Joined: 19 January 2007
Joined: 02 May 2008
Joined: 06 June 2006
Joined: 03 September 2008
Joined: 19 January 2009
I'm glad someone opened this topic
I agree with shorti21, talking_desi17 & angelic1829 I must say that Toasty got a good blow
Sorry Punjabi#1, but I don't agree. I agree that there is difference between sharing things about love & problems at in-laws, but that is not the case here at all. When Toasty said Nitika was an outsider & didn't want to share what was going on at her in-laws place, Toasty didn't sound convincing at all Toasty was mad at Sudha for telling about the problems going on at her sasural to Nitika. Even if Sudha told her in-law's problems to Nitika SO WHAT??? As if Toasty never told the problems of her in-laws to anybody else. So what's the problem if Nitika gets to know something?
Nitika was her best friend but still she never felt the importance to share the problems of her in-law with her, then why was she always busy sharing each & every detail of problems going on at her in-laws to Malti then? At that point of time, Malti was just a stranger whom Toasty met by coincidence & just bcoz Malti recommended the Ayurvedic centre, they became friends. But were they best friends that Toasty could trust Malti & share anything about her in-laws?
Toasty used to tell Malti how she had to quit her job, how she had to sell her chain for money to buy her friend a wedding gift bcoz her father-in-law didn't give her money, how her brother-in-law, Prachin ran away from home bcoz Pashu had beaten him badly, etc. What was Toasty doing at that time? Disclosing such personal matters of her in-laws in front of Malti(who was an outsider at that time)? Of course later she even shared that her father-in-law gave her money to get her chain back which was a positive one, but that's not the point at all. The point is since how long did she know Malti that she could share anything about her in-laws with her including negative ones? If she could share the problems about her in-laws to a stranger like Malti, who had just become a friend only recently, then what's the problem if Nitika gets to know about the problems of her in-laws?
What did Toasty have in her mind whenever she would go BLAH BLAH BLAH about her in-laws in front of Malti? And Nitika got to know about Prachin missing from Ved not Toasty. Nitika was her best friend but still she never told Nitika about this but she definitely could tell everything about her in-laws to Malti, isn't it? Toasty can reveal everything to Malti but when Nitika gets to know something, she's an outsider & has no right to know what's going on at her in-laws?Is this a joke or something?
If Toasty didn't have the habit of revealing things of her in-laws to anyone then only she has full rights to have a go at her mom for telling things going on at her sasural to Nitika & her act of calling Nitika an outsider, would be justified otherwise she has no rights to call Nitika an outsider at all & no rights to have a go at her mom like that How could she even dare to say that Nitika is an outsider & has no rights to know about what's going on at her in-laws especially keeping in mind how she used to disclose each & every problems of her in-laws to Malti, whom she had just met for a few days without any kind of hesitation? It just doesn't make any sense at all
Toasty trusted Malti & gave all info about her sasural & Shobha would use all those info given to Malti against the C family in the court. Hats off to Toasty!!! for trusting a stranger (Malti) over her best friend (Nitika), to reveal the problems of her in-laws That means Malti whom Toasty had just met for a few days was an insider such that Toasty could tell her everything what's going at her sasural & Nitika her best friend was an outsider who had no rights to know what was going on at her sasural, right?
And if Toasty doesn't like sharing everything that's going on in her life with Nitika the why does she want to know what's going on in Nitika's life? I agree Toasty & Nitika are best friends but that doesn't mean they should be sharing each & everything. Sometimes there are times where one doesn't want to disclose some matters & the other one should understand that
If Toasty thinks that Nitika can tell Smita but not her, then yes, her anger is justified Nitika didn't tell Smita anything, Smita got to know everything on her own but as Toasty doesn't know this she's obviously going to be upset with Nitika & that's natural Toasty needs to realize how Nitika must have felt that time when she made Nitika feel like an outsider. But even if she doesn't realize it, I'm glad at least for a moment Toasty felt like an outsider
Shashi Sumeet Mittal’s upcoming show on Sony TV has been delayed ... 19
After doing popular shows like 12/24 Karol Bagh, Saas Bina Sasural ... 19