Posted: 22 December 2011 at 8:47am | IP Logged
Originally posted by bhallarox
Hi Topic Opener
I respect your opinion but I disagree completely. In my opinion, Archu is not naive at all, but she is very scheming and manipulative. She uses her crying tactics on Manav to get what she wants but inside she is not innocent at all.
I agree, Archu may have been a respectful daughter in law in the beginning but it changed very quickly. Once Savita started being nice to Archana, Archana began to take advantage of her and Manav's goodness by bringing in her mother and Varsha in her home without Savita's approval, and she knew her obsession for Soham as well. Manav has definitely lost a lot more from Archana then gained, he lost his son Soham only due to Archana, he lost Sachin (his little brother) only because of Archana.
When did Archu help Vandu? Vandu was very wrong to tell off her brother the day he dragged Archu over to apologize for not giving the check, Manav did 100% right to drag her and apologize to Vandu for giving the money to her selfish sister Varsha. And poor Vandu had gotten beaten up by her husband only due to that one mistake she did by defending Archu against Manav.
Sulo too is wrong to take Manav for granted. He brought her in his home from the ashram and got her the K home back. Sulo takes favors and then mistreats Manav, Savita on the other hand mistreats Archu but doesn't take favors from her.
I think Manav did good by going to Canada with his children. Archu still is not repenting for giving away Soham to Varsha, she should never even see her daughters again. One day she called Manav a business tycoon and next day she goes to her bedroom looking at photos trying to play victim, inside she really is manipulative and scheming, much more clever then Savita, Manjusha and Rasika.
Again, I hope I didn't offend anyone's POV by stating my honest opinion
You shouldn't apologise for expressing your opinions when you're not personally attacking anyone or being rude to anyone.
However, I must disagree with you on some points.
To me, Archana isn't scheming and manipulative, because she has never sought to wilfully hurt or harm anyone. Unilke Dharmesh, Rasika, Manu, Ajit, and Savita,...Archana has never wilfully sought to hurt anyone for personal gain. Dharmesh is the biggest culprit when it comes to being scheming and manipulative. To the end, he has schemed against Manav for no reason whatsoever, with the intention of physically harming him at times, and even wanting to cause his death.
I don't think Archana took advantage of Savita re Varsha and Sulochana. Manav was the person who first invited Varsha to stay without even telling Archana, much less telling Savita! I agree that Archana had no right ot invite Sulochana to stay at the D's house without first asking Savita, but I don't think that taking advantage of her. I think it was a case of Archana not thinkinig at all, but I wouldn't call it taking advantage of Savita.
Re Sachin (Manav's brother), this is where you're wrong Bhalla. It was Manju who independently made the police complaint, using Archana's name. The other K family members who lived in the same house as Manju at that time, didn't even know what she did, so how can Archana be held responsible for this action and the terrible consequences, when she wasn't living there and therefore didn't know what was happening?
If a DIL is to be blamed for the actions of her family and the consequences, then Vandu should be blamed for everything that happens to her and her in-laws which are a consequence of action taken by any member of her family.
This approach isn't practical at all Bhalla. People keep blaming Archana for Sachin's death when she had nothing to do with it at all. Its time this stops.
Archana was very wrong to give Varsha the money for a necklace when Vandu had need for it. I won't defend Archana here.
I think you're wrong Bhalla to think that Archana hasn't repented for losing Soham and that it doesn't bother her to have given up her daughters. People react differently to similar situations. Probably Archana's way of coping is to pretend she is okay. She will laugh and talk to others when deep inside she is hurting. If she were to always be upset, that would mean her having to always be explaining to others why she is upset, thereby always having to talk about her chikdren. She could go into deep depression this way.
I don't think Archana ever did anything so bad that she deserved living without her daughers all these years. I think she never tried to contact Manav because she knew how much he hated her when he left. Imagine the person you love more than life itself, telling you that you are a bad mother, that he doesn't trust you. Imagine knowing that you are the reason why you have lost your son. Archana would be experiencing some degree ot depression (as too would Manav), having lost their son. To add to this loss, your husband tells you you are a bad mother and he has lost his trust in you, that your children are at rsik in your care?
Add to this Savita telling her that Manav doesn't want to always be looking over his shoulder, thinking she will one day come to take away the girls. What else was Archana to do but give up her girls. If she decided to go to court to fight for her girls, she would have been lambasted for that too. Whatever she did, Archana would have been criticised.
It takes someone with guts to give up a child. I'm sure she never sought to contact Manav over the years because she didn't want him to think she was trying to take away her girls. No one had a problem with Shravani never having tried to contact anyone from the Deshmukh family, to ask about Sachin, and she knew where they lived. She was praised for having no contact with Sachin, so that he could grow up without confusion etc, yet Archana is blamed for not trying to contact Manav. Shravani was praised for supressing her motherly feelings for the good of her son, but Archana is blasted for doing the same for the good of her children. This is hypocisy.
It's good we can exchange differing views in this manner Bhalla.
Edited by suan - 22 December 2011 at 9:00am