Recently, Madison Square Veteran Rajdeep Sardesai has produced what may be the most despicable article in recent times, spitting in the face of Hindus and telling them why the murder of Prashant Poojary in Mangalore does not deserve the same outrage level as that of the lynching in Dadri:
First of all, let me remark that the existence of an article like this is in itself a victory for Hindu nationalists and possibly more so for nationalists on Social Media. At least they have been cornered enough to respond! Previously, the slaughter of Hindus would be ignored by media Mameluks with a confident and condescending smile. Now they are responding….which means the liberals sense that the charge of selective outrage is beginning to stick.
This is what we wanted, really. While they stayed silent on killings of Hindus, they could hide behind general disclaimers like “we condmen all violence”. Now they are annoyed enough to come out and justify themselves. And in laying out their justification for ignoring deaths of Hindus, they are automatically compelled to present their bigotry explicitly. It’s the confession we wanted! Hurray!
I am not angry with Rajdeep’s article. I am happy. For the first time, a prominent liberal has come out and presented explicit reasons for ignoring the killing of a Hindu. I hope many more liberals join in and elaborate on this theme. Here is the heart of Rajdeep’s article:
“But when we seek to compare two instances without even bothering to examine the political context, we are entering dangerous territory. Prashant Poojary was a Bajrang Dal activist in Moodbidri. The Bajrang Dal has self-admittedly used violence as a weapon against minorities (don’t believe me, meet Babu Bajrangi in Gujarat or listen to him in a Tehelka expose). Poojary has been allegedly involved in cases of intimidation and violence in the region. He was fighting the “beef Mafia” as part of the anti-cow slaughter agitation. He didn’t deserve to die under any circumstance but there is a political context to his death as there would be in Bengal when Trinamool workers clash with cadres of the Communist Party of India (Marxist).”
Ah! So, just because someone is a political activist, his murder automatically becomes unworthy of outrage. Excuse me, but since when have killings of political activists become objects of lesser outrage? From the Boston massacre to the Jallianwalla Bagh massacre to Tiananmen Square, killing of political activists has usually received more, not less outrage. It has often changed the course of history.
Dear Rajdeep, do you know who Miss Marcella Sherwood was? She was an innocent English missionary who was brutally gangraped and beaten and left for dead by some monsters in Amritsar on April 11, 1919. Martial law was declared in Punjab and Indians were ordered to crawl on the street where Miss Sherwood had been attacked. Two days later, 1000 political activists who were protesting the clampdown were gunned down while protesting in Jallianwala Bagh. Congratulations Rajdeep because your logic is similar to the argument that General Dyer made….the atrocities on Miss Sherwood meant that the Jallianwala Bagh massacre was not worthy of outrage.
I can try, but I can hardly do a better job of debunking Rajdeep’s “argument” than what Opindia has done here:
In this article, Opindia asks:
“You now invoke Babu Bajrangi. You are ready to sacrifice Prashant at the altar of secularism for the crimes of a Babu Bajrangi in Gujarat (who incidentally is already paying for his crimes by serving a life term, as prescribed by courts, not some kangaroo court in a TV studio). Why should Prashant be judged via the prism of Babu Bajrangi? Should I judge you from the prism of a Tarun Tejpal?”
Ha ha! Totally! Yes, Rajdeep, should we judge you for Tarun Tejpal? Let’s explore this argument further. Should we judge every Muslim via the prism of Islamic terrorists? Where does this logic leave leftists considering the crimes of Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot and Castro…not to mention the Naxals in India?
But I think Opindia left something out. Let us examine Rajdeep’s logic by putting in some numbers. How many Indian citizens are currently in the “danger zone” where they can be killed without hurting the conscience of a liberal? Let us see…
The BJP claims to have 10 crore members. This number is obviously exaggerated and let us assume that this number is exaggerated by a factor of 4. So, that gives us a figure of 2.5 crore actual members. That’s 25 million Indians who can now be killed without pricking the conscience of liberal India! For comparison, 6 million Jews were killed by the holocaust! Yes, that’s what it means, it will take a minimum of four holocausts before Indian liberals sit up and take notice!
Thanks Rajdeep for letting us know.
The second important question is how far liberals will take this ugly logic and define “political activism” so as to declare murders unworthy of outrage. Will a Facebook post supporting a political party also count as “activism”? How about a tweet? How about signing a petition on change.org? Each time someone is killed, will liberals sift through the person’s entire life to check for any signs of political activism and then declare the murder unworthy of outrage? At what appropriate level of political self expression should a Hindu limit himself before a liberal will consider him “innocent enough” so that his murder may cause outrage?
Dear Rajdeep, we were only asking for equality. Under our largely democratic Constitution, equality is the starting point. YOU demanded that one murder be privileged over another. The onus is on you to explain why. You are the one who has set off on this ugly path of dark logic where one citizen’s life matters more to the liberal elite than that of the other. I am glad you have opened this Pandora’s Box. Now your bigotry is in the open. I hope you write more and more and more articles explaining in greater detail why some citizens matter more than others. We always suspected this was inside your box. Thanks for opening it and showing the ugly contents to the whole world. Hope more liberals follow your lead.