She brought the child home keeping in mind her best interests. The child was abused by her relatives (yelled at, given little food, locked up, made to toil in the streets, etc) in a harsh and fearful environment. She had experienced no love until she met Akshara. Akshi gave her a new life.
And then
decided to take it back. The point is she could have still contd
. with the
arrangement of having her being taken care of by other members of the family.(Now, I know its easier said than done, specially in changed circumstances, with litd. ppl to help, but it was her decision & she was req. to stand by it.
Is it really surprising that during this period of hardship Akshi didn't give her 100% to the adopted child in the family??
Your statement itself says it all... That is the very distinction I'm pointing out, which continues to persist in this decision. She was even then considered as an
"adopted" child. Had she been actually accepted, she would'nt have found herself being identified as an
"extra liability" to be taken care of. You highlighted the difference in perspective & approach to deal with the problem.
Once again, I feel it's very understandable and extremely realistic.
That is precisely what I'm underlining. It is very realistic, bcoz these are the same problems a family, & more precisely a couple faces when they take a decision to adopt. It is not a cake walk as it appears.And this is the biggest consideration to be taken into a/c apart from other equally important ones like giving a better life to the child or protecting it from a inconducive env. during her formative years, & trying to give her a better opport. into the future.
Whether it is right or wrong is another topic, because Akshi is probably doing a lot of things 'wrong' right now. But what she's doing 'right' is way more than most people can handle. So the overall equation is just right.
I'm not singling out Ak (If it appeared so, then it was merely because it was her decision predominantly). No intention to blame her or to judge "rightness" or "wrongness" of her actions. (These are very subjective issues dependng heavily on surrounding circumstances)
What she's doing w.r.t to her family & the crisis situation is distinct frm the issue of decision of hostel & all.
You just mixed two separate equations by equating the measures taken for the crisis & the issue of sending out the girl And by that what you did was, to actually reinstate the view that Ak sent her as part of the solution to the crisis (to make room for the crampy situation she was finding herself in)
And even if it is part of the "over all equation" then you yourself reaffirmed the distinction made out by her in her measures taken for the family, & the measures taken for the best interest of the girl as a distinct entity from the family.
Do these measures or actions ought to be disjunctive of each other? Is her interest not with the family she was adopted in, even in time of crisis?
The issue is not abt AK doing right or wrong, I know such decisions are not taken by individuals, but are collective decisions. So I'm questioning the prudence of the decision & not of Ak. (She's too good to be causing wrong to somebody...I mean the character...)
Edited by Double_m - 12 years ago
CID
