Originally posted by: Semanti
Dekhiye behenein, I didn't watch today, so I am probably missing many of the finer points. What I gather is that some major melodrama went down, Paro is missing, and the story seems to be definitely painting Laila as the one to we ought to hate.
I have nothing new to add here that someone or the other hasn't already said, so I refrain from my 'BUT WHAT ABOUT LAILA'S FEELINGZ?' post.
I have some simple points that I would like to bring up for consideration.
A man has an 8 year physical relationship with a woman. If you don't like the word 'relationship', please do help me with a different word, because I don't know what else to call it.
I can't agree with a 'string of one-night stands', because by its very definition, a one-night stand is...you know...restricted to ONE NIGHT. So even if you had a 'string' of them-- they'd have to be with different people for that to make sense.
So coming back to the 8 year relationship, we see that this man repeatedly goes to this woman for not only sex, but also food, companionship, solace, to get his thoughts in order, etc. We know this because Laila is privy to the sort of information that only Rudra could have given her (about his likes, dislikes, pet peeves, etc)
In fact, he goes to her for pretty much EVERYTHING that a husband or boyfriend would go to his wife/girlfriend for.
The only difference is that their relationship doesn't have a label.
I'll come back to that.
So, he effectively treats her like one would their significant other. And he tells her that he isn't ever going to commit. That he isn't ever going to fall in love, etc etc. That she should never hope for a mangalsutra.
And she accepts that. And continues with their relationship. Because she thinks what they have is enough. She doesn't expect a mangalsutra, but she is also clear about the fact that Rudra is never going to give anyone else one either.
And therein lies the crux of our problem.
Rudra DID make promises to her. They were just different from the ones we expect. He may not have promised to marry her, but he told her again and again that he wouldn't marry anyone at all-- that it is foolish to consider it. He may not have promised her forever, but he told her that he doesn't believe in forever-- not with her, not with anybody. He didn't say "Laila, you are a prostitute/naachnewali and that is why I can never marry you." He said "Marriage is ridiculous."
So from where Laila stands, Rudra IS going back on his words to her. He IS marrying someone. He IS committing to a forever of sorts.
And these are just the WORDS. We haven't even talked about the many unspoken things that he knowingly/unknowingly gave her to understand.
Every time he came back to her despite her making her feelings evident. Every time she pissed him off, and he came back for more. Every time she teased him, and he took it with his stone-faced expression. A million things that I am not pointing out.
Tell me again that Rudra that share so much with Laila and not have ANY feeling towards her beyond sexual attraction. Because if he is SO broken that he CANNOT, then I have an awful lot of trouble swallowing the 'Paro will melt his heart' track.
So from where I see it, Rudra did make a WHOLE lot of promises to her.
And I bet some people will still come back and say 'He promised her nothing, she always knew the score.'
So I go back to my point about the importance of labels. I am not going to talk about labeling Laila as a 'vamp' or Paro as the 'heroine'.
I am going to ask about labels attached to relationships. Because we treat those rather conveniently.
When one side talks about conduct unbefitting an army officer, or even the Male Lead-- the other side starts talking about all the silent things he does for the Female Lead-- how he protects her, how he cares for her, how he stands against the world for her, etc.
And when one one side talks about injustice for Laila, the other side insists that the Male Lead never SAID anything, he didn't LABEL their relationship.
So which is it?
Do we want words and labels? Or do we want actions?
We might WANT both but that clearly isn't happening.
What we ARE getting are actions.
Rudra is not a vocal man. He dislikes talking. He is brusque, curt, rude, and dislikes shows of affection. Even towards his father, whom he clearly cares about.
So if his ACTIONS are enough for Paro, why should they not be enough for Laila? In fact, with her 8 years, Laila knows him much better! She KNOWS that he doesn't 'do' attachment and emotions. So how can she be blamed for pinning her hopes onto him even without WORDS?
Talking about his 'silent care' for Paro, and his 'lack of clear commitment to Laila' in the same breath feels awfully hypocritical to me.
We can go on as much as we want about this being Rudra and Paro's story, and that's okay. But I don't see why that should make us incapable of SYMPATHY.
The creative's are taking the easy way out.
But that doesn't mean we can't call them out on it.
So, NO CVs, I DON'T see how you are justifying Laila as a vamp. And I would appreciate it if you delved deeper into characterization, instead of being so damned one-dimensional.
It would probably motivate me to watch each episode at the right time, on TV.
Anupamaa
Current Affairs
