Originally posted by: Chandraketu
Plenty. Like previously, you predicted that they'd show Rama in Mithila. They did, but they changed so much of that visit, and made it look more believable. Not really, Ram was ruder in this serial than the last when visiting Sunaina.🤬 In the previous serial, they showed Janak as being upset only about Rama's sorrow but not Sita's plight, and Sunaina upset only about Sita's plight, but not about Rama's action in exiling her. In this serial, they showed Janak initially being outraged, but not upset over each and every protest at Rama's visit (except for Malavika's outburst), while they showed Sunaina upbraiding Rama over his lack of decorum in going into her chamber uninvited. You think that's unchanged from the previous serial? In the previous serial, Janak knew about Sita's exile before coming to Ayodhya. He had time to accustom himself, to gather his feelings, subdue his outrage and think more clearly, and he also received a letter from Sita in which she requested her father not to show his outrage at Ram, and to comfort him instead because he would be an emotional wreck. In Devi Bhagavatham, there is a story about Raja Janak and the rishi-kumar Suka in which it is revealed that Janak was a gyani, one who knew about all truths of life and was above emotional human attachments. It is not at all surprising that he did not act like the typical enraged father with the shot-gun towards Ram. He himself was a great King, one who knew Raj Dharma and who would have made the same decision about his wife had the occasion made it necessary. Why would he be angry at Ram, who after all loved Sita more than he himself? In this serial, Janak did not know about Sita's exile before coming to Ayodhya. It was a big shock to find out about it from the person who exiled her himself (though Ram didn't really exile her in this serial). To be shocked and maybe even outraged (though I believe it was wrong to show a Maha Gyani Janak have an outburst like that) for awhile, and then support Ram was appropriate for this serial. But since Janak already knew about Sita's exile in the previous, his reaciton there was appropriate for that serial.
In this case, there are ways for them to improvize over what they showed last time, particularly since they all the time show Rama grief-stricken over Sita - something they didn't then. There were many scenes in the previous serial where Rama thought about Sita and grieved over the separation. Unlike in this serial, they did not show his character as weak, but as a strong king who after all had feelings. True, he did weep continuously like here, but the scenes in which they showed Ram reflecting on past times with Sita and being grieved over her separation were more heart-rending than here for me. Here, he only cried all the time, but in the other one, Ram always carried a look of pride when he remembered Sita. He knew she was strong, that she would not give up and would bring up their children as fitting kings of the Raghukul. What Rama can do, if they have to follow this track, is to tell the boys that look, I know what you are saying is true, but since accepting you as my sons would automatically mean accepting you as my heirs and the people have aspersions about your mother, I cannot, as king, accept you as my sons, even though we all know that you are. That would be a lot less uncouth than the manner in which he said it in the previous serial. Ram's question was understandeable. He could not just accept anyone as his sons, even if he did not make them his heirs. He did need proof, and the way Ram said it in the previous serial wasn't uncouth, just straight-forward. He asked them what the proof was, but it was not only to see what they would say, but mostly to hear the opinion of Ayodhya's praja. Half of them said it was unfair to ask them for further proof after hearing Valmiki's narration, but the other half said that one more proof was necessary to make them believe in Sitaji's chastity. To make the King's sons the next ruler(s) was a tradition of the Raghukul, and as you said, the old serial did not show Bharat becoming Yuvraj, so it was not wrong for Ram to say his sons would be the heirs to the throne. And as potential heirs, it was right to ask them for proof that they were his and Sita's kids and not two random kids from the ashram.
Also, coming to think of it, in the previous serial, when Kush told him that what Valmiki had written was inimmutable, Rama told them that as his sons, they'd be his successors, and hence the need to establish their legitimacy. But why? Bharat was the yuvraj (even though they didn't show any yuvraj being crowned then), so how would Rama accepting them as his sons automatically make them his heirs? He could always have accepted them, but inserted a condition that they couldn't become future rulers of Ayodhya itself, and given them other kingdoms later, just like he did his nephews, and let Bharat and his sons be the successors to Ayodhya. In the real story (sorry to keep bringing it up), when Rama decided to follow Lakshman, he offered the throne to Bharat, not to Kush, and it was Bharat who suggested that Kush and Luv be made kings of 2 separate kingdoms.
So I feel confident enough to take your bet! Sure!😉👍🏼
Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi 2
Kumkum Bhagya
