Impressed With Maharaj Purushottam

Page

surbhi tyagi

@EtherealRati

Trailblazer

+ 5

Posted: 7 years ago

Aajjj puruuu won my hearttt...he was so much better than what i was expecting...i cant thank cvs enough for keeping the beauty of anusuya and puru relation...usne kabhi apni maa par shak kiya hi nahi...poora bharosa tha usse uski maa ke shabdo par...aur woh saksh dhoondhna bhi chahtha tha ...par usne laachi ka bhi saath nahi choda...hone di nyay sabah...hasti ke saath milkar us situation ko create kiya...made hasti try kill dasyuraj...laachi protected and tried killing him but puru stopped and made a point...asked laachi why didnt she took king's permission...she said her father would have died if she had choosen to take permission...and claimed that his mom did the same...jaise aaj agar puru na hota toh laachi maar deti hasti ko...ussi tarah tha sumer...uski maa uske praan bachana chahthi thi. He claimed the same thing which i said yesterday ki kuch aisa nahi hain joh sumer ko nirdosh proof kar raha ho..aur maa meri deshbhakt hain...aur aisa ho sakta hain ki hum log bahut se sach se anjan hooo...aur isiliye woh maa ko punish nahi kar sakta abhi issi waqt...i loved how he put his pagdi down and clearly stated ki ek beta tark karna chahtha hain before proceding with this...just.for anusuya...and after proving his point...he became the husband...he knows laachi trusts her brother and thus she can feel ..ki shayad uska bhai innocent hooo...toh he furthur took decision to give laachi the adhikar of giving punishment to anusuya...now laachi could understand how things might have happened...and made the decision to give 7 days time to anusuya to prove herself...thats what puru wanted ...but he rightly said ...aaj agar woh koi bhi decision sunata toh ya toh log kehte ki maa ki wajah se yeh decision liya ya patni ki wajah se ...he protected his mother as a son and showed the correct path to his wife. Amazing...just amazing...impressed.

Edited by EtherealRati - 7 years ago

Quote

Frequent Posters

sashashyam

@sashashyam

Sparkler

+ 3

Posted: 7 years ago

Surbhi my dear,

I am happy to see you so happy!

This apart, there were things that Puru did today that left me bemused and not too pleased.

See, it is NOT for Anusuya, the accused in these proceedings, to prove herself innocent. It is for the State, in this case Maharaja Purushottam, to prove her guilty.

So what Maharaja Purushottam should have done was to launch a detailed enquiry into the possibility that he, really cleverly, flags to Laachi, viz that Sumer might be guilty.

For there are three elements in the charges against Anusuya.

One, that she had taken the law into her own hands - you would remember that I had raised this point - and not only attacked Sumer but killed him outright instead of wounding him. Puru has nullified this charge, by demonstrating that in a crisis situation, such things happen.

Two, that Anusuya has not been able to provide proof of Sumer's treason. Puru negates this one too by stating that the absence of proof of guilt is NOT automatically proof of innocence.

The third charge is that she wrongly assumed Sumer's guilt based on her own interpretation of his actions. This can be negated only by getting the evidence to settle the issue one way or the other.

Here is where Maharaja Purushottam stumbles. He does not state the obvious, that it is HIS job as king to get this enquiry done.

Instead, through the odd decision to leave the judgement - BOTH of Anusuya's culpability and her consequent punishment - to Laachi, who is the accuser, and hence automatically biased against the accused Anusuya, he in effect abdicates his responsibility as the king to secure justice for the accused.

Now it is left to Anusuya to prove herself innocent, which is a travesty of the fundamental principle of jurisprudence, that is for the State to prove that the accused is guilty.

And that too within such a short time frame for a matter of life and death, for if Anusuya is found guilty, the sentence might well be a capital one ?

How, and more important, WHY is Anusuya expected to get this proof with a 7 day deadline, when it is actually Puru's task as the king to do that, of course in an impartial manner?

Secondly, if he wants to avoid any appearance of his being partial towards either his mother or his wife, he should have appointed an impartial, unconcerned outsider as the judge. NOT Laachi. How can she, the accuser, be trusted to be an impartial judge? And how would any judgement she gives look impartial, and be accepted as such? It is most unconvincing.

So now Maharaja Purushottam has, instead of discharging the responsibility which is his, and his alone, delegated it to the one person to whom he should NOT have delegated it.

It is ludicrous. More to the point, it is downright dangerous, and as far as Puru's notions of kingship go, decidedly disheartening.

Shyamala Di

Edited by sashashyam - 7 years ago

Quote

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

Vaishnavi

@Vaishnavi_

Voyager

Posted: 7 years ago

Originally posted by: sashashyam
Surbhi my dear,

I am happy to see you so happy!

This apart, there were things that Puru did today that left me bemused and not too pleased.

See, it is NOT for Anusuya, the accused in these proceedings, to prove herself innocent. It is for the State, in this case Maharaja Purushottam, to prove her guilty.

So what Maharaja Purushottam should have done was to launch a detailed enquiry into the possibility that he, really cleverly, flags to Laachi, viz that Sumer might be guilty.

For there are three elements in the charges against Anusuya.

One, that she had taken the law into her own hands - you would remember that I had raised this point - and not only attacked Sumer but killed him outright instead of wounding him. Puru has nullified this charge, by demonstrating that in a crisis situation, such things happen.

Two, that Anusuya has not been able to provide proof of Sumer's treason. Puru negates this one too by stating that the absence of proof of guilt is NOT automatically proof of innocence.

The third charge is that she wrongly assumed Sumer's guilt based on her own interpretation of his actions. This can be negated only by getting the evidence to settle the issue one way or the other.

Here is where Maharaja Purushottam stumbles. He does not state the obvious, that it is HIS job as king to get this enquiry done.

Instead, through the odd decision to leave the judgement - BOTH of Anusuya's culpability and her consequent punishment - to Laachi, who is the accuser, and hence automatically biased against the accused Anusuya, he in effect abdicates his responsibility as the king to secure justice for the accused.

Now it is left to Anusuya to prove herself innocent, which is a travesty of the fundamental principle of jurisprudence, that is for the State to prove that the accused is guilty.

And that too within such a short time frame for a matter of life and death, for if Anusuya is found guilty, the sentence might well be a capital one ?

How, and more important, WHY is Anusuya expected to get this proof with a 7 day deadline, when it is actually Puru's task as the king to do that, of course in an impartial manner?

Secondly, if he wants to avoid any appearance of his being partial towards either his mother or his wife, he should have appointed an impartial, unconcerned outsider as the judge. NOT Laachi. How can she, the accuser, be trusted to be an impartial judge? And how would any judgement she gives look impartial, and be accepted as such? It is most unconvincing.

So now Maharaja Purushottam has, instead of discharging the responsibility which is his, and his alone, delegated it to the one person to whom he should NOT have delegated it.

It is ludicrous. More to the point, it is downright dangerous, and as far as Puru's notions of kingship go, decidedly disheartening.

Shyamala Di

Wonderful post Aunty! 👏👏 This post points out all the necessary arguments in such ordered manner with all the valid legal points. You have immense knowledge and deep understanding in every field and I love how you perceive the intricate details and present to us its true essence! You are awesome Aunty! 👍🏼

Quote

sashashyam

@sashashyam

Sparkler

+ 3

Posted: 7 years ago

Thank you so much, my dear Vaishnavi! I think I told you once before that for any kind of writer, professional or amateur, there is no such thing as too much praise. They lap it all up, as I did this morning with all the lavish compliments you have paid me so sweetly. They are not really deserved, for all that was necessary was to apply logic to the situation, but I am very happy that you enjoyed this post so much.

I wrote it while I was waiting for the total lunar eclipse to begin, but alas, the sky was continuoulsy overcast and the eclipse was not to be spotted at all. But the post was finished and put up. In fact, I think I will make another stand alone analysis of the last two episodes - the last one such I did was for the episodes 162-163, the cockfight one! - and include these points, and one more that I have just thought of, there. It should be up later today, so do take a look at it.

Shyamala Aunty

Originally posted by: Vaishnavi_
Wonderful post Aunty! 👏👏 This post points out all the necessary arguments in such ordered manner with all the valid legal points. You have immense knowledge and deep understanding in every field and I love how you perceive the intricate details and present to us its true essence! You are awesome Aunty! 👍🏼

Originally posted by: sashashyam
Surbhi my dear,

I am happy to see you so happy!

This apart, there were things that Puru did today that left me bemused and not too pleased.

See, it is NOT for Anusuya, the accused in these proceedings, to prove herself innocent. It is for the State, in this case Maharaja Purushottam, to prove her guilty.

So what Maharaja Purushottam should have done was to launch a detailed enquiry into the possibility that he, really cleverly, flags to Laachi, viz that Sumer might be guilty.

For there are three elements in the charges against Anusuya.

One, that she had taken the law into her own hands - you would remember that I had raised this point - and not only attacked Sumer but killed him outright instead of wounding him. Puru has nullified this charge, by demonstrating that in a crisis situation, such things happen.

Two, that Anusuya has not been able to provide proof of Sumer's treason. Puru negates this one too by stating that the absence of proof of guilt is NOT automatically proof of innocence.

The third charge is that she wrongly assumed Sumer's guilt based on her own interpretation of his actions. This can be negated only by getting the evidence to settle the issue one way or the other.

Here is where Maharaja Purushottam stumbles. He does not state the obvious, that it is HIS job as king to get this enquiry done.

Instead, through the odd decision to leave the judgement - BOTH of Anusuya's culpability and her consequent punishment - to Laachi, who is the accuser, and hence automatically biased against the accused Anusuya, he in effect abdicates his responsibility as the king to secure justice for the accused.

Now it is left to Anusuya to prove herself innocent, which is a travesty of the fundamental principle of jurisprudence, that is for the State to prove that the accused is guilty.

And that too within such a short time frame for a matter of life and death, for if Anusuya is found guilty, the sentence might well be a capital one ?

How, and more important, WHY is Anusuya expected to get this proof with a 7 day deadline, when it is actually Puru's task as the king to do that, of course in an impartial manner?

Secondly, if he wants to avoid any appearance of his being partial towards either his mother or his wife, he should have appointed an impartial, unconcerned outsider as the judge. NOT Laachi. How can she, the accuser, be trusted to be an impartial judge? And how would any judgement she gives look impartial, and be accepted as such? It is most unconvincing.

So now Maharaja Purushottam has, instead of discharging the responsibility which is his, and his alone, delegated it to the one person to whom he should NOT have delegated it.

It is ludicrous. More to the point, it is downright dangerous, and as far as Puru's notions of kingship go, decidedly disheartening.

Shyamala Di

Quote

Impressed With Maharaj Purushottam - Just Amazing

Related Topics

Explore Topics