Originally posted by: EkPaheli
Gan you had to start a post which makes me want to comment 😒
My main grudge against this track is not Shagun or her presence...as much as it is the execution of this track.
Star plus is promoting it with the # we have come to hate - hope never dies...
I agree, surrogacy is a wonderful thing and HOPE for those countless couples who face issues like Ishita & Raman, where the alternative is something that can give them the joy of parenthood - sometimes at a cost, like Lakshmi, many women do it for the money or sometimes because the couple finds support & love by their near & dear ones - an ACTUAL case of surrogacy was in the papers when a woman in Ahmedabad in her late fifties, perhaps early sixties gave birth to her grandson for her daughter who was unable to have a child of her own...
This show could have been a way to educate the masses about the same, how surrogacy is a wonderful thing & resorting to it is not a crime nor is it something that should be looked down upon.
It could have spread this wonderful positive message had it gone about this the right way.
My primary grudge is - no doctor in his/her sane mind would directly consult to go for a surrogacy after one miscarriage...couples try for years & years to no avail sometimes or face repeated failures by having lost a number of kids to miscarriages.
Ishita had barely consummated her marriage & was declared pregnant - that was the first blow. Next came an unnatural reason for the miscarriage - any woman in that situation could & would have lost her baby...had it been shown Ishita lost the baby because her body couldnt be strong enough to sustain a child, it would have been so REAL.
Next, had it been said at any point of time that Ishita cannot conceive again, because if she really had conceived once, chances are of it happening again. Raman just had to be patient with her, a few months or a year wouldnt have killed him or her, but his move in essence kills their marriage & Ishita as a woman.
Duping her into surrogacy was the violation of Ishita' rights as a wife, as a woman & here not only did they show that its perfectly acceptable for Raman to do so, because he justifies his bizarre line of thinking as his love for Ishita & thinks this will be a gift of their love for her from him...SERIOUSLY?
A kid is not a gift you can wrap with a paper, put in a basket & tie a bow around and present to your wife.
They not only have violated the sanctity of marriage which resides in trust & acceptance, respect & understanding by doing this by terming this insanity as his love, they are showing as long as you call it love, even if you stab someone in the back with a knife, its okay...since the knife was wielded out of & branded as love... 🤬
Next they have shown doctors in poor light - I know not all doctors are angels & saints but not all of them are devils too & here they have made people distrust their doctors, honestly some doc & fertility clinic should sue BT & SP for this, for showing their profession in all kinds of wrong ways.
Not only were Ishita' eggs harvested without her consent, but also the surrogacy procedure was performed though the doctor knew that Ishita has not voluntarily accepted this - which is LEGALLY wrong, as doctor patient protocol goes - Ishita is Manoj' patient & not Raman, in showing that the husband can decide for the wife, they have just violated the rights of women who are in a situation like Ishita.
Surrogacy maybe a popular cause of medical tourism in India, but it is still resorted to by couples from foreign nationalities - couples who are gays or have problems having a child of their own, but its still a taboo in India. By showing something as bizarre and morally offensive as a husband taking his wife for a ride & seeking out a doctor to perform this procedure on the sly, they have just shown how India is still paternalistic & its perfectly alright for husbands to be so.
Shagun being the surrogate is not sitting well with me though because of the history of the woman, a wolf in sheep' disguise is still a wolf and lets say even if the wolf has really shed the skin of one and donned the garb of a sheep/saint - does it change the past where this very woman has time & again reminded Ishita that she is not woman enough to lure her man, attract him or that the man she claims as hers is the father of her children & so as the woman who gave him those kids, she would always have a precedence in his life over her & everyone else...the woman who has called Ishita a nanny on several occassions, would it not offend any woman in Ishita' shoes to watch her carry a child that is biologically & genetically, for all intents & purposes her own...the child which she should have been carrying is in the womb of a woman who always has humiliated & degraded her as a person, a woman & even mocked her marriage.
Lets say for one second - Ishita was the divorced mother of one/two & Raman the bachelor she married...for some reason like low motility or a low sperm count, Raman was unable to father a child with her biologically though they can consummate without any problems...would Raman have been fine with it had Ishita seeked out an ex or some random man as a sperm donor to fulfill the longing for a child that Raman would have had or in anyway duped him out of the chance of having a say in the matter of how to have a child of their own...when despite low motility or sperm count, Raman COULD have fathered a child with her though with assisted reproductive techniques and not the conventional way...
If the tables had been revered in anyway would Raman have accepted Ishita' explaination to give him a child though it meant stabbing him in the back for the same?
We all know the answer - then why is it that when a man cant compromise on the same issue and the woman who would opt for what Raman did her be branded with names, but the man can get away scot free in this case, while the woman has to bear the burden of betrayal, humiliation, degradation quietly and its perfectly acceptable if she does so.
How can be what is MORALLY OFFENSIVE & REPULSIVE, wrong for one gender & right for the other, shouldnt morals be not sexist?
19