Was Krishna at fault for walking out? - Page 2

Originally posted by: Binny1247

but binny ........krishna is a simple person wid exteme emotions.................he has some set rules in his mind..............and i can tell u that u cannot reason against such rules ................he has his own logic.....................i don't think he doubts her character...(will hurt me if they show him doin that).................possessive he is..................but as thsy say ...........excess of everything is bad...........

Nisha

I know a man like Krishna feels no one should look at his wife but him, I may not agree with him but I can understand his personality. My problem is not with his possessiveness it has been obvious since the day he saw prats, and his reaction to the man shaking prats hand was unacceptable but expected. I expected his obsessive, possessive behavior but I did not expect him to question her virtue in front of everyone he humiliated the women he claimed to love unconditional for talking to another man. I see his extreme emotions here that 's fine but I also see a lack of trust.

Even in this scenario if he is angry with her for hiding the fact that she was kidnapped from him than that is justifiable, but if he has doubts about her character than 🤢





even i dread it,.....................if he doubts her character ....................i'll hate cv's for doin this to krishna's role................

@Binny - I hear you what you are saying...But you see, whatever the justification for hiding the truth especially a truth of this scale, falls short...that's because when the truth comes out, it comes out very ugly...

It alright to be angry and walk out. But after pondering on the subject its how you react to it that matters. I just don't like him manhandling her when he is mad. It is very scary and makes it difficult for her to be open with him. How is she to be open with him when he jumps to conculsions without hearing her out. And sometimes in a very violent manner.

Originally posted by: rightchoice

@Binny - I hear you what you are saying...But you see, whatever the justification for hiding the truth especially a truth of this scale, falls short...that's because when the truth comes out, it comes out very ugly...

What is the end result of the justification of Professor? - The very secrete he wanted to hide from Krishna was made public...

What is the end result of the justifcation by Pratigya? - She has risked the very own marriage she wanted to save...

Rightchoice

I understand and respect your POV but I feel that anyone would have feared Krishna's reaction especially after having witnessed his anger and possessiveness first hand.

I refuse to support the professors decision of going to jail though I understand his fears Krishna was capable of murder and the truth could have put prats marraige in danger. As a father he was worried about his daughters well being he was also aware of Krishna's families thinking, and having doubt about Krishna's reaction to the truth was due to his behavior.

I understand what you are saying though the truth would have eventually come out, but I doubt Krishna would have been able to tolerate it either way. I'm not saying Krishna is wrong I understand his reaction it was expected he his hurt because he was not told this truth before but I can also understand prats fear. And I can't say anything until we are told the reason behind Krishna's pain because if he doubts her character then that is not justifiable. If Krishna is angry and yells at prats for hiding the truth from him that much I can accept as long as he gives her a chance to explain herself once he cools down, now if he refuses to listen to her then there is another problem. The issue is how Krishna handles this truth and how he chooses to react to this situation.

Originally posted by: Binny1247

Rightchoice

I understand and respect your POV but I feel that anyone would have feared Krishna's reaction especially after having witnessed his anger and possessiveness first hand.

I refuse to support the professors decision of going to jail though I understand his fears Krishna was capable of murder and the truth could have put prats marraige in danger. As a father he was worried about his daughters well being he was also aware of Krishna's families thinking, and having doubt about Krishna's reaction to the truth was due to his behavior.

I understand what you are saying though the truth would have eventually come out, but I doubt Krishna would have been able to tolerate it either way. I'm not saying Krishna is wrong I understand his reaction it was expected he his hurt because he was not told this truth before but I can also understand prats fear. And I can't say anything until we are told the reason behind Krishna's pain because if he doubts her character then that is not justifiable. If Krishna is angry and yells at prats for hiding the truth from him that much I can accept as long as he gives her a chance to explain herself once he cools down, now if he refuses to listen to her then there is another problem. The issue is how Krishna handles this truth and how he chooses to react to this situation.

Originally posted by: rightchoice

Binny, Why should he believe that nothing has happened with Pratigya? Did she tell him this truth and tell him nothing has happened...? Does one has to blindly believe the other person even though that other person was hiding the truth? Or He loves so he must ASSUME nothing had happened with her?

I would agree to your point only when Pratigya tells him the entire truth and discloses her rationality behind hiding the truth but not before that...there is no condition that he MUST believe her...

As I would see, he will support irrespective of his thoughts about her vertue...or character...

Righchoice

here you assume he has not been told the entire truth in court this question was brought up I doubt they let her go before she answered it if as you say he heard everything he also heard this right? And Yes if you truly love someone this should not matter and after living with her for so long and having understood her personality as well as claiming to lover her unconditionally he should not doubt her virtue.

Originally posted by: Binny1247

Righchoice

here you assume he has not been told the entire truth in court this question was brought up I doubt they let her go before she answered it if as you say he heard everything he also heard this right? And Yes if you truly love someone this should not matter and after living with her for so long and having understood her personality as well as claiming to lover her unconditionally he should not doubt her virtue.

Righchoice

here you assume he has not been told the entire truth in court this question was brought up I doubt they let her go before she answered it if as you say he heard everything he also heard this right? And Yes if you truly love someone this should not matter and after living with her for so long and having understood her personality as well as claiming to lover her unconditionally he should not doubt her virtue.
No of course not when did I say that? I was merely pointing out the fact that it would be incorrect to assume he is completely unaware of the entire truth since he should have heard it in court.

But, I also understand that he was in a state of shock not thinking or listening properly I am saying that he did not listen to her complete explanation in court that's my point.

Unconditional love does not mean support the other even though you are unaware of the fact but then again he is not aware of all of the facts so he should not assume she is tarnished as well. True love does not assume the worst they are willing to let their partner explain their situation to them even if it's after they have gotten their anger out. He does not have to trust her blindly in order to prove his love he must get his frustration out first then be willing to listen to what his wife has to say, and then his reaction to her explanation proves how true his love is. Same goes for prats she must be willing to tolerate his behavior and make efforts to make him understand her pain, and she will do this because she has begun caring for him now.

Originally posted by: Binny1247

Righchoice

here you assume he has not been told the entire truth in court this question was brought up I doubt they let her go before she answered it if as you say he heard everything he also heard this right? And Yes if you truly love someone this should not matter and after living with her for so long and having understood her personality as well as claiming to lover her unconditionally he should not doubt her virtue.
No of course not when did I say that? I was merely pointing out the fact that it would be incorrect to assume he is completely unaware of the entire truth since he should have heard it in court.

But, I also understand that he was in a state of shock not thinking or listening properly I am saying that he did not listen to her complete explanation in court that's my point.

Unconditional love does not mean support the other even though you are unaware of the fact but then again he is not aware of all of the facts so he should not assume she is tarnished as well. True love does not assume the worst they are willing to let their partner explain their situation to them even if it's after they have gotten their anger out. He does not have to trust her blindly in order to prove his love he must get his frustration out first then be willing to listen to what his wife has to say, and then his reaction to her explanation proves how true his love is. Same goes for prats she must be willing to tolerate his behavior and make efforts to make him understand her pain, and she will do this because she has begun caring for him now.

Originally posted by: rightchoice

Righchoice

here you assume he has not been told the entire truth in court this question was brought up I doubt they let her go before she answered it if as you say he heard everything he also heard this right? And Yes if you truly love someone this should not matter and after living with her for so long and having understood her personality as well as claiming to lover her unconditionally he should not doubt her virtue.

No of course not when did I say that? I was merely pointing out the fact that it would be incorrect to assume he is completely unaware of the entire truth since he should have heard it in court.

But, I also understand that he was in a state of shock not thinking or listening properly I am saying that he did not listen to her complete explanation in court that's my point.

Unconditional love does not mean support the other even though you are unaware of the fact but then again he is not aware of all of the facts so he should not assume she is tarnished as well. True love does not assume the worst they are willing to let their partner explain their situation to them even if it's after they have gotten their anger out. He does not have to trust her blindly in order to prove his love he must get his frustration out first then be willing to listen to what his wife has to say, and then his reaction to her explanation proves how true his love is. Same goes for prats she must be willing to tolerate his behavior and make efforts to make him understand her pain, and she will do this because she has begun caring for him now.
If Krishna has assumed the worst I would expect him to be even more anxious to learn the complete truth hopefully he calms down and starts his questioning session prepared to listen to her answers.