Two much forward - Page 7

Originally posted by: tanvismile

[ every thing is life is not about rights ,not about proving ,now rights have to be questioned when a person is made to suffocate ,the person is told that your different and not worth living in society ,now in such situations the person needs to prove in the world that they have a right to live ,like sugna,aasha case but here everything cannot be taken like a compition .

Originally posted by: sectoreight

Tanvi,

I think that different people will have different yardsticks about what is "too forward" and what is "oppresive"

Two generations ago, women did not work outside the home. Those who did, were considered "too forward". Nowadays, all girls work outside the home, or aspire to, or stay at home because of choice -- and it has become commonplace.

at one time, widows and divorcees did not get married. Nowadays , it may raise an eyebrow or two, but nobody invests a lot of time in thinking about it if they do. Once again, something that was "too forward" is now commonplace.

As far as somebody not being suffocated or oppressed, I think sometimes, people are oppressed but they just dont know it. Elderly widows not being allowed to participate in some or all functions of a wedding is definitely a form of "covert" oppression, though on the surface it may seem like there is no oppression going on.

I see what you are saying -- that dadisa is participating in all the functions, and not made to sit in a dark kothri during the wedding, so she is not oppressed. But if someone has a talent (in this case dadisa has a very strong talent for applying mehndi), and that talent cannot shine just because she is a widow, then i feel that it is a form of oppression which is covert, but not explicit.

And so a voice must be raised against it, particularly since balika vadhu is that kind of show.

Sometimes, slavery also is not oppressive externally -- all slaves are not kept in starvation and beaten every day with whips. Many slaves actually are very well kept -- and so they feel they are excellent and rich -- but really they lack freedom of choice and free will.

I would argue that women like dadisa are in a "golden cage"... even if the cage is golden, it is still a cage. Someone can say "but what is the bird's problem? It lives in a golden cage, it gets fed three times a day, plenty of water etc." ... but the bird may still want to fly.

so dadisa too, was sitting in a golden cage, and anandi freed her from the cage, by freeing her from the mental shackles.

Originally posted by: tanvismile

well some people have mock me as i was or i m gauri fan,well from my side all kinds of views are appreciated ,i read when some of you l share valid points while i ignore the rest ,for me topic isnt about i agree with you ,i agree ,that would be boring discussion right ,i apreciate that so many of ul participated in the discussion 😊Some still recognise me as gauri fan ,people havnt forgoten me ,feels good.😆

Originally posted by: tanvismile

No one saying it was wrong dear,it was unnecesary .

Originally posted by: sectoreight

</div>


<div>

Hi tanvi,

I wasnt mocking you. I was just thinking that you are too selective in your criticisms of certain issues when it relates to anandi/dadisa ... but somehow the same yardsticks dont apply in case of gauri.

Now quite frankly, I am anti-anandi. she irritates me and gets on my nerves. (even today 😆) ... and i am also a gauri fan. I feel the sugary sweet portrayal of anandi is unrealistic and gauri is realistic.

But since this is an issue focused topic which deals with the issue of "should cultures and traditions be adhered to even when times are moving, and they become redundant?"

and you feel certain traditions should be adhered to, particularly marital symbols (of widow not putting shagun ki mehendi on bride's hands) ... then in that context i find it odd that you did not feel the same about gauri --

1. gauri really went at it with great guns to show her love for jagat. she pursued him, she sent him sms in class... etc... she did not take no for an answer... so does that fall within indian culture and tradition, where a girl is expected to be demure and wait for the boy to make the first move? Is it not "too forward"?

2. gauri and jagat's live in relationship -- was it also not "too forward"? You say dadisa applying mehendi was unnecessary, I find that their living together was unnecessary at that time. Will you sell your character for rent money? In the whole vicinity of charak medical institute, they could not find rooms as paying guests?

3. while living together, despite being unmarried, gauri was wearing sindoor and mangalsutra. Was this not "too forward"? Was this not making a mockery of symbols of indian marriage or symbols of indian culture and tradition? But at that point you said nothing about gauri's behaviour.

Now I feel, this modern generation does not have value for these things, they feel marriage is a commitment and a state of mind, and these symbols are foolish. So then that is allright. But then why not just be done with these symbols? Why gauri used these symbols just to manipulate her rental agreement?

4. Finally, at one point, gauri learned that jagat was already married. She still went and married him anyway. At that point why did you not say that she was "too forward"?? Was this also not "unnnecessary?". In hindu culture and tradition, it is one wife for one husband. When there is already a wife in the picture, was gauri's behaviour not "too forward"?

If you feel so strongly about hindu customs and traditions, then it cannot be that you have no issues to gauri violating hindu custom.

5. Moving on, let us say that you use the reasoning that anandi's child marriage was not "legal"

because it was a child marriage... but gauri's thought was that her marriage was legal because they got married in court when they were adults... but even after that, when bhairon cleared the doubts... even then she stayed with Jagat as his wife. At that point atleast, she could have told him to go and sort the matter out with anandi, and get a divorce if he wanted to live together ... but no, she stayed in the relationship, and then in addition got pregnant - not once but twice. So is gauri's behaviour not "too forward"?

I am not mocking you for your love of gauri. Believe me.

I am howeversuggesting that when you raise issues such as violation of culture and traditions, then they should apply equally to all characters.