Love Mocktail 3 Row: A Discussion on Truth and Ethics Amid Plagiarism Controversy — By Madhu V.N
Love Mocktail 3 Row: A Discussion on Truth and Ethics Amid Plagiarism Controversy – The controversy around the story of Love Mocktail and its alleged plagiarism has been widely discussed. However, it would be wrong for us to sit here and pass a final judgment on what is true and what is not. Still, we can reasonably reflect on the situation.
When an ordinary person feels wronged, they first seek justice from the person who caused the injustice. If they receive a dismissive response, a stronger person might seek revenge or confront directly, while others may take legal action. Those who can do neither often remain silent, suppressing their pain.
After a few days, they may try to express their grievance in the “court of public opinion” to find some relief.
Everyone agrees that Raghavendra created a story and that it was a good one (as he explained in his recent interview). He has not accused anyone directly of stealing it, so he has nothing to prove. However, repeatedly dismissing it as a “Google story” by Darling Krishna is sheer arrogance and a form of cruelty towards a creative individual.
Even James Cameron created Titanic after learning about the 1912 shipwreck through research, books, or other sources.
That said, did Krishna actually copy the story? I don’t know. One argument in his defense is that by the end of Part 2, the protagonist had already adopted a child, suggesting continuity in storytelling.
This is the internet era. If Krishna had developed the story earlier, he can still present evidence — such as messages between husband and wife, emails, or file history in Google Drive. It doesn’t have to be the entire script; even a single line of discussion recorded earlier could support his claim that the idea existed independently. Such coincidences are possible — I’ll explain why.
In today’s digital world, everyone is exposed to similar content, news, and discussions. It is entirely possible for the same idea to occur to multiple people at the same time. We all experience this — something we think of is already written by someone else, or others think along the same lines as us. Social media algorithms play a major role in this by showing similar content to people with similar interests.
Even if Krishna did not copy, Raghavendra has suffered a loss — he may never be able to make that story into a film now because Krishna has already done it.
Again, Krishna’s example comparing it to cancer is inappropriate and disrespectful to a fellow creator. Raghavendra’s claim holds weight because he had shared the story with an actor he trusted, and a few years later, a similar film was made by that same actor. This deserves respect.
If Krishna is innocent, then he too is facing loss and defamation — that is true. The right way forward would be to either prove innocence with evidence or resolve the issue amicably at an early stage.
As common people, we can:
- Listen to both sides
- Offer support and empathy
- Provide a fair platform
- Encourage mediation by experienced individuals
But what is happening with some media outlets?
After watching Raghavendra’s interview, I watched Krishna and Milana Nagaraj’s interview. When Krishna cracked jokes, people around him were laughing loudly.
Let me say this again — Krishna and Milana may be completely innocent; I have no bias against them. But if media people laugh at such jokes just because they are successful or popular, then it reflects poorly on them.
When two parties are sitting before the public with serious matters of dignity and reputation at stake, it is unacceptable to:
- Question one side aggressively like a lawyer
- Laugh casually with the other side
Such behavior is clearly inappropriate.
