Raghav Rao - The King of Lanka [ An analogy] - Page 3

Oh! Phir tumhare hisaab se theek hain.. mujhe toh pehle walaa better lgta hain. Anyways, each to her own ig..

Excellently written as usual. Ethics, morals, values etc are all individualistic subject to one's own experiences. Nothing needs to be set in stone & is unchangeable. But, what must? Who decides what is right or wrong? In the present scenario I only see a need for Raghav to tweak his business practices so that it does not affect his loved ones. Pallavi needs to learn be his strength not his weakness, who judges him & brings up his insecure feelings of getting rejected & abandoned by family.

Oh! Well I am really not expecting the writers to dwell deep into the emotions/trauma. I just want to see how they make the couple reach a middle ground because for me Raghav is not a rehabilitation project or a subject to be changed for Pallavi to act upon. Love is there, conflict is there, now what?

Exactly. Both Raghav and Pallavi need to mould themselves to reach a middle ground. Raghav needs to reduce the risks he takes in business, probably stop the custom evasion drastically, the smuggling should stop, tax evasions is fine.. there are financial ways of doing that as well. Pallavi needs to realise that we cannot live like we are still in the Satya Yug. Both must compromise for this relationship to work.

And Pallavi should stop dragging in his past failuers everytime in a conversation. Sometimes I think she might love him but she doesn't respect him at all. I don't know whether I can stay in a relationship as such. Emotional blackmail becomes toxic after a point.

Originally posted by: AnushkhaA

We are all in the same boat. We cannot condone his ways directly, we understand where he is coming from, we know that this is the norm in the business field, and we love Raghav Rao. His vices, virtues, anger, softness... the whole package.

If we take out the angry, conniving, machievillic side from him, tell me... will he remain the same RR we initially fell for? Maybe this facet of his persona isn't truly him. But I for one love him like he is - unabashed and unapologetic come Hell, Heaven or High water.

@bold: 💯💯

Exactly, we all love the arrogant, perpetually angry, born-smart😆(not really) RR. If he becomes white, he also mixes into the background like every other hero shown in ITV. I love him because of his grey shades, and if that is taken away, only the shell of the character will remain, which is personally to me not less than character butchering for me. Like everyone, I am in two minds too, to support or not to. What he does to maintain his empire is acceptable, so long it doesnot bring harm to someone's life. Now he is indirectly responsible for someone's death, which is something nobody can ignore or brush under the carpet. Life is precious than anything and no amount of guilt or reasoning can bring it back. And Raghav is the reason why Abishek lost his life.

Originally posted by: missFiesty_69

@bold: 💯💯

Exactly, we all love the arrogant, perpetually angry, born-smart😆(not really) RR. If he becomes white, he also mixes into the background like every other hero shown in ITV. I love him because of his grey shades, and if that is taken away, only the shell of the character will remain, which is personally to me not less than character butchering for me. Like everyone, I am in two minds too, to support or not to. What he does to maintain his empire is acceptable, so long it doesnot bring harm to someone's life. Now he is indirectly responsible for someone's death, which is something nobody can ignore or brush under the carpet. Life is precious than anything and no amount of guilt or reasoning can bring it back. And Raghav is the reason why Abishek lost his life.

I am not sure if Raghav is the causation that Abhishek lost his life

He can be a correlation of the events

His death was a complete fault of the inspector who took an impulsive decision

i totally disagree with u on this

nowhere is a courier boy shot to death on an assumption and suspicion , it was an encounter by the ACP,

Raghav is a tax evader and thus does illegal work ,for which the IT investigates , or in Raghavs case the corresponding agency for evasion of custom duty , then they are given a notice by the court ,

the ACP cannot shoot a person to death who is just a carrier that too in a crowded place

yes Raghav is responsible for his employees for sure , the crime that he does cannot cause death ,

Secondly why are they not taking this up ? the boys family and ofcourse the self righteous Pallavi, that an encounter has been done and since they found no goods on him , how can they let the ACP GO

Yes you are right. He should not be given the full blame. But he was at fault a little bit. Maybe not so much technically as morally. He knew what temptation is at such a young age, yet he let Abhishek do his dirty work.

And he is involved in smuggling, not only custom evasion. The police can be given investigation charges on smuggling.

But! If there is one person on whom the entire blame of the shoot out should land is the ACP. Even if the police find out he was smuggling, still the ACP cannot be let out of the hook. What she did, classifies under manslaughter or better known in court's term as first degree murder. She is supposed to bring the accused to the court not deliver the so called Justice.

She did it, solely in her violation. An immensely rash action. Which should extend its pound of flesh from her. But, ITV as usual will put the entire blame on Raghav, as will Pallavi and the rest of the world. So... I am not interested in the following track at all.

Originally posted by: gata

i totally disagree with u on this

nowhere is a courier boy shot to death on an assumption and suspicion , it was an encounter by the ACP,

I agree with you on this. The ACP should be suspended.

Raghav is a tax evader and thus does illegal work ,for which the IT investigates , or in Raghavs case the corresponding agency for evasion of custom duty , then they are given a notice by the court ,

the ACP cannot shoot a person to death who is just a carrier that too in a crowded place

yes Raghav is responsible for his employees for sure , the crime that he does cannot cause death

Raghav is not the employer of a restaurant or normal businessman. He smuggles diamonds, does tax evasion. He takes risk and employs people like Abishek to do his illegal work, tbh. Whatever happens, he is also partly responsible and he has to be held accountable for his actions.

Secondly why are they not taking this up ? the boys family and ofcourse the self righteous Pallavi, that an encounter has been done and since they found no goods on him , how can they let the ACP GO

See, Pallavi is not self righteous. She is ethical. She supports good value. Pallavi doesnot know why Abishek was shot. When she gets to know, we will se what she does. As for the boy's mother, she refuses to accept her boy could have done something illegal. It is not like Abishek would have said," Mom, I have an empoyer who pays me good money to smuggle diamonds. Could I get your permission for the same?". Of course, he would have hidden this from this employment from his parents same way Raghav is hiding from Pallavi.

that is why the family has to take it up, if they didnt know , why would an innocent be shot dead , as for Pallavi since she iso ethical she has to question the ethics of the ACP .

this is where the cvs are making blunders and the confusion about Pallavi comes in

sincere request though , do not stop writing those beautiful stories about Raghav and Pallavi

have read all of them ,but my fav has to be HIS FATHERS SON , waiting for u to give us further peeks into their life