Throughout the show there has been a few too many scenes where I've wanted to strangle Arnav, but this one easily takes the cake as his worst moment.
Every worst imaginable thing he could've said in the span of 10 seconds, this man did. Everything about this scene just makes me gag. Arnav's patronizing tone, the slight smug expression on his face when he says "koshish karunga" and the overall suffocating misogyny in the room. Man this scene will never fail to make my blood boil. How Khushi ended up falling in love with this man will always be beyond me.
And tell me why every time I rant about ipk I have to mention the farak track? like girl we get it. Tbh I would do it again everytime. There was one time of me rewatching the show where I HYPERfixated on it like crazy. And it helped me a lot with my journey in understanding the protagonists (especially Arnav). It answers a lot of questions that you could have about the process of him falling in love with Khushi. The man went through stages. And every scene where farak is mentioned, is a different stage. Ugh I could just put whoever wrote the show on a pedestal and admire their mind for ages.
I like to think the reason that IPKKND felt so different from almost every ITV show, is that the producers/creators don't seem to be playing the TRP game. The creators had a vision to begin with and they stuck with it. It was an extremely well planned show, something that's severely missing from almost every show these days. Shyam, the antagonist, was introduced from the 2nd-3rd episode, shortly after Khushi and Arnav's intro, who was to be the brother in law of none other than Arnav, the love interest/protagonist. A storyline wasn't introduced just for the sake of TRP(though the kidnapping track still confuses me), which makes the show in it's entirety extremely rewatchable. A lot of shows introduce a character/track just to get attention and even though at the time it doesn't seem as irrelevant, in the long run when a person decides to rewatch it, almost nothing seems to be making sense as there isn't any linearity in the character's arc and everything is all over the place.
All different kinds of love were showcased in ipkknd, and often, Khushi's way of loving is interpreted as sacrificial, the kind of devotion that makes her a textbook TV heroine.
Because in TV and real life, women are (almost) always expected to go to hell and back for the people they love. Women endure, they suffer in silence—for family, for duty, for the greater cause that is love.
But with Khushi, was her endurance, forgiveness, and selflessness a deliberate choice? Or was it the only way she knew how to love?
Sacrifice is a sign of strength, but in Khushi's case it was tinted with weakness.
She did not sacrifice because she was strong, or because her love was noble and virtuous, it rather comes from a place of obligation.
sacrifice as obligation: I must do this for you.
vs.
sacrifice as deliberation: I choose to do this for you, knowing it will hurt me.
At times, Khushi would stand up for herself when she was being abused by Arnav (resignation scene, guesthouse incident...). But at other times, and especially after something starts to ignite in her heart towards him, her boundaries start to blur. She became more passive in face of the hurt, be it emotional or physical.
There’s a tragic beauty in how she absorbs the weight of Arnav’s cruelty—not just out of fear of his threats, but because she believes that’s what loving him might look like.
She endured, letting him do whatever he wanted with her, not because she chose to be submissive to him, but because she felt obliged to do so if that's what it took to be with him.
Love for her looked different—loving him required complete succumbency.
Their love was not an equation, very from from it.
The highest form of love, is to forgive; and Khushi was a master at that.
She always forgave people she loved, from her own family to Arnav, before they even asked for it—often compeletly without.
Take for instance, the early stages of their first marriage, she looked for answers behind his brutality—why was he tormenting her? what had she done wrong? But I would say she dropped those questions rather quickly.
She allowed herself to live with those questions, it came easier than forcing an answer out of him.
She had faith in him all along, even with this level of torment he'd put her under, she still trusted that he must have a reason behind all of this. She would rather trust him blindly (even if that trust meant her misery) than pressure him into an answer.
Now, I don't know wether the writers of the show chose to ditch the questioning of his actions to highlight her inclination to finding comfort—familiarity in being a victim— his victim; or did they just want to drag the show a bit longer? Maybe both.
Khushi gave without expecting anything in return. Because loving Arnav meant easing his strain— even though he was the one causing hers.
She constantly put herself in bad lighting as long as it meant she was protecting him, standing with him, submitting to the version of love she had accepted.
This is seen in how she hid the truth behind the marriage from the Raizadas as well as the Guptas, even when the truth came out—when Shyam’s lies were laid bare—she still chose silence over vindication.
She knew that Arnav blackmailing her into marrying him, will not be accepted by others. Only she can forgive him for it, silently. And she recieved all the disappointment and anger that came with it (from their families) with an open chest. Never once did she spit his name in blame, because she already chose a side: his.
We don't give Khushi enough credit for what she endured for his love, always putting him first.
Khushi NEVER thought about leaving Arnav; only when he asked her to. When he said "Why did you come in my life?Why did I meet you? It is all your fault Khushi." she finally thought, maybe he would be better off without me.
She thought about abandoning this relationship, not for herself but for him— not because she had reached her limit, but because she thought he had. Even though, she was the one at most disadvantage throughout all of this.
This ties into the idea of obligation vs deliberation.
Her sacrifice was to optimize his well-being, hers was never an option.
She didn’t measure what she was giving up, because it didn’t feel like a conscious decision. It came natural, as a reflex, as an imperative attached to loving him.
Her sacrifice was never about asserting love through choice—it was about surviving love through submission.
Oh yes you do, you are making SO much sense. First of all this is so well articulated, amazing!!!
Now getting to the content of it, this summarizes so much of what i feel about Khushi's character. I've seen some blogs on tumblr saying the sacrificial/people pleasing nature of Khushi is manipulative and God does that make my blood boil. No matter the situation, Khushi got the shorter end of the stick AND we all witnessed that, YET they say such things and act like Khushi was doing all this to 'gain' something. I like to think it's the internalized misogyny talking. And honestly if we are to talk about manipulation, I can tell you about someone who was severely manipulative AND was gaining something from it. Arnav Singh Raizada. He got whatever he wanted regardless of what consequences other around him had to face. The only thing over the years which has annoyed me about the ipk's discourse is the amount of explanation/justification of Arnav's borderline abusive behaviour.
courage the cowardly dog is not cowardly because that poor dog will be facing the flayed corpse of god or some shit every episode. courage the reasonably horrified dog
That actually disproves Courage being a true coward. A true coward does everything they can to flee responsibility and duty to preserve, no matter how briefly their own skin.
Courage the Dog does none of this. He is terrified, constantly so, yet still acts to defend/alert/protect those he loves and cares about.
When Peace Becomes a Wound: India, Terrorism, and the Weight of Restraint
I’ve always believed in peace. I still do. I don’t dream of war. I don’t find glory in bloodshed. And I certainly don’t believe revenge heals grief. But what happens when the very peace you’re protecting is the reason you keep losing your people? What happens when the other side doesn’t believe in peace at all?
This blog isn’t written out of hatred. It’s written out of heartbreak, confusion, and the raw frustration of watching the same pattern play on loop - a terrorist attack, innocent lives lost, silence from the world, and once again, India is told to be “mature,” “calm,” and “restrained.”
How many Pulwamas? How many Pahalgams? How many coffins wrapped in our tricolour will it take before the world understands that peace without accountability is just a pause before the next tragedy?
India has tried. Again and again. Diplomatic talks, bilateral agreements, backchannel negotiations, and yet, terrorist camps continue to thrive across the border. How long are we expected to act like it’s not happening? And more importantly, why must we always be the ones trying?
Yes, I am anti-war. Yes, I believe in dialogue. But don’t confuse that with weakness. Because defending your people is not the opposite of peace ,it is the very foundation of it. What India did with Operation Sindoor wasn’t about revenge. It was about drawing a line , a line that should’ve been drawn long ago.
And let's address the said "diplomatic peace mediation" : the hypocrisy of international response. IMF loans flowing into a country that has harboured, sheltered, and at times even celebrated known terrorists. Social media giants gag Indian voices calling out terrorism, but conveniently stay silent when the hate flows the other way. Neutrality? Really? Or is it just comfortable indifference?
No, I don’t hate Pakistani civilians. I never will. But I will not pretend that both sides are equally innocent. I will not chant "peace" if it comes at the cost of more Indian blood. Because that’s not peace. That’s surrender.
India has done enough. Now, India is doing what it must. And if the world won’t understand that , maybe it never really cared.
I write this as someone who aches every time a soldier doesn’t return home. As someone who still wants peace , but not the kind that requires us to die for it.
okay so i met a NEW variety of Indian male asshole and i didn't think i had any left to find! this one is definitely on me a little bit. like i did walk right into this open eyed. despite all the signs of him being a Class A Idiot disguised as a Smart Guy (TM) i still kept seeing him because i thought he was funny or cute or something. death to all female heterosexuality i say.
anyway so on like the 6th date or so we start talking about religion, and it got so ugly so fast. i revealed i was an atheist and he IMMEDIATELY got a little weird about it which i thought was strange since he mentioned being an agnostic himself. he starts a really weird, intense argument with me about "what it means to be an atheist". he starts listing out all these beliefs he deems an atheist should hold like being essentially an anti-government nihilist but also hedonistic nudist chaotic amoral psycho?
he was literally like if you are an atheist then the government can't arrest you for murder and you're not liable to answer for any bad behaviour since you don't subscribe to morality. in hindsight this really was the moment i should have just yikes-ed out of the situation. but unfortunately we were on a long drive and i was kind of trapped in there. and also my fatal flaw for sure is I cannnnnnootttttt resist an argument. so yeah then i started yelling too (in hindsight, so embarrassing for me, anyway) about how atheism has nothing to do with morality or lack thereof it is ONLY about not believing in god, beyond that it does not automatically include any morality nor automatically reject any morality by default, the whole point is, we want to decide for ourselves what moral code we subscribe to and its not that difficult to figure out that Murder is Bad. like not everyone is a massive sociopathic idiot who needs a religious book to tell them that. most people do have an inkling of that already. an atheist can subscribe to a moral code, enter into the social contract, abide by the laws of the government and like somehow miraculously NOT MURDER PEOPLE FOR FUN every day that they live.
so yeah at this point i am quite entertained, extremely annoyed but also confused vis a vis his Angle. its not like he was super or even mildly religious and trying to get me to see the Error of my Feminist Ways. dealt with THAT before, yawn. no, this was something else. like why was he, a supposed agnostic, getting so agitated at me being an atheist? he kept arguing saying its all hypothetical and he just wants to debate so i went along for a while. anyway when i stay adamant on my view point eventually he gets really mad and starts yelling about how i'm not a good or a REAL atheist and how i don't understand what atheism means. he starts coming out with all these examples of moral dilemmas and "how an atheist should react" to them and critiquing how my reactions don't match because i have like, a sense of basic moral decency.
i'm bored at this point so i switch off from the conversation and we decide to stop and eat. bad idea. because he is still trying to get me to admit, in essence, that an atheist really should not have any morals whatsoever as all morals are derived from religion which atheists reject. it gets...stressful. there was a lot of public yelling (from him) and i really wanted to cry at one point but he did not care and did not even let me eat in fucking peace.
so now i am 100% sure that i am done with this guy but a little bit trapped in this situation because its his car and we're far from Delhi and its late at night. so i need to like endure his company for another 2 hours to get home or in a safe vicinity to it. but i'm like literally computing escape strategies like i'm thinking who can i call to come pick me up in case i get stranded here or if i can get a cab somehow at this time and will it be safe and whatever. just your regular dating a Delhi asshole stuff.
and yet my confusion persists because what is the angleeeee? is he just a really stupid person with a really stupid take he refuses to budge from, public scene or no be damned? or something more sinister. as is always the case with men - both? both!
so yeah anyway when i threatened to refuse getting back into his car and to call our mutual friend (the implied threat to his reputation really worked) and ask him to come pick me up, he finally calmed down and he agreed to drop me back home without any further yelling. and i asked him to just play some music and for us not to talk any further. he surprisingly agrees right? and i am like okay, thank god for small mercies because i'm still not sure getting back in the car with him was smart. anyway, his tone is suddenly shifted to being all soft and reconciliatory and he gives some half-ass fake apology and then explains that he didn't mean to get so intense, he just wanted to get me to look at some different perspectives or whatever. i am just politely blank eyed and nodding along at this point because my entire focus is on somehow making time go faster so i can reach that moment 2 hours hence when i am safe, in my bed, with my dog cuddled next to me. but the story was not over, not yet! because the Mystery of his Angle was about to be solved.
so now in his wheedling smirky tone he's like honestly i have no problem with atheists. all proudly he declares - i have dated atheist girls before! okay. they were just so different from you. don't be offended but you're so judgemental and stubborn. it doesn't gel with an atheist mindset. all these ethics and rules are so typically savarna. so now I'm finalllllly starting to get an inkling of what's going on. bc we're getting closer to home and closer to the end of his available time to Get to the Point. and he does.
he makes his dumb as fuck pitch for us to enter an open relationship. THAT is what this has alllll been about. he expected / hoped to manipulate me to be all chill and okay with the idea of a non-monogamous arrangement, based on my lack of belief in god somehow (!) thought it would be very easy, and got mad because i didn't follow the script. i was quite flabbergasted at not only the audacity and the entitlement but also the stupidity? i mean he spent so much time playing these elaborate fucking Debate games to try and trap me into saying morality is stupid i guess so he can get me to eventually say monogamy is stupid and therefore we too should reject it??? as a virgo, disgusted by the lack of efficiency of it all!
so anyway i stay mostly quiet and say hmmm ummm i don't know just to avoid any further heated discussions because i am genuinely afraid of his temper at this point. then towards the end (v. close to home and safe to walk/take an auto) i was like hey FYI this was one of the most emotionally torturous dates i have ever been on and if you wanted an open relationship why not just say that on date 1. or date 5. or beginning of date 6 even! why do all of This Shit. and he's like oh bc you have to "soften" people up to ideas like these. so we argued again for like 5 mins about the meaning of "Manipulation" and whether or not he was doing it. told you! FATAL FLAW. he also tried the "you really hurt me today" thing and the "do what your heart says is right".
i of course did not end up winning any of the arguments. left with mostly rage in my heart. but i did emerge out of the situation physically safe and only emotionally shook to the core, so all in all, i am counting this one as a Win.
Craving for women-centric, slice of life, light-hearted film ventures is so understandable. I find myself going back to Piku and English Vinglish so many times. However, self-proclaimed film critics and cinephiles on Substack and Instagram have made it their job to bash Dhurandhar. Mind you, it's not constructive criticism, it's a borderline boycott.
Boxing up a movie as "8 hours of chest-thumping jingoism and hyper-masculinity" is essentialist and lazy. Dhurandhar has a male-centric plot, sure, but it's a plot-driven movie, not character-driven. It has women showcasing their agency actively in the form of Ulfat and Yalina, albeit with less screen-time, the impact and pop-cultural uproar their characters have created is crystal clear on the internet.
You have the right to call out its propagandistic lines and political allegiance in some scenes. But why do you want to shut-down the whole film altogether? Why can't movies such as Dhurandhar and Barfi exist at the same time? Why replace one with another?
This franchise has managed to do what none of its predecessor movies have done. It has created a mass-culture fandom on myriad sites and places which were earlier usually only dominated by western fandoms and discourse. People are enjoying it, so let people immerse themselves in this recreational venture.
the response to "your demographic is full of people who are ugly and weird and undesirable" should not ever be "not true! some of us are in fact hot and normal and desireable." you should stand with weird ugly bitches bc otherwise you're just playing a losing game with bigots.
izzy806
stormborns
blakekathryn
snowghoul
vaporwave
