Mostly all TV soaps have an ensemble of different characters –father, mother, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, niece, nephew, mother-in-law, father-in-law, etc, etc. If the serial is well etched each character has a definite role to play. And if it’s not, then often you end up with characters who are either bumped off as the story progresses or are side lined ( sent abroad, sent to jail, etc) as they didn't have any thing to do with the story anyways.

Sure, Star, Colors, Zee are the top GECs. Sure, most viewers are glued to these channels 24X7. Sure, soaps on these channels have good ratings. Sure, the moolah raked in by all the channels could run a bank. Sure, all the action is happening only on these driver channels. So what’s the point I am trying to make with such obvious facts? Though I may belong to the minority community who watch the odd channel I think it’s only right that people know that niche channels have been offering such varied fare it can put the so-called mainstream channels to shame. It

At the risk of sounding a certified feminist and waving the gender flag quite so often I need to know just one more thing - what’s happening to all the female leads in the most widely watched shows today? What’s happening to women on TV? Ankita Lokhande ( Archana in <em><a href=http://www.tellychakkar.com/news/shravni-and-manav-wed-pavitra-rishta>Pavitra Rishta</a></em>): This lead of the number one Zee show is so regressive in thought that she can put the Tulsis and Parvatis to shame. Oh yes, how can I forget she was born in the same stable?

Sure, shows on the small screen have a very long shelf life and very often come back with seasons…but does this give the makers a license to treat the viewers like a ‘bunch of idiots’? Especially, when they stretch story lines beyond a point of redemption, when the viewer can see a logical end but the makers don’t, when makers choose to continue milking a TRP-fetching cash-cow even when the cow itself has ‘groaned’ enough!