According to secular liberals, in India, Your religion decides whether your speech is hate speech or freedom of speech

a boy covering his face with his hands
Photo by Mikhail Nilov on

Amidst all the tumultuous outrage for freedom of speech by comedians, leaders and actors in order to be capable of publicly cracking snide japes on Hindu gods with copious amount of cuss words, a news reached our ears recently. A Hindu saint has logically criticized Gandhi, and utilized his right to express, however it has sadly caused him jail. Albeit, he hasn’t uttered a single word against any living person, or abused the dead, instead, he expressed what he felt. What he said might be debatable for some, whereas some will surely acquiesce. 

The father of the nation

A Hindu saint named Kahlicharan simply dressed in a red clothe with a huge round vermilion bindi in the middle of his forehead, has openly stated that Gandhi can’t be the father of the nation, in the Dharma sansad held in Haridwar in December, which has quickly created a new controversy in the country, specially in the media and political parties. 

Our history jotted down by congress friendly delirious historians, might affirm that Gandhi was lovingly given a sobriquet of Mahatma, and then was also called the father of the nation, however no evidence is probably there to aver it. So, it’s axiomatic that whatever was decreed to be written, was written. Whoever congress wanted to be highlighted for the fight against the British, were rhapsodized, and whom they wanted to bury in oblivion, were cemented in memories. 

Gandhi, I personally believe, was extremely lionized but should be known for trampling the sacrifices of the real heroes who fought for independence more vehemently than any congress leader who coveted to rule. So, the title of the father of the nation given to a man who stood far behind in the list of the great leaders who dragooned the white to leave India, seems unbelievably ridiculous. There are umpteen reasons to refute the fact that Gandhi was worth this title. The most pertinent, and convincing fact, is if India wasn’t born in 1947, how could someone become her father? This civilization has been thriving for thousands of years, seldom, it was chained, hammered, dismantled, burnt, and still, it remained unscathed, wading through all the Islamic havoc, hungry invaders and Victorian lust for plundering this wealthy civilization. Therefore, the father of the nation can’t be someone who was enamored of clinging to young girls on the pretext of physical support and his extraordinary experiments with Celibacy. 

Every hero contributed something to this land, and all have overtly exhibited their strength to snatch what belonged to them ‘Motherland’ from the British, so did Gandhi. As B.R. Ambedkar said that Gandhi wasn’t a Mahatma, and he was just an episode in the history of India, not an epoch maker. It is apparently a vivid explanation of why the title of the father of the nation was a preposterous attempt of Congress to immortalize Gandhi and cleverly buried the extraordinary valor, leadership and sacrifices of the great warriors, leaders and revolutionaries respectively India had ever produced. 

Freedom of speech 

India is certainly such a beautiful, great and weird country where democracy is considered to be the strongest, but in some cases, it seems to be severely injured where it drastically fails to protect the rights of a Hindu. Although It might probably be quite shocking, yet it’s true. In India, uttering something anything about any other religions except Hinduism, is absolutely like wearing crimson red clothe infront of an extremely grumpy bull. The consequences are always dire, legally and publicly. Insulting Islam means getting beheaded, berating Christianity means instant legal actions, and saying anything against or questioning Sikhs means lynching, whereas denigrating Hinduism is considered so amusing in India, as insulting Hindu deities is fun and fundamental right as per the guidelines of Indian pseudo secularism, which boldly emphasizes the need of expecting tolerance from Hindus, and also dabbles into the cackling revelry along with comedians who cracks cheap, but abetting jokes on Hinduism. 

In this case, Kalicharan has neither targeted any community, nor threatened to break any part of the country like other Islamic fanatics like Sharjeel imam and Kanhaiya Kumar ( jnu students relishing govt stipends) who publicly expressed their coveted plans to break India to teach the government of India a lesson. Still, Kalicharan has been arrested for opposing the decision of calling Gandhi the father of the nation, while one of two men mentioned above Kanhaiya Kumar, new congress leader, is savoring the perks of being a left vile activist who is generally trained to spew venom against Hindus, and vociferate against the right wing. Even after openly threatening to break the country, no action has ever been taken against him. Furthermore, he still roams freely, holding a badge of honor of enlivening the most coveted agenda against India for leftists on his shoulder and even is considered intellectual, while Hindus saying anything against those who routinely target Hinduism through art, movies, and comedy, are instantly labeled communal, intolerant, and the weak who can’t take cheap jokes and let minority and old left students enjoy, guffawing at Hindus. Recently, Aimim Leader Owaisi openly threatened Hindus, saying who will save them when Yogi and Modi will be gone. However, it was considered freedom of speech, so no outrage happened except from Bjp and Hindu groups, whereas it was quite euphonious for liberals and seculars. 

Women dressed like the cartoons with peculiar style of garments who are generally ashamed of their womanhood, are seen, targeting Hindu rituals and clothing and joyously vilifying Hindutva, which is currently known as the best  career step for activism under the fabricated secularism which has secretly produced pernicious mentality amongst left women. 

Indian laws are lenient with those who abuse democracy and hardly abide by the laws, but strict against the tolerant Hindus, who never take actions against these offenders, like other communities who don’t entertain any kind of secularism, audacity and effrontery by anyone and instantly lynch. However, a Hindu can’t oppose someone which is a democratic right of every citizen. A Hindu can’t complain even if detrimental elements repeatedly attack Hinduism, if outraged, he is labeled communal, and intolerant. A Hindu can’t block the roads and create arson in the name of protest like leftists with other communities simply do, because political parties are ready to name this outrage as Hindu terror, ironically, liberals always say that terrorism has no religion if terror is orchestrated by ISIS and other terror outfits.

However, What Kalicharan said, was plumb indigestible for the entire liberal, secular lobbies and political parties like congress who have introduced lynching, conspiracy and other dangerous things. Since, Gandhi is the last weapon for them to use in order to whitewash their acts, which is why the outrage was inevitable. But, why don’t Indian courts take actions as fast as they did in Kalicharan case? I believe it is apparently to send out a message that abiding by the laws is not as cool as it seems, but blocking the roads, creating chaos in the country can save you even if you talk about breaking the country. This case unquestionably implies that Kalicharan is a proud Hindu, and arresting him immediately was a glimpse of phony secularism which was stealthily injected in the soul of the constitution. However, expecting same treatment with other offenders who happen to be left inclined, is not that progressive for that India of Nehru which is more into hammering Hinduism, and glorifying the invaders. 

As a Hindu who proudly abides by the laws, I feel extremely disheartened to witness such kind of discrimination, conspiracy, incessant religious affront and communal attacks. A Hindu saint too has the right to express his views, therefore it is truly expected from our govts to protect his right, as the democracy of India even protects the rights of terrorists with the help of Indian lawyers. This is, I believe, a wrong juxtaposition between a saint and a terrorist, however it was necessary. For, in India, a terrorist finds more lawyers than an law abiding Hindu. This is a matter of concern for the entire Hindu community, if what is happening, continues, it would certainly be hazardous situation for Hindus in this country where their screams will be muffled, that’s why now outraging vehemently against all who dare mock Hinduism in any way, is quite necessary. And, no Hindu should be jailed for using his freedom of speech even if it looks like hate speech to those who are habitual of hate speech, or doesn’t suit secular and liberal lobbies. 


Was it worth reading? Let us know.