Watched the episodes till Samrat left.
I had read in my books your duty is the other person's right. For example if the other person is getting disturbed with the noise you are making through loudspeaker or whatever, it is the other person's right to be able to work in peace and your duty to let him/her. But how do you decide what is your duty towards the other person or what not? Is it right on your behalf to do what you think is your duty towards the other person even though doing your duty you are depriving the other person of his/her right. Is love reason enough to make decisions on others' behalf?
Jeeva Shiva jodi. I got exposed to Samrat and his character. The moment he entered he lit up the screen because this is how his character has been conceived. A happy go lucky guy with a golden heart. For the few episodes he was there he was doing nothing but spreading joy. He seems to be the kind of person who think if he did good to others they will be good to him. If he is honest and sincere he will meet with same sincerity and honesty. A truly mature person who tries to know what's there in the other person's heart and believes what they say.
Virat: the person who claims to love his brother and who cannot see him unhappy, decided for his life without bothering to ask for his opinion or even tell him what was going on. I'm not doubting his love for his brother or maybe I am. During Dahi Handi scene it was clear that Virat didn't like that Samrat was there in his house. He didn't want to give him what he thought belonged to him, the right to be Krishna. On the other hand, Samrat was ready to let him be Krishna for Dahi Handi. There was an accident and Samrat saved Virat. Virat remembers this incident and tells it to Patralekha. This particular incident be was the reason Virat let Samrat get married to Patralekha. It makes me wonder whether he did it because he loves his Jeeva or was it because Samrat did Ehsaan on him in childhood which he hadn't repayed yet.i believe the latter Samrat had saved his life so doing something for him which was less than saving life did not look like an appropriate repayment. He told Patralekha that he loves her more than his life so sacrificing Patralekha seemed to be an appropriate repayment for the Ehsaan Samrat had done on him in childhood to his justice seeking mind. So it was his duty to sacrifice for Samrat. (I got answer to my question that I had previously asked on the forum why does he think Patralekha is mature because he thinks Patralekha also did a sacrifice just like him, so both of them are mature😆and Sai is immature because she fights for her rights😆) Even if we think that he loves Samrat and it was a brother's duty to sacrifice for his brother. To what extent is it correct? To what extent is it correct to make decisions of someone else's life based on your own sense of duty? What is the other person's say in all this who you are supposedly doing everything for? Whatever the reason was: love, duty, repayment or whatever, should it not align with Samrat's sense of duty and rights? What's Samrat's right in all this? Was it his right to get what belonged to his brother. He had already proved it in childhood that he was not interested in what belonged to his brother. He was happy to be Krishna but did not hesitate to give it up when Virat wanted it. If you compare these two incidents however drastically different these two are, one thing can be easily understood when Samrat sacrificed for Virat it was because Virat wanted it and was happy when he got it. When Virat supposedly sacrificed for his brother, his brother wasn't even aware of the truth forget being happy. He asked Virat was everything alright, what was the matter but Virat chose to keep him in dark. Was it not Virat's duty to inform his brother of everything? He took the decision of three lives, used his vada to get her married to his brother. What he did with Patralekha was a deal. You marry my brother I'll forever remain yours from heart. It was a deal and a conscious decision of Patralekha so I won't concern myself with her plight. But what he did to his brother is absolutely wrong. Samrat is nowhere wrong in thinking that he was betrayed. Was his sense of duty bigger than Samrat's sense of rights? What was Samrat's right? To be given what was his brother's? Or to have a say in his own life's decision?
Patralekha: She told Virat that he will ruin three lives with this marriage? But wasn't she equally responsible? She went ahead with the deal. Often Virat and Sai's marriage is termed as deal marriage (I have yet to see their marriage so no comments on that) but this marriage was certainly a deal. A deal that was made between two people about three lives. I could have understood her somewhat because i thought she wanted to give herself a chance when she thought Virat was doing timepass with her. But she told him that she said yes for marriage because she was angry with him😕. Samrat came to see her and talked to her. In the very first meeting he sensed something was wrong and directly asked her was she happy with the marriage to which she replied in affirmative. It was not the only time she was asked if she was happy with this marriage. Even if she could not say what she wanted to others, it shouldn't have to be a difficult thing when her own father asked her who gave her several chances to refuse for the marriage. If Virat was wrong to asks her to get married to his brother, she was wrong to go ahead with this marriage. Who gave her right to decide for Samrat's life? He was a nobody to her but does it mean she has the right to choose her happiness by killing someone else's. She thought it was her right to keep Virat stuck with her vada after the sacrifice she made for him. But where was Samrat in this picture? She was in junoon. But she could burn in that junoon. Who gave her right to burn someone else's life? She thinks it is Virat's duty to keep that vada. Was it not her duty to not ruin someone's life? Who gave her the right to ruin Samrat's life? Virat. But who is Virat to give her that right? Virat is not Samrat. Samrat is an adult, an army officer. He can decide for himself.
Both Virat and Patralekha did this to get something out of this deal marriage. Virat to repay the Ehsan and feel like an equally big person if not bigger. And Patralekha to get the chance to remain close to Virat. What did Samrat get for whom everything was supposedly done? I personally think Virat did it to repay the Ehsaan(I know no one will agree😆). Virat thought he was doing something huge for his brother and Samrat took it as betrayal. If he did it out of love so that his brother can smile, his brother lost his smile. If he did it to repay the Ehsaan and feel like a good person, his brother thinks of him as a betrayer. I think no one got anything out of it. Vada got broken. Samrat did not get his happiness. Virat turned out to be a betrayer. No one got anything out of it. Mission successfully failed.
Cricket
CID
Hindi TV Shows
