Ritika Sajdeh, wife of cricketer Rohit Sharma, recently expressed solidarity with Palestinians in Rafah through an Instagram post. While many lauded her for raising awareness about the crisis in the Gaza Strip, her silence on pressing issues affecting Indians and minority communities at home has drawn sharp criticism. Critics view her post as an example of selective activism, driven more by a desire to appear “woke” than by genuine concern for human rights.
Ignoring the Plight of Kashmiri Pandits
Critics quickly pointed out that Ritika Sajdeh, married into a Brahmin family, has never spoken out against the violence and persecution faced by Kashmiri Pandits. This community endured torture, displacement, and human rights violations due to militancy in the Kashmir Valley. Despite well-documented evidence, Sajdeh’s voice has remained conspicuously absent on this issue.
Neglecting Persecuted Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh
Sajdeh’s lack of commentary extends to the plight of persecuted Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh. These communities face discrimination, violence, and forced conversions. While Sajdeh finds time to advocate for causes thousands of miles away, the suffering of her fellow countrymen and co-religionists appears to be of little concern.
Silence on Attacks Against Hindu Festivals and Processions
Sajdeh’s silence is particularly glaring following recent attacks on Hindu processions and festivals, such as Shobha Yatras. Mobs targeted these events in various parts of the country, yet Sajdeh remained unwilling to condemn such acts of violence and intimidation against a specific community. This has led to accusations of hypocrisy and double standards.
Ignoring the Issue of “Love Jihad”
The contentious topic of “love jihad” has also seen no commentary from Sajdeh. Allegations that Hindu women are lured into relationships and forced to convert to Islam have stirred significant debate in India. However, Sajdeh, along with Bollywood counterparts like Varun Dhawan and Tripti Dimri, has chosen to remain silent on this matter, further fueling allegations of selective activism.
Criticism of Selective Advocacy
Critics argue that Sajdeh’s support for the Palestinian cause, while laudable, rings hollow when juxtaposed with her deafening silence on issues affecting her own countrymen and communities. Her apparent reluctance to speak out against the forces responsible for the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits from their ancestral homes has been interpreted as a tacit endorsement of the extremist ideology that fueled the crisis.
Questions of Credibility and Moral Authority
As a public figure with a significant platform, Sajdeh’s selective advocacy raises questions about her motivations and the authenticity of her concern for human rights. Expressing solidarity with distant causes may enhance her “woke” credentials, but her failure to address pressing issues closer to home has earned her the label of an “absolute woketard,” someone more interested in virtue signalling than affecting real change.
Sajdeh’s Rafah post represents what many see as the height of hypocrisy—a carefully curated display of selective empathy that conveniently ignores the suffering of her own people. Until she addresses this glaring inconsistency and adopts a more principled and inclusive approach to human rights advocacy, her credibility and moral authority will remain in question.