Burqa, hijab are very freeing identity markers, Sita is tired of patriarchy: The Hindu journalist Lavanya Narayanan attacks IPL ceremony, peddles anti-Hindu rhetoric

Lavanya Lakshmi Narayanan, the Deputy Team Lead of Sportstar under “The Hindu” Group, has sparked outrage after she expressed her disapproval of popular singer Kailash Kher’s “Babam Bam” performance during the IPL (Indian Premier League) finale on 31st May (Sunday). The beautiful tribute to Lord Shiva was enhanced by religious symbolism created using drones. The magical performance captivated the hearts of the ecstatic audience, but it did not sit well with Narayanan, who asserted that it was an attempt to blend religion with sports. Hence, she took to social media to remark, “Keep religion out of sport.” “Private event. Private money. Indeed,” she taunted after Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Goa also praised the celebration. However, the journalist’s anti-Hindu mindset was soon exposed when her earlier tweets praising Islamic practices during similar international sports events gained widespread attention on social media. “Mashallah” was her reply to a post stating that players from the Turkish football team broke their fast (Roza) in the middle of their match in Ankara. Lavanya quoted a Pakistani “Eid special” broadcast featuring cricketer Imam-ul-Haq, to convey her greetings on the Muslim festival. Not only does she express her anger regarding any actions linked to Hinduism while simultaneously praising Muslim practices, but as a part of the Islamo-leftist ecosystem, she also denigrates the former under the pretext of “patriarchy” to mask her disdain for the faith. In a notably derogatory statement, she claimed that the face of Goddess Sita reflected that she was “so done with this patriarchy-pavitrta shit,” while reacting to a religious post on Diwali. How is it possible for a left loony to refrain from showing their animosity toward Hinduism on an important occasion to hurt Hindus? They cannot, and thus, Lavanya also demonstrated her demented ideology. Hindus are patriarchal, but burqa and niqab are “very freeing” As a true liberal, Lavanya was unsettled by “Jai Shri Ram.” Hence, she denounced the young men who raised the Hindu slogan in protest and indirectly supported Muskan Zainab, associated with the banned Popular Front of India (PFI), which fuelled the hijab controversy in Karnataka. Muskan gained notoriety after a strategically captured video of her shouting “Allahu Akbar” went viral during the incident, which happened at PES College of Arts, Science and Commerce in Mandya. “If religious markers go, shouldn’t they all? Don’t see any such sanctions for the others,” she asked after a netizen emphasised that educational institutions have a uniform to maintain discipline alongside an equal environment for students and should remain devoid of any religious symbols. She shrewdly neglected the fact that the Muslim pupils desired special privileges to tout their Islamic outfits, unlike their Hindu peers. Lavanya likewise disregarded the rising number of instances where Hindu students have been asked to take off their sacred symbols, including janeu, kalava, tilak and mangalsutra, among other things, prior to being allowed access to schools or examination centres. Lavanya then described hijab and burqa as “very freeing” and an “identity marker” for many Muslim women after insisting that her views do not hold weight since she is not part of the religion. When confronted about her unreasonable comment, she aggressively defended, “We speak of patriarchy in Islam like it doesn’t exist in other religious systems of belief, especially Hinduism. If we’re setting out to reform and empower, why not start with the majority?” he shamelessly praised the Islamic veil, which has been responsible for the murder and oppression of numerous girls and women in different Muslim countries. She invoked patriarchy to attack Ramayana and Lord Ram, but failed to recognise it in the desperate cries of the real victims. A simple recommendation from Prime Minister Narendra Modi to learn the effective utilisation of time through the skilful management exhibited by mothers was also characterised as “a lesson about the very essence of patriarchy” from him. Lavanya used a similar argument to support Congress MLA Vinesh Phogat after she reached the 50-kilogram freestyle final at the 2024 Paris Olympics. “What a big middle finger to life and patriarchy’s shithousery,” she wrote while sharing her column. Phogat was later disqualified as she was over the permissible weight limit. Lavanya accused, “At her lowest point, the powerful, like vultures, picked on her. Her nature, naturally confident and outspoken, was used against her. They prodded and nudged at her, confident that her career was all but done. They insulted her. They insulted her coach, Hungary’s Woller Akos, who had left his wife and young child to come and work with the Indian and accused him of being money-minded,” in her article. She declared that the achievement came even after the entire system opposed the wrestler and her coach, which starkly contradicts the truth. However, Phogat has had a troubling history with the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) owing to her conduct. Last month, she was prohibited from competing in the National Open Ranking Tournament in Gonda because she, “committed acts and omissions which are seriously prejudicial to the discipline, image, reputation and interests of WFI, the Indian wrestling fraternity and the nation, and which constitute violations of the WFI constitution, the UWW (United World Wrestling) International wrestling rules and the National Anti-Doping Rules 2021.” She had even demanded direct entry into major global events like the Asian Games and the Olympics without taking part in the national selection trials in 2023. The Indian Olympic Association (IOA) even went as far as to offer an exemption to her and five others, which ignited criticism. As expected, Lavanaya conveniently ignored the crucial decision taken to facilitate the wrestlers and promoted her agenda. Furthermore, the excessive glorification of Woller, who is simply carrying out a job for which he is receiving remuneration and not extending a favour to any “Indian” is equally troubling and indicates the inferiority complex commonly found in members of this cabal, where foreigners are placed on a pedestal to undermine India. Lavanya pointed to the protests organised by wrestlers against the then WFI president Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh to illustrate a dramatic image, claiming that Phogat fought at Jantar Mantar instead of on a synthetic mat and slept under a Neem tree. She, of course, did not mention how the central government regularly held discussions with the agitators to address their concerns. Interestingly, Phogat had stated, “We thought we were such big players that people would believe us, but they started to ask for proof,” in an interview at the time, inciting public backlash. Singh has been acquitted of sexual harassment accusations in one case by a Delhi court, while similar proceedings against him are underway in other cases. The guilty must be dealt with in the strictest manner, but the author has clearly exploited the sensitive matter to advance her narrative. Conclusion Just as other leftist liberals, Lavanya also tried to play victim after her earlier posts drew attention, highlighting her double standards. The whole point of the criticism is that India in its current geopolitical form is, or was, envisioned on secularism. How are people evading that very simple point like the plague? It’s one thing for players or teams to indulge and a whole other thing for it to come from a league’s organiser,” she insisted while trying to deflect attention from her original submission that religion should not be associated with sports after her duplicity was revealed. She even retweeted Pakistani accounts and other leftists promoting the distorted claim. Meanwhile, her statements revealed the predatory nature of Indian secularism, which necessitates a total severance and subjugation of the Hindu faith, ensuring it remains invisible in any public domain. Otherwise, the “secular” reputation of the nation would be compromised. It would indeed not be astonishing if this journalist were also found defending polygamy permitted under Muslim personal law, outlining that it enables women to share their household responsibilities along with their husbands. After all, there seems to be no limit to the malicious propaganda of this vile group, which exists solely to tarnish Hinduism while venerating even the most reprehensible customs of other religions. Their singular focus is on the agenda, not on objectivity. It is evident that their perverted objection to patriarchy serves merely as a means to the same end.