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.