Komarsh and their future

Originally posted by: Hot_Indo_Chilly

Komarsh: Can these two ever have a normal future together?

Adarsh: Lives upto his name. The ideal son and brother who has given so many sacrifices without flinching.

Komal: Complete opposite of what her name means. Brass, crude, agressive, yet innocent at the same time.


Now, we all know the situation under which Komarsh came together. From the first time they met to until now, things haven't quite smoothened out. There are various reasons for this:
1. The upbringing of the Saxenas vs. that of the Thakurs
2. The value of education in the views of Saxenas and Thakurs
3. The value of women in the eyes of Saxenas and Thakurs
4. Adarsh's maturity vs Komal's immaturity
5. Adarsh's introvert nature vs. Komal's outspoken nature etc...

Initially it was evident that Komal hated being the pawn that was played to get Kriya to come together. The way she would talk to Adarsh was simply not acceptable. And do not defend her by by saying she's naive, childish or she doesn't know any better. She HAS seen how the women talk to the men in her house, and it's definitely not reflecting her behaviour. As time progressed, she slowly became attracted to Adarsh (who wouldn't? He's my fav on the show, and in real life I too would want someone like Adarsh). I was happy to know she is changing, and trying to adapt to her new surroundings. However, I was dismayed knowing that perhaps her attraction was only physical, as she cribbed about having to take care of him when he met his accident. The way she left him to go jewelry shopping with Arushi when her husband was recovering from an accident that could have taken his life saddened me. Even now with the Arushi-Aman wedding, she is belittling the Saxenas and talks about breaking Arushi's wedding. Why, because her father was insulted? And how about the many times her Sasur jee was insulted at the Thakurs? Why did she not take a stand there? She should just stay quiet and decently express her grievances, or not take any sides at all. And if she is breaking Arushi's wedding, she better have a line up of decent well do educated boys asking for Arushi's hand.

Now let's take Adarsh on the other hand. He's a simple guy who wants to live a quiet harmonious life with his family. He married the Thakurs' daughter to ensure the safety of his sister, but frankly speaking it does not really help.The Thakurs were ready to bump Pratigya off, and they will probably try once things settle down again.He does get attracted to Komal once in a while, but Komal's immaturity just gets him back to square one being his indifferent aloof self. There are no grounds on which Komarsh are able to connect. Just the way Pratigya took time to adjust to Krishna, Komal has not been able to. She has tried, but she needs to try harder. Why doesn't she ask Adarsh to teach her? Why doesn't she she ask him to narrate a fav story of his childhood days?

Now, I remember how harsh Komal was on Pratigya when the fake Kriya pregnancy track was revealed. What will happen when the fake Komarsh pregnagncy track occurs? Deffo, the Saxenas are not going to act like the Thakurs kicking out Pratigya. Komal has deffo taken the Saxena's gentleness for granted, and deep down she knows she is lucky compared to the women at her maayka.

What I would wish for the future Komarsh track:

1. After the fake preggo news comes out, the Thakurs start belittling the Saxenas
2. Adarsh gets angry, and demands Komal to tell the truth about who started the lie
3. The Thakurs take Komal away, and Komal being a brat and agreeing with the Thakurs
4. Saxenas upset with everything that happened
5. Thakurs send divorce papers to Adarsh
6. Adarsh comes to the Thakurs, and tries to talk to Komal with Kriya helping him.
7. Komal not relenting by being brainwashed by her parents and Shakti
8. Divorce actually happens on the grounds that there was no physical contact between Komarsh, and perhaps thakurs labelling Adarsh as impotent.
9. Komal gets remarried to another Thakur, typical to what she sees at her maayka
10. Adarsh and his family slowly moving on
11. Komal gets harshly treated by her in-laws and learns to appreciate the Saxenas
12. Thakurs upset also with Komal's state, and Baba telling them off for brainwashing Komal, and they are responsible for her sorry state
13. An educated female doctor comes in Adarsh's life
14. Once Komal is in the hospital getting treated for some bruises she received from her Thakur husband by the new doctor.
15. Komal seeing Adarsh and the doctor together, and regretting her mistakes.

Komal does do some funny comedy at times, but lately I have been disappointed with her. Unless she turns a new leaf, I don't see why she is treated so nicely.

Originally posted by: stillhopeful

I agree Komal flip flops personality wise and she is infatuated rather than in love with Adarsh. her background and upbringing make it easy to understand her behaviour and her treatment by her husband is also useful in understanding her behaviour. her MIL has tried to treat her with affection and love to kind of negate the aloofness and condescension shown by the other members of the sexenas (other than pratigya who does not live with her). her constant lashing out at people is a sign of her immaturity which is obvious.

I have a lot of thoughts on adarsh Adarsh but I will refrain on discussing him here.

just a clarification. you want to see Komal become a domestic violence victim so that she can appreciate the aloofness, tolerance and civility offered her by the Saxenas? 😕 Ok then


Isn't it also a bold assumption on your part that all thakurs are wife beaters and abusers?

may be they are not liberal people - but does that mean that we can imply that another thakur will also be uneducated or uncouth or violent like Sajjan Singh?

Originally posted by: stillhopeful

Isn't it also a bold assumption on your part that all thakurs are wife beaters and abusers?

may be they are not liberal people - but does that mean that we can imply that another thakur will also be uneducated or uncouth or violent like Sajjan Singh?

Dye:

I don't want it to sound like I am giving a history lesson on anything here but just to give a bit of context considering you asked the question😊 please keep in mind that my knowledge on Northern India is fundamental.

In the feudal system (as depicted in this show) Thakur is not a surname but a class (though of course generally speaking the title "thakur" is adopted in Indian as a surname quite often - not sure if all the people that adopt it actually belong to the class itself). SS, Krishna and Shakti belong to the Thakur class and their surname is "Singh". It may sound like semantics but it is important to differentiate the two. Singh is a very popular name in the Rajput community irrespective of where they are settled and not all of these singhs are actually thakurs.

Again, generally speaking, in the fuedal system, Thakurs were a title accorded to Kshatriya Rajputs settled in many parts of Northern India including UP. Bhojpuri is their mother tongue. They were given this title as they were considered non-ruling noblemen with an estate much like anglosaxon lords . As they belonged to the warrior class traditionally they gave importance to the art of warfare or physical skills over academics.

It is very similar to a class called "Bhatkar" in Goa who landlords, the only difference being bhatkars in goa are the brahmin or the priestly class where academics is priortized traditionally and pshyical behaviour is frowned upon (it is actually depicted very well by Saxenas who are not from that class but a much lower class based on character background sketch). people call them bhatkar but this does not make their surname bhatkar. calling them by their title in rural communities is a sign of respect and a recognition of social status. the bhatkars also have the implied responsbility of speaking up for people living in and around their lands on community matters (which is why the respect).

Thakurs in many remote rural areas of India (by virtue of their distance from metros) tend to still be a conservative and even orthodox segment of northern society. they still live by feudal values and traditions. they are educated (may be in a vernacular medium rather than English), run estates, are quite often wealthy by local standards but at the same time their orthodox culture and traditions mean that they may or may not afford certain liberties to women. women (even those that are educated) are expected to be subservient in the household, run the household (without looking for gainful employment), maintain a level of modesty by keeping their distance from men outside of the family, covering their heads in a sign of respect, etc.

these ultra conservative values are a result of non-exposure or intended seclusion from western more liberal society and is very similar to the values of Orthodox Jews or Amish or the like around the world.

Stereotyping the orthodoxy of a class of people by using regressive traits like domestic violence, illiteracy or the like in my estimation would be erroneous, especially if that stereotype were based on scant knowledge or the contrived comments of a fictional character in a soap.

In Sholay, Thakur Baldev Singh (aka Sanjeev Kumar) is shown to be a policeman, a honourable man, a rich man - the women in his house are not abused yet conservative and do not venture outside their home and hearth. They did not even look unhappy (well until the dacoits killed them that is then they wer super unhappy). What impression do I walk away with about the Thakur class after seeing this writer's charaterization? Especially as it conflicts with MKAP?

My friend from Bombay who is not a Thakur but from a lower class got married to a Thakur in Bihar. Her husband lives in a small village in Bihar. has completed a PHd. runs the family estate and supports his father as chief on the village council or panchayat. it is true that her status in that family is similar to thakurain. stay at home mom with full responsibility for household management but she does not receive prasadis. her family is similar to many thakurs in that village. again not very knowledgeable about the class or the details of its community traditions and culture but just wanted to comment on why I thought a bold "across-the-board" categorization by the writer may not always be wholly accurate.

the more predominant issue in my estimation in these areas is female subjugation by denying freedom of expression, personal development or career aspirations. that is also common in other orthodox communities across the world. in North America it happens to mormons, amish, orthodox jews, etc. this is not an issue prevalent only in third world countries. it is an issue that stems from isolation from larger liberal society and a disbelief in the effectiveness of the law of the land.

Komal is a brash, extremely vocal and uncouth girl (based on character sketch). When I heard Krishna say that dialogue I took it to mean that she is lucky that she finds herself in a home where she is treated as a person with a say in family matters. He also mentioned that she would not get beaten. Krishna himself is shown to be naive in the show with constant references from pratigya who calls him bholu. maybe he is under the same erroneous assumption about other thakurs or maybe he has only encountered his father's relations that are equally temperamental and intolerant because of their association and peer influence. I don't really know. I take the show itself with a pinch of salt.

re your statement

Not trying to hound you (if you say so😆😆😆), or supporting DV (in case you draw this conclusion!).(why would I draw that conclusion? your support pratigya - people who do that can never support evils - that is only for krish fans ike me😉😆😆😆 just kidding😆

Hope

Originally posted by: koolsadhu1000

I U guys may find this unbelievable but that class actually considers the daughter in law like a daughter in their own rustic way .👏👏

Btw Hope why did u hold back on ur views on Adarsh ? I wud have loved reading them . it was futile Kools😆😆

.

Originally posted by: stillhopeful

the way I see it - the characterization is depicted of the three families

the Thakurs are like Texans - they bicker within but present a strong united front. are practical but lack finesse

the Saxenas are like a family from Boston Masachusetts (not the aristrocats of course) - donot know how to bicker if you gave them individual training, face asthamic conditions at the hint of impropriety are tame to the point of seeming aloof and unapproachable unless in like minded society

the Mathurs are like a family from South Carolina. old money, conservative, cultured. bicker within and may or may not present a united front. value convention.

Watching the drama is like watching the american civil war - the cultured (???) south trying to contain, reform, dominate the freewilled uncultured (??) northerns. we know who won the civil war because battles cannot be won with tea parties (unless of course you are fighting against the British😆😆) but somehow I highly doubt this show will have a similar outcome.

I think the outcome is predictable and more obvious with each passing day - the saxes and the mathurs will OVERCOME AND REFORM the thakurs👏 come hell or high water. 😆😆