Nation

‘Weirdest Reason Ever’: Padma Awardee On Air India Pee Gate Accused’s ‘Kathak Dancers Have Issu

January 13, 2023
Bharat Times

Padma awardee kathak dancer Shovana Narayan said on Friday that she does not agree with the reasoning put up by the attorney of accused Shankar Mishra in the Air India peeing incident. The counsel denied the charges, stating in a Delhi Court that the complainant woman had urinated on herself as she is a Kathak dancer, and most Kathak dancers have problems with incontinence.

“The complainant woman’s seat was blocked. It wasn’t possible for him (Mishra) to go there. The woman has a problem of incontinence. She urinated on herself. She is a Kathak dancer and 80 per cent of Kathak dancers have this issue,” ANI quoted Mishra’s counsel as saying.

Shovana Narayan told ANI: “I do not agree with it at all, I think it is the weirdest reasoning that has ever been put forth. Any peeing or not peeing is not related to any vocation at all”.

“He is trying to create a diversion from the fact that he has outraged a woman’s modesty. I think this is what we all need to understand that this is not done. you cannot pee on a person,” she added further.

“This is an absurd statement and with this, he has insulted all Kathak dancers. The statement is a myth as dancers train their minds and body in a way that can remain very balanced for a very long time,” another kathak dancer Soni Chaurasia from Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh expressed her thoughts with ANI.

The claim by his lawyer, made for the first time since the incident occurred on an Air India New York-New Delhi flight on November 26 last year, contradicts denunciations of the accused by some of the co-passengers and even a string of WhatsApp exchanges he had with the victim woman, which suggested the unsavoury incident did occur.

ALSO READ: ‘80% Kathak Dancers Have This Problem’: Air India Pee Gate Accused Says Woman Urinated On Herself

The accused’s counsel made the submission in front of Additional Sessions Judge Harjyot Singh Bhalla while arguing against a Delhi police appeal seeking reconsideration of a magistrate court’s ruling denying police his custodial interrogation.

The judge denied the application, claiming that the comments brought before him did not appear to have been presented before the Metropolitan Magistrate. He stated that the police can re-apply to the magisterial court.

(With Inputs From Agencies)