Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi 2: EDT # 3 - Page 27

Originally posted by: Fats24

Don't worry, we will get to see pappa and her laadli vs Shobha. He will forget that Shobha is his biological daughter and even if he remembers he will tell her to forgive her saying she's a bachi. Yeh bachi hai, par tum bari ho. Maaf karde😡

Shobha kyun maaf karegi nanhi pari koGalti jab Shobha ki hai to Shobha ko pari se maafi maangni chahiye. Maafi maangne se koi chota nahin ho jaata

Bahut din ho gaye kyunki mein koi shaadi nahin huiIts high time someone is made shaadi kaa bakra. Show bahu par hai par serial mein ek bhi bahu nahin hai

Originally posted by: Me_Harini

I never said that an emotionally fragile individual is inherently wrong, nor would I deem them immoral. Rather, I perceive them as individuals constrained by their own emotional vulnerability. Their limitations do not stem from malice, but from a lack of fortitude and self-assertion, which may prevent them from endorsing others’ decisions or prioritizing their own - a circumstance that could lead to positive outcomes, but may also result in negative consequences and potential misery. When an individual yields to emotional coercion or manipulation, it reflects not intentional wrongdoing but a deficiency in inner resilience.

Karan was not malevolent; he was simply devoid of the moral resilience required to confront the truth. Tanya, on the other hand, discerned his vulnerability and deftly exploited his sense of duty, guilt, and self-sacrifice. Emotional weakness may not equate to wrongdoing, but it renders one susceptible to exploitation. In the end, strength is not about hardness of heart, but the courage to uphold integrity even when compassion clouds clarity.

1. Human beings are predisposed to ascribe credence to their own perceptions. Tulsi was no exception - upon observing Karan and Nandini together in a hotel room, she construed the tableau as incontrovertible. Her reaction, though severe, emanated not from malevolence but from the dictates of perception. In instances where affectivity supersedes reason, even the most judicious can succumb to error. So why to blame her ?

2. Nandini herself tells Karan “Tanya ka haath thaamlo” - a gesture that culturally signifies marriage. A true marriage however requires legal recognition and you said that true marriage never occurred and let me agree with you. Now according to narrative Karan was shown to be living under same roof with tanya after leap which is nothing but 20 yrs; without legal sanction, this relationship effectively functioned as a live-in arrangement. Morally, sustaining such a long-term arrangements outside the bounds of lawful marriage, especially while Nandini was still his legal wife, is highly problematic. Symbolic acts cannot substitute for the responsibilities and obligations inherent in a legitimate marital bond.

3. The moral question I have is unequivocal: Karan lived with Tanya for twenty years under same roof, he laid out terms before the leap which I am not denying. Even in the absence of emotional attachment, sustaining such a long-term domestic arrangement without clarity or acknowledgment constitutes a moral lapse. You mentioned that he never actively “allowed” her to stay and Tanya had promised to leave upon Nandini’s return, so by accepting this arrangement, Karan effectively consented to her continued residence, rendering him tacitly complicit. Inaction, coupled with acquiescence, is sufficient to confer moral responsibility. Spending two decades under such circumstances, without transparency or resolution, reflects a significant ethical and moral negligence. One cannot absolve oneself from moral responsibility merely because feelings were conflicted or indifferent.

4. From a moral standpoint, Karan’s actions are deeply problematic. Nandini believed he had waited faithfully for her during the three years she was in a coma and assumed he had not entered into a second marriage. Even though she desired intimacy and the doctors advised him not to reveal the truth about his prior relationship with Tanya, Karan could have exercised restraint. He could have tactfully delayed consummation by citing her health, fatigue, or need for recovery, or redirected their closeness toward emotional and affectionate gestures that honored her desires without physical intimacy. By proceeding to consummate the marriage without revealing such a significant fact, he deceived Nandini, compromised her ability to make informed decisions, and undermined the trust fundamental to their marital bond.

5. I don’t agree with the assertion that Karan’s feelings for Damini and Tanya were mere infatuation. He madly was in love with Nandini which I wont deny, but that does not negate the authenticity of the love he claimed for Damini before meeting nandini, or for Tanya when Nandini was in coma. Circumstances ,separation, Nandini’s coma, and life events shaped these relationships, but they do not automatically invalidate his professed emotions. Love is multifaceted, and one can feel genuine attachment or affection for different people at different times without it being reduced to fleeting infatuation. To claim otherwise is to imply that Karan lied when he professed love for them, which seems both unfair and reductive.

If Karan was merely infatuated as you mentioned, he should have said that he liked Damini and Tanya, rather than claiming to love them. By professing love under the guise of infatuation, he either deceived himself or misled them, which amounts to emotional deception. Love requires acknowledgment of one’s feelings and accountability toward the other; to claim it falsely undermines trust and constitutes a lapse in moral responsibility.

And if you still regard Karan’s professed love for Damini and Tanya as mere infatuation, it effectively implies that Karan was lying when he claimed to love them, which is both disingenuous and unjustifiable.

6 and 7

I won’t deny Karan’s love for Nandini, but I do not agree that he merely felt responsible or guilty toward Tanya. It was shown that Karan missed Tanya and remembered the moments he shared with her. This is what he said to ganga "mai usse uska jaayaz hak nahi depaaya ...diya bhi toh vaapis cheen liya...tanya ek aisa khalipan chodgayi jo kabhi bhar nahi paayega." Do these words really signify mere responsibility or guilt?

In one episode Tanya said she would go away from city, yet Karan asked her not to go. If his feelings were purely a sense of responsibility or guilt, he would have allowed her to leave freely and ensured she faced no difficulties in the new city. That he did not indicates that his attachment went far beyond obligation, reflecting a personal, emotional involvement that raises serious questions about the morality of sustaining such a bond while married to Nandini.

In another episode, he said, "Tanya tum mere liye uljhan nahi ho...patni ho. Tumne mere dil mai jagah banaya hai par tumse pehle nandini ne banaya hai." Here, he clearly acknowledged that while Nandini was first in his life and he remained madly in love with her, Tanya also occupied a meaningful place in his heart.

How can we reduce these expressions to mere responsibility or guilt? Karan also failed to set clear emotional boundaries with Tanya, which only deepened the moral complexity of his situation. If one still insists on interpreting these words as mere duty, there is little point in continuing this discussion. Even if he did not act selfishly, sustaining such an emotional bond while married to Nandini without transparency or ethical clarity reflects a lapse in moral responsibility. Human emotions are complex, but morality demands honesty and respect for the commitments one has made. Brushing his profound feelings aside as mere responsibility and proceeding to consummate his marriage with Nandini is, in fact, nothing short of deception.

8.Though I may harbor a divergent perspective, let us, for the sake of argument, concede this viewpoint. Even so, in light of the aforementioned points - consummating his marriage with Nandini while withholding the truth about Tanya, his emotional entanglement with Tanya, the conspicuous failure to establish clear emotional boundaries with her, living with her for two decades by tacitly permitting her presence while being in love with Nandini, can one truly absolve him of ethical and moral culpability? From a strictly moral vantage, these actions bespeak a pattern of emotional duplicity and contravene the principles of honesty and fidelity, rendering his conduct arguably tantamount to emotional infidelity

Originally posted by: Mehersudha

she is mihirs college friend so same age ki hi. Mihir tulsi were married from 38 yrs.

But, she's Tulsi's friend too if I'm not wrong. Anyway, if she's Mihir's age she can't conceive . And, she should stop lusting and stop behaving like a teenager.

Originally posted by: SlatePencil

He should not have stayed at Noyona's place. He is rich could have stayed in a hotel instead. On top of that he keeps bickering about Tulsi in front of Noyona which makes her think that he is unhappy in the marriage.He is giving all the signs to Noyona that he likes her presence. So Noyona got hopes that Mihir can permanently be part of her life

Yes, if Noyona is wrong then Mihir too is equally responsible for the mess. There's a certain limit in friendship too which he has crossed knowing either intentionally or unintentionally.

Originally posted by: SlatePencil

Shobha kyun maaf karegi nanhi pari koGalti jab Shobha ki hai to Shobha ko pari se maafi maangni chahiye. Maafi maangne se koi chota nahin ho jaata

Aur kya kya sunna parega Shobha ko iss daayan ki wajah se

Originally posted by: Fats24

But, she's Tulsi's friend too if I'm not wrong. Anyway, if she's Mihir's age she can't conceive . And, she should stop lusting and stop behaving like a teenager.

Noyna said every girl deserve a man like Ranvijay not just Pari

Noyna called Ranvijay : Khud dar

Mihir declares him : Imaan daar

Originally posted by: BangBang_Shilpa

Noyna said every girl deserve a man like Ranvijay not just Pari

Plot twist, Ranvijay is Noyona's long lost son 😝