If Modi calls, I will stay with him: Jashodaben

by confuzzled dude Mon Jun 09, 2014 9:37 pm

Modi has not divorced you. Would you like to stay with him?
Yes, if he calls. It is all about time. What had to happen has happened and what has to happen will happen.

http://week.manoramaonline.com/cgi-bin/MMOnline.dll/portal/ep/theWeekContent.do?programId=1073754900&contentId=16989437

by nevada Mon Jun 09, 2014 9:40 pm

I wish the media would leave this poor woman alone.

by confuzzled dude Mon Jun 09, 2014 9:53 pm

nevada wrote:I wish the media would leave this poor woman alone.

I don't think anyone was forcing her, she probably likes to interview.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Mon Jun 09, 2014 11:00 pm

Now that CONmen are disgraced in front of the voters and Modi is doing well, they are resorting to the techniques they know - to create unnecessary controversies. People of India respect Jashodaben and Modi more than Sonia, Amrita, ND Tiwari, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Doggy and Anand Sharma. Even the people of Telangana shut the door on Sonia.

by Merlot Daruwala Mon Jun 09, 2014 11:47 pm

nevada wrote:I wish the media would leave this poor woman alone.

+1

by confuzzled dude Tue Jun 10, 2014 6:06 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
nevada wrote:I wish the media would leave this poor woman alone.

+1

Why not? if this exposure eventually helps her; Remember, it is Modi who claimed her as his wife on nomination papers, not media.

by Merlot Daruwala Tue Jun 10, 2014 6:20 am

This is their personal matter and should remain so. Whatever noble intent you may proclaim, it doesn't take away from the exploitativeness and plain ickiness of the situation.

by confuzzled dude Tue Jun 10, 2014 6:32 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:This is their personal matter and should remain so. Whatever noble intent you may proclaim, it doesn't take away from the exploitativeness and plain ickiness of the situation.

Things don't work that way in real world, do they? It would've been much worse (or open depending on one's view) had it been the US president, for example; On the one hand we talk about women empowerment, OTOH, we are not open or want to exclude the powerful.

by Merlot Daruwala Tue Jun 10, 2014 6:37 am

Women's empowerment doesn't mean shaming a man into taking back the woman, against his will, after decades of separation.

by confuzzled dude Tue Jun 10, 2014 7:03 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Women's empowerment doesn't mean shaming a man into taking back the woman, against his will, after decades of separation.

I don't think anyone is suggesting he should take the woman back against his will, even though she may not have any objections; This man, just a few months back claimed her as his wife on an official document which means he still considers her as his wife, it only makes sense that empowerment of women began at PM's home. BTW, this is not unique case, you will find at least one family in a similar situation in every village/town and I've seen it from up close and personal, can deduce from that experience as to how that woman must be feeling.

by Merlot Daruwala Tue Jun 10, 2014 8:32 am

confuzzled dude wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:Women's empowerment doesn't mean shaming a man into taking back the woman, against his will, after decades of separation.
I don't think anyone is suggesting he should take the woman back against his will, even though she may not have any objections; This man, just a few months back claimed her as his wife on an official document which means he still considers her as his wife, it only makes sense that empowerment of women began at PM's home.

He was merely stating a fact in that affidavit, considering there was no official divorce. That doesn't mean anything. He could have gotten back to her any time in these intervening decades, but he chose not to. Any way, it's only their business and nobody else's.

by Seva Lamberdar Tue Jun 10, 2014 8:47 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:Women's empowerment doesn't mean shaming a man into taking back the woman, against his will, after decades of separation.
I don't think anyone is suggesting he should take the woman back against his will, even though she may not have any objections; This man, just a few months back claimed her as his wife on an official document which means he still considers her as his wife, it only makes sense that empowerment of women began at PM's home.

He was merely stating a fact in that affidavit, considering there was no official divorce. That doesn't mean anything. He could have gotten back to her any time in these intervening decades, but he chose not to. Any way, it's only their business and nobody else's.

Modi surely can use a good "home-cooked" meal by his "wife", if nothing else. It's about time they both got together, at least for the sake of making the prime minister's residence livelier and more family-oriented. In any case this lady seems to very dedicated to her "husband".

by Propagandhi711 Tue Jun 10, 2014 8:49 am

congress losers are pathetic, making mountains of nonexistent molehills

by confuzzled dude Tue Jun 10, 2014 9:41 am

Propagandhi711 wrote:congress losers are pathetic, making mountains of nonexistent molehills

That's right! I forgot, a good hindu patni should stay home, cover her head and not give any interviews.

by Hellsangel Tue Jun 10, 2014 10:15 am

You seem very excited for her cause, Comrade.

You should write to all the news media about her, like you did with whatever that other issue was.

by confuzzled dude Tue Jun 10, 2014 10:19 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:Women's empowerment doesn't mean shaming a man into taking back the woman, against his will, after decades of separation.
I don't think anyone is suggesting he should take the woman back against his will, even though she may not have any objections; This man, just a few months back claimed her as his wife on an official document which means he still considers her as his wife, it only makes sense that empowerment of women began at PM's home.

He was merely stating a fact in that affidavit, considering there was no official divorce. That doesn't mean anything. He could have gotten back to her any time in these intervening decades, but he chose not to. Any way, it's only their business and nobody else's.

But he is no ordinary man. His personal business is no longer personal, when he wants to enact laws like UCC, zero tolerance on attrocities committed on women etc.,

by Kris Tue Jun 10, 2014 10:31 am

confuzzled dude wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:Women's empowerment doesn't mean shaming a man into taking back the woman, against his will, after decades of separation.
I don't think anyone is suggesting he should take the woman back against his will, even though she may not have any objections; This man, just a few months back claimed her as his wife on an official document which means he still considers her as his wife, it only makes sense that empowerment of women began at PM's home.

He was merely stating a fact in that affidavit, considering there was no official divorce. That doesn't mean anything. He could have gotten back to her any time in these intervening decades, but he chose not to. Any way, it's only their business and nobody else's.
But he is no ordinary man. His personal business is no longer personal, when he wants to enact laws like UCC, zero tolerance on attrocities committed on women etc.,

>>.If Obama had had a girl friend while he was at Occidental College and let's say he dumped her unceremoniously- no phone calls, no explanations, he just felt like it. Are you saying that he should not get involved in women empowerment issues now, without the press dredging up this old-break up?

by Kris Tue Jun 10, 2014 10:40 am

confuzzled dude wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:Women's empowerment doesn't mean shaming a man into taking back the woman, against his will, after decades of separation.
I don't think anyone is suggesting he should take the woman back against his will, even though she may not have any objections; This man, just a few months back claimed her as his wife on an official document which means he still considers her as his wife, it only makes sense that empowerment of women began at PM's home. BTW, this is not unique case, you will find at least one family in a similar situation in every village/town and I've seen it from up close and personal, can deduce from that experience as to how that woman must be feeling.

>>> You say you are not suggesting he take her back against her will. What would you like Modi to do to bring about this woman's empowerment?

by confuzzled dude Tue Jun 10, 2014 10:48 am

Kris wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:Women's empowerment doesn't mean shaming a man into taking back the woman, against his will, after decades of separation.
I don't think anyone is suggesting he should take the woman back against his will, even though she may not have any objections; This man, just a few months back claimed her as his wife on an official document which means he still considers her as his wife, it only makes sense that empowerment of women began at PM's home.

He was merely stating a fact in that affidavit, considering there was no official divorce. That doesn't mean anything. He could have gotten back to her any time in these intervening decades, but he chose not to. Any way, it's only their business and nobody else's.
But he is no ordinary man. His personal business is no longer personal, when he wants to enact laws like UCC, zero tolerance on attrocities committed on women etc.,

>>.If Obama had had a girl friend while he was at Occidental College and let's say he dumped her unceremoniously- no phone calls, no explanations, he just felt like it. Are you saying that he should not get involved in women empowerment issues now, without the press dredging up this old-break up?

I'm not saying he shouldn't be, all I'm saying that it is par for course that he is judged by his past actions till he clarifies his position or puts an end by setlling this matter legally.

by confuzzled dude Tue Jun 10, 2014 10:54 am

Kris wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:Women's empowerment doesn't mean shaming a man into taking back the woman, against his will, after decades of separation.
I don't think anyone is suggesting he should take the woman back against his will, even though she may not have any objections; This man, just a few months back claimed her as his wife on an official document which means he still considers her as his wife, it only makes sense that empowerment of women began at PM's home. BTW, this is not unique case, you will find at least one family in a similar situation in every village/town and I've seen it from up close and personal, can deduce from that experience as to how that woman must be feeling.
>>> You say you are not suggesting he take her back against her will. What would you like Modi to do to bring about this woman's empowerment?

not against her will, his will. In this interview she indicated that she is willing, if he invites her.

by nevada Tue Jun 10, 2014 12:03 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:Women's empowerment doesn't mean shaming a man into taking back the woman, against his will, after decades of separation.
I don't think anyone is suggesting he should take the woman back against his will, even though she may not have any objections; This man, just a few months back claimed her as his wife on an official document which means he still considers her as his wife, it only makes sense that empowerment of women began at PM's home. BTW, this is not unique case, you will find at least one family in a similar situation in every village/town and I've seen it from up close and personal, can deduce from that experience as to how that woman must be feeling.

Exactly. Let the journos go to HIS home and ask questions about this issue a thousand times.

by Merlot Daruwala Tue Jun 10, 2014 8:02 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
I'm not saying he shouldn't be, all I'm saying that it is par for course that he is judged by his past actions till he clarifies his position or puts an end by setlling this matter legally.

Its perfectly fine to judge Modi for what he did all those decades ago. But your 'empowerment' crusade goes way beyond judgment and tries to reengineer history.

by confuzzled dude Tue Jun 10, 2014 8:32 pm

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
I'm not saying he shouldn't be, all I'm saying that it is par for course that he is judged by his past actions till he clarifies his position or puts an end by setlling this matter legally.

Its perfectly fine to judge Modi for what he did all those decades ago. But your 'empowerment' crusade goes way beyond judgment and tries to reengineer history.

He has no moral standing at this point to talk about welfare of women; period.

by Propagandhi711 Tue Jun 10, 2014 9:44 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
I'm not saying he shouldn't be, all I'm saying that it is par for course that he is judged by his past actions till he clarifies his position or puts an end by setlling this matter legally.

Its perfectly fine to judge Modi for what he did all those decades ago. But your 'empowerment' crusade goes way beyond judgment and tries to reengineer history.
He has no moral standing at this point to talk about welfare of women; period.

and there you have it, gentlemen...this is how a seemingly normal person becomes deranged. you are witnessing the making of another douchemun in front of your own eyes.

by Merlot Daruwala Tue Jun 10, 2014 11:11 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
I'm not saying he shouldn't be, all I'm saying that it is par for course that he is judged by his past actions till he clarifies his position or puts an end by setlling this matter legally.

Its perfectly fine to judge Modi for what he did all those decades ago. But your 'empowerment' crusade goes way beyond judgment and tries to reengineer history.
He has no moral standing at this point to talk about welfare of women; period.

By that logic, anyone who quit a job has no moral standing to talk about employment creation. And conversely, anyone who has a job has no moral standing to talk about unemployment. Anyone who fell sick has no moral standing to talk about healthy living etc.

by Kris Tue Jun 10, 2014 11:18 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Kris wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:Women's empowerment doesn't mean shaming a man into taking back the woman, against his will, after decades of separation.
I don't think anyone is suggesting he should take the woman back against his will, even though she may not have any objections; This man, just a few months back claimed her as his wife on an official document which means he still considers her as his wife, it only makes sense that empowerment of women began at PM's home. BTW, this is not unique case, you will find at least one family in a similar situation in every village/town and I've seen it from up close and personal, can deduce from that experience as to how that woman must be feeling.
>>> You say you are not suggesting he take her back against her will. What would you like Modi to do to bring about this woman's empowerment?
not against her will, his will. In this interview she indicated that she is willing, if he invites her.

>>>Let's say he does not want this relationship or vice versa, but neither wants to go through with the formality of a divorce, which seems to be the case here, what do you want them to do? What kind of empowerment is that for a woman to live in a marriage her husband doesn't want?

by confuzzled dude Wed Jun 11, 2014 6:31 am

Kris wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Kris wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:Women's empowerment doesn't mean shaming a man into taking back the woman, against his will, after decades of separation.
I don't think anyone is suggesting he should take the woman back against his will, even though she may not have any objections; This man, just a few months back claimed her as his wife on an official document which means he still considers her as his wife, it only makes sense that empowerment of women began at PM's home. BTW, this is not unique case, you will find at least one family in a similar situation in every village/town and I've seen it from up close and personal, can deduce from that experience as to how that woman must be feeling.
>>> You say you are not suggesting he take her back against her will. What would you like Modi to do to bring about this woman's empowerment?
not against her will, his will. In this interview she indicated that she is willing, if he invites her.

>>>Let's say he does not want this relationship or vice versa, but neither wants to go through with the formality of a divorce, which seems to be the case here, what do you want them to do? What kind of empowerment is that for a woman to live in a marriage her husband doesn't want?

I'm not a chaddi, what made you think that I'd quote such outdated hindu philosophies.

by Hellsangel Wed Jun 11, 2014 6:31 am

Propagandhi711 wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
I'm not saying he shouldn't be, all I'm saying that it is par for course that he is judged by his past actions till he clarifies his position or puts an end by setlling this matter legally.

Its perfectly fine to judge Modi for what he did all those decades ago. But your 'empowerment' crusade goes way beyond judgment and tries to reengineer history.
He has no moral standing at this point to talk about welfare of women; period.

and there you have it, gentlemen...this is how a seemingly normal person becomes deranged. you are witnessing the making of another douchemun in front of your own eyes.

Yes. Comrade is still in some fantasy land.

by confuzzled dude Wed Jun 11, 2014 6:43 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
I'm not saying he shouldn't be, all I'm saying that it is par for course that he is judged by his past actions till he clarifies his position or puts an end by setlling this matter legally.

Its perfectly fine to judge Modi for what he did all those decades ago. But your 'empowerment' crusade goes way beyond judgment and tries to reengineer history.
He has no moral standing at this point to talk about welfare of women; period.

By that logic, anyone who quit a job has no moral standing to talk about employment creation. And conversely, anyone who has a job has no moral standing to talk about unemployment. Anyone who fell sick has no moral standing to talk about healthy living etc.

So what are we saying? maintain status quo, don't give her a chance to be heard under the garb of privacy, and whatever Modi did was by the book err library of books i.e. per some outdated practices, so it is alright. How about him taking some responsibility to support her financially and lift her out of poverty.

by confuzzled dude Wed Jun 11, 2014 6:48 am

Hellsangel wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
I'm not saying he shouldn't be, all I'm saying that it is par for course that he is judged by his past actions till he clarifies his position or puts an end by setlling this matter legally.

Its perfectly fine to judge Modi for what he did all those decades ago. But your 'empowerment' crusade goes way beyond judgment and tries to reengineer history.
He has no moral standing at this point to talk about welfare of women; period.

and there you have it, gentlemen...this is how a seemingly normal person becomes deranged. you are witnessing the making of another douchemun in front of your own eyes.

Yes. Comrade is still in some fantasy land.

You guys don't have the perspective that I've. I can only sympathize at you, for all the nonsense you spout. You don't understand what those woman and their families go through, both financially and otherwise.

by Merlot Daruwala Wed Jun 11, 2014 6:51 am

confuzzled dude wrote:So what are we saying? maintain status quo, don't give her a chance to be heard under the garb of privacy, and whatever Modi did was by the book err library of books i.e. per some outdated practices, so it is alright. How about him taking some responsibility to support her financially and lift her out of poverty.

Here..a neo-feminist view on the topic..

by Hellsangel Wed Jun 11, 2014 7:04 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:So what are we saying? maintain status quo, don't give her a chance to be heard under the garb of privacy, and whatever Modi did was by the book err library of books i.e. per some outdated practices, so it is alright. How about him taking some responsibility to support her financially and lift her out of poverty.

Here..a neo-feminist view on the topic..

This says it all:

But of course we won't do that. So many of us have now got to the stage where we dislike Narendra Modi so much that we have lost sight of the larger principles of gender equality and empowerment. We believe that everything about Modi is fair game and have no hesitation in trashing every aspect of his life, both personal and political.

by Hellsangel Wed Jun 11, 2014 7:06 am

confuzzled dude wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Its perfectly fine to judge Modi for what he did all those decades ago. But your 'empowerment' crusade goes way beyond judgment and tries to reengineer history.
He has no moral standing at this point to talk about welfare of women; period.

and there you have it, gentlemen...this is how a seemingly normal person becomes deranged. you are witnessing the making of another douchemun in front of your own eyes.

Yes. Comrade is still in some fantasy land.
You guys don't have the perspective that I've. I can only sympathize at you, for all the nonsense you spout. You don't understand what those woman and their families go through, both financially and otherwise.

You have some unique vantage point, Comrade?

by bw Wed Jun 11, 2014 7:11 am

this is really a non-issue. his wife is not in poverty and is/has been content with her life for years. why rake this up now? all this moral posturing is unnecessary. there are enough and more public issues to deal with about modi. his private life is not relevant.

on another note, i have immense respect and almost a sense of disbelief towards women like jashodaben who remain "loyal" to one man their whole life, whether he lives with them or not - quite a contrast to the modern women many of whom make sure that they have a replacement before divorcing their husband, no matter how bad the relationship is.

by confuzzled dude Wed Jun 11, 2014 7:24 am

bw wrote:this is really a non-issue. his wife is not in poverty and is/has been content with her life for years. why rake this up now? all this moral posturing is unnecessary. there are enough and more public issues to deal with about modi. his private life is not relevant.

on another note, i have immense respect and almost a sense of disbelief towards women like jashodaben who remain "loyal" to one man their whole life, whether he lives with them or not - quite a contrast to the modern women many of whom make sure that they have a replacement before divorcing their husband, no matter how bad the relationship is.

Not really, views expressed by her in this interview clearly indicate that, and are quite contrary to what most SuCHers are trying to preach.

by Hellsangel Wed Jun 11, 2014 7:38 am

confuzzled dude wrote:
bw wrote:this is really a non-issue. his wife is not in poverty and is/has been content with her life for years. why rake this up now? all this moral posturing is unnecessary. there are enough and more public issues to deal with about modi. his private life is not relevant.

on another note, i have immense respect and almost a sense of disbelief towards women like jashodaben who remain "loyal" to one man their whole life, whether he lives with them or not - quite a contrast to the modern women many of whom make sure that they have a replacement before divorcing their husband, no matter how bad the relationship is.
Not really, views expressed by her in this interview clearly indicate that, and are quite contrary to what most SuCHers are trying to preach.

You can be her Don Quixote, Comrade.

by bw Wed Jun 11, 2014 7:44 am

confuzzled dude wrote:
bw wrote:this is really a non-issue. his wife is not in poverty and is/has been content with her life for years. why rake this up now? all this moral posturing is unnecessary. there are enough and more public issues to deal with about modi. his private life is not relevant.

on another note, i have immense respect and almost a sense of disbelief towards women like jashodaben who remain "loyal" to one man their whole life, whether he lives with them or not - quite a contrast to the modern women many of whom make sure that they have a replacement before divorcing their husband, no matter how bad the relationship is.
Not really, views expressed by her in this interview clearly indicate that, and are quite contrary to what most SuCHers are trying to preach.

a bunch of loaded questions to someone who isn't even remotely media-savvy. quite wicked to put unnecessary thoughts and hopes into this quiet, gentle, innocent woman and mess her up.

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Jun 11, 2014 7:56 am

bw wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
bw wrote:this is really a non-issue. his wife is not in poverty and is/has been content with her life for years. why rake this up now? all this moral posturing is unnecessary. there are enough and more public issues to deal with about modi. his private life is not relevant.

on another note, i have immense respect and almost a sense of disbelief towards women like jashodaben who remain "loyal" to one man their whole life, whether he lives with them or not - quite a contrast to the modern women many of whom make sure that they have a replacement before divorcing their husband, no matter how bad the relationship is.
Not really, views expressed by her in this interview clearly indicate that, and are quite contrary to what most SuCHers are trying to preach.

a bunch of loaded questions to someone who isn't even remotely media-savvy. quite wicked to put unnecessary thoughts and hopes into this quiet, gentle, innocent woman and mess her up.

+1

by confuzzled dude Wed Jun 11, 2014 9:27 am

bw wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
bw wrote:this is really a non-issue. his wife is not in poverty and is/has been content with her life for years. why rake this up now? all this moral posturing is unnecessary. there are enough and more public issues to deal with about modi. his private life is not relevant.

on another note, i have immense respect and almost a sense of disbelief towards women like jashodaben who remain "loyal" to one man their whole life, whether he lives with them or not - quite a contrast to the modern women many of whom make sure that they have a replacement before divorcing their husband, no matter how bad the relationship is.
Not really, views expressed by her in this interview clearly indicate that, and are quite contrary to what most SuCHers are trying to preach.

a bunch of loaded questions to someone who isn't even remotely media-savvy. quite wicked to put unnecessary thoughts and hopes into this quiet, gentle, innocent woman and mess her up.

What kind of media saviness is required to answer a basic question as 'do you want to live with your husband, if he asks you', If she doesn't want to, she would've said no. Hope we're not doubting her intelligence by bringing up media saviness angle & leave her alone rhetoric into the equation. If media can provide a genuine platform to express herself, all power to them.

by smArtha Wed Jun 11, 2014 10:25 am

confuzzled dude wrote:What kind of media saviness is required to answer a basic question as 'do you want to live with your husband, if he asks you'

Knowing the media's ability to spin would have made her respond.. 'Yes or may be, if he is willing and asks me. But he isn't, so discussing it is useless'.

by Kris Wed Jun 11, 2014 10:31 am

confuzzled dude wrote:
bw wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
bw wrote:this is really a non-issue. his wife is not in poverty and is/has been content with her life for years. why rake this up now? all this moral posturing is unnecessary. there are enough and more public issues to deal with about modi. his private life is not relevant.

on another note, i have immense respect and almost a sense of disbelief towards women like jashodaben who remain "loyal" to one man their whole life, whether he lives with them or not - quite a contrast to the modern women many of whom make sure that they have a replacement before divorcing their husband, no matter how bad the relationship is.
Not really, views expressed by her in this interview clearly indicate that, and are quite contrary to what most SuCHers are trying to preach.

a bunch of loaded questions to someone who isn't even remotely media-savvy. quite wicked to put unnecessary thoughts and hopes into this quiet, gentle, innocent woman and mess her up.
What kind of media saviness is required to answer a basic question as 'do you want to live with your husband, if he asks you', If she doesn't want to, she would've said no. Hope we're not doubting her intelligence by bringing up media saviness angle & leave her alone rhetoric into the equation. If media can provide a genuine platform to express herself, all power to them.

>>>CD,

Please stay with me on this. Let's say she expresses the opinion she wants to live with him and he has no interest in it. Neither one wants to go through the formality of a divorce, independent of their position on living together.What do you want the next step to be?

by harharmahadev Wed Jun 11, 2014 10:42 am

I heard this story about Jashodaben. I'm not sure if it's true or false.

There was this guy called Nand Lala, who asked Jashodaben, "Why is Radha fair and I'm black?"

She replied, "you were born at night, hence you are dark. Also, Radha has black eyes and she cast a spell on you with black eyes, which made you black."

by confuzzled dude Wed Jun 11, 2014 10:44 am

smArtha wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:What kind of media saviness is required to answer a basic question as 'do you want to live with your husband, if he asks you'

Knowing the media's ability to spin would have made her respond.. 'Yes or may be, if he is willing and asks me. But he isn't, so discussing it is useless'.

That's what you want to hear, not necessarily is what in her mind or what she wants to say.

by confuzzled dude Wed Jun 11, 2014 10:48 am

Kris wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
bw wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
bw wrote:this is really a non-issue. his wife is not in poverty and is/has been content with her life for years. why rake this up now? all this moral posturing is unnecessary. there are enough and more public issues to deal with about modi. his private life is not relevant.

on another note, i have immense respect and almost a sense of disbelief towards women like jashodaben who remain "loyal" to one man their whole life, whether he lives with them or not - quite a contrast to the modern women many of whom make sure that they have a replacement before divorcing their husband, no matter how bad the relationship is.
Not really, views expressed by her in this interview clearly indicate that, and are quite contrary to what most SuCHers are trying to preach.

a bunch of loaded questions to someone who isn't even remotely media-savvy. quite wicked to put unnecessary thoughts and hopes into this quiet, gentle, innocent woman and mess her up.
What kind of media saviness is required to answer a basic question as 'do you want to live with your husband, if he asks you', If she doesn't want to, she would've said no. Hope we're not doubting her intelligence by bringing up media saviness angle & leave her alone rhetoric into the equation. If media can provide a genuine platform to express herself, all power to them.

>>>CD,

Please stay with me on this. Let's say she expresses the opinion she wants to live with him and he has no interest in it. Neither one wants to go through the formality of a divorce, independent of their position on living together.What do you want the next step to be?

I think they should get together talk it out and issue a joint statement and put an end to this speculation, once and for all.

by smArtha Wed Jun 11, 2014 11:13 am

confuzzled dude wrote:
smArtha wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:What kind of media saviness is required to answer a basic question as 'do you want to live with your husband, if he asks you'

Knowing the media's ability to spin would have made her respond.. 'Yes or may be, if he is willing and asks me. But he isn't, so discussing it is useless'.
That's what you want to hear, not necessarily is what in her mind or what she wants to say.

I'm saying the current response is what you spin masters wanted to hear and that is why that line of questioning. And your interest is definitely not Jashodaben.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Wed Jun 11, 2014 11:41 am

confuzzled dude wrote:
I think they should get together talk it out and issue a joint statement and put an end to this speculation, once and for all.

Forget all this. I am really worried about Amrita Rai. She wanted it and the hubby wished her well, and Diggy wanted it.... then Diggy meets Swamy...diggy apologizes to swami..

Then what happened ?

by smArtha Wed Jun 11, 2014 11:42 am

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
I think they should get together talk it out and issue a joint statement and put an end to this speculation, once and for all.

Forget all this. I am really worried about Amrita Rai. She wanted it and the hubby wished her well, and Diggy wanted it.... then Diggy meets Swamy...diggy apologizes to swami..

Then what happened ?

Swamy said - Do what you both 'want' to. But don't marry Laughing

by smArtha Wed Jun 11, 2014 11:45 am

confuzzled dude wrote:I think they should get together talk it out and issue a joint statement and put an end to this speculation, once and for all.

There is no speculation or even interest from sane and sensible people. So no need to issue any statements - joint or otherwise. In any case, can you explain how a joint statement will 'empower' Jashodaben?

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Wed Jun 11, 2014 11:45 am

smArtha wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
I think they should get together talk it out and issue a joint statement and put an end to this speculation, once and for all.

Forget all this. I am really worried about Amrita Rai. She wanted it and the hubby wished her well, and Diggy wanted it.... then Diggy meets Swamy...diggy apologizes to swami..

Then what happened ?

Swamy said - Do what you both 'want' to. But don't marry

I seriously think so too. This way Amrita can "move on" with her life at her own convenience.

by confuzzled dude Wed Jun 11, 2014 12:14 pm

smArtha wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:I think they should get together talk it out and issue a joint statement and put an end to this speculation, once and for all.

There is no speculation or even interest from sane and sensible people. So no need to issue any statements - joint or otherwise. In any case, can you explain how a joint statement will 'empower' Jashodaben?

I already brought up financial aspect, being a crorepati Modi, should be able to afford that. This will help him boost image too, he will be leading by example to many men who deserted their wives.

by Sponsored content