Naagin 7: Episode Discussion Thread #1 - Page 135

Originally posted by: A_Star39

Vikarya?

Umm not a bad choice

Nagin can get progressive

Lol definitely. Vikarya>>>>>

Maybe aryaman doesn't want Vikram to get married to ahana bc he's in love. With Vikram. He didn't mind pinky because wo Ghar ki baat hoti. He could have made his moves slowly, rather than jeeja saali Ema, it would be jeeja saala Ema

feeling sad India forums is so dead 😢, only this naagin forum has atleast some activity.. remembering how every second someone keeps posting on India forums 😢

This one is for Udaariyan PCC fd. How much we cried about the ugliest outfits they gave to her... For the first time she's getting pretty stuff

Started watching the show...

Watched the episode finally on jiohotstar.

Ngl, Aryaman is getting on my nerves. Atp, his looks and his unique chemistry for Priyanka may not cut it for me anymore. I'm really pissed off at his antics today.

Can anyone explain to me like I'm five years old as to what exactly Ahana did that he's so against her marriage with Vikram ? Is Vikram his and his sister's toy or personal property who can't take the most important decision of his own life on his own ? No, he can't, because Aryaman who is not even a blood relative doesn't agree though everyone else agrees !

The same Aryaman who warns others to stay away from his personal matters.

Baki o ki oersonal life ka kya bro ? Are they up for public voting ? Even public boting says Vikram can marry Ahana.

His misogyny is crossing the limits of decency. He basically tried to sl$t shame Ahana even though he knew clearly that Ahana has no fault in this . She only came there because he stole his finance's phone and pretended to be him and then at first challenged Ahana for a drink and tried to seduce him using his rizz and then when it didn't work and she still refused , he faked proposed for a truce . Then he roofed her drink which is what led her to fall in water and then he took that chance to hold her and recorded that.

What if Ahana wasn't a naagin , just an actual human girl who wanted to marry his friend ? I shudder to think what'd have been her state in this situation.

Women go through all these all around us. They get sl$t shamed in social media and irl, their drinks get roofied, they're recorded without their permission and then that footage is used against them because who'd believe a woman when it's her words vs a man's words??

If I was Vikram I'd have slapped him across the face for trying to spoil the reputation of my girl.

Aryaman is rn a deep pink flag. A few steps would make him enter the zone of Ravish, the red flag.

Till now , if we forget the naagin part , because Aryaman doesn't know she's a naagin , she's done nothing to deserve this hostility from him.

Originally posted by: MannMeinRadha

Watched the episode finally on jiohotstar.

Ngl, Aryaman is getting on my nerves. Atp, his looks and his unique chemistry for Priyanka may not cut it for me anymore. I'm really pissed off at his antics today.

Can anyone explain to me like I'm five years old as to what exactly Ahana did that he's so against her marriage with Vikram ? Is Vikram his and his sister's toy or personal property who can't take the most important decision of his own life on his own ? No, he can't, because Aryaman who is not even a blood relative doesn't agree though everyone else agrees !

The same Aryaman who warns others to stay away from his personal matters.

Baki o ki oersonal life ka kya bro ? Are they up for public voting ? Even public boting says Vikram can marry Ahana.

His misogyny is crossing the limits of decency. He basically tried to sl$t shame Ahana even though he knew clearly that Ahana has no fault in this . She only came there because he stole his finance's phone and pretended to be him and then at first challenged Ahana for a drink and tried to seduce him using his rizz and then when it didn't work and she still refused , he faked proposed for a truce . Then he roofed her drink which is what led her to fall in water and then he took that chance to hold her and recorded that.

What if Ahana wasn't a naagin , just an actual human girl who wanted to marry his friend ? I shudder to think what'd have been her state in this situation.

Women go through all these all around us. They get sl$t shamed in social media and irl, their drinks get roofied, they're recorded without their permission and then that footage is used against them because who'd believe a woman when it's her words vs a man's words??

If I was Vikram I'd have slapped him across the face for trying to spoil the reputation of my girl.

Aryaman is rn a deep pink flag. A few steps would make him enter the zone of Ravish, the red flag.

Till now , if we forget the naagin part , because Aryaman doesn't know she's a naagin , she's done nothing to deserve this hostility from him.

@bold THIS. He acts like what ahana did was unforgivable (even though she's roofied and actually unconscious, she's not even pretending to drown). Completely forgetting that he is the best friend of Vikram and he shouldn't be there either. Not to mention ahana literally had no fault. It's like forcing yourself on someone, taking pics and then shaming them.

For those unaware of Twitter today there's a war between namik and pcc fd

The thing is pcc namik have sizzling chemistry BUT aryaman is giving red flag all around and people don't want paaro ka devdas for ananta. I really don't think they can make a love story after his 5 year obsession.

So people started talking about Vikram ahana for real. That irked namit fans.

But as much as I like Arhana, I don't want radhika's majnu as ananta love.

Originally posted by: salta

I would advise you to read the actual books and look at what happened to Sita and Draupadi.

Sita suffered Vanvas with Rama, and Rama left her after getting her pregnant, despite the fact she gives agnipareeksha to prove her purity, meanwhile no such thing is done by Rama. Btw Rama makes it clear in Valmiki Ramayana that the reason the war happened is because it was disgraceful that HIS wife was abducted. He tells Sita after the war she can go wherever she wants.

Here, from yudha kaand itself Rama makes it more than clear.

"You, with a suspicion arisen on your character, standing in front of me, are extremely disagreeable to me, even as a light to one, who is suffering from a poor eye-sight."O Seetha! That is why, I am permitting you now. Go wherever you like. All these ten directions are open to you, my dear lady! There is no work to be done to me, by you.

Which noble man, born in an illustrious race, will take back a woman who lived in another's abode, with an eager mind.

While mentioning greatly about my lineage, how can I accept again, you who were harassed in Ravana's lap (while being borne away by him) and who were seen (by him) with evil looks?"

Draupadi? She married Arjuna and then she's distributed among the five brothers. That's not a choice of hers. Why or how yudhishthir could gamble her? Women are people. Not property. Except they were property, first their fathers, and then their husbands. That's why it's not absurd at all. Even then if you've any doubt then that's cleared when Krishna is negotiating with karna then he offers Draupadi to karna. She had refused karna herself earlier, and now she's part of the bargain. Nobody asked her whether she wanted four husbands, nobody asked her whether she wanted to be gambled and nobody asked her whether she wanted karna.

No the rights just aren't on paper. Are the things perfect for everyone? Absolutely Nope. However we have a much better idea how things can work. How women can have equality. How they're equal citizens. They have equal say, right to property, every right a man has, that's give to women. In fact our constitution provides special provisions for the betterment of women, again and again to make up for the millennia of inequality. There's a clear blueprint of a society with equal rights for both men and women.And while a large population of them don't have that, many of them do have it. Women own properties, have lead the country, occupied every post, can divorce men themselves. You know what will happen if a husband tried to gamble his wife in today's world? Legally he'll be arrested and jailed. Socially that'd be extremely unacceptable and he'd be boycotted and shamed.

I've read the original texts and have done a lot of research on them.

Lord Rama was the epitome of perfect husband whose love for his wife is an example that a man can try to follow but can never match.

Sita came with Rama of her own free will , against his repeated pleading and advice to stay back at Ayodhya. When she got kidnapped everything Lord Rama did to bring him back and the way he pined and missed her is described in enough detail.

At that time and age , any prince would just turn back not even knowing what happened to his wife and go home and report her being taken by demons. But the Lord did impossible feats to gain her back and free her, risking everything , his life , his young brother's life. Build a bridge , accumulate an army out of nothing, fought a war worth writing an Epic with the demon king that even Gods couldn't defeat and were afraid of , him being a mortal human.

He asked Sita for agnipareeksha to restore her own glory. He knew in his infinite wisdom that Sita won't be able to live a dignified life without proving herself because of all public speculations. He even explained it later.

Also, you know that part of sending Sita to vanvas??? That was never in the og text. It was added much later . So perhaps you need the original texts. So I can very well choose to ignore those parts that have no credibility. It's like if I write a new version of Ramayan where I write Sita accepting Ravan's proposal and then people judge her because of my writing.

And even there in the addendum, it was the public who demanded that their queen should be outcast and their child couldn't sit on the royal throne because the parentage is in question. That was not an era of DNA testing. Lord Ram was the most exemplary king ( even now for the word Utopia we use the word Ramrajya ) whk couldn't just ignore the voice of his subjects like other kings would. More importantly, Sita chose to leave when she found out about it and convinced her husband. She's a king's daughter , king's daughter in law and king's wife. She knew these voices will only rise if ignored.

Do you think it's a miracle coincidence that Sita found herself in the shelter of none other than Lord Valmiki , the writer of Ramayan itself ? It was all planned so that she could safely deliver their children and bring them up and re enter Ayodhya at a strategic time so that their sons can reclaim their throne.

Lord Rama never took another wife in that day of age though he was the epitome of beauty and allure and power and got proposed all his life. His ek patna vrat became en example for the ages. All he'd to do was marry Surpanakha and entire following events could have been avoided. But he was devoted to only one woman.

There's a reason he's maryada purushottam. No man can even come in comparison to how he conducted himself.

Also, men have been abandoning women nowadays over nothing, diboring them ti move on to fresh pastures and there's no social judgment against him. It's allowed by law and society. How many celebrities have divorced their wives for younger women and what is modern law and society doing to protect them from such a fate ?

Draupadi , she was always extremely vocal about her choices. It was she refused to let Karna participate in her swayamvar , speaking aloud , breaking norms ( when invited you can not refuse a guest from participating) and it was granted. It's unimaginable that she was married off to four more brothers without her consent . Mahabharat is silent on that part but that in way suggests the marriages happened against her wishes. Draupadi was a very unique and strong women. She's compared with Goddess Kali in wrath. There's absolutely no way she was handcuffed into it nor is there any proof anywhere in the Epic that she was unhappy in her state of marriage. She was infact super content and enjoying her empress status being protected by the four greatest warriors of that time.

Yudishthir didn't just pawn off Draupadi, he pawned off himself, his own younger brothers too. Are you saying only wrong has been done to Draupadi and four brothers had no right to their own freedom ? The whole thing was wrong , so let's not cherry pick. There's no point trying to say anything that happened on that day was right and the Epic depicted it as such, calling out every single participants and the rest of the story is all about avenging her . I wish it wasn't. Even as a woman , I couldn't support entire dynasties and most the men folk of aryavart being wiped off for one woman's dignity. But at that time , a women's dignity was taken seriously, unlike nowadays.

Lord Krishna all his life advocated and looked after her dignity . He always protected her. Infact, I feel like Draupadi has been treated too well in the epics and many of her mistakes were sidelined and forgiven just because she was a women who'd to suffer. Men were not given such a leeway. Lord Krishna scolded Yudishthir many times for that gambling event and reminded him that she must be avenged .

Krishna was playing a mind game with Karna being the expert strategist that he was. He knew very well Karna is going to refuse . He's already sworn to Duryadhan and a man of his character wouldn't back out. He wouldn't have offered him Yudishthir's throne otherwise. I'm surprised anyone can read that otherwise. He would've approached Karna before entering the peace talk had he been serious.

Like I said, only one thing I don't like about Mahabharat is how Draupadi was treated like she matters more than everyone else. Her wishes her dignity above everyone's life and happiness.

But then she's the favorite of God, his darling best friend. And even God has his favorites.

Originally posted by: MannMeinRadha

I've read the original texts and have done a lot of research on them.

Lord Rama was the epitome of perfect husband whose love for his wife is an example that a man can try to follow but can never match.

Sita came with Rama of her own free will , against his repeated pleading and advice to stay back at Ayodhya. When she got kidnapped everything Lord Rama did to bring him back and the way he pined and missed her is described in enough detail.

At that time and age , any prince would just turn back not even knowing what happened to his wife and go home and report her being taken by demons. But the Lord did impossible feats to gain her back and free her, risking everything , his life , his young brother's life. Build a bridge , accumulate an army out of nothing, fought a war worth writing an Epic with the demon king that even Gods couldn't defeat and were afraid of , him being a mortal human.

He asked Sita for agnipareeksha to restore her own glory. He knew in his infinite wisdom that Sita won't be able to live a dignified life without proving herself because of all public speculations. He even explained it later.

Also, you know that part of sending Sita to vanvas??? That was never in the og text. It was added much later . So perhaps you need the original texts. So I can very well choose to ignore those parts that have no credibility. It's like if I write a new version of Ramayan where I write Sita accepting Ravan's proposal and then people judge her because of my writing.

And even there in the addendum, it was the public who demanded that their queen should be outcast and their child couldn't sit on the royal throne because the parentage is in question. That was not an era of DNA testing. Lord Ram was the most exemplary king ( even now for the word Utopia we use the word Ramrajya ) whk couldn't just ignore the voice of his subjects like other kings would. More importantly, Sita chose to leave when she found out about it and convinced her husband. She's a king's daughter , king's daughter in law and king's wife. She knew these voices will only rise if ignored.

Do you think it's a miracle coincidence that Sita found herself in the shelter of none other than Lord Valmiki , the writer of Ramayan itself ? It was all planned so that she could safely deliver their children and bring them up and re enter Ayodhya at a strategic time so that their sons can reclaim their throne.

Lord Rama never took another wife in that day of age though he was the epitome of beauty and allure and power and got proposed all his life. His ek patna vrat became en example for the ages. All he'd to do was marry Surpanakha and entire following events could have been avoided. But he was devoted to only one woman.

There's a reason he's maryada purushottam. No man can even come in comparison to how he conducted himself.

As for Draupadi , she was always extremely vocal about her choices. It was she refused to let Karna participate in her swayamvar , speaking aloud , breaking norms ( when invited you can not refuse a guest from participating) and it was granted. It's unimaginable that she was married off to four more brothers without her consent . Mahabharat is silent on that part but that in way suggests the marriages happened against her wishes. Draupadi was a very unique and strong women. She's compared with Goddess Kali in wrath. There's absolutely no way she was handcuffed into it nor is there any proof anywhere in the Epic that she was unhappy in her state of marriage. She was infact super content and enjoying her empress status being protected by the four greatest warriors of that time.

Yudishthir didn't just pawn off Draupadi, he pawned off himself, his own younger brothers too. Are you saying only wrong has been done to Draupadi and four brothers had no right to their own freedom ? The whole thing was wrong , so let's not cherry pick. There's no point trying to say anything that happened on that day was right and the Epic depicted it as such. Calling out every single participants and the rest of the story is all about avenging her . I wish it wasn't. Even as a woman , I couldn't support entire dynasties and most the men folk of aryavart being wiped off for one woman's dignity. But at that time , a women's dignity was taken seriously, unlike nowadays.

Lord Krishna all his life advocated and looked after her dignity . He always protected her. Infact, I feel like Draupadi has been treated too well in the epics and many of her mistakes were sidelined and forgiven just because she was a women who'd to suffer. Men were not given such a leeway.

Krishna was playing a mind game with Karna being the expert strategist that he was. He knew very well Karna is going to refuse . He's already sworn to Duryadhan and a man of his character wouldn't back out. He wouldn't have offered him Yudishthir's throne otherwise. I'm surprised anyone can read that otherwise. He would've approached Karna before entering the peace talk had he been serious.

Like I said, only one thing I don't like about Mahabharat is how Draupadi was treated like she matters more than everyone else. Her wishes her dignity above everyone's life and happiness.

But then she's the favorite of God, his darling best friend. And even God has his favorites.

I'm sorry, I read one paragraph and what you said is what you think, how you interpreted(if you have actually read the books) Provide me proper quotes, like I did to prove Sita's position, then maybe we can analyse actually.

About your point that yudhishthir also gambled himself and his brothers, okkk. His wish. He can do whatever he wants. If Draupadi wanted to gamble herself I'd be ok. A person should have their autonomy.

Anyways I'm not interested in this debate further because you're a religious person and there's not a single religious person who can actually critique their own religion. So bye.

Originally posted by: salta

I'm sorry, I read one paragraph and what you said is what you think, how you interpreted(if you have actually read the books) Provide me proper quotes, like I did to prove Sita's position, then maybe we can analyse actually.

Anyways I'm not interested in this debate further because you're a religious person and there's not a single religious person who can actually critique their own religion. So bye.

I'm sorry I didn't know you're anti religious. And since you think you cherry picking one quote from Google anyway validates your very biased take of an huge epic then I can engage in this conversation any further either.

Just want to point out, everything you wrote about Draupadi's plight is not just your interpretation but rather your imagination. So I can't refute anyone's imagination.

You've a hatred for these epics and what they stand for and that's your personal opinion. None of what you said is fact or truth.