The hands you take and the hands you leave Part 63-Updated page 149 - Page 62

In shradh the crow coming to peck the pins one has offered is considered very auspicious. It is a blessing of acceptance. Anami refers to Murari Pathak as Sharad Pandit. Ladies reference to Satrupa as pari and pecking crow set me thinking. Earlier his night mare was of a monster abducting her. He did not refer to Satrupa as monster. She is madam.the distant instruction giving cold aloof person to be looked upto.

There is unspoken pain in the eyes of Satrupa . In Baldevs there is fear mixed with pain. There is a twinkle of mischief in the eyes of Vikram and Gayathri. In Pujan Kamini and Avdoot it's deceit. In the eyes ofnarotham and Sudha one sees manipulation. In Anamis there is anger and bitterness. When Ladoo reads this in the eyes of others, Anami will hopefully play heed.

I am going to make a big kichdi of a response so please forgive me if I am wrong about something especially the MB. I mean no disrespect.

There are three things I want to address. Will address the first two here.

1. Abhimanyu and entering the Chakravayuh willingly vs unknowingly. The Pandavas did not have much of a choice, Arjuna and Krishna were not there. Someone had to fight, but still Abhimanyu chose to go into it willingly. The remaining Pandavas were also willing to go right into with him. The fact they could not go into it because of other factors is what makes Abhimanyu's death a slaughter because if they had been in and Abhimanyu still had died, it would have been a death of a warrior on a battle field. It would not have been a sacrifice. There is a difference between willingly embracing death and being thrust into a situation to be a sacrifice The Pandavas never sacrificed Abhimanyu, they were willing to stand with him, go into the dangerous Chakravayuh with him. That is the biggest difference between Abhi of MB and Satrupa and now Ladoo. They are using them against their will or knowledge, putting them in danger. They have no choice. How is it fair or dharma ? The people who do it are just terrible who use people as pawns in a chess game. I cannot absolutely agree with anyone being used as a sacrifice without their knowledge or consent and it is abhorrent if it is a child Ladoo being used deliberately by Satrupa who was used herself. It's not a mistake, it's a deliberate sin and makes her such a terrible person for me.

2. Law vs Dharma. There is only one right and wrong and the law is not always right. In the US the way I understand it if someone comes into a person's property and they feel threatened they can shoot the person. It's called the Castle Law. Obviously there are a lot of layers to it. But basically the shooter can claim they felt threatened and claim self defense even if the intruder dies. The law says it is ok. But is it right in Dharma ? No. Shooting a person is never ok. I am using this example about Yudishtra and Dharma. Even though he could legally pawn his brothers and Draupadi, a good person does not because he recognizes their personhood. What Yudishtra did was abuse of power. Same like Satrupa and LM wasis do all the time. Every time she threatens Panditayen she does that. It is not right.

Anami's last line in today's episode encapsulated what I feel about Satrupa as Mother. "Whatever DNA result says Satrupa will never be Anami's mother in 100 janams". I agree completely with that.

What makes a mother ? We live in interesting times when you don't even have to give birth to your own baby. People can employ a surrogate to carry the baby and use their egg and a sperm and a baby is born that is legally theirs. They don't even have to use their own eggs if they are defective. People can buy human eggs on the internet, make a baby in a test tube and pay a surrogate carry the baby and legally it is theirs. Everything from breast milk to human eggs is available on the internet. We have commercialized the process of birth and making a baby.

So what's a mother ? Who deserves to be called MOM ? DNA ? Legal status ? Whatever science can come up with it is always one and the same. Someone who loves you unconditionally. Who puts you above them. Who loves you above self. Who will sacrifice for her child not make the child the sacrifice to behave.

Satrupa does not deserve to be called Anami's mother. It's not because she gave her up or does not do things like cook for her or braid her hair. It's because she is the kind to threaten Anami to behave while Panditayen will go to jail for her. For her, Anami is someone to use for her plans regardless of what Anami wants. She does not listen to her kid. To achieve her result she will sacrifice people close to Anami without remorse. Have absolutely no gratitude towards Panditayen. Satrupa lost Vatsalya because of this attitude. He ran away and he loved her. Still he ran. So Satrupa does not know how to be a mother. For her, blood and birth is enough to be mom. She never understands what it means to be a mother. The day she recognizes Panditayen's role in Anami's life is when she deserves to be called Anami's mom.

The reason why it became a brutal massacre was because his slayers flouted all rules. It was always to be a one on one attack but the learned Kauravas chose to ignore it

It has to be a combat between equals yet the maharathis and Adi Rathi's attacked a warrior or their equal in rank.

The weapon used should be similar yetthe multi pronged kaurava attack did not adhere to it.

Again we say that blood is thicker than all else. Arjuna was in amoral dilemma to fight his cousins, to fight his teacher, to fight his adversary in a battle of this nature.

The kauravas attacked Abhimanyu without qualms.

Drona is beholden to Arjuna who avenged Drona sinsult by drupada, Ashwathamma claims Drona loved Arjuna more than him , he he chose to attack Arjun's son without a second thought.

Karna I think knew by then he was a kauntheya...he knew he was Arjunasoldest brother yet he chose to kill the nephew.

Warm is never the means to settle any matter. Allowing weapons access is never justified. There is an article on the bombing of Hiroshima where the American author says it is an aberration for which America can never be forgiven.

The manner in which Abhimanyu was killed was inhuman and so it is held as an example of unfair battle.

A reluctant Achilles entered the trojan war after his young cousin was killed mistaken to be Achilles as he wore his coat of arms. Abhimanyu a case they knew they were right information him. Just as the entry of Achilles marked a turning point and killing of Hector the fall of Troy.

The intent of several wars is to proove a point and avenge an insult be it the abduction of a beautiful queen, disrobing a DIL, attacking Pearl Harbour ( US peeved by the act bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki)

MB you cannot analyze it with one incident. Similarly the current analysis of RKC is very vague with respect to MB because in MB you know the story, RKC past is not yet revealed, some are analyzing with what they see because of which they feel Satrupa is selfish and as I said I always analyze with what I feel, so I will stand with Satrupa.

Because in Bahubali Rajamouli had redeemed Shivgami the most beautiful way after she orders to kill an innocent. CVs wont slaughter Satrupa, they cannot. The show runs because of her to which Narayani Shastri breathes life. The look Satrupa gives to Sudha yesterday I was like mein vari jaawa. What a performance.

There are no 7 warriors against Ladoo. If I see all the warriors had drawn her dagger for Satrupa, her blood. Slaughter of Abhi happens with 7 warriors surrounding and killing him. Not one person or two person.