Interesting take UMDU ji! So, you're looking at the situation from outside, in. It seems like a plausible reason for why Sandhya's character is the way it is. Although, it's hard for me to digest that a major media channel is so enthusiastic on the social activism front, for the sole purpose of bringing progressive change to rural India (most media corporations are usually not known for having a conscience
). If anything, I would give the credit to the writers of DABH. Of course, that doesn't change the validity of your analysis; I completely agree.
I also wanted to add that although your analysis shows why Sandhya's behavior is important to get the message across to the audience, I think her behavior is also consistent with her character from a literary perspective. The latter point is quite well demonstrated in the above posts of MisscoolEyes, and Peachesandcream. Among other things, I think Sandhya's trait of selflessness is an important justification for her behavior, as I have argued previously.
Nonetheless, great analysis from a unique perspective
EDITED: oops, forgot to comment on your Gandhi ji/ Bhagat ji analogy. Just to be clear, I believe that the contributions of 'revolutionaries' were as important as the non-violent civil disobedience by Gandhi ji. Both violence and non-violence can be justified or criticized, depending on the intention behind the act. It's quite hard for me to think of any successful solutions to conflicts in history that have used only violence/aggression or only non-violence. Usually, a combination of aggression (or at least the threat of it) and diplomacy is required. It's true that we have immense respect for Gandhi ji, but I think any true Indian would have equal respect for 'revolutionaries' like Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and others (at least I would like to hope so!)
Edited by -SamiR- - 07 November 2012 at 7:54pm