Thursday, June 20, 2024
HomeOpinionsBlaming Bihari culture, abusing feminism to shield celebrity accused - The Print's toxic post...

Blaming Bihari culture, abusing feminism to shield celebrity accused – The Print’s toxic post on Sushant Singh Rajput

Also Read

Sonal Shukla
Sonal Shukla
Public Policy Analyst, Political Commentator, Global Politics Addict, History and Philosophy lover - incidentally also a Lawyer, Alumnus of National Law University, Jodhpur.

On the August 08, 2020, ThePrint published an article titled as “Sushant Singh Rajput and the burden of being a ‘Shravan Kumar’ in toxic Bihari families” in which Sushant’s family – especially his seventy years plus ailing father whose only dying desire is to seek justice for his young son’s suspicious death – was bashed for filing an FIR against Rhea Chaturvedi. Not just the action of the family to seek a legal recourse for finding the truth about their son’s death was said to be anti-feminist but also “the toxic family structure of cow-belt India, especially Bihar” were equally so.

The article is toxic at so many levels. The article uses feminism as a shield to insult Bihari culture and society. These people shout ‘black lives matter’ but have a racist attitude towards Biharis, or maybe special dislike towards the entire cow-belt India’s culture (this, by the way, is the very area of the Ganga -Jamuni tehjeeb which they hold as their political and social ideal). Because of such people feminism is misused and gaining a bad name, which is so frustrating. The said article uses feminism as a shield to cover up for the accused of cheating, abetment of suicide, expropriation of funds etc – which are serious crimes because of which the Enforcement Directorate is investigating the case, not allegation without evidence. 

Is this world not a patriarchal place? Much more so is India. But, does this particular case has got anything to do with patriarchy or anti- feminism? Why unlike any other crime whether in India or the rest of the world, this case doesn’t merit being looked at with gender-neutrality?

If the victim in the same set of circumstances, were a woman. The whole outlook would have been very different. The case would be looked at as a forcible transfer of funds, keeping hostage, abetment of suicide etc, and nobody would mind it.

There’s nothing to show a guy can’t go through the same situation. Especially when he’s made to cut off from whole society, not just his family, and kept solely surrounded by a family, about which there’s evidence that it was pressuring him, controlling him. His own complaints to his family are there to that account. His staff and friends have been witness to it and have given statements to that regard. Is this what feminism is about? A rightful control over an adult man, to not allow him, to meet or speak to his family or friends? Especially, in a situation where he is said to be undergoing depression? How is his “big city’s girlfriend” legally or socially even entitled to have a complete custody of him in such a situation and not his very own family which can only be his legal guardians; indeed the article finds this ‘interference’ in his ‘autonomy’?

There are allegations of him being administered psychotropic drugs, even overdose of them by the accused, that also forcibly – so much for the autonomy that the said article mentions! The staff of Sushant has made statement stating the same. These are serious things. Is this what feminism is about to administer overdose of such drugs forcibly – that’s illegal, that’s not feminism!

There are allegations of transfer of big sums of money to the accused and her family – any such transfer under duress, misrepresentations, blackmail or under the effect of psychotropic drugs or in an abnormal mental state are illegal and such acts crimes. However, none of this is problematic because the article says that a family can’t be interfering, this is their son’s ‘autonomy’ and behaviour anti-feminist.

The article claims that, what the Bihari culture and Sushant’s family seek is a ‘Shravan Kumar’. Has the family blamed Sushant’s ever for not looking after them or sought money from him before or after his death? Now, when their thirty four year old son – who wasn’t allowed to even stay in touch with them is dead, their allegations of isolating him are for his own welfare or their own? What a mockery the article has made of the love and grief of a family that has lost its young son for apparently no good reason – all in the name of defending feminism!

Our country faces serious feminist issues: from dowry deaths, gang rape, child rape, bride burning, domestic violence, sexual harassment at workplace and public places, mental and emotional harassment at offices and at matrimonial homes, lack of opportunity for education and at workplaces, unequal pay, child marriage – but feminism must be used to save a crime accused for she’s a celebrity. Alas, these grave problems are not glamorous to dig into.

  Support Us  

OpIndia is not rich like the mainstream media. Even a small contribution by you will help us keep running. Consider making a voluntary payment.

Trending now

Sonal Shukla
Sonal Shukla
Public Policy Analyst, Political Commentator, Global Politics Addict, History and Philosophy lover - incidentally also a Lawyer, Alumnus of National Law University, Jodhpur.
- Advertisement -

Latest News

Recently Popular