Dear Deepthi,
When was Sumer forgiven for attacking Puru? Have I missed something?
This apart, no one, not even a traitor, can be summarily executed even by the king without benefit of a trial and an opportunity to defend himself. Anusuya is not even the king. She has no right or powers to summarily execute Sumer.
She acts in haste in a crisis, which is understandable, and instead of wounding and stopping Sumer, she ends up killing him. "Why did you have to kill him?" is exactly the question the Dasyu rani asks, and Anusuya has no answer for that.
I don't know if Laachi and her family can forgive and forget what Anusuya did, or if they will believe whatever proof is forthcoming after an investigation. Puru himself clearly doesn't believe Sumer is guilty despite Anusuya's protests. If her son is himself doubtful about her affirmation, how can the Dasyus be expected to believe her? And their question as to why Anusuya killed Sumer straightaway has no answer.
I think there is going to be a major emotional conflict, leading to a breakdown of a relationship. My bet would be on that of Laachi and Puru, at least for a while.
As for Alexander, I can't accept the argument that he is only dealing with an enemy in a harsh manner, nor that many other kings have done the same.
Firstly, no honorable king that I know of would have done anything even half as sadistic and vile as what Alexander comtemplates with evident pleasure. It is only savages who would roast an enemy alive and relish the spectacleð¡. They would mostly have been cannibals as well, and would have eaten their roasted enemy, an item one presumes is not on Alexander's programme.
Yes, those condemned for high treason were, till the 18th century in Europe and England, hung, drawn and quartered, ie ripped into four pieces by four galloping horses, each of which was tied to one of his four limbs.
But, for one thing, Chanakya was not a subject of Alexander's, and so cannot be guilty of high treason towards Alexander.
Secondly, setting aside such legal issues, even the horrors of the hanging, drawing, and quartering pale in comparison to the iron bull method of execution.
There is a huge moral difference between killing your enemy, the way Chanakya wants Porus to kill Alexander ( though that too would have been beneath an honorable king, as Porus asserts) and roasting him alive and exulting at his screams. The latter is sadistic, and acting thus would lower Alexander, in my eyes at least, beyond redemption.
Which, of course, is exactly what the CVs have been working towards all along where the Sony Alexander is concerned. Fot there would be very few viewers who would perceive what Alexander is planning the way you do. 99% would be , like me, horrified and disgusted. And from now on, they will see him as a monster, nothing less. In fact this is one of the very few occasions where I agree with Surbhi (Ethereal Rati).
I don't care a hoot how the Sony Olympias is shown. I care a great deal about how the Sony Alexander is shown. And what I saw last night was the pits.ð¡
Lastly, as far as I remember, the man Olympias stuffed into the iron bull did not die. Philip arrived before Olympias had got very far with her roasting programme, knocked the bull over, and rescued the unfortunate man. He was clearly alive when he was pulled out of the bull.
Shyamala Aunty
PS: Did you ever see my comments on the post on Porus that you had so kindly dedicated to me? They were, predictablyð,the longest in that thread! I had planned to post more detailed ones as a follow up, but as you didn't seem to have read the first one, I held off.
QUOTE=daphnejasmine]
Originally posted by: sashashyam
What emotional blackmailing?
Laachi believes, however wrongly, that Sumer was innocent. She defends Puru against the Dasyus because she believes that was the right and just thing to do. Not just because he is her husband.
Similarly, she now sees logic and justice in what her mother says. That their faith in Sumer's innocence is misplaced is irrelevant. All that is relevant is what they both believe
So Laachi is now going to demand that as the king, Puru too metes out justice, as she sees it, in the killing of her brother. Where does emotional blackmailing come in here?
If Anusuya had been deft enough to wound Sumer and halt him in his tracks, instead of killing him, things would have worked out far better. For her to now expect that Laachi and her family will accept what she asserts about Sumer being a traitor is illogical. Or even that they will believe whatever proof that can be eventually unearthed.
Shyamala Aunty
Edited by sashashyam - 7 years ago
Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi 2
