Some events in history become an inflexion point for the whole of humanity. These shake us to the core and force us to make drastic changes to accommodate the after-fall of these momentous events. The recent statements, allegations of Blasphemy and the controversies around it, forces us as a living society to introspect. So, that these unfortunate and totally avoidable mishaps don’t repeat and nobody takes Law and order in their own hands.
Why is Samuel Paty’s beheading back in the news?
Ever since the debate on Gyanvapi-Shringar Gauri complex aired, the panellists were accused of insulting each other’s faith and hurting religious sentiments. But aren’t these charges of hurting religious sentiments turning into a one way street? Evidently, the debate after that has been high-jacked and the allegations of Blasphemy have overshadowed the demeaning comments about Hindu Gods and derogatory comparisons. The vitriolic comments, statements and calls for ‘beheading’ Nupur Sharma has forced us to look back to the unfortunate case of Samuel Paty, the similarities and need for proactive steps to avoid the same drastic fate.
Also Read: What Macron saw today was said by Savarkar decades back
Who was Samuel Paty and the controversy around him?
Do you remember Samuel Paty? A French teacher who was hacked to death by one radical Islamist. What was Paty’s crime? He was alleged to show a demeaning caricature of Prophet Mohammad and committing Blasphemy. The charges against him were later on found to be malicious and frivolous. The school girl who had started all these rumours of blasphemy against Paty accepted that she lied about the claims of Islamophobia.
Now that the charges of Islamophobia and Blasphemy against Paty are found to be false, can he be brought back to life? Obviously not. Didn’t Samuel Paty deserve a chance to live and have a fair trial? After all, everyone deserves a chance for a fair trial.
The charges of Blasphemy may be correct in a few cases but who will decide the veracity of these claims? Politicians? Media panellists? Keyboard warriors? Anonymous internet guys who are nothing more than trollers or by the honourable courts?
Law has to change or at least be followed without a Bias
The law is just a piece of paper, biassed and a sham if it doesn’t follow the same yardstick in every case. Let me jog your memory a little. Do you remember Kamlesh Tiwari and Munawar Farruqui? Both of them were alleged of hurting the religious sentiments of other communities. But the fate suffered by both of them is different. Why? Because the law seems to be succumbing to mobocracy and anarchy.
Read More: Kamlesh Tiwari- former Hindu Mahasabha leader, murdered in the most gruesome way
Why the hell in a civilised society rallies calling for beheading someone are allowed and no penal actions are taken against the attendees? We are talking about Sir-tan-se-juda rallies. Because of political compulsions and pressure from the Mulsim brotherhood from around the World, it gives them a free pass for everything in the name of religion and allegations of blasphemy. So, it is the need of the hour to make laws more stringent and make it applicable without any political or other norms into play.
Read More: France will now reshape Islam as per French values
Since, we are noticing many similarities between recent developments and Samuel Paty’s case, we must act like the way France did after the unfortunate beheading of Paty. Though it is a fact that every nation has its own traditions, ways to tackle problems and different equations to look after before taking actions, the intent has to be the same as the problem is not only ours but of the whole world and hence can’t be seen in isolation.
This one way street in cases of hurting religious sentiments should be changed. While the law is yet to decide on Nupur Sharma, the other panellist of that infamous debate and attendees of provocative communal rallies giving open calls for beheading should be brought to books. As it is high time to set a clear precedent that all controversial matters should and would be decided by the legal system not by the whims and fancies of radicalised mobs. Everyone has a right to have a fair trial and be judged according to the law of the land and not by the pressure of a radicalised mob.