On June 8, during a debate on Times Now, Islamic ‘scholars’ and communist panellists refused to condemn calls for beheading by a Muslim fundamentalist. In Times Now show ‘India Upfront’ hosted by anchor and editor-in-chief of the channel Rahul Shivashankar, the discussion was on the threats issued by terrorist organization Al-Qaeda against former BJP Spokesperson Nupur Sharma’s remarks.
Activist Sushil Pandit, Chairman of Aarin Capital Mohandas Pai, Author Dr Anand Ranganathan, former State Vice President Samajwadi Yuvjan Sabha and political analyst Syed Masoodul Hasan, AIMIM social media administrator and political analyst Zubair Memon and Communist leader and politician Vivek Srivastava were among the panellists.
During the debate, Dr Ranganathan requested Rahul to question the panellists if they condemned the calls for beheading over alleged blasphemy. He said, “There is no meaning of shouting at each other. Let’s make it clear right now with a single question. We have six panellists. Just ask the simple question to all six of us. ‘Do you condemn the slogan Gustakh-e-Rasool Ki Ek Hi Saza, Sar Tan Se Juda’? Yes or No?” Mohandas Pai and Sushil Pandit did not take a second to condemn the slogan. However, Hasan, Memon and Srivastava had different thoughts.
While Hassan and Memon bluntly said, “Not at all”, Vivek said, “Depends on who spoke it and in what context.” Srivastava did not openly condemn the slogan.
Amused by the reaction, Rahul asked Vivek, “Will you support blasphemy law if someone insults any one religion should be beheaded? When Kalbhurgi, Dabolkar, Lankesh, and Pansare allegedly insulted Hindu sentiments. Should they also be beheaded?” Vivek justified the statements given by the so-called rationalists and liberal personalities, saying that there was a difference.
He said, “There is a difference. Dabolkar was not a mischievous man. Gauri Lankesh was not a disturbing element. They believed in the constitution of the nation. I am a communist. I do not believe in Hinduism or Islam. But however, if mischievous remarks are made without any quest for rationality. You can go and sit with a Maulana and discuss. But that was not your intention. Your intention was to insult Islam and create a communal problem. Show Muslims in a bad light. Show Quran in a bad light. And disturb the communal harmony of the nation.”
As Vivek had mentioned the constitution in his remarks, Rahul reminded it does not promise absolute freedom of speech. He added the constitution does not allow anyone, including rationalists or atheists, to insult anyone’s feelings.
Countering Vivek, Dr Ranganathan said, “I want to ask him, ‘Do you condemn the internment of one and a half million Uyghur Muslims in concentration camps in China. That China is forcibly sterilizing them? That China is feeding them pork. Making them drink alcohol. Do you condemn?”
Vivek refused to condemn China and said, “I will not condemn because I don’t think that is happening. It is a developed country.”
Mohandas Pai argued that in a liberal society, there is no space for anti-blasphemy laws. He said, “Anti-blasphemy law has no place in a liberal democracy. Let us be very clear about it. It is a medieval law brought in at a point time when societies were run as theocracies, and it has no place in a liberal democracy. We should not have it as a law.”
He added, “However, in India, we have to defend the religious sensibilities of any religion. We need to be careful. Some people sometimes say things which offend people. They have the right to protest against such offences irrespective of who they are. But nobody has the right to provoke violence. Nobody has the right to threaten. Nobody has the right to say they are going to cut your throat. If they do, they must need the force of law.” He further added those that who are going on the streets and threatening people should be booked and thrown in jail as they do not have a place in our society.”
When asked about his views on people threatening others over alleged blasphemy, Sushil Pandit said, “Far from threatening others, we have been patiently waiting for three decades for justice to be delivered. It is not about laws, it is not about democracy, [and] it is not about freedom of speech. I believe, yes, laws are only as good as they are abided by and so long as there is a system to stand by and give cost and consequences to those who do not abide by those laws.” He questioned why the system was not saving those who were being threatened.
The controversy around Nupur Sharma
During a debate on Times Now on the Gyanvapi controversy, former spokesperson of BJP Nupur Sharma remarked on Prophet Muhammad in retaliation against Muslim panellist who was continuously abusing Bhagwan Shiv. Her remarks were taken out of context by the likes of Alt News’ Mohammed Zubair, and multiple campaigns were initiated against her.
The whole controversy swirled into international propaganda against India after an online campaign ran for 2-3 days on Twitter and other social media platforms. In the end, BJP suspended Nupur Sharma pending an inquiry, but the threats and statements against Sharma and India did not stop. In the latest updates, the terror organization Al-Qaeda has issued a threat to India over Sharma’s remarks.
