Sanchita
Recently an article in ThePrint had gone viral called – ‘Sushant Singh Rajput and the burden of being a ‘Shravan Kumar’ in toxic Bihari families.’
Sushant Singh Rajput’s brother-in-law Vishal Kirti has slammed this media report, saying that it has affected ‘not only my loved ones but people from Bihar in general’. He also called it extremely offensive, not only to Sushant’s family but to Indian families in general.
Vishal, married to Sushant’s sister Shweta Singh Kirti, shared a lengthy blog post in response to the article. Addressing the claim made in the article that Sushant’s family was refusing to accept the depression narrative, Vishal said wrote that mental health is an outcome of biology and environment.
He wrote that Rhea Chakraborty had created a ‘hostile environment’ for Sushant, which could include ‘gaslighting, blackmailing, alienating, covert medication, overt overmedication, and so on.’ He also went on to say he would be the first one to accept if it was proven that Sushant had suffered depression without any hostile conditions created by Rhea.
“Mental health is an outcome of biology and the environment. Let’s just assume for a second (hypothetically) that Sushant was biologically predisposed for depression. You still need to understand the environmental factors which led to his alleged depression. If hostile environmental conditions are brought out in the FIR, that’s because Sushant’s family in India were aware of the situation created by Rhea and her stooges, as exposed in their complaints to the Bandra DCP in February 2020 and SOS calls Sushant gave to his family in November 2019, January 2020, and June 2020. Those hostile environmental conditions could include gaslighting, blackmailing, alienating, covert medication, overt overmedication, and so on. I am not saying that a very hostile environment is necessary for people to fall into depression but in this case, the presence of a hostile environment seems to ring true. If it is proven in the court of law without foul play that Sushant suffered from depression without any hostile conditions created by Rhea, then I will be the first one to accept it with dignity.”
He also addressed the claim in the article which said – “Sushant’s sister posted a picture on Instagram and wrote that he was not suffering from depression.” Defending his wife’s post, Vishal wrote that Shweta didn’t say that Sushant wasn’t depressed.
“For starters, my wife Shweta did not say that. She shared a picture of Sushant’s near future plans from June end and mentioned that he was planning ahead. Planning ahead is a very positive sign of hopefulness. Though it does not guarantee, it still questions the prerequisite condition of hopelessness.”
Vishal also dismissed the generalization that toxic Bihari families can’t stand ‘girlfriends’. He talked about how Sushant had dated Ankita and how the family is constant touch with Ankita. He also mentioned that the family was fond of Kriti as well.
“This is a preposterous generalization on many levels. Let’s start with Sushant. Many people know that Sushant dated Ankita for at least six years and they lived together for a good portion of that relationship. People have seen great pictures of Ankita and Sushant’s family together and almost everyone knows that some members of Sushant’s family, including my wife, are in constant touch with Ankita.
Sushant then presumably dated Kriti (although he did not explicitly mention that they were dating, so they might be just very good friends) and the last time we met him in July 2017, Kriti met with us as well. We were fond of Kriti too.”
He also said that giving the FIR anti-feminist flare is toxic journalism.
“This is where Jyoti’s stereotypical “toxic Bihari family” trope gets debunked. The FIR didn’t say that my father-in-law couldn’t stand Ankita. He actually adored Ankita and even stayed over in Mumbai with Ankita and Sushant. The FIR mentions one specific person called Rhea and giving it an anti-feminist flare is toxic journalism.”
He also addressed the writer’s claim of – “A family cannot believe that a grown man doesn’t need a woman to tell him about his interaction with the world. A grown man can decide if he wants to distance himself from a toxic environment.”
Talking about the familial disconnect, he also said that the FIR was anti-Rhea not anti-women.
“Let me give you a perspective about human relationships Jyoti Yadav. A grown man can decide independently to distance himself from a toxic environment but a grown man can also be pressurized to distance himself from a healthy environment if there are enough incentives for the pressurizer and there are enough limitations on the part of the pressurized. Giving the FIR an anti-women color is not going to help women Jyoti Yadav. This FIR is anti-Rhea and not anti-women and let it be proven in the court of law if it stands the ground.”
