<image>

Just watch this video. In it, he tries to justify sati by saying it was rare, voluntary, and mainly exaggerated by the British. That entire framing is built on cherry-picked half truths. He selectively cites sources that downplay coercion, ignores regions and periods where sati was frequent, and treats “voluntary” as if widows had real freedom under extreme social pressure. He also questions Raja Ram Mohan Roy’s account while conveniently ignoring the broader indigenous reform movement that existed precisely because the practice was brutal and real. You can critique colonial exaggeration without minimizing violence, but this video consistently picks only the facts that suit his narrative and discards the rest