Controversial journalist Rajdeep Sardesai yesterday tried to equate the Sati tradition with Sabarimala, implying that if any tradition is opposed by the majority, it doesn’t mean the tradition may necessarily be good for the larger society.
Let’s assume majority Keralities oppose SC order on Sabarimala.
When Rammohun Roy campaigned to ban Sati, whole ‘Hindu India’ opposed him . So what?
Q: if majority has a position which
is socially reactionary, what should our moral responsibility be ? Think about it friends.— Rajdeep Sardesai (@sardesairajdeep) October 28, 2018
Sati is an obsolete practice where a widow would immolate herself on her husband’s pyre which has been abolished in India. Raja Ram Mohan Roy had led a crusade against the Sati system, polygamy, child marriage and the caste system and Brahma Samaj, a socio-religious reform movement played a major role in reforming and modernising the Indian society.
Sardesai claims that Raja Ram Mohan Roy’s movement to abolish Sati faced opposition from the whole ‘Hindu India’. Similarly, the way people are opposing the Supreme Court’s judgement of allowing women of all age group to the Sabarimala shrine in Kerala, Sardesai asks, what should be our moral responsibility be.
Sardesai was corrected by many, including author Amish Tripathi, who pointed out that it was not the whole of India that practised Sati. He pointed out how almost none of the widows in the Hindu epics Ramayan and Mahabharat committed Sati.
With all due respect @sardesairajdeep, you are wrong about Sati. Most of Hindu India did not even practice Sati. It was a minor practice that emerged in just a few parts of India, in medieval times. Check the list of widows in the Ramayana/Mahabharata; Almost none committed Sati. https://t.co/vnDEcZKg6M
— Amish Tripathi (@authoramish) October 28, 2018
Now Sardesai shifted his focus from saying whole ‘Hindu India’ opposed the campaign to ban the practise of Sati to the fact that the practice was prevalent. He talks about how the society-sanctioned customs and traditions should go with time.
Sir, it is not about how widespread it was, the fact is sati was an abominable practise and yet was ‘sanctioned’ by custom/tradition. It had to go as society transformed/reformed as happened with Dalit temple entry. Customs must change with time:time for consti equality is now! https://t.co/obLwPLixeX
— Rajdeep Sardesai (@sardesairajdeep) October 28, 2018
He then pointed out how 8,135 confirmed instances of Sati between the fifteen year period of 1813 and 1828 is not ‘minor’ as pointed out by Tripathi.
Sir, it is not about how widespread it was, the fact is sati was an abominable practise and yet was ‘sanctioned’ by custom/tradition. It had to go as society transformed/reformed as happened with Dalit temple entry. Customs must change with time:time for consti equality is now! https://t.co/obLwPLixeX
— Rajdeep Sardesai (@sardesairajdeep) October 28, 2018
He was again explained the flaw in his argument that he could not compare Sati, which spoke of the right to life versus the Sabarimala temple which speaks of the right to access.
This is incorrect. Even at the fundamental level, the sati argument was about right to life which as everyone knows is Very Different from right to access. This is basic. Glad the public debate on Sabarimala is growing with more voices adding (See Nirupama Menon to Ram Guha etc.) https://t.co/Jtx4qiVTci
— HindolSengupta (@HindolSengupta) October 28, 2018
There has been a constant attempt by the ‘liberal’-activists to demonise Hindu traditions and festivals. Sardesai’s tweets reek of Hinduphobia under the garb of liberalism and was rightly pointed out by Mohandas Pai. He reminded Rajdeep that states like Rajasthan had the custom of committing ‘Jauhar’ because, after the husband’s death, women didn’t want to be taken captive by Islamic invaders and turned into sex slaves. One recalls the case of Rani Padmavati and how she committed Jauhar to escape the wrath of Allahuddin Khilji.
Very right, people like @sardesairajdeep believe all the leftist hinduohobic rubbish for maligning all without any understanding or reading. Rajasthan had Jauhar, as self sacrifice to prevent being sold in the slave markets or raped by Islamic invaders! Did the South have Sati? https://t.co/aWYIqLApGy
— Mohandas Pai (@TVMohandasPai) 28 October 2018
To that, in his usual modus operandi, Rajdeep said, “You read mythology, I read history sir. You seek to semitise Hinduism and turn it into religion of hate and exclusion, I see it as a great religion of reform, pluralism and inclusion. Happy to debate anywhere, anytime. Gnight, shubhratri”.
However, in that statement, Rajdeep made a grave error. Rajdeep has often displayed his pathalogical Hinduphobia while championing the cause of “minority rights” that basically translates into an Anti Hindu, Pro Muslim stand. In fact, he even wrote a vile essay after the brutal murder of Hindu activist Prashant Poojari. Rajdeep had written that the murder of Poojari cannot be compared to the Dadri lynching because the former had a “political context”. This argument clearly pointed to Rajdeep’s malaise against Hindus and Hinduism.
In his response, however, Rajdeep betrayed his own cause. As aptly pointed out by Author Sandeep Balakrishna, Rajdeep in his response basically admitted that Semitic religions are innately violent and intolerant. This is something that Rajdeep has perhaps spent his career trying to disprove.
Which means you admit Semitic religions are innately violent and intolerant. Got the guts to name them? https://t.co/eUdk6ycg8A
— Sandeep Balakrishna (@dharmadispatch) 29 October 2018
In Rajdeep’s quest to defame Hinduism, he ended up admitting that Semetic religions, or Abrahamic religions are innately intolerant. One has to wonder whether Rajdeep hate for Hinduism is so strong, that it has the potential to make him say things which he has tried to deny for the better part of his career.
