The tenet of free expression is the most often advocated postulate of liberalism in the world. It is the one principle that finds a spot everywhere in this world ranging from apex courts of countries to social media posts across major platforms. Especially, social media has gained massive attention because of its capacity to allow everyone to voice their opinions to a larger audience than ever. However, what most people, or rather, a subset of people, forget is that the right to express comes with a prerequisite i.e., tolerance.
The recent brutal killing of a 26-year-old Hindu named Harsha, allegedly over a social media post, exposes the one-sided interpretation of this notion of freedom of expression. It throws open before us the arena of recurring abuse of the notion of freedom of expression without regard for tolerance. Harsha was reportedly murdered for defending uniformity in dress code in educational institutions against students who demanded that hijab be permitted in classrooms. This is the irony. One side is lauded and supported in court for exercising personal liberty and displaying religious identity, while the other is stabbed to death for expressing solidarity over uniformity in educational institutions.
Kishan Bharwad was murdered for social media posts
Kishan Bharwad in Gujrat was assassinated in a similar fashion for similar reasons by a group of Muslims. The murder of Kishan Bharwad exposes the surreptitious endorsement of the notion of freedom of expression without regard for tolerance by a community that claims itself to be peaceful. Kishan was murdered because he wrote something that some Muslims found offensive, and as a result, they killed him. How simple it appears to be. Slay anybody who disagrees with you, yet defend your deeds of causing hindrance in the life of others under the veil of free expression. Finally, if anybody questions you, pummel them with a fist full of “I am being oppressed.”
And this isn’t the first introduction of this thing to the world. This is the actual modus operandi being put in action. We are all familiar with the Charlie Hebdo incident in Paris, in which two Muslims stormed the offices of the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo and murdered more than a dozen people only because the publication published a satirical cartoon of the Islamic Prophet.
It is not strange for Hindus who are denied to use loudspeakers in temples but loud Azaan is echoed in loud volumes in the name of integral religious practice. The contradiction here is that, despite such discriminatory practices, the courts advise Hindus to be tolerant!
Prakash attacked just for smiley emojis
Another new case of such a targeted attack has come to be known in which a group of people attacked a young man named Prakash Lonare just because he posted “smiley” emoticons in a post having reference to Tipu Sultan. This is what we have attained as a society in which only Hindus get killed for expressing their opinions and the others have only one card to play i.e., victim.
Keeping aside others, if we talk about the Muslim community, we can find that the incidents having their involvement is specifically attributed to them being hurt over some comment or post made on any social media platform. And it is not strange that Quran itself says that a non-believer is the worst of creatures and is but to be brought to death. The verse from the Quran’s Al-Anfal chapter clearly states that disbelievers (non-Muslims) are to be beheaded and their fingers chopped. This is what is manifesting through the deaths of Kamlesh Tiwari, Kishan Bharwad, Rupesh Pandey, and now maybe Harsha. This is the paradox that murder is justified as freedom of expression and a social media timeline post is called discriminatory and offensive!
‘Terror has no religion’, but showing convicted terrorists is ‘offensive’ to Muslims
The ambidexterity of this endorsement of the tenet of free speech is clearly visible when people are killed for social media posts that are unpalatable to a certain group, but a post celebrating the judiciary’s victory in convicting terrorists involved in bomb blasts is made to be taken down by reporting it offensive. The BJP Gujrat tweet was removed because it offended some people, despite regular reminders by the same people that terrorism has no religion, whereas Harsha was reportedly stabbed to death by a bunch of Tipu Sultan loyalists.
The saddest aspect is that even the state apparatus has failed to safeguard Hindus from such attacks. Because of the Indian state’s long history of apathy toward Hindus, the community has been left at the mercy of others. A court encouraging Hindus to be tolerant while offering amplified opportunities to peddle victimhood to other communities is the bias that pervades the entire system. The fact that a community that has waited for generations for legal possession of the Ram Janambhoomi is being preached tolerance is what bolsters the fact that just because they are the majority population, Hindus getting murdered, lynched, looted and raped will never be deemed worthy of attention, but some mere tweets and Facebook posts that allegedly offend a perpetually offended and angry community will be seen as ‘oppression’.
People getting slain over social media posts show how there is nothing left as freedom of expression for Hindus in India. It is a notion that is just valid for anyone but not Hindu. Every expression of opinion against Hindus is justified, whether it is done in jest by abusing Hindu deities, as Munawar Faruqui did, or by ordinary Muslims who refer to Hindus as “cow piss drinkers,” but any post made by a Hindu that refers to any Islamic entity is scrutinized rigorously on all levels, fuelling the hollow concept of Islamophobia. The other side kills, riots, burns and rapes over vague allegations of ‘blasphemy’ on mere social media posts, but it is the Hindu that gets branded as intolerant, fascist, oppressive and violent.
