Whatever one might say, we must admit that the left liberals are in a league of their own. Even if they’re driven to the wall for their flimsy, over the top statements and assumptions, they prefer sticking to their version of the truth. If we may paraphrase a dialogue from the iconic Lakshya, we would say ‘These are liberals saab, they won’t give up easily. If they lose, they’ll come back again.’
One such over enthusiastic liberal is former NDTV journalist and consulting editor of India Today, Rajdeep Sardesai. His devotion to the Nehru Gandhi dynasty and their ideology of ruling India is hidden from none, even if it means dismissing the notion of a vibrant India, or India for that matter. In his latest salvo, he took a dig at the unequivocal protests the Sabrimala verdict with his following tweet:
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
To everyone’s surprise, acclaimed author and thinker Amish Tripathi pointed out the hypocrisy correctly in his reply:
https://twitter.com/authoramish/status/1056496265176010752
Rajdeep Sardesai tried to counter that with another reply, but he was unprepared for a counter attack from all sides, when he posted the following tweet:
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
Following that, Hindol Sengupta and Mohandas Pai attacked him left, right and center with their respective tweets:
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
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) October 28, 2018
Rajdeep’s defense went futile as he exposed his own hypocrisy, pointed out rightly by Sandeep Balakrishna in the following tweet:
Which means you admit Semitic religions are innately violent and intolerant. Got the guts to name them? https://t.co/eUdk6ycg8A
— 𝚂𝚊𝚗𝚍𝚎𝚎𝚙 𝙱𝚊𝚕𝚊𝚔𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚑𝚗𝚊 (@dharmadispatch) October 29, 2018
But what was the issue of outrage? It was Rajdeep’s amateurish way of mixing two different issues and the response to them by the common masses. Firstly, Sati was never an all Indian evil, unlike what was propagated by ‘social reformer’ and the darling of liberals, ‘Raja’ Ram Mohan Roy.
Next, it was a voluntary sacrifice that was initially limited to Rajasthani Rajputs, when Islamic invaders defeated the regional rulers. Even when it was allegedly banned in 1829 by Lord William Bentinck, it was limited to only a few pockets of the northern and central India, including states like Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh and parts of Bihar.
Interestingly, the report on which the alleged movement of the Hinduphobic reformer, Raja Ram Mohan Roy was based was actually written by a missionary, with a clear objective in mind:
“The object of all missions to the heathen is to substitute for these systems the Gospel of Christ”. As such the source mentioned by Rajdeep Sardesai is anything but credible. His attitude reeks more of Hinduphobia than genuine criticism on a sensitive issue like Sabarimala.
In his criticism of Rajdeep’s stance, Amish Tripathi invoked the apt examples of widows not being treated unfairly throughout India. If Sati was a pan India evil, how did Rana Hammir accept a widow as his wife? Why were the widows in Ramayana and Mahabharata not burnt? Why did Princess Kunti choose to live, even when her beloved Pandu was dead, and his other wife Madri already committed suicide in agony? If only Rajdeep had the sense to comprehend the nuances of such customs. Unfortunately, agenda reigns supreme for him.
Moreover, in none of the holy texts associated with Hinduism, is Sati mentioned as an essential practice. If you don’t believe us, check out in the Vedas or the early Dharmasutras or Dharma Shastras, even the Upanishads if you like. None of the iconic sages, from Narada Muni to the likes of Apastamba, Gautam, Vashishtha, Yajnavalkya have ever mentioned about Sati, forget approving the practice.
Also, noted author David Brick, in his 2010 review of ancient Indian literature, states– “There is no mention of Sahagamana (sati) whatsoever in either Vedic literature or any of the early Dharmasutras or Dharmashastras. By “early Dharmasutras or Dharmashastras, I refer specifically to both the early Dharmasutras of Apastamba, Hiranyakesin, Gautama, Baudhayana and Vasistha, and the later Dharmashastras of Manu, Narada, and Yajnavalkya.”
As Amish correctly pointed out, unlike the Sabarimala protests, there was little resistance against the abolition of Sati precisely because it was not a prevalent practice and hence not an intrinsic part of faith tradition. Thus, there is a false equivalence in comparing the ‘Naisthika Brahmcharya’ of Bhagwan Ayyappa and his devotees rightful protests to protect his wishes and a practice which was never even in mainstream.
https://twitter.com/authoramish/status/1056496724729085953
No wonder Rajdeep Sardesai was trolled left right and center for his idiotic reference to the opposition on Sati and comparing that with protests against the Sabarimala verdict. One can only wonder, as to how long will he continue weaving his intricate web of lies, after his favourite party loses the 2019 elections.
