Mint’s callous mockery: Author Nisha Susan downplays Tirupati Laddu row calling it mere adulteration, dehumanises a devotee mother’s story by asking if “she’s dead”

According to Nisha Susan, the ghee was adulterated only with vegetable oils like soya bean oil, sunflower oil or palm oil. She claimed, "it was the idea that the laddus had animal fat which spun it into a national controversy with wounded feelings", ignoring lab report confirming presence of beef, pig and fish fat in the ghee

On 28th September, the Mint published an op-ed by author Nisha Susan, where she attempted to discuss the Tirupati Laddu controversy with a wit laced with condescension. The piece, however, turned out to be a mockery of journalistic standards. She also downplayed the presence of animal fat in ghee used to make Tirupati Laddus, calling it just a case of adulteration. The piece written by Susan began with a highly insensitive and controversial comment that resulted in an uproar on social media.

Susan began her op-ed with a post by author Saiswaroopa Iyer, where she recalled how her mother raised alarm about the quality of Tirupati Laddus. Susan was careful enough not to use Saiswaroopa’s name. However, things did not turn out the way she might have anticipated. Commenting on the post, Susan blatantly wished for the death of Saiswaroopa’s devotee mother and asked, “Was Amma dead?” She did not stop there and continued to compare the alarms raised by Saiswaroopa’s mother with similar incidents reported in the context of pet animals.

The post quoted by Susan was published on 19th September. In her post, Saiswaroopa wrote, “For 2-3 years, Amma would fall sick if she tasted Tirupati Laddu and would tell us not to eat too much of it. We dismissed it as her general paranoia, as she has a hundred complaints about hygiene everywhere. Now I feel a part of her sensed something terribly wrong with the Laddu.”

Quoting the post, Susan opined, “I found the post intriguing for its sad, wistful tone. Was Amma dead? Why else would the author write it in this way, the way one would talk about the misunderstood family pet, the horse that refused to cross the damaged bridge, or the dog that barked at the cobra under the woodpile and saved the family’s baby? Why not ask Amma, that unsung hero, why the laddus troubled her? I read the post so many times in admiration of its synthetic charm, the way it drew a portrait of a prophet not honoured at home.”

Notably, Saiswaroopa’s post was copied, or we should say, plagiarised, by many other social media users to gain traction. The original author did not object to it but faced backlash from left-liberals and so-called fact-checkers, who claimed she was part of the “toolkit” against the former government of Andhra Pradesh led by Y. S. Jagan Mohan Reddy.

Saiswaroopa, however, took the plagiarism lightly at that time. In a post, she wrote, “Any half brain with a quarter neuron would see the time stamp and understand. But that’s too much to expect from Periperitards and their equally hare brained ilk from elsewhere. Muting and enjoying the free publicity you guys giving me incl 200+ new followers. Thank you.”

Taking another dig at Saiswaroopa, that too indirectly, Susan wrote, “As it turned out, I would have many more chances to read it because this highly specific story was tweeted by dozens of accounts, each pretending to be just another account offering their individual anecdote in the ‘adulterated’ Tirupati Laddu scandal. The wits of X immediately declared this phenomenon a ‘one nation, one Amma, one Laddu’ scheme.”

Criticism of Susan’s insensitive comments on Saiswaroopa’s mother

Speaking to OpIndia, Saiswaroopa said, “I did not expect the post to go viral and the last ten days has been very disturbing and now this article platformed by Mint was a cruel blow.” She also published a post on X criticising Susan for her comments. She wrote, “How cheap should you have to get to wish death upon a mother Nisha Susan? Shame on you Live Mint for publishing that cheap crap.”

Reacting to Susan’s op-ed several social media users expressed concerns over the objectionable language used by the author. Author Abhinav Agarwal wrote, “”Is she dead?” This passed editorial review at Live Mint? Seriously, what is wrong with you? For your agenda, is there any depth you won’t plumb? And as for the lady, Nisha Susan, the less said the better. With so much hate she is carrying against Hindus, may the Lord have mercy on her.”

Author Arun Krishnan wrote, “Shame on you Live Mint. Asking “Is she dead” about the mother of someone? That too a genuine person and an amazing writer like Saiswaroopa?”

X user Sameer wrote, “How does Live Mint allow such drivel to be published on its pages?How dare the writer of this trash ask “Is Amma dead?” for Saiswaroopa Ji’s Amma? Saiswaroopa ji must sue the publication & the writer Nisha Susan who also has no right to comment on #TirupatiLaddu as it doesn’t concern her faith.”

Editor-in-chief of OpIndia, Nupur J Sharma, wrote, “I am not very surprised that this drivel passed editorial review at Live Mint. A Hindu temple is desecrated under Christian Jagan and a Christian “Nisha Susan” tells us it’s no big deal. What’s more? She writes, “is she dead” for Saiswaroopa’s mother and compares her to a pet dog.”

Coming to the crux of the matter, Saiswaroopa’s original tweet was not an invitation for ridicule. It was a heartfelt expression of concern revolving around faith and familial bonds. Instincts of a mother are often trusted in families, and this instance was no different. However, for Susan, it was a perfect opportunity to mock the belief system, and it was a gross oversight on her part. Extending her scorn to the point of wishing harm upon someone’s mother because of her devoutness cannot be excused at any cost.

The issue of using ghee adulterated with animal fat came to the fore after the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, Chandrababu Naidu, raised it during his address at an event. Later, laboratory tests confirmed the presence of beef fat, pig fat, fish oil and several kinds of vegetable oil in the ghee used for making the Laddu Prasadam of the Balaji temple.

However, according to Nisha Susan, the ghee was adulterated only with vegetable oils like soya bean oil, sunflower oil or palm oil. According to her, “it was the idea that the laddus had animal fat which spun it into a national controversy with wounded feelings”. But the fact is, it is not some imagination or idea that the ghee had animal fat, it is a fact established by laboratory tests. The tests done on the ghee samples by the National Dairy Development Board’s “Centre of Analysis and Learning in Livestock and Food” (CALF) laboratory in Gujarat confirmed the presence of tallow (beef fat), lard (pig fat) and fish oil, apart from vegetable oils like Soya Bean, Sunflower, Olive, Rapseed, Linseed, Wheat germ, Maize germ, Cotton Seed, Coconut, Palm kernel fat, and Palm Oil.

TTD had sent ghee samples for samples after complaints of deteriorating quality and change in taste of the laddus. Saiswaroopa’s mother was not the only one to raise the issue, it was raised by enough people for the temple committee to decide to test the ghee.

This is not something swept under the rug to attack the former Jagan Mohan Reddy govt, because it was during his govt that the decision was taken to not use Nandini ghee from Karnataka to make the Tirupati Laddus. Due to the increase in the price of Nandini ghee by the Congress govt in Karnataka, the temple committee had selected other vendors based on lower bid prices, and these vendors chose to supply adulterated ghee to justify the low price quoted.

Therefore, the dairy product price increase in Karnataka, and the insistence of lowest bid prices in Andhra Pradesh, led to the use of ghee adulterated with animal fat like beef and pig fat in Tirupati laddus.

Tirupati Laddus are not just any food item; they hold deep spiritual significance for millions of devotees. It is not just a simple case of adulteration, as the Mint author is claiming. When concerns arise about their purity, it naturally sparks outrage. Contrary to being sensitive on the subject and engaging with this debate respectfully, Susan chose to deride not just the faith, but the very people who uphold it. Her comments revealed a troubling disdain for those who practice religious devotion.

It is not just a question of ethics but also an exposé of the alarming trend of dehumanising those who follow Hindu Dharma. In a time where public discourse is already frayed, do we need writers like Susan to fan the flames of division with such attacks? Faith is a deeply personal matter that one shares with family and is passed down through generations. By ridiculing a mother’s cautionary stance towards the Laddu, Susan has taken aim at the family system and faith in one go. Her comments speak volumes about her disconnect from the very real emotional and spiritual lives of millions of Indians.

If her comments still sound acceptable, think of it this way: you share concerns raised by your mother about something available in the market that could lead to health issues. Hearing your concerns, someone tries to downplay the issue by saying, “Haan to maa tumhari mar to nahi gayi na?” (Well, your mother hasn’t died, has she?). This is exactly what Susan has done in her op-ed.

Everyone has a right to have an opinion on a subject and the right to express it. However, as an author and a responsible human being, it is essential to be kind with words and not fall to the level to which Susan fell in her op-ed. To conclude, Susan’s op-ed is a glaring example of the dangers of weaponising words without considering their impact. Her mockery of Saiswaroopa’s social media post was not just a personal attack; it reflects a deeper contempt for the faith and values held dear by millions of Hindus when it comes to temple prasad. There is a vast difference between challenging beliefs and belittling them. Susan did the latter.

As writers, thinkers, and citizens, it is essential that we become better as individuals. Wishing death upon someone’s mother, no matter how indirectly, is not just bad writing, it is bad humanity.