Originally posted by: EkPaheli
The second actor was Inder Kumar. He wasn’t good enough and was replaced.
Adi was a good boy turned rouge out of nowhere, which is why that track failed to resonate. The actor also couldn’t pull off the same level of performance as Aakash. With Ansh we always knew where he stood, who he was and that ultimately his end was either jail or death. Jail would mean he can keep coming back but Ekta decided to go iconic and recreate Mother India.
Even DABH tried to recreate the same scene with Bhabho and her son and failed much like YHM. Her son was also turned into a monster out of the blue from just another lazy, good for nothing idler.
The problem with Ekta is she keeps trying to milk it repeatedly. She doesn’t comprehend that ending something is good too sometimes. She wants to keep cashing in on what she made iconic but she doesn’t realise that what made it iconic was that she gave us exactly the foundation that Ansh needed and got the perfect actor for him too. We rooted for his death and despised his very existence from day one. He didn’t turn bad for the sake of shock value like in YHM and DABH from a good/decent character. He was bad from day one. We knew exactly what he was once he was established though we didn’t understand why Ekta suddenly had a son pop up out of nowhere.
The track had a point - sometimes good people are born to bad people and vice verse. Like Prahlad was born to a demon king, quite literally; and is still Narayan’s greatest Bhakt we think of even today. Tulsi ended up being like Gandhari who had blinders on when her own blood was in question until it was too late. The only difference is she didn’t curse anyone else for his actions or for what she eventually had to do but accepted it as her actions and fate.
No other set of actors have been able to replicate the phenomenon of the Mother India moment Ansh Tulsi created. Not even by Ekta herself. That’s telling. It’s not just because other shows shoehorned in this twist for just shock value but also because they didn’t establish their villains like Ansh was established; the actors are also responsible for this owing to their acting chops. That’s my point.
From the very beginning, Ansh was shown as someone who disrespected women. It wasnt just one incident his behavior towards Baa, Tulsi, and especially Nandini consistently reflected that. I understand that not everyone can immediately accept a new mother figure, especially when they are already grown up. That’s fair. But basic courtesy and respect are still expected and that’s exactly what Ansh never had. Akashdeep portrayed Ansh in a way that made the audience wait for his downfall, not his redemption. There was no sympathy arc there. He was meant to be hated, and it worked. And Akashdeep himself was unable to create that Darkness with Ekalavya which was able to create eit Ansh.
N regarding DABH...I don't exactly recall the story....may be I have to rewatch. Did bhabhi kill Mohit ?
Now comparing kyunki to YHM - Adi was actually one of the most beautifully written characters initially. He was a child who was clearly neglected and emotionally manipulated by his own mother. Shagun did love Adi in her own way, but she always loved herself more. She used him as a tool against Raman, and that shaped his early behavior. But what made Adi’s journey special was Ishita. It was Ishita’s selfless and unconditional love that transformed him. From being a brat he became a genuinely loving, sensitive boy. Their bond didnt feel forced but it evolved naturally. You could actually see a mother son relationship forming over time.
His insecurity when a new baby was discussed was also very real. That fear that Ishita might love him less is something any child would feel. And the fact that he understood and accepted her reassurance shows how deeply he trusted her. That is what made their bond believable. Even after the 7 year leap, it was evident that Adi longed for Ishita. Shagun existed in his life yes but she never held the emotional space that Ishita did.
Then his relationship with Aliya - he was shown as a loving, responsible husband. Even the Roshni marriage track which was forced by circumstances, didnt completely derail his character. He eventually processed it, moved forward, and rebuilt a stable life with Aliya.
And then suddenly… everything changes. Out of nowhere, Adi is shown getting attracted to Roshni again almost like infatuation and it just doesnt align with his established character. It feels abrupt and forced. What makes it worse is Roshni’s arc. Roshni was supported by Ishita and Aliya and they helped her study, supported her growth, and stood by her in her toughest phase. And yet she knowingly gets involved with a married man Adi, who is Aliya’s husband. This wasnt confusion or helplessness but this was a conscious choice.
Even that justification later - that she realized Adi wouldn’t choose her or what she is doing is wrong when Shagun spoke to her and so she stepped back doesnt change the fact that she willingly engaged in something that would hurt the very people who helped her. That is why the audience didnt connect with her the way they did with Nandini in Kyunki.
Nandini was a victim. She went through trauma, abuse, and injustice. Her suffering was visible, prolonged, and layered. Roshni, on the other hand, was not portrayed as a victim...she had agency, and she made choices that directly hurt others. So her “emotional conflict” never really translated into audience sympathy.
Now coming to the biggest difference - Tulsi vs Ishita.
In Kyunki, Tulsi’s reaction was not impulsive. Her anger and pain were built over time. She saw....Ansh constantly disrespecting women, Baa, Herself, Nandini, His toxic behavior and entitlement, the marital rape of Nandini, his attempts to destroy evidence, his manipulation of Mihir and Savita, his plan to kill Tanya, destroying and eliminating all evidences...and finally him kidnapping Nandini and almost killing her just to satisfy his own ego. This wasnt one incident ...it was a pattern of escalating cruelty. Tulsi reached a breaking point after witnessing repeated atrocities. When she shot Ansh, it felt like the culmination of everything she had endured and seen. The audience may have been shocked but they understood her rage and probably they were rooting for her to kill him.
Now compare that to YHM - Adi’s shift was sudden and poorly built. One day he is a loving son and husband, and the next he is behaving obsessively, kidnapping Roshni from a wedding. There was no gradual descent, no layered buildup and then Ishita shoots him. That is where the disconnect happens. Because unlike Kyunki, there was no long standing arc of darkness leading to that moment. It felt rushed, forced, and out of sync with the character we had seen grow over years which is why Tulsi’s rage felt earned, while Ishita’s moment felt forced. So naturally it didnt strike the same emotional chord with the audience.
I do get the core of what you are saying that sometimes good people are born to “bad” circumstances and vice versa. The Prahlad analogy fits in principle and even the Gandhari comparison for Tulsi makes sense to an extent. Ansh was not just “a bad son born to a good mother.” He was written as someone whose darkness was consistently shown and escalated. His actions werent isolated they formed a clear pattern, Disrespect towards women, manipulation and control and eventually, crossing every moral boundary possible. So when Tulsi reached that breaking point it didnt feel like a symbolic or philosophical moment ...it rather felt earned. And I completely agree with you on one thing that no other show has been able to recreate that impact. But that is exactly because later shows tried to replicate the moment, not the process. Take YHM for example. The idea might have been similar showing how even a loved son can go wrong but the buildup just wasnt there. Adi was established as a transformed, emotionally evolved character for years. His sudden shift into obsessive behavior and then directly into that extreme climax didnt have the same layering. So the audience didnt feel that same inevitability. It felt abrupt rather than tragic. Also, acting definitely played a huge role....Akashdeep made Ansh convincingly dangerous, not just problematic. You didnt expect redemption from him... you expected consequences. What made Kyunki iconic wasnnt just the concept. It was the consistency, character arc, and emotional payoff. That is what later shows havent been able to replicate...
all of this just seems to be only a whiplash for right now
Absolutely got this vibe from this comment 
Book Talk
Cricket
Writers Corner: Books, Stories & Poems
71