Drishtikone Newsletter #346: 'Single-handedly'!!

Nupur Sharma's statements and the aftermath are a teaching moment for Indians and Hindus in particular. The tirade by the Supreme Court justices has further underscored the danger that Indian culture and society is in. Will India be able to save itself?

Last updated on Jul 3, 2022

Posted on Jul 3, 2022

Image by Anthony-X from Pixabay
“What I should like to find is a crime the effects of which would be perpetual, even when I myself do not act, so that there would not be a single moment of my life even when I were asleep when I was not the cause of some chaos, a chaos of such proportions that it would provoke a general corruption or a disturbance so formal that even after my death its effects would still be felt.” ― Marquis de Sade

For survival, it is important to know your enemy.  But it is critical to know the depth and strength of the hate he harbors against you.

You may devise a plan to neutralize your enemy, but if you mistake the level of his hate, your plan will always be flawed and bound to backfire.

All the major civilizations and cultures in Europe, Africa, Asia, the Americas, and the Middle East made this one singular mistake.  And aren't there to speak for themselves.

There is a fundamental threat to mankind that comes from the attempts to hoist the supremacy of one set of ideas by one group of men on everyone else.

How is that done is important to know.  How those who failed to read into the real threat also need to be listened to.  Posthumously albeit.

If the hoisting of one ideology had brought peace to the planet, one could still let this entire battle go.  But the sad thing is that with the destruction of various diverse cultures which were intertwined with the planet, nature, and assimilation; humankind has only seen an increase in strife.

Civilizational desertification.


The Debate and the hounding of a woman

On May 26th, 2022 in a TV debate on Times Now, BJP Spokesperson Nupur Sharma talked about Mohammad's marriage to Aisha in retaliation to provocative and denigrating remarks against Hindu Gods by Tasleem Rahmani.

Somehow, a post was made from the phone of a tailor Kanhaiya Lal in support of Nupur Sharma.  For that, he was arrested by the Rajasthan police.  On June 15th, he came out on bail and told the police that he was receiving threat calls.  As per reports, the police intervened and mediated between the Muslims in the neighborhood and Kanhaiya Lal and "settled the matter."

Or so they thought.

On June 26th, two Muslims - Mohammad Riyaz Attari and Ghouse Mohammad - came to his shop in Dhan Mandi on the pretext of having their clothes stitched.  While he was taking the measurement of one, the other guy attacked him with a cleaver and killed him.

The videos of Kanhaiya Lal taking measurements and then killers killing him were uploaded on WhatsApp later by them, including a video where they are laughing and threatening and abusing PM Narendra Modi and Nupur Sharma.

Multiple FIRs and the Judiciary

Nine FIRs have been filed against Nupur Sharma in 4 states - Delhi, Maharashtra, West Bengal and Telangana.

  1. Pydhonie Police Station, Mumbai, Maharashtra (May 28)
  2. Cyber Cell Police Station, Hyderabad, Telangana (May 30)
  3. Mumbra Police Station, Thane, Maharashtra (May 30)
  4. Bhiwandi, Thane, Maharashtra (May 30)
  5. Kondhwa Police Station, Pune, Maharashtra (May 31)
  6. Narkeldanga Police Station, West Bengal (June 4)
  7. Delhi Police IFSO, New Delhi (June 6)
  8. Nanalpeth Police Station, Parbhani, Maharashtra (June 13)
  9. Amherst Police Station, Kolkata, West Bengal

Nupur's counsel asked to club all these FIRs into one.  This is the normal procedure in order to ensure that people are not harassed by unscrupulous people.

In fact, in January 2022, the Supreme Court even suggested a mechanism to resolve such situations in a manner similar to that in the US.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court suggested establishing a mechanism similar to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation set up in the United States. (Source)

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation determines whether civil actions pending in two or more federal judicial districts should be transferred to a single federal district court for pretrial proceedings. (Source)

Supreme Court has followed the procedure of consolidating FIRs into one FIR to obviate harassment.

In April, 2020 a FIR was lodged against the owner-editor of Republic Bharat Channel for a broadcast. The first complaint was filed on 21st April, 2020 in Chhattisgarh. However, thereafter, complaints were made in Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Telangana, Jharkhand and in the UT of Jammu and Kashmir. The accused in these complaints approach the Supreme Court of India to quash these multiple FIRs. The Supreme Court noted that the language, content and sequencing of paras in these complaints are identical. The Supreme Court decided to transfer one of the FIR filed on 22nd April, 2020 in Nagpur to Mumbai, where the owner of the channel ordinarily resides. The Supreme Court quashed the remaining FIRs on the ground that multiple FIRs cannot be filed in respect of the same incident. In another case of TV anchor, Amish Devgan, several FIRs were lodged against him in state of Rajasthan, Telangana, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh for hosting a program on 15th June, 2020. The first FIR was filed in Ajmer, Rajasthan. He approached the Supreme Court challenging the FIRs and alternatively praying to club these FIRs and transfer to Ajmer where the first FIR was filed. The Supreme Court allowed the prayer to transfer the FIR to Ajmer. (Source: Daily Guardian)

In both cases, the multiple FIRs were for TV programs and their anchors.

Supreme Court establishes Blasphemy as sine qua non

When Nupur Sharma's lawyer came with a similar appeal to the Supreme Court bench of Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala.

Just a few days after Kanhaiya Lal's assailants smiled and threatened Nupur Sharma and called her a kutiya (bitch), the Indian Supreme Court judges went on a tirade against Nupur Sharma.

These three lines from Justice Suryakant will remain the darkest lines ever uttered from the podium of the Indian Supreme Court.  Benchmark of ignominy that is difficult to even fathom.

  • Is she a threat or she has become a security threat?
  • The way she has ignited emotions across the country.
  • This lady is single-handedly responsible for what is happening in the country.

Let us analyze them.

Security Threat: What Nupur Sharma said can only and only be considered illegal or criminal if the medieval laws of Blasphemy are invoked.  Otherwise, abusing or denigrating gods or covenants should not be covered under any criminal laws of a land where there is a clear separation of State and Religion. Implicit in Justice Suryakant's rant was his attempt to uphold the theological covenants of blasphemy. Specifically, the Sharia law of blasphemy which is a more potent and damning version of the Christian common law of blasphemy.  In short, Justice Kant was irretrievably hurling the Indian judicial system to medieval times in his emotional outburst within a matter of seconds. In terms of the use of the words here, it may be important to state that at least one of the killers in Udaipur had connections with radical Islamist groups in Pakistan and probably had been there as well. (Source: Indian Express)

Ignited emotions across the country: Are emotions, Malefice, and violent conspiratorial mob reactions the benchmark for justice in India?  Supreme Court's word is akin to law of the land.  What the judge is establishing is that the Supreme Court of India will take the cues from violence, anger, abuse, and above all extreme criminality (like beheading) to base its judgments.  If that isn't the case, then why was it even important for Justice Suryakant to mention that?  Just his loose tongue?  Can a Supreme Court justice afford to be so facetious as to relegate the law of the land to the shrill din of abusers?

SINGLE-HANDEDLY: By far, this one phrase uttered by Justice Suryakant will end up being the most consequential to what happens in the future.  He is putting the burden of all the murders, violence, and abuse on one unique source - Nupur Sharma.  When Justice Kant makes Nupur Sharma squarely and singularly responsible for all the turmoil, he is suggesting that what she stated was blasphemy and that alone is what matters in this case.  Nothing else. Not the crimes.  Not the beheading.  Not the baseness of the conspiracy to go after her which is reminiscent of Charlie Hebdo.  Not even the threats to India's PM.  But her remarks, that she had complete right to make being an Indian citizen with her fundamental rights.

This, even when Nupur Sharma's remarks have been confirmed by the Imam of a masjid in Jeddah and a leading Islamic scholar, Assim AlHakeem to be correct.

Let us go further.  Because the learned judge couldn't stop himself from desecrating the highest court of the land even now.

The way she said all this: Why is this even important?  Why at all?  Are they suggesting that a person has no right to display any emotions?  That the violent mobs via their "incited emotions" are a force to reckon with and worthy of respect but a debater on national TV cannot make her point, theologically accurate, emphatically?  Does that make her a criminal?

Sub-judice topic: This is the lamest statement from the judge.  What about debates on Ayodhya?  Or Sabarimala?  Did those women who were not even devotees in the Sabarimala case but pushed for what they wanted (got paid for?) not incite emotions?  Was that a consideration in Supreme Court's dealings?  Why not?

Acts by people who are not religious: This is not just a lie but extremely irresponsible coming from the judge.  One is not sure what he is saying in the context of.  The people who filed multiple FIRs?  Or the Muslims who are baying for Nupur Sharma's blood? Or those who killed Kanhaiya Lal?  If the cases of Kanhaiya Lal, Kishan Bharwad, and Kamlesh Tiwari are any indication, then the conspiracies in such cases are multi-dimensional and involve many elements. To be so facetious about that and completely disregard the explicitly religious element that the Muslims are shouting from the rooftops about and the obvious nature of "Blasphemy" being at the root is not just ignored but wilfully suppressed! Why?

Obstinate and arrogant character: There is a word for this phrase that has legal connotations - contumelious.  You will see later why that is important in a case that is being framed by this judge to be regarding blasphemy.  Blasphemy assumes contumelious insult to religious covenants.  So the judge's use of these words in the case of Nupur Sharma is not a coincidence.  He understands what he is laying the foundation for!

Mauling the Freedom of Speech

After laying the foundation for Blasphemy laws as stipulated in Sharia and medieval Christian covenants to be applied to Nupur Sharma, the judge then goes on to maul the very basis of the right to Freedom of Speech.

Without respect to the law of the land: Just because Nupur Sharma is the spokesperson of a party (and has "backup power" - sounds like a competitive argument against the party of the country's executive), the judge states "she can .... make any statement without respect to the law of the land". Which law, pray, did she violate by her statement?  Blasphemy?  That is NOT the law.  If he is referring to the Hate Speech law, then that was already breached by Nupur's opponent as well.  How is her crime bigger than Rehmani's?  Unless of course Hate Speech, like Blasphemy in Muslim or Christian majority countries pertain only to remarks or actions against Islam and Christianity while other religions are not protected under those laws.

Grass has the right to grow, Donkey has the right to eat: What is this supposed to mean?  That in a democracy anyone can say anything, while those offended can kill whoever they disagree with? If Free Speech is the grass, then is the Donkey Supreme Court or the mobs who attack free speech?  If it is the latter, then the judge is justifying terror!  If it is the former, then he is saying that the court has a right to curb free speech per its whims and fancy.  The fact is that free speech limitations can only be brought upon within the framework of the Constitution!  And, the Constitution cannot be a "donkey"!

There is nothing like that principle of law:  Not only has the Supreme Court pushed to look into this in January, and made this the cornerstone of at least two judgments, but multiple courts have also expressed a similar principle.  Delhi High Court in September 2021 (Source: The Hindu) and Punjab and Haryana High Court in May 2022 (Source: The Tribune).  So how is the judge refuting that principle now even when the counsel is sharing a valid argument?

Approach all the High Courts: Isn't that what Nupur Sharma was trying to avoid?  Apart from the legal part, Nupur Sharma faces an imminent threat in West Bengal.  The Chief Minister has openly targeted Nupur Sharma and chided the Delhi Government for not arresting her. (Source)  Not just that, the West Bengal Assembly has passed a censure motion against Nupur Sharma. (Source)  If she presents herself in Bengal, she is sure to be arrested.  As one would have it, the Kolkata Police with complete disregard for Nupur's life has issued a "lookout circular".

Source

Freedom of a Journalist Vs Freedom of a "Political spokesperson": How is the job of a person important when the Freedoms and Rights are concerned under the Indian constitution?  This is a faux caste/class system being perpetrated by the Indian Supreme Court now.  When it comes to protection under the Indian laws, it would be a travesty if the courts refer to a person's job description before making statements.  That Nupur's job had no bearing on the threats that she is receiving is evident from what happened in the cases of Kamlesh Tiwari and Kishan Bharwad.

Red Carpet!: That Nupur Sharma was not hauled into the Police Station with complete disregard to her safety, is a sign of a "Red Carpet"?  Salman Rushdie was in hiding for 9 long years when the fatwa was brought out against him.  Was that a "red carpet"?  Is it not the duty of the courts to safeguard the lives of Indian citizens first and foremost?  Is Justice Kant knowingly underplaying the threat to Nupur's life, specifically in the aftermath of so many killings because of her?  It is akin to signing her death warrant.

In the end, the judges passed this order.  It had no mention to anything that was blurted out in the court!

Delivering Death Penalty for Blasphemy

To state that Nupur Sharma was "single-handedly" responsible for how the Muslims are reacting and killing people who even utter a word in support of her shows that the judge was painstakingly making an argument for her having committed Blasphemy.

Worse, in Justice Suryakant's eyes, Nupur committed Blasphemy in the Sharia context.

And in his wisdom laced with anger and an intemperate look at the situation, he is now convinced that she needs to die.

For, only a naive fool would put her in a situation where she is arrested by the West Bengal police and exposed to the hungry Jihadis who have become all-powerful in that state.

The hatred that Trinamool Congress and its leadership (specifically Mamata Bannerjee) harbors against BJP and its workers is sickening and well known.

Sources: NDTV , NDTV-2, India Today, The New Indian Express, The Hindu, Times of India

What fate the Supreme Court justices are condemning Nupur Sharma to cannot be unknown to them.

There is only one consequence of the judgment and the rantings of the Supreme Court justices:

Death Penalty for Blasphemy under Sharia rules

On July 1st, 2022 - that's the real judgment that the Supreme Court Justices Suryakant and Pardiwala really delivered.  Rest is semantics.


Blasphemy and its history

On June 11, 1811 - in the Court of Oyer and Terminer in the Washington County a man named John Ruggles was found guilty and Justice Ambrose Spencer sentenced him to three months in prison and a $500 fine.  His offense?

In a crowded tavern in Salem, New York he uttered the following in a loud voice:

"Jesus Christ was a bastard, and his mother must be a whore."

He was arrested and charged with blasphemy.

In August 1811, the Supreme Court of Judicature heard the appeal and John Wendell, the counsel for Ruggles tried to differentiate between how the Church and State were one in England versus the Constitutionality within New York which explicitly separated the Church and State with the provisions that allowed "free toleration to all religions and all kinds of worship".  

The opposing counsel Gold, however, argued that after all the New York state had adopted the English common law as it stood in 1776 into its constitution.  Moreover, blasphemy was an "ancient" common law that was independent of any established Church.

Chief Justice James Kent is considered one of the best Justices in the history of the United States.  He was appointed as the Chief Justice of the New York Supreme Court i 1804 in an era where the New York Supreme Court was more influential than the United States Supreme Court itself.  He also was the first professor of law at Columbia which was the oldest institution of higher learning and had been founded as King's College as early as 1754.  

Justice Kent held Ruggles guilty.

Routledge Revivals: Religion and American Law (2006) (Source)

A few things came out of this judgment:

  1. Blasphemy was to deny the "being or providence of God, contumelious reproaches of Christ; profane scoffing at the Holy scripture or exposing it to contempt or ridicule"
  2. Because of that, Ruggles' remarks were illegal.
  3. Blasphemy existed independent of any Church or rights thereof.
  4. Because of common law, the British provisions with respect to blasphemy were still in "full force" - because they tend to corrupt the public morals and "destroy the good order".
  5. Also, these religious (Christian) principles helped bind a society together.
  6. More importantly, these principles were applicable only to attacks on Christianity, not on "similar attacks upon the religion of Mahomet or of the Grand Lama" or their doctrines or worship.
  7. Why? Because they are imposters.

America was basically a nation created by Christians by wiping out the Native Americans in that era.  So, the fact that Christian theology and sensibilities triumphed over all other sentiments may seem fine.  It was not until 1843 that John Tyler, the then US President wrote in a letter about how he saw equality amongst religions and the whole concept of separation of state and religion.

The United States have adventured upon a great and noble experiment, which is believed to have been hazarded in the absence of all previous precedent—that of total separation of Church and State. No religious establishment by law exists among us. The conscience is left free from all restraint and each is permitted to worship his Maker after his own judgement. The offices of the Government are open alike to all. No tithes are levied to support an established Hierarchy, nor is the fallible judgement of man set up as the sure and infallible creed of faith. The Mahommedan, if he will to come among us would have the privilege guaranteed to him by the constitution to worship according to the Koran; and the East Indian might erect a shrine to Brahma if it so pleased him. Such is the spirit of toleration inculcated by our political Institutions.... The Hebrew persecuted and down trodden in other regions takes up his abode among us with none to make him afraid.... and the Aegis of the Government is over him to defend and protect him. Such is the great experiment which we have tried, and such are the happy fruits which have resulted from it; our system of free government would be imperfect without it. (Source: The Atlantic)

In the current world, however, the nations cannot uphold the sensibilities of one religious group more important than others.

At the heart of all the aggression that have come throughout the history of last 2000 years as well as today from the followers of Abrahamic religions for what they term as "insulting their religion and covenants" is the concept of Blasphemy.

Blasphemy is derived from the word in Classical Greek - blasphemein - which means "to speak ill of".

The Catholic Encyclopedia defines Blasphemy as something that denotes derogation of the honor due to a creature as well as of that belonging to God.

"Treason against God" Fr Terence McKenna (Source)

Contumacious - or being contemptuous of God.  It is similar to the word used by Justice Kent - Contumelious.  Both come from the same root in Latin - Contumax and became the root for the word "Contempt". (Source)

When the early Christians were asserting their power to destroy the Greek and Roman Pagan religions and ways, Blasphemy - or its complimentary word "Heresy" was - was the most potent tool.

To fully understand how it was done, we may like to read about the Arjeplog blasphemy trial of 1687.

In the northern parts of Norway, Sweden, Finland, and of the Murmansk Oblast, Russia - the people were known Laplanders. This areas was inhabited by Finno-Ugric speaking people calls Sami. During the late 17th century, when Christianization of the Sami people was in full swing in Sweden; two Sami - Erik Eskilsson and Amund Thorsson - were charged with blasphemy. Many people during this time would keep both their religions - their traditional Sami and Christianity - attending the Church. In one of Christian sermon, the priest started attacking the Sami religion. These two guys - Eskilsson and Thorsson - openly objected and said they will not abandon the religion of their ancestors. The priest visited their home along with a Christian Sami and vandalized their altar and took away the Sami drum by force. The two guys followed him and got back their drum. The priest reported them for blasphemy and called for a death sentence. Reason: Sami would never be truly Christian unless such "weeds" were exterminated. Since they were of a different religion than Christianity and they had insulted the clergyman, they had to go through a trial. Erik Eskilsson was finally freed after he abandoned his religion and converted to Christianity and gave back his drum. Nothing is recorded of Amund Thorsson.

This theme, this methodology was used by St Augustine to destroy the Pagans in Greece as well.

Source: The Darkening Age 

If you see the dynamics between the Christians of that time and the Pagans - the scenario is not too different from the dichotomy between the Abrahamic combination of Islam and Christianity versus Hinduism in India.  Even the narratives are similar.

Throughout the earlier period of Christianity, Blasphemy carried the punishment of Capital Punishment (by stoning or hanging) based on Mark 3:29 (blaspheming the Holy Spirit is an eternal sin), Matthew 9:2–3 (where Jesus forgave sins but accused a paralytic of blasphemy), and Leviticus 24:13-16.

The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 14 “Take the blasphemer outside the camp, and let all who were within hearing lay their hands on his head, and let the whole congregation stone him. 15 And speak to the Israelites, saying: Anyone who curses God shall incur guilt. 16 One who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall be put to death; the whole congregation shall stone the blasphemer. Aliens as well as the native-born, when they blaspheme the Name, shall be put to death. (Source)

Hanging for blasphemy happened as late as January 1697.  Of Thomas Aikenhead - basically for denying the veracity of the Old Testament and the legitimacy of Christ's miracles.

As late as the last decade, Christian majority states had active Blasphemy laws.

  • Denmark: Abolished in 2017 (Source)
  • Finland, Germany, Greece: abolished in 2019
  • Italy and Malta: abolished in 2016
  • Netherlands: abolished in 2014
  • Norway: abolished in 2016.

As much as the Christian populations have taken a softer approach to Blasphemy over the recent years, the Islamic take on crimes related to Blasphemy continues unabated.

What is truly evil and unacceptable is the domination of infidels over true believers. For true believers to rule misbelievers is proper and natural, since this provides for the maintenance of the holy law, and gives the misbelievers both the opportunity and the incentive to embrace the true faith. But for misbelievers to rule over true believers is blasphemous and unnatural, since it leads to the corruption of religion and morality in society, and to the flouting or even the abrogation of God's law. This may help us to understand the current troubles in such diverse places as Ethiopian Eritrea, Indian Kashmir, Chinese Sinkiang, and Yugoslav Kossovo, in all of which Muslim populations are ruled by non-Muslim governments. It may also explain why spokesmen for the new Muslim minorities in Western Europe demand for Islam a degree of legal protection which those countries no longer give to Christianity and have never given to Judaism. Nor, of course, did the governments of the countries of origin of these Muslim spokesmen ever accord such protection to religions other than their own. In their perception, there is no contradiction in these attitudes. The true faith, based on God's final revelation, must be protected from insult and abuse; other faiths, being either false or incomplete, have no right to any such protection. (Source: The Atlantic)

Islam and Blasphemy

Blasphemy within Islam has been addressed in many different ways.  While there are the obvious cases of Charlie Hebdo, Salman Rushdie, and Samuel Paty where people were killed due to perceived blasphemy; the "scholars" in Western countries have other interpretations.

In the aftermath of Samuel Paty's killing, for example, this was a discussion on the response to Blasphemy.

Dr. Shabir explains that classical interpretations of Islam make it a crime to criticize religion, but this is contrary to the way blasphemy is treated in the #Quran, where the #blasphemer has the freedom to blaspheme. The Quran doesn’t say that the blasphemer should be penalized in this life. Instead, the Quran repeats the insults and engages with them and correcting them. The violent person, Dr. Shabir explains, misrepresents the Prophet Muhammad and Islam.

Take a listen.

But let us turn to a more authoritative source - Ash-Shifa of Qadi ‘Iyad.  It is a handbook on the life of Mohammad.

There were several incidents in Mohammad's life where the consequence of any insult or curse against him was death.

Ash Shifa as translated by Aisha Abdurrahman Bewley (Source)

When a case came of insult to Abu Bakr, the pronouncement was very clear - any other insults could be tolerated but not an insult to Mohammad.

That is why the final take on blasphemy is very clear in this book.

Because upholding the Prophet's honor is an obligation owed by his entire community and anyone who curses a free man of his community is given a hadd-punishment, the punishment of someone who curses the Prophet is that he is to be is killed because of the immensity of the worth of the Prophet and his elevation over others.

That is where the actions of some in the Islamic community are based.

The curse of Blasphemy in India

India is a country where there are no explicit laws against blasphemy.  However, the Indian Penal Code (IPC) has provisions (Sections 154, 295, 295A, 296, 297, and 298), with jail sentences ranging from one year to three years) for the insult to a religious group or creating communal tension and violence.

The lack of explicit Blasphemy laws has not stopped the Muslim community from carrying out executions for what they consider blasphemy.

Let us consider a few cases important cases:

Kishan Bharwad: Killed for Truth as Blasphemy

Kishan Bharwad was 27 years with a month-old toddler in the Dhandhuka district of Ahmedabad, Gujarat.  He shared a video on Facebook on January 6 that showed the image of Mohammed and showed Lord Jesus saying he is God’s son, Mohammed as saying he is God’s Prophet, and Shri Krishna as saying he is God himself.  Theologically, these are facts.

There was an outrage against him from the Muslims and an FIR was filed against him.  The police picked him up and he was made to apologize to the Muslim youth.

But apparently, that was not enough.

On January 25th, 2022, when he finally left his house after his release from police custody, Shabbir Chopda and Imtiaz Pathan came on a bike and shot him (Source).  A Maulana - Qamar Gani Islami - was in touch with the two killers.  Chopda had been following Islami on social media and had met him as well.  Islami provided him with the weapon to kill Kishan.

Source: Times of India

Not just Kishan, the Maulana had 26 profiles who according to him had insulted Islam and were on his target.

Please note a few things about this case:

  1. Kishan's post was not created by him.  He merely shared.
  2. He was arrested by police and made to apologize to the Muslims
  3. He was killed nevertheless
  4. An entire ecosystem of Muslims - average, next-door, Muslims - was activated and the weapon was procured and delivered by a Maulana from Delhi to Ahmedabad for the murder
  5. The list for more targets was there and the intention was present too - as Kishan's murder showed.

This is not a small happening.

Kamlesh Tiwari: Thrown to the dogs

In November 2015, India's then Finance Minister Arun Jaitley stated that Supreme Court should reconsider its decision to uphold Section 377 (concerning Gays and Lesbians) and decriminalize homosexuality in India. (Source)  To this, Azam Khan, a lout as he is, retorted that leaders of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) were homosexuals as they did not marry. (Source)  To this Kamlesh Tiwari called Mohammad the first homosexual in the world. (Source)

He was jailed as he was charged under the National Security Act (Source).  He remained jailed for a few months and then released.

On October 18th, 2019, Farid-ud-din Shaikh and Ashfak Shaikh came dressed in saffron kurtas with a box of mithai and they shot him and then slit his throat.  As per the post-mortem report, he was stabbed 15 times. (Source)

Please note a few things in Kamlesh's case:

  1. Even when a person who commits blasphemy against Islam, as perceived by the Muslims, is given the punishment by the law enforcement agencies, the Muslims do not let him get away.
  2. They will wait, plan, and then kill.

Umesh Kolhe: Killed by a friend of 16 years for blasphemy

Umesh Kolhe was a Chemist in Maharashtra's Amravati.  He made a post in support of Nupur Sharma, just like Kanhaiya Lal. On June 21, a week before Kanhaiya Lal was killed, Umesh Kolhe was stabbed to death while he was returning home on his scooter after shutting his medical shop near Ghantaghar in the Shyam Chowk area. (Source)  All he did was share a post to support Nupur Sharma.  And his friend of 16 years betrayed him and hatched a plan to kill him.  Worse, he even attended his last rites!

More than ten days after a chemist was killed in Maharashtra's Amravati, his younger brother, Mahesh Kolhe, claimed that he was friends with one of the accused, Yusuf Khan. He further said that Khan also attended his last rites.  The accused, Yusuf Khan, was a member of the WhatsApp group, named Black Freedom, to which Umesh was also added. The latter forwarded a post supporting Nupur Sharma to this group, after which Yusuf Khan sent that post to another group, named Rahbariya Group, to which the killer and mastermind, Irfan, was added. A conspiracy to kill Kolhe was allegedly hatched after this incident. Meanwhile, the post-mortem report on Sunday revealed that his brain nerve, breathing tube, food pipe and eye vein were damaged due to the knife attack. (Source: India Today)

Yusuf Khan was not just an illiterate idiot.  He was a practicing veterinarian.

The real intent of Blasphemy:

As the destruction of the Pagan communities around the world by the Christian and Islamic adherents in human history shows, the real intent of Blasphemy is to pave the way for dominance and complete rule.

There is only ONE objective of Blasphemy provisions promoted by any group - Complete annihilation of the competing groups and Unbridled Domination by the group sought to be protected. Anything else is mere hogwash.

So when the Indian courts acquiesce to the implementation of the fundamental covenants of Blasphemy to the advantage and protection of one group while penalizing all others, they are setting the stage for the destruction of the native culture and civilization.

That should be very clear.  There is no other way to say it.

That is why any society which has the hope and intent to live should be very clear in how it handles blasphemy.

Video Corner: How Hawaii was Stolen by the US

Hawaii is on the bucket list of every traveler.  It is literally heaven in the eyes of those who have visited the place.

What is its history?  It would be important to know how US conquered the place and annexed it from the local native population.

Share on

Tags

Subscribe to see what we're thinking

Subscribe to get access to premium content or contact us if you have any questions.

Subscribe Now