Why Purvi wants to save Soham 'dada'? (Page 4)

heyya abhi..
my Diwali was great...still enjoying my diwali vacations..what about you..?
hehe yes one bullet is enough for her..we will be convinced by then...
Yes abhi all of us want our old purvi back...i loved her character so much...the smart one..(as u said)
agree that she would have not let soham go to jail..would have done something and most of all wouldnt sacrifice arjun for ovi..
she would have fought..but here she is crying buckets..
CV's bring our old arjun and purvi back..
yes if the pregnancy track is stopped that itself would be more than enough for us..
never lose hope..should expect the unexpected(as RD said)



Edited by ashvikluverrr - 15 November 2012 at 3:10am

My dear Abhi (do I have that right? If not, my apologies),

I too hope that you and all the readers of this thread have had a wonderful Deepavali, and I send you  and them my warm good wishes for the year ahead to be good for all of you.

I dropped in her just now and read thru this very interesting thread. You are really a very persuasive writer, and it is no wonder that all the ayes have responded with support of varying degrees, and the nays seem to have kept away. So you have achieved that rarity in any discourse, a consensus! Moreover, it is always to be appreciated when one ploughs one's own, different furrow, and so I admire your post.

By the same logic, I am sure you, and the others who are of a like mind, will not mind it if I plough my own furrow too.

Now I do not want to be the Grinch at this Deepavali, even though, in my infrequent posts over the last 2 months, I have left no one in any  doubt as to what I think of Purvi these days. I would however  like to make just one point, and that is concerning the assertion, made so often in this forum without any evidence to support it, that Purvi would have been much worse off if she had not been adopted (formally  or not is irrelevant) by Archana, and that is why she is terminally grateful to her, with all the consequences flowing from that. Plus what has been said in the section @red in your excellent post about  a similar conclusion re:Soham/Vishnu.

Why is this assumed to be inevitable? Purvi might have done equally well for herself from an orphanage - she has brains (before they were subsumed by the Karanjkar family pastime of rearranging other people's lives!), and I can cite you any number of very successful persons who were raised in orphanages.

Or else she might have been adopted by an equally loving couple, who would moreover have spared her all the emotional baggage of her adoptive mother longing for her parivaar  for 18 years,  that has been constantly heaped on her head. She might in fact have turned out far better, with all her innate positives in place, and none of the Karanjkar-induced negatives which have now taken possession of her, body and soul.

Secondly, how does Purvi, and how do you, presume that if Soham had been brought up in Archana-Manav's legendary sanskaars,  he would have turned out to be a paragon of all the virtues? There is no kind of upbringing that can assure that. Sulochana's famed sanskaars  produced an Archana  who, by definition, can do no wrong. But the selfsame parvarish  also produced the psychotic Varsha. So where do that leave the parvarish  argument?

There are any number of young criminals who hail from the best families and have been brought up in the best possible way. They still turn out to be criminals by choice. So none of us can predict what Soham would have been like if he had not been kidnapped, though the chances are that he would have gone straight. Chances, not a certainty, for he is after all Varsha's nephew by blood.

This said, each of us had a moral compass hardwired into us in our genes, and that decides what we will NOT do. Like not killing, or looting or kidnapping. This can last irrespective of the environment, which is why so many kids from the worst slums of Harlem turn out well despite growing up in horrible conditions. Vishnu, who has never lacked for love from Varsha, does not seem to have this moral compass set right at all. He is shown taking to crime like a fish takes to water; he is not like the reluctant Michael Corleone in The Godfather.

And what is it with this constant refrain of Purvi's and Archana's that Vishnu should be excused since did not know he was planning to kidnap his father or that he had actually kidnapped his 'sister'? Do they (and all those who lap up this defence wholeheartedly) think that it was all right if he had  planned to kidnap a Mr. Godbole and ended up kidnapping Miss. Godbole, with the 3 crores ransom being the same? Just because those people were not his kith and kin?

Which has of course been all in the day's work for Vishnu Lala. Are these characters - Purvi and Archana - and their adherents for real? I do not think so.Why is it that the CVs have not shown one single person, not even Arjun and the supposedly wise DK, asking this simple, logical question  of Purvi?

Shyamala B.Cowsik

QUOTE=arjunaluis]

First of all Happy Diwali to everyone. Hope all of you had a great Diwali with your family and friends. I went to my grandma's house for Diwali and there is no internet there so I just watched the episode. Sorry if someone already started this thread. This is my opinion.

I have read a lot of comments where by trying to save Soham, Purvi doesn't love Arjun. She doesn't deserve Arjun. Soham shot Arjun so she should sent him to prison. If that is the case, then Purvi also doesn't love Archana anymore does she? Soham almost did the same with her aai, took her at gun point and might have shot her if it wasn't for Manav. Seeing that she gave up Arjun for her aai, she should have been filled with anger towards anyone who tried to harm her mother. So why isn't she angry like Tej?

The question now is why she is still going Soham dada all the time. Is it because as she said he protected her from the other gunda's after kidnapping her or because he protected her from the gunda's after the friend's wedding. She has said that she has seen the good in him, that Arman's blood does indeed run in him. Is this the real reason? In my opinion, no? Also I don't feel she is doing it for Archana nor is she trying to be Mahaan.

She is doing it for one simple reason. There is nobody in the D clan or K clan that can understand Soham's situation more than Purvi. She knows first-hand that if it wasn't for Archana adopting and loving her and giving her good values, she might not be who she is. She would have been raised in an orphanage or been adopted by another family. She might have as easily like Soham turn out the wrong way. That is why she believes he deserves a second chance. She got a second chance with Archana after her parents died. Surely Soham deserves a second chance with his parents still alive. Her reason is simple, if Soham was brought up with Arman like she did with Archana and Sachin and the twins with Manav. He would have never turned out to be a gunda, it was his upbringing that made him who he is. So, I feel Purvi was right in trying to help Soham out. She might even feel guilty that by not being Arman's child she has had a good life, while Soham being Arman's blood doesn't know how to read and write and also she has seen his good side.

However, I also feel that he deserves to be punished. Maybe now he will realize his mistake but then it will also fill him with anger. What happens next remains to be seen?

[/QUOTE]

Edited by sashashyam - 15 November 2012 at 4:23am

[QUOTE=sashashyam]My dear Abhi (do I have that right? If not, my apologies),

I too hope that you and all the readers of this thread have had a wonderful Deepavali, and I send you  and them my warm good wishes for the year ahead to be good for all of you.

I dropped in her just now and read thru this very interesting thread. You are really a very persuasive writer, and it is no wonder that all the ayes have responded with support of varying degrees, and the nays seem to have kept away. So you have achieved that rarity in any discourse, a consensus! Moreover, it is always to be appreciated when one ploughs one's own, different furrow, and so I admire your post.

By the same logic, I am sure you, and the others who are of a like mind, will not mind it if I plough my own furrow too.

Now I do not want to be the Grinch at this Deepavali, even though, in my infrequent posts over the last 2 months, I have left no one in any  doubt as to what I think of Purvi these days. I would however  like to make just one point, and that is concerning the assertion, made so often in this forum without any evidence to support it, that Purvi would have been much worse off if she had not been adopted (formally  or not is irrelevant) by Archana, and that is why she is terminally grateful to her, with all the consequences flowing from that. Plus what has been said in the section @red in your excellent post about  a similar conclusion re:Soham/Vishnu.

Why is this assumed to be inevitable? Purvi might have done equally well for herself from an orphanage - she has brains (before they were subsumed by the Karanjkar family pastime of rearranging other people's lives!), and I can cite you any number of very successful persons who were raised in orphanages.

Or else she might have been adopted by an equally loving couple, who would moreover have spared her all the emotional baggage of her adoptive mother longing for her parivaar  for 18 years,  that has been constantly heaped on her head. She might in fact have turned out far better, with all her innate positives in place, and none of the Karanjkar-induced negatives which have now taken possession of her, body and soul.

Secondly, how does Purvi, and how do you, presume that if Soham had been brought up in Archana-Manav's legendary sanskaars,  he would have turned out to be a paragon of all the virtues? There is no kind of upbringing that can assure that. Sulochana's famed sanskaars  produced an Archana  who, by definition, can do no wrong. But the selfsame parvarish  also produced the psychotic Varsha. So where do that leave the parvarish  argument?

There are any number of young criminals who hail from the best families and have been brought up in the best possible way. They still turn out to be criminals by choice. So none of us can predict what Soham would have been like if he had not been kidnapped, though the chances are that he would have gone straight. Chances, not a certainty, for he is after all Varsha's nephew by blood.

This said, each of us had a moral compass hardwired into us in our genes, and that decides what we will NOT do. Like not killing, or looting or kidnapping. This can last irrespective of the environment, which is why so many kids from the worst slums of Harlem turn out well despite growing up in horrible conditions. Vishnu, who has never lacked for love from Varsha, does not seem to have this moral compass set right at all. He is shown taking to crime like a fish takes to water; he is not like the reluctant Michael Corleone in The Godfather.

And what is it with this constant refrain of Purvi's and Archana's that Vishnu should be excused since did not know he was planning to kidnap his father or that he had actually kidnapped his 'sister'? Do they (and all those who lap up this defence wholeheartedly) think that it was all right if he had  planned to kidnap a Mr. Godbole and ended up kidnapping Miss. Godbole, with the 3 crores ransom being the same? Just because those people were not his kith and kin?

Which has of course been all in the day's work for Vishnu Lala. Are these characters - Purvi and Archana - and their adherents for real? I do not think so.Why is it that the CVs have not shown one single person, not even Arjun and the supposedly wise DK, asking this simple, logical question  of Purvi?

Shyamala B.Cowsik

QUOTE=arjunaluis]

Hai there..yes it is Abhi..Thanks for the lovely words and the comment…below I have written down my thoughts…I wouldn't say I am agreeing with everything Purvi does, sometimes what she does is downright dumb…but I do try and justify her actions when I think what she has done is ok…

First to the red, I have never said Purvi would be worse off if she wasn't brought up by Archana it is she herself that says it. I feel she thinks this way and feels endless gratitude because of Manju. Manju has constantly told Purvi that if it wasn't for Archana she would have ended up on the roadside. If you tell a child enough time that they are useless they will believe you one day and this is what has happen to Purvi. She has been told so many times that Archu is her savior so, she believes so and she feels that upbringing and sanskaar means everything. Yes, I agree that Purvi would/could have been successful if she was brought up in an orphanage but she wouldn't have got a mother's love. Archana and Purvi have this connection and love for each other that any child would have loved to have with their parents. Yes, Purvi could have been successful if she was brought up in an orphanage but she wouldn't have a mother's love and as a child all you want is to be loved. I feel that given the choice of an orphanage or living with the K clan sanskaar I would choose K clan. Also yes, she could have been raised in a loving couple home without baggage and that would be ideal but life is far from ideal. (I do feel she should run off now and start a fresh)

To the green, yes he has never lacked love from Varsha. Varsha has given him lots of love but she has given nothing else, she hasn't given him education, hasn't thought him right from wrong. This has been done by Archana. As a mother it is your job to tell your child when they are screwing up, if you don't you are not doing your job. I am sure most of us can agree our mother's would be screaming their heads off if we even did a small mistake. Varsha I think didn't care how Soham was being brought up as long as he remains her son. Her constant worry that Arman would come and take Soham away has made her not realize that he was being brought up the wrong way by Balan. 

I feel Soham would have been better with Arman and not with Varsha and Balan because (this I can say for certainty) Soham I feel is doing the entire kidnapping job because of Balan. As a child, you don't care who your parents are, there are your hero and you will love them all you want is for them to love you back. He is a child who wants his father love and approval, and would go to any lengths to get it. He wants to give his father a lot of money so that his father would be proud of him. If he had Manav as his father, he would be cracking deals to make Manav proud; kidnapping would never become a choice for him because he would have never entered that world. He would have gone to school and college and with education he would be better. There is nothing in this world more valuable than education and with education he would have known the difference between right and wrong.

To the blue, I feel that Archana and Purvi especially Purvi feels it is ok that he kidnapped her because when you are kidnapped you are more forgiving then when someone you love is being kidnapped. Hence Manav's anger. As a father he can't believe his son kidnapped his daughter and Archana forgiving side as a mother. A mother will always let you off the hook. They are just more forgiving compared to fathers not in all cases but here yes.

Happy Deepavali to you and your family...


Edited by arjunaluis - 15 November 2012 at 6:37am

My dear Abhi,

As I said earlier, you are a very persuasive young lady and I would agree with your explanation wrt @red.

But as regards the @green and the @blue, I think I have not made myself clear enough, and so you have not quite grasped what I was getting at. Let me take the @green first, about the moral compass.

Firstly, while one can safely say that Soham would have been better brought up  with Archana-Manav that with Varsha and Balan , it does not follow that he would have been at all a  moral person. He is ruthless, and he chilled me to the bone during the kidnapping, with the mercurial switches between bonhomie and snarling menace. That is his inner nature, not just the result of a bad upbringing. How many criminals does one read about daily who come from affluent homes? And also remember the example of Varsha's sanskaari parvarish; what did it do for her?

Now, Abhi, have you seen the Godfather? The younger son of the Mafia family there, Michael Corleone, totally refuses to enter the family business, even to please his father whom he loves very much, for his moral compass is sound. He is forced into it later by brutal circumstances. If Soham has all these (as yet hidden) virtues, how  is it that he takes to crime with such glee and has not the slightest regrets for what he inflicts on his kidnap victims? I do not buy what you say @green, he is an adult, not a 6 year old. and he LIKES a life of crime, don't you see?

Then again, education is not all it is cracked up to be in respect of teaching you good morals. Educated criminals are much cleverer and far more difficult to catch, that is all. Incidentally, Varsha is very well educated, and yet she never had any sense of right and wrong!

If Soham had been a businessman, he would have been equally brutal and ruthless, crushing competitors, except that he would not have gone to jail unless he had overreached himself and got caught. And unless of course our Archana Jr, Purvi had reformed him as she has reformed the big, bad Arjun Kirloskar.

Again, wrt @blue, I  think you are on a different tack. What I meant was that Purvi and Archana cannot argue that Vishnu is somehow less culpable because he did not know that he was planning to kidnap not a stranger but his father and ended up kidnapping not just any girl but his 'sister;.  This would mean that they would have no problem if he kidnapped any number of non-family members! 

Theirs is a ridiculous argument that they keep trotting out without being pulled up by anyone at all. A serious crime is a serious crime, Abhi, and it is just as culpable when it is committed by Archana's son against any number of strangers (remember Balan praising Vishnu for having earned crores for him, against which the 25 lakhs he loses in the bungled Rahim Khan kidnapping was, he says, nothing at all).

Vishnu is no misled fledgling in crime; he is a pro who is highly rated in those circles, which is why that Tiwari chooses him to be his bahubali. It is not a question of  a father or a mother being more or less forgiving. The point is that Vishnu  is a regular kidnapper, and one who is spreading his wings to Mumbai and elsewhere in the country. He is thus a menace to society, no matter how cute he was as a baby, and he should NOT be forgiven at all, but should punished according to the law for ALL his crimes. Not that this is going to happen, of course!

This apart, I year for a kidnapping is ridiculous. In real life, it would be 5 to 10 years. Not that it matters, seeing how much of a farce the 'trial' was. Balaji are constantly breaking their own records for showing such travesties of the judicial process. Probably it was one year to fit in with a one year leap.

Oh dear, Abhi, see what you have made me do - get back on the same old treadmill that I had stepped off! Well, I am stepping off it again, but you carry on, my dear, and have fun.Never fear, Soham will become as white as driven snow in due course, and Purvi's halo will get an extra coat of gold. They are just waiting for her pedestal to be ready, one that will be only slightly smaller than Archana's.

Shyamala B.Cowsik


[QUOTE=sashashyam]My dear Abhi (do I have that right? If not, my apologies),

I too hope that you and all the readers of this thread have had a wonderful Deepavali, and I send you  and them my warm good wishes for the year ahead to be good for all of you.

I dropped in her just now and read thru this very interesting thread. You are really a very persuasive writer, and it is no wonder that all the ayes have responded with support of varying degrees, and the nays seem to have kept away. So you have achieved that rarity in any discourse, a consensus! Moreover, it is always to be appreciated when one ploughs one's own, different furrow, and so I admire your post.

By the same logic, I am sure you, and the others who are of a like mind, will not mind it if I plough my own furrow too.

Now I do not want to be the Grinch at this Deepavali, even though, in my infrequent posts over the last 2 months, I have left no one in any  doubt as to what I think of Purvi these days. I would however  like to make just one point, and that is concerning the assertion, made so often in this forum without any evidence to support it, that Purvi would have been much worse off if she had not been adopted (formally  or not is irrelevant) by Archana, and that is why she is terminally grateful to her, with all the consequences flowing from that. Plus what has been said in the section @red in your excellent post about  a similar conclusion re:Soham/Vishnu.

Why is this assumed to be inevitable? Purvi might have done equally well for herself from an orphanage - she has brains (before they were subsumed by the Karanjkar family pastime of rearranging other people's lives!), and I can cite you any number of very successful persons who were raised in orphanages.

Or else she might have been adopted by an equally loving couple, who would moreover have spared her all the emotional baggage of her adoptive mother longing for her parivaar  for 18 years,  that has been constantly heaped on her head. She might in fact have turned out far better, with all her innate positives in place, and none of the Karanjkar-induced negatives which have now taken possession of her, body and soul.

Secondly, how does Purvi, and how do you, presume that if Soham had been brought up in Archana-Manav's legendary sanskaars,  he would have turned out to be a paragon of all the virtues? There is no kind of upbringing that can assure that. Sulochana's famed sanskaars  produced an Archana  who, by definition, can do no wrong. But the selfsame parvarish  also produced the psychotic Varsha. So where do that leave the parvarish  argument?

There are any number of young criminals who hail from the best families and have been brought up in the best possible way. They still turn out to be criminals by choice. So none of us can predict what Soham would have been like if he had not been kidnapped, though the chances are that he would have gone straight. Chances, not a certainty, for he is after all Varsha's nephew by blood.

This said, each of us had a moral compass hardwired into us in our genes, and that decides what we will NOT do. Like not killing, or looting or kidnapping. This can last irrespective of the environment, which is why so many kids from the worst slums of Harlem turn out well despite growing up in horrible conditions. Vishnu, who has never lacked for love from Varsha, does not seem to have this moral compass set right at all. He is shown taking to crime like a fish takes to water; he is not like the reluctant Michael Corleone in The Godfather.

And what is it with this constant refrain of Purvi's and Archana's that Vishnu should be excused since did not know he was planning to kidnap his father or that he had actually kidnapped his 'sister'? Do they (and all those who lap up this defence wholeheartedly) think that it was all right if he had  planned to kidnap a Mr. Godbole and ended up kidnapping Miss. Godbole, with the 3 crores ransom being the same? Just because those people were not his kith and kin?

Which has of course been all in the day's work for Vishnu Lala. Are these characters - Purvi and Archana - and their adherents for real? I do not think so.Why is it that the CVs have not shown one single person, not even Arjun and the supposedly wise DK, asking this simple, logical question  of Purvi?

Shyamala B.Cowsik

QUOTE=arjunaluis]




Edited by sashashyam - 15 November 2012 at 12:52pm

[QUOTE=sashashyam]My dear Abhi,

As I said earlier, you are a very persuasive young lady and I would agree with your explanation wrt @red.

But as regards the @green and the @blue, I think I have not made myself clear enough, and so you have not quite grasped what I was getting at. Let me take the @green first, about the moral compass.

Firstly, while one can safely say that Soham would have been better brought up  with Archana-Manav that with Varsha and Balan , it does not follow that he would have been at all a  moral person. He is ruthless, and he chilled me to the bone during the kidnapping, with the mercurial switches between bonhomie and snarling menace. That is his inner nature, not just the result of a bad upbringing. How many criminals does one read about daily who come from affluent homes? And also remember the example of Varsha's sanskaari parvarish; what did it do for her?

Now, Abhi, have you seen the Godfather? The younger son of the Mafia family there, Michael Corleone, totally refuses to enter the family business, even to please his father whom he loves very much, for his moral compass is sound. He is forced into it later by brutal circumstances. If Soham has all these (as yet hidden) virtues, how  is it that he takes to crime with such glee and has not the slightest regrets for what he inflicts on his kidnap victims? I do not buy what you say @green, he is an adult, not a 6 year old. and he LIKES a life of crime, don't you see?

Then again, education is not all it is cracked up to be in respect of teaching you good morals. Educated criminals are much cleverer and far more difficult to catch, that is all. Incidentally, Varsha is very well educated, and yet she never had any sense of right and wrong!

If Soham had been a businessman, he would have been equally brutal and ruthless, crushing competitors, except that he would not have gone to jail unless he had overreached himself and got caught. And unless of course our Archana Jr, Purvi had reformed him as she has reformed the big, bad Arjun Kirloskar.

Again, wrt @blue, I  think you are on a different tack. What I meant was that Purvi and Archana cannot argue that Vishnu is somehow less culpable because he did not know that he was planning to kidnap not a stranger but his father and ended up kidnapping not just any girl but his 'sister;.  This would mean that they would have no problem if he kidnapped any number of non-family members! 

Theirs is a ridiculous argument that they keep trotting out without being pulled up by anyone at all. A serious crime is a serious crime, Abhi, and it is just as culpable when it is committed by Archana's son against any number of strangers (remember Balan praising Vishnu for having earned crores for him, against which the 25 lakhs he loses in the bungled Rahim Khan kidnapping was, he says, nothing at all).

Vishnu is no misled fledgling in crime; he is a pro who is highly rated in those circles, which is why that Tiwari chooses him to be his bahubali. It is not a question of  a father or a mother being more or less forgiving. The point is that Vishnu  is a regular kidnapper, and one who is spreading his wings to Mumbai and elsewhere in the country. He is thus a menace to society, no matter how cute he was as a baby, and he should NOT be forgiven at all, but should punished according to the law for ALL his crimes. Not that this is going to happen, of course!

This apart, I year for a kidnapping is ridiculous. In real life, it would be 5 to 10 years. Not that it matters, seeing how much of a farce the 'trial' was. Balaji are constantly breaking their own records for showing such travesties of the judicial process. Probably it was one year to fit in with a one year leap.

Oh dear, Abhi, see what you have made me do - get back on the same old treadmill that I had stepped off! Well, I am stepping off it again, but you carry on, my dear, and have fun.Never fear, Soham will become as white as driven snow in due course, and Purvi's halo will get an extra coat of gold. They are just waiting for her pedestal to be ready, one that will be only slightly smaller than Archana's.

Shyamala B.Cowsik

[QUOTE=arjunaluis]

Thank you for thinking that i am very persuasive young lady...i am glad that i can make you agree with one of the three... ok to the other two, maybe due to my sleepy mode yesterday i didn't real get what you were saying...deepavali has made me exhausted so does the time difference...

yes i agree to the moral compass...and yes i agree with you that he loves kidnapping, he feels that it is fun...but i wouldn't say that he is all evil, maybe unlike manav he wouldn't be all straight he might bribe to win deals and use cheap materials in buildings but i also wouldn't say he is all bad...to me, he falls in the dark grey character then all black...he was the first to run to archana and help her out at that time he didn't know who it was all he wanted to do was help them someone who is a hardbone criminal like balan who cut the wires in the first place will happily stand aside and watch the fun..even his group members watch and was relunctant to help in the first place...so, why did he run to help?
also after stealing the necklace from ganesha, when his mother scolded him he went to the police station to return it, if his moral compass was not in the right place, he wouldn't care what his mother said, he would have given her fake promises that next time he wouldn't do it and sold the necklace and enjoyed the money...his guilt is not because his mother was crying it is because deep down he knows he has made a mistake..
and now coming to purvi and him, the time he kidnapped her he had no need to reassure her that she will be save with him, yes he his a thug and shot arjun...if he is a bad ass why make sure Purvi is not harmed by his group members, why give her food-if you kidnapped someone for money and know tom u are going to get that money why should you care if they ate or not? you have given them food, that is enough whether they ate or not wouldn't be a problem to any hard criminals...also, if he can stop smoking and drinking because he promised his mother, he can be changed by her promise too but Varsha is making things worse by lying to him..Varsha on the other hand i agree her moral compass in not in order...she could never keep a promise like Soham can..all she did was break her promise she made to Sulo while Soham keeps his promise, this shows that some what he deserves a second chance...

I am not saying that he is all good and doesn't deserve to be punish, yes he deserves to be punish and u are right he should get 5 years, one year is to little...he deserves to be punish but he also deserves to get his parents love because love can change someone who is dark grey to a little grey...yes, i am hopeless and believe love can change someone like soham but i am not that hopeless to believe it can change someone like Balan...maybe i am just bias because i
am big Ankit fan...my brains stop working when i see him..

do come on the treadmill again, this has been serious fun for me... though i am sure i can't change you in soham part...i have learned long ago that reason is not automatic those who deny it can't be concquered by it...but i agree with moral compass plays as big a part as upbringing, (it will be foolish of me to think that upbringing is everything) this can be seen in the twins..tej and ovi are the best example, they had the same upbringing though Ovi was spoilt more by Manav, but her moral compass is only on herself (she has blackmailed purvi- i am very sure that this isn't in Manav's sanskaar but it might have been brought down by Savita) while Tej cares about everyone..let's not go there, let's stay with Soham and Purvi...


Edited by arjunaluis - 15 November 2012 at 5:06pm

Thanks Naava and Happy Diwali to you and your family...

Edited by sashashyam - 15 November 2012 at 8:46pm