Originally posted by: DiyaS
Zee,
About Rudra's pain vs Paro's pain ... I forget his exact words, but the impression from that scene was that he felt her pain was not worthy of being discussed. Because her parents loved her, everything was fine for her, or it should be. He did not stop for a moment to sympathise, to say, 'yes, I know ... I agree ... you must have felt shattered too ...' or anything of that sort. It was just ... 'oh, you don't understand, because your parents loved you.'
Does he think Paro's pain is greater than his? Or even anywhere near? Has he ever told her that your world shattered, you lost your husband ... no, he tells her, get over it, that man was not your husband, so you shouldn't feel bad about it.
He tells her to get over her pain ... worse, he tells her that she shouldn't even FEEL the pain of a shattered marriage, a sudden widowhood ... because it was all false.
Isn't Paro telling him the same? Get over it ... because your mother did love you ... she didn't leave because of you, or because she did not love you.
'Mala was not thinking of Rudra when she decided to leave.'
In the one flashback we have been privileged to see, we know that Mala wanted to take Rudra with her, and she was thrown out by Dilsher.
Did she wait to take such a step till Rudra was 13? No, probably not. She took the step when she met Tejawat, and felt that if she left, he would help her, support her. Till then, she probably had no place to go ... she would have been on the road ... again, my conjecture.
Did she stay for so long for Rudra's sake? Almost certainly yes. If she had been alone, no kids ... then maybe she might have gotten the courage to walk out earlier. She might have felt that being on the streets without support was preferable to living with constant abuse. But because she wanted to take Rudra with her, maybe she wasn't brave enough to take that step with a baby or even a small child ... with the uncertainty of whether she could provide for him if she left.
Again, this is not whitewashing Mala ... but as a mother, I can understand her fears with a younger child, who is more fragile, more vulnerable. She waited till he was old enough ... not to leave, but to take him.
Once she was thrown out, she says she tried to come back for Rudra. Danveer supports that. But Dilsher went missing. So my crib is not that she left without him ... but did she try to find him in all these years? And if she did not succeed, did she try to console herself with the thought he was was old enough, his father would probably not be able to physically abuse him. As a mother who could not trace her child, she would have to console herself with something ... but I would still hope that she made some attempts to find him. And that is my biggest crib with the cvs ... why have they not shown those attempts?
Does Mala not deserve that Rudra know the truth about why she left? So if Paro is doing this for Mala as well, is it really wrong on her part? He knows she left, he hates her for that ... he also knows she lived with Tejawat for fifteen years ... so what should Mala do? Hang herself for daring to make a better life for herself, because she could not take her child with her? Despite trying to?
Rudra has hated her for fifteen years ... is it really good for him to continue hating her all his life? He can refuse to forgive her ... she will be miserable ... but will he really be happy? How will it help Rudra to continue wallowing in misery about his mother leaving? As it is, children from broken marriages have a tough time ... it is the responsibility of parents to reassure them that the reasons for the broken relationship were nothing to do with them, and to try to keep the bitterness between them from affecting the children. Dilsher and Mala failed at that fifteen years ago... And that is what Paro is trying to do. What every responsible parent does, in the unfortunate event that a marriage breaks. What Dilsher and Mala are trying belatedly to do too.
In the end ... yes, Mala was wrong to run away. She could have done things differently. She could have come back the next day in broad daylight and demanded to take Rudra with her. She could have probably done a lot more than she did ... than we have been shown, anyway.
But what now??!! That is past, it's over, it cannot be changed. How to go ahead ... that is the question.
I think the biggest problem is that the Indian mentality is that a woman who leaves her husband and child for another man, especially a richer man, has to be bad. All the women in TV and BW who've done this so far, are vamps. We cannot find any justification for them that is good enough. Right or wrong ... I don't know. And the cvs have not made an attempt to present a complete picture of both sides of the story. They have only shown us a one-sided view.
Diya, I think the impression we received from that scene must depend on how we saw and understood the scene, because that is not the impression that I received at all. There was nothing to discuss in that scene, Rudra had just found out his mother was back, and Paro tried to let him know that she knew how he felt - he simply told her that no, she doesn't know how he feels. That's all. She made a statement and he disagreed with it. When he tells her their pain is different...he acknowledges that Paro does feel pain...in no way did he belittle or deny her pain...by comparing their pain he automatically conveys that he knows she feels pain as well, she went through a tragedy of her own, it's just that...right now, she cannot use her own pain to understand his, because the two pains are completely different from each other.
I don't think Rudra tells Paro to "get over" her pain over her fake marriage and husband, he simply gets jealous and possessive and so reminds her that her husband and marriage was fake, he can't bear to think of Paro as somebody else's and so he repeatedly tells Paro that she is only his because she never was anybody else's. If it was Rudra who had a fake marriage and wife, I'm sure Paro would say the same thing if he ever talked about the marriage/wife. She would say, "Major saab, vu apki patni nahi thi." It's common possessiveness over one's spouse, it doesn't mean that the partner in question thinks that their spouse's pain over a fake marriage and husband means nothing.
I don't know when Rudra tells Paro not to feel pain over her fake marriage/husband? I've already explained why he calls her marriage/husband false, it's not about belittling her pain, it's about possessiveness.
However, yes, I think we should receive scenes where Paro's pain at all her losses in life are mulled over. The CVs only concentrate on Rudra's pain and fail to give real depth to Paro's pain...and that is where the disconnect is for many viewers. We want to feel Paro's pain, she used to get nightmares about her parents...I want her to continue getting nightmares, why did they suddenly stop? I want Rudra to comfort her, to tell her that he's there for her, that the nightmares can't hurt her. I want Rudra in general to have rational conversations with Paro about all the crap that she's gone through in life...and how she has rose past all of it.
Honestly, even if Mala did not leave Rudra because of him, or because she didn't love him...that doesn't suddenly take away the pain pf 15 years. You can't simply "get over" 15 years of torture, of mocking, of bullying, of poison, of hatred, of a drunk, terrible father and an absent mother. And no I do not believe that Rudra tells Paro to get over her own pain...he has never expected that from her. It is Paro herself who is able to get past pain very quickly...and I wish that wasn't so. I wish the CVs lingered on Paro's own pain, I wish they explored the effects of such tragic events in Paro's life. Her life should not revolve around Rudra, her emotions should not exist for his betterment, she should have a stance of her own.
Yes Mala wanted to take Rudra with her when she decided to leave, but she didn't decide to leave at a certain time because of Rudra. I don't think Mala stayed for so long simply because of Rudra. Yeah I'm sure she thought of Rudra and so stayed with Dilsher for longer than she wanted to, but she stayed for so long with Dilsher in general because that's what women often do in abusive relationships. They convince themselves it will be all okay eventually, that they just need to keep trying harder, and one day their partner will come around. Mala stuck to false hope regarding Dilsher and that is why she stayed. The day that false hope shattered...she made the decision to leave. It didn't have as much to do with the fact that Rudra would be old enough to leave with her.
And really, I applaud Mala for leaving. She gathered the courage and strength to think of a better life for herself and she took action. I really love her for that...she sends a good message across to the Indian audience. Do not tolerate BS from your husbands just because your culture says it is your duty to tolerate everything they throw your way. That's crap.
One point I would like to make. I don't see a mother thinking "is my child old enough to avoid physical abuse?" For a mother her children will always be children for her, no matter how old they are, and they would worry for the well-being of their children even if their children were 40 and clearly old enough to handle themselves.
Honestly, Mala has said that she tried to find Rudra after running away...but was not successful. Do I think she could have tried harder? Yes. Rudra didn't move to Australia, he was still in India and this much Danveer knew, so Mala knew as well. As a Thakurain, did she not have the connections to find Rudra? This is a serious blunder on the CVs part.
But even if Mala didn't really try to find Rudra...even if she decided to think of herself only...her own happiness...her own well-being...I could forgive her. Because I know of mothers who have left their children to find a better life for themselves. They love their children and miss them, but they decide that they need to think of themselves and make themselves happy as well. I can understand these women even if I do not approve of their actions. And I could accept Mala as a woman like this.
What I can't stand...is this glorification of Mala. Yes Mala did something wrong, but you can't just say that everyone makes mistakes and what matters most is that you are here to fix your mistake. No. You say that yes you messed up, you totally screwed over your son's life, but now you can do your best to apologize to your son. You can make things better for him. Things may never be the same anymore but that's life. Your mistake was not just a mistake, it was a sin, it's not ok and some things can truly never be "fixed" again, but you do your best to acknowledge your sin and move forward from there.
Whatever happens after that, happens. You can't force love or acceptance down somebody's throat, you just try to give them the closure they deserve and leave it at that...whatever happens after that...it will happen for the best. It really doesn't have to end with everyone singing "hum saath saath hain". That's just not the way it works. And this is something that really annoys me. After all this crap how can everyone just go back to playing happy family? Also, I can understand Paro thinking so high of Mala after learning of the reason she left, but Paro started glorifying Mala as soon as she met her. Paro had no idea why Mala did what she did, but because Paro sees Mala as "white", and not as a "normal flawed human", she decided that Mala must have a valid reason for running away. I didn't like that. Just because Mala was good to you doesn't mean she is a good person and can do no wrong. I didn't like how Paro assumed that Mala was innocent when truly she knew nothing other than one big truth: Rudra is hurt and emotionally scarred because of Mala. Teju was good to Mala but was he a good person? No. He's a terrorist. I would like to see all of this affect Paro's thinking, the CVs barely show her thought process and her growth after facing such tragedies in life...she simply accepts all tragedies in her life and continues to be the white flower that she is.
Mala doesn't need to do anything, I don't expect her to hang herself or shoot herself because she left behind her son simply because she wanted a better life for herself. She did what she felt was right, she did what she had to do, that's fine. What I don't like is Paro's glorifying of her actions, somehow making her out to be the one who is most hurt after all that she is responsible for. When a couple has problems the one who feels the biggest blow of the problems is the child, the child feels the most hurt. Yes Mala is hurt but her pain did not affect her life like it affected Rudra's. She was with Teju playing beautiful wife and fairy godmother to all the village girls, while Rudra was taking the brunt of his parents' actions. The mocking, the bullying, the taunts, the loneliness - no mother and no father either, because all the father was good for was drinking and cursing his wife. Mala had Teju, she had Paro - she gave love to Paro because she saw Paro as a substitute for Rudra. But who did Rudra have? Did he have a substitute for a mother? No. He had no one.
Honestly I think Rudra does need to forgive his mother. Because, "Forgiveness is a gift you give yourself." - Tony Robbins. Rudra needs to forgive his mother not because his mother deserves forgiveness, but because he deserves to be free of all his pain. He needs to do this for himself, for his own peace of mind. Paro is right to try to get Rudra to face his demons. Her tactics are questionable but her end goal is understandable. What I don't understand...is how forgiveness is being equated to acceptance...yes Rudra needs to forgive his mother. But why is it that the CVs are showing that this forgiveness will result in his accepting her? Why are the CVs so keen on showing the entire Ranawat family singing "hum saath saath hain"? In reality people forgive but they move on. Rudra went through far too much pain for him to go back to having a normal relationship with his mother again.
I don't know about Indian mentality in regards to a woman leaving her husband for another man, but not just Indians...people all over the world...believe that it is wrong to leave your child like that.
Actually, Bollywood did show a woman leaving her husband and child for another man. They did not try to justify her running away by saying that her husband was abusive (as far as I can remember, please correct me if I am wrong) or that she tried her best to take her daughter with her, etc. She simply ran away because she fell in love with this other man and wanted a life with him. She made a conscious, selfish decision to leave her daughter. This is not justified in the movie...the daughter simply grows up and comes to accept this, because her mother did what she did because of love. Love was, to the daughter, a good enough and valid reason to leave your child. This was shown in the movie Jab Tak Hai Jaan.
Good talking to you Diya 😊
Edited by Zeeliciousxo - 11 years ago
