Rhea Chakraborty recently opened up about her side of the story, speaking about Sushant Singh Rajput’s tryst with drugs, his relationship with his family and even the many financial allegations being levelled against her. While her point of view has changed a few opinions, Shekhar Suman, who has been campaigning justice for
Sushant Singh Rajput, expressed displeasure with against Rhea Chakraborty’s explosive revelations. In an exclusive interaction with ETimes,
Shekhar Suman raised several counter questions against Rhea Chakraborty.
‘Rhea Chakraborty went into hiding for 70 days, it ended now?’
She slandered and vilified their image completely. I strongly feel that everybody should be given a chance to speak. So that's fair enough that, she was given an opportunity. I'm not against that because they always two sides and we must hear both the sides of the story. We cannot just say that somebody is a convict, we can say that the person is a suspect but nothing beyond that. So under the circumstances, she seems a little suspicious, which was why there were certain allegations and she should have come out right in the beginning and cleared whatever she had to. The fact that she went into hiding for about 70 days, citing emotional reasons, and the fact that she respected Sushant, et cetera, then what prompted her to come out now? I mean, the respect should have continued or did it end now? What happened?
‘Rhea should not have spoken about Sushant doing drugs’
Giving her the benefit of the doubt from right in the beginning, I thought, she's getting a fair chance to speak. But you could see through the web of lies and especially when it came to the drug part of it, and that's where the veil fell. There were chats where she was asking the peddler about the stuff and with a straight face she said I didn't do drugs and would not like to talk about it because my matter is sub-judice and when asked if Sushant did drugs and she said yes. Rhea was trying to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds, that cannot happen. If you said that the CBI thing is going on, then you should not have spoken about Sushant either. If you loved him too much, you should not have spoken about somebody who's dead and gone. Even if it was the truth that he was doing it, you as a lover would have hidden the fact. He is dead and gone, he is not going to come back and defend himself.
‘From all the angles, Rhea seemed like a miss goody –two-shoes’
Rhea brought so much of disrepute and dishonor, right from character assassination to everything. She painted the family with the wrong brush, picking each one of them. Rhea said that Sushant was never abusive in the relationship and on the other hand she says that he gets up on the morning of June 8 and says get out and he was shouting. Why did you leave him if you loved him so much in the condition that he was. You would probably make more efforts to stay back, what kind of love are you talking about? Then Rhea says that Sushant’s relationship with father was not right, they hadn't met for five years, thereby saying that the father was also bad and the son was also bad. So basically it was a dysfunctional family? Secondly, Rhea said that the sister was groping me inappropriately. That means she was a drunkard and a queer, with no character? Third thing is the brother in law and his wife, the eldest sister. That why were they laughing and enjoying lunch instead of filing a complaint. So towards the end, whichever angle you see, Rhea was like ten on ten, miss goody two shoes, with a squeaky clean, perfect lover image. While Sushant was depressive, hypomaniac, bipolar, claustrophobic, drug addict, insensitive and his family was after the money, so all of that was in such bad taste. It just looks like Rhea was trying to exonerate herself, exculpate and put the entire blame on the family and Sushant. So it seemed absolutely bizarre.
Comments (0)