How Ultra-Woke Leftist Self-Styled Feminist Chinmayi Sripada Whitewashed The TCS Nashik Muslim Gang Grooming Case
There is a version of feminism that shows up on time, speaks loudly, and names names. Then there is the version that checks who the accused are before deciding how much noise to make. And then there is the version of Chinmayi Sripada.
Chinmayi Sripada is a women who built significant ‘public credibility’ by portraying her as a victim of sexual harassment and and outraging on women’s rights issues. But it is important to check the identities of the perpetrator and victim so that her highness can somehow gaslight Hindus.
When netizens called her out for not speaking about the TCS Nashik Muslim Gang Grooming Case where Hindu women were targeted, subjected to repeated sexual harassment, molestation, mental abuse, and blatant religious persecution, she could’ve stayed silent. But what she did was far worse – deflect.
Woke Whataboutery
Chinmayi Sripada wrote her own words. But read them carefully and you will find that the entire piece is a lesson in deflection. She spent more words talking about Asaram Bapu’s parole and Ram Rahim’s treatment than she did about the eight women in Nashik who were allegedly coerced, harassed, and converted. She questioned whether people had completed their POSH workshops. She reminded us that men face harassment too.
All of these are legitimate points but in a different article, on a different day.
When directly asked why she wasn’t naming the perpetrators, she pivoted to Asaram Bapu. That is not activism. That is not advocacy. That is a woman with a large platform using her words to bury a story under a pile of whataboutery.
Her core argument, that people only care about sexual harassment when there is a religious angle, would be worth engaging with if she had not herself used that exact argument to avoid engaging with the religious angle in this specific case. The perpetrators here are not Hindu. The accused HR manager is a woman. The institutional failure is real. And instead of a sharp, targeted call for accountability, we got a philosophy lecture.
And guess what, a few moments later, she reshares a post about another case from Nashik.
Not once did she mention till date about the perpetrators of the IT firm harassment case.
The Test Is Simple
Here is the test that exposes selective feminism every single time: does your outrage follow the victim, or does it follow the perpetrator’s identity?
When a Hindu rapes and more so if the person is an alleged godman, the like of Chinmayi and Faye go bonkers. Chinmayi tweets threads. When a convicted rapist gets parole, they’re are loud, correct, and present. That is not being questioned here. The question is: where is that same energy when the accused are not Hindu, what happens when they are Muslims? When the religious angle cuts the other way, the posts become sanitized. The language becomes “systemic.” The attention shifts to POSH policies and workplace culture in MNCs writ large.
The Nashik victims did not get a systemic failure. They got specific men and at least one woman who allegedly harassed them, coerced them, and weaponised religion against them. They deserve specific outrage. They got generalized sociology.
And Then There Is Monalisa Bhonsle
A teenager taken across state lines. Her family saying they cannot reach her. A POCSO case filed. A court-protected accused. The likes of Faye D’Souza and Chinmayi Sripada who have loudly championed child safety and women’s protection have said nothing publicly about Monalisa Bhonsle. Nothing. The case does not fit a convenient narrative, so the child does not exist in their timelines. Why? The man in question is Mohammad Farmaan Khan. Had it been a Hindu name, they would have gotten their BP levels hit the peak.
The Point
Nobody is asking them to be anti-Muslim. Nobody is asking them to frame every crime through a communal lens. What women across this country deserve is the simple, non-negotiable assurance that their suffering will be acknowledged with equal urgency, regardless of who hurt them.
If your feminism comes with a religious eligibility clause for the accused, it is not feminism. It is just the ‘blood for me, tomato chutney for you’ logic – politics with better branding.
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
