Raghav Rao - The King of Lanka [ An analogy] - Page 8

Originally posted by: inlieu

In that case, what about Ayi? Why does she go scot free in Pallavi's sphere, if not legally then on moral grounds?

Bc what did Ayi do? Keep the truth hidden? She's not the one who did an actual crime. Before Ayi could do anything about getting justice of D's murder, her son "died". The reason P went after K was bc K was still around to serve the punishment. If K was not, would she go after M's "killer" with as much zeal? We don't know. That's why it's hard to even compare the two situations IMO.

As for why she never brought it up with Aayi - I'm going to blame that on the writers. They drop plots like mics. LOL. I'm not going to pin that on P until we see her interact or talk about D one more time with Aayi. Only then would I be able to judge better.

Also, again, selective leniencies for selective people. How many of us would forgive our mothers for things we'd never forgive our s.o's for? Probably many. I'm still single but my married cousin tells me all the time - he's willing to hear/let go of/ignore/by-pass a lot of what his mother says but if his wife said the same thing, he even recognizes it hits different - it hits deeper and upsets him more. This is the nature of romantic relationships vs familial relationships, especially parental relationships. Obviously I'm only referencing to dialogue here, but I think it makes sense for this situation too. P is more willing to give Amma a pass bc that's her mother.

Originally posted by: fria319

Bc what did Ayi do? Keep the truth hidden? She's not the one who did an actual crime. Before Ayi could do anything about getting justice of D's murder, her son "died". The reason P went after K was bc K was still around to serve the punishment. If K was not, would she go after M's "killer" with as much zeal? We don't know. That's why it's hard to even compare the two situations IMO.

As for why she never brought it up with Aayi - I'm going to blame that on the writers. They drop plots like mics. LOL. I'm not going to pin that on P until we see her interact or talk about D one more time with Aayi. Only then would I be able to judge better.

Also, again, selective leniencies for selective people. How many of us would forgive our mothers for things we'd never forgive our s.o's for? Probably many. I'm still single but my married cousin tells me all the time - he's willing to hear/let go of/ignore/by-pass a lot of what his mother says but if his wife said the same thing, he even recognizes it hits different - it hits deeper and upsets him more. This is the nature of romantic relationships vs familial relationships, especially parental relationships. Obviously I'm only referencing to dialogue here, but I think it makes sense for this situation too. P is more willing to give Amma a pass bc that's her mother.

so you're saying she will be less lenient with Raghav because she expects more from him?

Originally posted by: fria319

Bc what did Ayi do? Keep the truth hidden? She's not the one who did an actual crime. Before Ayi could do anything about getting justice of D's murder, her son "died". The reason P went after K was bc K was still around to serve the punishment. If K was not, would she go after M's "killer" with as much zeal? We don't know. That's why it's hard to even compare the two situations IMO.

As for why she never brought it up with Aayi - I'm going to blame that on the writers. They drop plots like mics. LOL. I'm not going to pin that on P until we see her interact or talk about D one more time with Aayi. Only then would I be able to judge better.

Also, again, selective leniencies for selective people. How many of us would forgive our mothers for things we'd never forgive our s.o's for? Probably many. I'm still single but my married cousin tells me all the time - he's willing to hear/let go of/ignore/by-pass a lot of what his mother says but if his wife said the same thing, he even recognizes it hits different - it hits deeper and upsets him more. This is the nature of romantic relationships vs familial relationships, especially parental relationships. Obviously I'm only referencing to dialogue here, but I think it makes sense for this situation too. P is more willing to give Amma a pass bc that's her mother.

But if she had known the truth way back it would have been more impactful and meaningful that she is helping Mandhar gain his memory back to bring justice for her close friends death and I don’t think she would have given keerthi a pass . She pursued after keerthi because she kept Mandhar in such a high pedestal and wanted justice .. I wish they had written the track this way ..
😊

Originally posted by: inlieu

so you're saying she will be less lenient with Raghav because she expects more from him?

As humans we do have selective siding with people and although as we all know Pallavi is Mahan , so righteousness , morality and ethics are somethings she monitors and people are brought to justice if they fail to do so but here she won’t hand him over to the police but she would force him to mend his ways going forward.

Agreed. I only said, some facets of Raghav is like Ravan..not all of it obviously. I get your point.

Originally posted by: inlieu

While I understand what you're saying I wouldn't necessarily say that's the case with Raghav. He may not get unconditional love from his family but his love is always unconditional, whether it's for Amma, Keerit, Pallavi, or Farhad.

I never said Raghav's love is anything less than unconditional. He loves crazily. And he loves all of them with equal fervour. But if I had to choose someone who loves him back unconditionally it would be Farhad. Everyone else's love is conditional... somewhere or the other. Even Pallavi's... i am sorry to say but thats true. However bad it sounds.

Originally posted by: inlieu

It is a complex situation indeed, but that only makes it more intriguing right?

I am curious to see whether Amma will leave him or not, or whether both his mother and wife decide not to physically abandon him but put some distance between them. That's going to hurt a lot. Remember the scene in the Hyderabad schedule where he asked Farhad why other people's mothers were physically distant but emotionally close to them while it was the reverse in his case? (that broke my heart by the way). I don't think any of that is gone.

Pallavi is vocal but not with Raghav, maybe she will learn that he does indeed need some verbal reassurances.

You know somewhere I want Raghav to distance himself from the two. Maybe once he regains his mental equilibrium. I know asking that from the cvs is too much. But this constant inequality of balance in the relationship is getting on my nerves. They take him too much for granted. Amma and Pallavi need a rude awakening as well.

I don't like the way Raghav is shown constantly being on the other end of the barrel.

Originally posted by: inlieu

so you're saying she will be less lenient with Raghav because she expects more from him?

No just saying that when the people we love romantically lie or betray our trust it hurts more and different than a parental figure. It's not the same kind of relationship, or the same kind of unconditional love. So while she may have overlooked Aayi's "betrayal", she may not overlook Raghav's because his betrayal will hurt more.

Originally posted by: fria319

I wouldn't say its full of conditions. In reality, you don't and can't continue to be in a relationship when your ideals differ. It's just not a feasible relationship. What's happening now is the compromise that comes in any relationship - for the average couple, these disagreements on ideologies, the compromises, the debates happen pre-marriage. That's not the case here, so we're seeing all this come to its head now.

They are not going to show a dark love story where the girl is somehow ok with all his illegal activities. This is not HBO.

She's only ok with some - i.e. when its for the greater good & until it starts to affect others. At the end of the day, while I only blame Raghav for maybe about 5% of what happened to Abhishek, there still are other ways to obtain diamonds, there are ways to do things "cleanly" (lets just ignore the actual ethics of diamond mining). So there are ways to change his business so he can still be successful, still retain his wealth, but not do risky, illegal, things.

Also, her asking him to promise not to partake in illegal activities is a normal ask. It wasn't like she asked as soon as she fell in love with him. She knew about and then brought it up later. Him breaking his promise, and then her feeling betrayed by it... I wouldn't call that a condition.

Loving someone unconditionally doesn't mean we side with them when they're morally, legally wrong. It just means being there for them, supporting them, when they still make these mistakes. Pallavi isn't going to go after him legally. Pallavi may become emotionally distant from him, but she won't leave him fully. She loves him too much to do that.

Also, just because we are upset, or mad, or disappointed at someone we love, it doesn't lessen the love we have for them. It doesn't make that love any less unconditional.

@bold

True! I agree with your points. But you see, he needs to reduce the risks in the way he does business obviously but for Pallavi to emotionally distance herself from him till he doesn't agree to or work towards mending his ways is literally emotional blackmail. You know where the person is weak.... and you hit on that spot to gain the upper hand. Ultimately Pallavi might be doing this for his good but think about the mental impact Raghav might have due to this.

This move would literally prove all his reservations. That everyone wants him to be someone else, do something else, change himself so that he can be worthy of their love. And on the surface it might not bother him and he would work towards his betterment like Pallavi or Amma would want. But deeper inside the pain would fester that he cannot be loved the way he is.

That is my point. I am all for Pallavi fighting with him, against him. Putting forward her point. Arguing, cajoling, coaxing, staying mad till he gets it across. But emotionally distancing would just scream the fact that he is unlovable and would remain so till he heeds to their wishes.

Originally posted by: AnushkhaA

@bold

True! I agree with your points. But you see, he needs to reduce the risks in the way he does business obviously but for Pallavi to emotionally distance herself from him till he doesn't agree to or work towards mending his ways is literally emotional blackmail. You know where the person is weak.... and you hit on that spot to gain the upper hand. Ultimately Pallavi might be doing this for his good but think about the mental impact Raghav might have due to this.

This move would literally prove all his reservations. That everyone wants him to be someone else, do something else, change himself so that he can be worthy of their love. And on the surface it might not bother him and he would work towards his betterment like Pallavi or Amma would want. But deeper inside the pain would fester that he cannot be loved the way he is.

That is my point. I am all for Pallavi fighting with him, against him. Putting forward her point. Arguing, cajoling, coaxing, staying mad till he gets it across. But emotionally distancing would just scream the fact that he is unlovable and would remain so till he heeds to their wishes.

@bold: Not really because she's upset with him. What else do you do in a relationship when someone does something wrong in your eyes, betrays your trust? Do you just sit there and act like everything is normal? Do we go back to being physically affectionate? No. Most people don't. Most people need time to get over things. This isn't a normal fight and although Raghav had no physical, direct hand in A's death, he had a hand in it nonetheless. Why is the onus on her to baby his feelings when he purposely lied to her?

I get your concern, but that's not fair to place that burden on P. She's already going to be careful with him I'm sure, but its not fair for her to sideline her feelings just because he's too emotionally unstable to take it. These are two adults in a relationship. He needs to go to therapy if he can't handle her taking her time to get over things.

Also if being emotionally distant means emotional blackmail, then what Raghav did to her post K elopement was also emotional blackmail. If we go by that idea, then a large part of maintaining any relationship involves emotional blackmail/manipulation. We can't call out Pallavi and not call out Raghav for doing the same (altho not sure if you did - I'm not a MF frequenter anymore). And in that situation, he was 100% wrong at being mad at her. And if they're both doing that - well that's just part of their relationship. Not every relationship is perfect.

And if the answer is she should leave him if she can't handle his ways - well relationships, especially marriages where you love your partner, don't break that easily. They first have to see if they can come to a compromise or an understanding. Clearly they already discussed this - and Raghav himself promised he would stop.

If we were talking about any personality characteristic, then yes, your sentiments on his reservations I would agree with. While I think you should be with someone who helps you become a better person - I don't think you should start a relationship thinking "I'm going to change him".

P's emotional distance will be brought upon by the fact that he lied to her, repeatedly, until he was backed into a corner and had no choice but to admit it (i.e. today's precap seems like she overheard everything - i mean seriously, why don't these people use doors? LOL). I don't think its so much of a "Raghav you're a criminal, i don't want to talk to you". It will be more of "how could you lie to me after you promised me you wouldn't do it. i can't talk to you right now. how could you justify your business ways now that someone died" type of blow up.

Why can she not be emotionally upset and distant when he betrayed her trust in him? If the promise didn't exist, then I would've been saying other things, but the fact is it does and he agreed to it.

Also, why is Raghav doing illegal things "part of who he is"... like, it's just a means to an end for him, it doesn't define who he is. His personality and identity defines who he is. And his identity is not just limited to his business & his don status, especially not now, not anymore. And further, even his business and don identity does not need to be tied to illegal activities. It's not like he goes around to defy all the laws. As we grow up, as our lives changes, our identities can evolve, too. He does not need to be stuck in the same identity, the same Raghav as a year ago.