After Amish Tripathi and Bhavish Aggarwal questioned the reality of sati, liberals are claiming that the ritual was endemic to Hindu society. Neither have it completely right.
Nick Jonas is not trying to modernise the mangalsutra, but his gesture shows that choices can be equal. If commitment must be flaunted, it need not be gendered.
Anirudh Kanisetti misrepresents the right wing bu saying “they deny occurence of Sati” when the denial is of involuntary occassions of it. The British, who witnessed only few and far between Sati cases, painted the whole tradition as such. We should also remember poverty increased and was more prominent in the north due to colonization, and maybe forcing one into sati was more common for honour which led to funds and maintainance. Yes, there may have been forced sati in mediaeval times, but we don’t find any literary evidence of it, and until we do, we can assume that even if forced cases exist they were not happening enough to draw the attention of the people, and maybe they were not being forced into it in the south due to more prosperity.
The point is, Anirudh Kanisetti just misrepresented the right wing’s stance, added a lens of modernity (we have “grown out of sati” nah bruh that shit is romantic and even men would commit sati for their wives if they felt the rush to) to it and interjects his opinion of “sati bad inherently” to the whole debate by creating a false sense of neutrality. The false premise of this neutrality is that the right wing claimed sati never existed. Which simply is not the stance at all. His opinion completely ruins his nuance. He should do better and let readers make up their own mind instead of trying so hard to brainwash and “save” his readers 24/7.
Anirudh Kanisetti misrepresents the right wing bu saying “they deny occurence of Sati” when the denial is of involuntary occassions of it. The British, who witnessed only few and far between Sati cases, painted the whole tradition as such. We should also remember poverty increased and was more prominent in the north due to colonization, and maybe forcing one into sati was more common for honour which led to funds and maintainance. Yes, there may have been forced sati in mediaeval times, but we don’t find any literary evidence of it, and until we do, we can assume that even if forced cases exist they were not happening enough to draw the attention of the people, and maybe they were not being forced into it in the south due to more prosperity.
The point is, Anirudh Kanisetti just misrepresented the right wing’s stance, added a lens of modernity (we have “grown out of sati” nah bruh that shit is romantic and even men would commit sati for their wives if they felt the rush to) to it and interjects his opinion of “sati bad inherently” to the whole debate by creating a false sense of neutrality. The false premise of this neutrality is that the right wing claimed sati never existed. Which simply is not the stance at all. His opinion completely ruins his nuance. He should do better and let readers make up their own mind instead of trying so hard to brainwash and “save” his readers 24/7.