The first-year college student of Jharkhand, Richa Bharti had no qualms to be politically correct and asked a question which figures in everyone’s mind but few dare to voice it. The average Indian girl voiced her opinion on a FaceBook post.
Unfortunately for her, the freedom to speech and expression in our country comes with its own set of reasonable restrictions, restrictions that ensure that such thoughts are only voiced in confined places, or best left unsaid for fear of eavesdroppers. For if they are put up on a public platform, they might lead the individual perpetrating the thoughts, to a Richa Bharti case.
In a reversal of fortunes, Richa Bharti, attempted to voice her opinion on the illegal and immoral video, in which one social media celebrity Faisal Shaikh decided to call upon the Muslims to orchestrate communal violence on the Hindus by stating, that when tomorrow, Tabrez Ansari’s progeny comes to extract revenge, don’t call him a Muslim terrorist.
Having the naivety and innocence of a teenager, Richa Bharti wondered why the urge of revenge and terrorism arises only in the Muslims? Why is it that the Kashmiri Pandits, thousands of whom were killed and ousted from the Kashmir valley, never sought to seek revenge through terrorism?
Unfortunately for her, she just crossed over to the loosely defined purview of “reasonable restrictions” and her statement was not construed from a logical point of view and was rather perceived to have “disturbed the communal harmony of the society”. The young girl did not fathom that while her question may be reasonable, and was essentially stating the obvious, such things are not supposed to be brought on a public platform. The ‘perpetually in-danger’ ‘secular fabric’ frowns upon it. This ignorance of the worldly affairs got her exactly what an unabashed question like hers deserved- a court case.
“Justice is fair”, they say, “justice does not discriminate”, they say. But to those whose opinions may differ tend not to see justice as reasonable and this case is one of the most glaring instances of that.
Young Richa Bharti was granted bail in the case. She was directed deposit two sureties of Rs. 7,000 each. While this was acceptable by her, what wasn’t acceptable was the other bail condition of the honorable court- a direction to gift a copy of the Quran to complainant Mansur Khalifa and further distribute five copies of the Quran to schools and colleges.
While the naïve would think that the punishment ‘does befit’ the ‘crime’, it is far more complicated than an apparent ‘irony of justice’. Richa Bharti feels some may argue quite rightly so, it is a gross violation of her fundamental right to freedom as being a devout Hindu by religion, a right granted by the Constitution, she feels this judgment is restrictive to that end. She expressed her displeasure at the judgment by stating that she does not want to do it. “Tomorrow the court may ask me to offer Namaz or convert to Islam.” She further questioned, “Has any Muslim, who has time and again insulted the Sanatan Dharama been told to read the Hunuman Chalisa or Ramayana?” Richa Bharti also called out to the seculars by stating, “Every time the Muslims do something, they say ‘hum to Muslim hai, humko Muslim samajhke kar diya Hindustan mein’.”
Such clarity of thought, the conviction of faith, tenacity to stand up for what she believes in and the unflinching belief in free speech and expression in a young girl are indeed admirable traits. She isn’t a leader or a journalist and does not have any ulterior motives. Not only did she have strong views but also carried forward the same zeal through her entire ordeal of arrest and judgment. In the end, all she did was state the one thing perhaps the entire world is aware of but dare not utter.
