The Supreme Court has insinuated that vilifying Hinduism can’t possibly be called a blasphemy because Hindus don’t set India on fire and behead anyone who speaks in support of someone who insults their faith.

In India, democracy is protected by the constitution that allows people to express their opinions about things. But sometimes, freedom of expression seems to be discriminative in religious freedom case where Hindusare immensely ridiculed for their culture and faith by activists of freedom of speech in this country, and even the courts don’t find it hateful. However, the constitution wobbles when Hindus retaliate people insulting their faith continuously. That’s what is happening in this country right now. The rage over Nupur Sharma’s statement on Mohammed is intensely ferocious, demanding radical Muslims to slash all throats that speak for Nupur Sharma. Why can’t Indian law repel hate so that no Nupur Sharma will have to say anything about Prophet in retaliation?

At this juncture, I opine that Indian judiciary has also been tempted by the frivolity American Supreme Court has exhibited in recent case pertaining to the right of abortion. As a result, Indian Supreme Court is seemingly elated to issue insensitive political statementsafter observing derisively Nupur case. What’s more interesting is, the same court has protected Islamic artist Mf Hussain who provocatively painted hindu deities naked as it was art for the court and he was a Muslim, but a Hindu stating a hadith from an Islamic book is responsible for all the violence and murders occurred in various parts of the country againsther own community. Ironically, It’s the same court that partially advised Hindus not to watch a movie if it hurts their religious sentiments, however it takes umbrage at a hindu woman’s statement standing up against this hate and routinelyvilification.

Flippancy of Indian court is implyingsomething horrible Hindus must ponder attentively. When someone vilifies hindu faith in a movie, or comedy, or art, the court doesn’t state anything political nor accuses the offender to be responsible for any iota of violence. It’s because even after being mocked incessantly, Hindus seek a legal way to punish the offenders, as neither in temples nor in their families, Hindus are notabhorrently taught to believe in the beheading theory against the ones who insult their faith like the teachings of madrasa– decapitation.

Supreme Court of India unfortunately appears to be interested into emulating the corroded judiciary of USA where now  a woman doesn’t have a right to decide pregnancy anymore. The judges siting in the chairs like the sentinels of the constitution are too secular to contemplate the hazardous condition of the country where violence decides whether a community deserves to be respected or not. The judges have expressed their anger and accused Nupur Sharma of all the violence her statement caused, and the brutal murder of a Hindu tailor by radicalassailants in Udaipur, advising her further to go on TV and apologize for what she said. In a nut shell, they meant her freedom of speech is dead, her anger for a Muslim insulting her dharma is violence, but all the threat and rape threats she has been receiving since then, doesn’t bother the court. Instead, it shouts maniacally replicating an old man yelling at a rumbling cloud.

In this claimed democratic country, a community that creates arson, and violence everywhere, is called peaceful and victim.  What the court said, unequivocally insinuated that insulting Hinduism can’t really be considered blasphemy until hindu community doesn’t also start believing in arson, violence, and murders like radical community in order to proves it’s blasphemy and they too won’t have to beseech the court with petitions to punish the offenders. Is it because Hindus are tolerant enough to tolerate religious affront inthe name of comedy, art and freedom of speech? If yes, then how did the court deduce that it’s Nupur’s fault just because she retorted fearlessly in a country where majority is not allowed to retaliate obnoxious minority?

The judges influenced by politics shouldn’t waste their time sitting in the court and evince their justification of violence. As it is certainly going to entail huge risks for the harmony of this country. This acceleration in religious insult in the country is actually caused by the courts, as it adversely fails to instill a lesson in the minds of offenders who routinely insult others faith in the garb of activist, secular, liberal, and minority. The courts find Nupur Sharma’s statement hateful, on the contrary, it didn’t seem to be interested enough to know about the statement she reverted to.May be that’s too islamophobic. Or the judges are evasive about taking any risk by giving any statement in this country where Hindus are being killed for their statement on Nupur Sharma. Undoubtedly, the fear is real.

If these avowedly flippant and political sentinels keep on politicizing the judiciary, then Indians shouldn’t be startled by such statements in upcoming time when the courts will accuse the victims to be hateful and exonerate the criminals, fearing Muslim community would set this country on fire if not acquitted. For, the crumbling democracy is onthe crutches now. And the judges are emboldening coveted desires of minority for sharia law in India, justifying the violence in the name of protests, and victimizingradicals involved in recent murders of Hindus and violenceengulfing public property as well as peace of the society.

It’s ineffably flabbergasting to see this parlous condition of the constitution where religious freedom is forciblysnatched by peopleobsessing witharson. Where insult of one’s faith is not called a blasphemy until his religion is identified, where a Hindu is blamed for another hindu killed by Muslims, where insulting Mahadev is a fundamental right, but quoting facts about Mohammed is intensely outrageous. Where radicalIslamists killing Hindus for their support for Nupur Sharma, don’t present their religion.  This is the plight of the constitution in India now. Where mocking Hinduism is freedom and liberalism, but stating even facts about Islam is islamophobia.

Why is insulting Hinduism being normalized in India? Answer is, Hindus forget things easily, and believe that the constitution will punish those who affront hindu deities. Sadly they believe in that constitution which is senile now, noticing nothing at all, until people start torching buses, trains, and streets, killing people one by one. That’s what nudges the courts and Hindus in schools aren’t taught about this secretly certified theory of violence to make the court wobble and acquiesce.

In this country, Hindu community must scratch the fact that their faith will be insulted unstoppably until they too stop believing in the courts and protest violently against the offenders, cause that’s what makes the constitution call it blasphemy. If petitions could ever do anything, then these courts would have been inundated with millions of pending cases. Violence is a new way of getting justice in this country where victims are told to apologize to the murderers by the court, where democratic rights are not for the tolerant community, where murdering Hindus is so normal that killed Hindus don’t even make the judges teary, but an injured terrorist manages to make a judge emotional.

The inane statement infused with political tendency emanatedfrom the court has utterly elevated threats against Nupur Sharma, and empowered the violent radical elements lurking to get a chance to set this country on fire for political and religious purposes. If the judges politically hanker to sentence a citizen for using her right to express in order to hindercontinuous attempts of religious hate orchestrated live on TV by a Muslim spokesperson, then what’s the difference left for us to notice between Indian law and sharia law? May be soon, the court will immediately acquit those criminals as well who would stone Hindus to death or brutally whip them like Taliban for saying anything. If what is happening now unabated, continues, no doubt India will face Islamic tyranny like Afghanistan where nonbelievers can be killed anytime, women abducted and raped, and their religious places ravaged. For, hate and violence are two powerful traits of radical Islamic terrorism that has gobbled up many democracies and the right of life of nonbelievers.

Was it worth reading? Let us know.