Mumbai: First, in the hurly-burly of election campaigning, a bust of social reformer Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar bit the dust in Kolkata. And now, an obsolete practice that once used to be the kiss of death for Hindu women in 19th century India, got a kiss of life on Twitter when actor Payal Rohatgi not only glorified the practice but also referred to the social reformer Raja Ram Mohan Roy, whose efforts lead to the abolition of the inglorious practice, as a traitor, for defaming tradition. To jog the memory of those who are dreaming of vikas and achhe din, the Indian Sati Prevention Act, 1988, criminalised any type of aiding, abetting, and glorifying of sati, after Queen Victoria issued a general ban on the practice in India in 1861.
The Rohatgi saga unfolded over the weekend and spilled over into the work week. Sharing a video, ‘Sati Pratha Ka Asli Satya,” Payal Rohatgi & Team tweeted: “Jauhar was a mass self-immolation incident like #RaniPadmavati did on her OWN will to escape becoming the mistress of Khilji. Even #Ghonghaat practice started during Mughal invasion. In other western countries, war widows also performed this tradition which we call #Sati #facts.” Reacting to a tweet, which said “Raja Ram Mohan Roy was a social reformer and founder of Brahmo Samaj movement”, Rohatgi responded with: “No he was a chamcha to Britishers who used him to defame the Sati tradition. Sati tradition was not compulsory but was introduced to prevent the prostitution of Hindu wives at the hands of Mughal invaders. It was the woman’s choice. #FeministsofIndia Sati was not regressive.”
While some just dubbed this a publicity stunt and suggested she should have focused on her acting instead, others were supportive. One supporter wrote: “The practice was never a norm and was never prevalent …it was practised by certain jaati groups (caste is a wrong word) and not by all …it was already dying the time British entered …this thing is taught to beat the Hindu side rather unfairly.” Another joined Rohatgi in attacking Raja Ram Mohan Roy, saying that the latter “identified himself as Unitarian Christian” and “did not want India’s freedom”.
