will personally see to it that you are properly punished."

Or something like that. This allows the characters -- besides Ashok -- to grow.

On a side note though -- when Sushim ignored Dharma before the intelligence contest, why didn't Ashok jump to Dharma's rescue then and call Sushim out for insulting his mom. Sushim humiliated Dharma there too, but Ashok just brushed it aside. What's the difference between family and public if you're part of the royal family.




Super Doooper. Now take my 3 whistles, nay make it 6 :-)
MaddyO thumbnail
12th Anniversary Thumbnail Sparkler Thumbnail Networker 1 Thumbnail
Posted: 10 years ago
👏

Originally posted by: shyam09

Excellent post Medha! Wrote a huge response last night and just when I went to submit it, my ISP had some issues and I lost everything.

Thanks Shyam 😳 It is so annoying when that happens.

There were a few points regarding that episode that never connected:

1) Charu, Khallu, and Soldiers:
All three of these parties gave their written statement, but refused to give a verbal statement during the trial. Now, we could assume that the two judges read the statements, but again - the authenticity of a written statement should be questioned if the parties refused to give a verbal statement, given that they weren't suffering from any injuries and made it to the trial.

Point 0: The soldiers were never brought in as witnesses. They didn't witness the actual attack, but they could have offered some statements that would have changed the entire perspective. More on this later.

Further, if this had been a proper trial besides the obvious joke the CVs made it to, things just don't add up.

When Ashok punched Sushim, Charu called for soldiers to appear because the Prabhari Raja was being attacked. If we think about this logically, we have someone yelling that the future king is being attacked, what is the first thing that should happen? We should get a bunch of soldiers to come (maybe not the entire army, but close by guards initially, which slowly adds ups). What ended up happening was we got Khallatak appearing with two soldiers. Now, Khalltak is a warrior -- if there was an attack on the future King, 2 soldiers isn't going to cut it, especially when the Maharani (I'd guess that the guards are familiar by now with the voice of their Queen) was the one yelling. Why? Think about it -- if you're standing some distance away, your queen yells for help because the future king is being attack, you don't immediately think that only the future king is being attacked; you also think about the queen, she's also there / she might be in danger.

Point 1: It's odd that when a future king is being attacked, 2 guards and 1 non-warrior are there to save him. The queen was also present and thus if the future king was being attacked, the queen's life might also be in danger.

Let's continue... when Charu gives the order for Ashok to be arrested, both of the soldiers attack Ashok. That part wasn't too clear, but Ashok blocks the swords with CGM's sword. The soldier's swords were inches from Ashok's face, so maybe the soldiers felt threatened and proceeded to attack or maybe that's how they arrest people. Again, that scene wasn't clear. The important thing to highlight though is ... CGM's sword was present in the room, and Ashok wasn't pounding Sushim's face when they arrived.


Great points. Charu was obviously lying all along & trying to coarse Dharma.


Point 2: The soldiers didn't have to pull Ashok off Sushim - this implies that Ashok wasn't attempting to kill Sushim. Why would a person, who is trying to kill another, stop with just one punch to the cheek -- which isn't as deadly as bashing someone's skull per se. Also, if CGM's sword was present in the room -- and Sushim was in a drunken state -- it wouldn't be difficult to grab the sword and kill Sushim. Clearly, killing was not the intention of Ashok, because had he chosen to do so, a) he would have been beating Sushim when the soldiers arrived with his fists or b) Sushim would have sword wounds on his body.

Ashok only reacted - not attacked Sushim on his own. BTW didn't Sushim first push & hit Ashok? How come nobody mentioned this?


As we progress ... one nauseating thing that occurs is Charu, though reluctant to give her statement to the court, has no issues with forcing Dharma. A rough quote of what Charu said to Dharma was, "Did you not see what I saw, did you not hear what I heard..." The court does not know what Charu heard or saw though, so urging Dharma to make her statement did not make sense. If Ashok hadn't intervened, and if the judges were actually intelligent, they would have seen clean through this, because it's a bit weird for the Queen who called in the "life-threatening attack" to urge Dharma to defend her son.

Point 3: Sushim giving the opportunity for Dharma to speak makes sense - he is the Prabhari Raja, he has to make fair rulings. What doesn't make sense is Charumitra's lines. She urges Dharma to make a statement, even though Dharma was supposed to speak in defense of Ashok. This is where Kaana's theory fits perfectly. However, if we momentarily forget her theory, we can see the folly in Charumitra's urge. Like I mentioned before, the judges do not have a clear idea of what happened. Even if they read the statements, they - being doing a public trial - should have said some words or reacted to when Khallatak said that their statements were all written, you know with a nod. None of this happened though, so we as the audience can only assume that the judges perhaps did not read the statements, after all the verdict wasn't based on an accumulation of the evidences; it was Ashok agreeing to the charges -- which is an incredibly stupid thing (but again more on that later).
Charu's urge signifies something odd. The judges had to aware of everything - they would have noticed Dharma's panicking, Charu's surprised look when Sushim gave the opportunity for Ashok to have a defense, and the most important of all - Charu's urge. She wasn't willing to reveal her statement, but was hell bent on getting Dharma to say stuff -- which as she said, should be what she, Charu, saw / heard. She was in a sense coercing Dharma into a corner where she had no option but to agree with Charu. In a court, the defendant lawyer would stand and say, "Objection my lord. Prosecuting attorney's mom is confusing witness and the court. Charu did not give her statement but is forcing Dharma to agree with her." The judge would be like, "Objection Sustained."

👏👏
Badgering & leading the witness - Charu should have been stopped from speaking at all.


Coming to the conclusion -- Ashok's stupidity, Dharma's stupidity, Kaana's theory -- it all has one huge flaw that should have been recognized as soon as the two baldies walked into court. If Sushim wasn't going to decide the fate of Ashok, but two judges to ensure fairness, the slate is completely clean. Kaana's theory doesn't work here because Dharma knew that the two judges were going to decide the fate, it was clearly announced. She may have been worried that judges were bought out, but since Helena set the bar for how a RajMata should act when her own son is accused of being a traitor, Dharma should have followed suit. It would have shown not only a rise in character, but an adoption of her queenly position. All Dharma had to do was say the truth and see what happens, after all isn't she spouting stuff about how being truthful and honest will ultimately be in your favor.

Ashok's "quick thinking" when his mom was set up to be "insulted" was plain stupid and silly. "These people are trying to humiliate my mom in public, I'll accept the punishment to save her." No Ashok. Your mom is not a damsel in distress that needs to constantly be protected and saved. She need to grow out of her village mentality and embrace being a queen, with all its powers.

While the messiha stuff sounds interesting, I think it would have been more of a treat for us to see an internal war between Dharma and Charu. For example, when the soldiers came to arrest Ashok and Charu was like "Arrest Ashok!", Dharma should have stepped in and said, "Stop. As queen, I forbid you to arrest Ashok."

Charu would be pissed and retort, "As MahaRani, these are my orders. You have to follow them Rani Dharma."

Dharma: "If the Maharani is blinded for no reason other than revenge, she is not fit to be the Maharani. Your son insulted me, Maharani. He may be Prabhari Raja, but don't forget Prabhari doesn't mean now. If you arrest Ashok, I'll have your son arrested." She turns to the soldiers, "You lay your hands on Ashok and I will personally see to it that you are properly punished."

Or something like that. This allows the characters -- besides Ashok -- to grow.

On a side note though -- when Sushim ignored Dharma before the intelligence contest, why didn't Ashok jump to Dharma's rescue then and call Sushim out for insulting his mom. Sushim humiliated Dharma there too, but Ashok just brushed it aside. What's the difference between family and public if you're part of the royal family.





Shyam 👏👏👏 fantastic post. I am glad you also saw the entire farce of trial for what it was. 😃

It would have been so much better if CVs had got a clever RG and firm Rani Dharma standing up for Ashok's rights.

Also, Khalatak had already pressured one of the judges into voting for Sushim during competition. So how can this judge does not consider that Khalatak is doing the same here too? This was all manipulated & by showing the judges they had chosen for their brains in competition as so easily manipulated fools they just turned these Acharyas into jokes.

How come these learned men are not aware of the politics part & they had already seen Khalatak try to manipulate the competition in favor of Sushim. The least they should have understood was that Sushim Charu are using the position to harm Ashok.




Shyam this is how I would have liked the scene to go


If the Acharyas had actually used their superior brains that is!

Acharyas before announcing punishment - all the facts about the "incident" (please note incident not "attack") are not put before us. Maharani Charumitra has decided not to reveal certain facts. Rani Dharma was present at the time of the incident and as both Ashok and Sushim say - Ashok reacted because Sushim insulted Rani Dharma.

So for Rani Dharma to say that she did not see anything sounds very odd.

We think this incident was a fight amongst brothers not an attack on Prabhari Samrat with any intention to take his life.

Would Prabhari Samrat & Maharani C would like to take their complaint back - treating this incident as a family dispute - we want to ask them?

At their no - they should have declared punishment saying we are bound to issue punishment - taking this decision based only on SOME of the facts put before us.

This would not have turned the Acharyas super gullible to get so easily manipulated. The onus of the punishment would have been on Sushim & Charu.


What happened after announcing the punishment would not change it, rather again they were duty bound to increase it - however, their opinion of Ashok voiced during the flogging - should have taken Ashok's behavior - his refusal to allow an innocent person to be punished should have made them see Ashok in different light. Not voice those stupid sentiments about his arrogance!

DiamondLife thumbnail
Posted: 10 years ago
anyone has watched todays episode??😆

Related Topics

Top

Stay Connected with IndiaForums!

Be the first to know about the latest news, updates, and exclusive content.

Add to Home Screen!

Install this web app on your iPhone for the best experience. It's easy, just tap and then "Add to Home Screen".