Amish Tripathi and Kunal Kamra Clash Over Historical Interpretation of Sati Practice

New Delh : The debate over the historical interpretation of Sati practice erupted on social media when author Amish Tripathi and comedian Kunal Kamra clashed over the subject. The controversy was triggered after Ola CEO Bhavish Aggarwal praised Tripathi’s podcast titled “History of Sati Pratha,” calling it “amazing.”

Aggarwal’s social media post reignited discussions about the banned practice of Sati, which was formally outlawed under the Bengal Sati Regulation of 1829, largely due to the efforts of social reformer Raja Ram Mohan Roy. In his post on X (formerly Twitter), Aggarwal appeared to challenge prevailing narratives, stating, “It’s hard to find any proof of Sati but very easy to find proof of witch burning in medieval Europe.”

Comedian Kunal Kamra quickly responded, highlighting that Raja Ram Mohan Roy actively fought against the practice of Sati, leading to its formal abolition in British India. Kamra further pointed out that the last documented case of Sati in India occurred as recently as 1987, referencing the infamous Roop Kanwar case in Rajasthan. In a sharp remark directed at Aggarwal, Kamra wrote, “Please focus on your automobiles being immobile,” alluding to previous complaints about Ola Electric’s vehicles.

Amish Tripathi then joined the debate, emphasizing that his podcast was an attempt to explore the historical context of Sati, including its origins, practices, and eventual abolition. He argued that discussions on such sensitive historical topics should be based on well-researched perspectives rather than emotional rhetoric.

As the discussion escalated, opinions on social media were divided. Some users sided with Tripathi, arguing that history should be examined with nuance and without bias, while others backed Kamra, asserting that glorifying or minimizing the horrors of Sati disrespects the struggles of reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy.

This exchange between Tripathi, Kamra, and Aggarwal reflects the larger discourse on India’s historical practices and their contemporary interpretations. While some advocate for academic explorations of such topics, others remain wary of whitewashing or revising history. The debate underscores the persistent tension between historical inquiry and social responsibility in public discourse.