[...]
"India clears emergency visas for 111 Afghan Hindus, Sikhs, hours after Kabul gurdwara attack - The Hindu" https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-clears-emergency-visas-for-111-afghan-hindus-sikhs-hours-after-kabul-gurdwara-attack/article65542565.ece/amp/

legally she was right but look within your heart and the context and you know she is evil. do not support her the next riot may be when your mom or sis or kid is in the middle for no fault of theirs.
india is a special country and we do not need people who know what buttons to push while they are famous and protected and everyone else is in danger or rage.
the best response to her is to ignore her.

Message should at least be that don't support the hate on Nupur Sharma! The lady who runs OpIndia did not make a false statement. Her effigies are being paraded on a busy road, she is getting rape and death threats left, right and centre. be fair man! Now is not the time to propogate your blind hatred!

I call it blind because at this instance, you are fuelling the fire instead of trying to be responsible and douse it. Hopefully, a few years wiser, you will realise your folly.

If protesting includes by definition - damage to public property and stone pelting and acts of violence, then well justice also needs to include bulldozing and beating up.

Btw - the above is just using your 'own terms' since GB has been peddling new churan these days for FOE. Doesn't mean that I accept stone pelting is a form of protest, more so for an offence that is morally ambiguous.

This topic and the Amber Heard topic have had the most biased moderation in the history of LI.

The example of the Wuhan lab leak story and Hunter Biden laptop story should have taught you to be neutral in your moderation and put your woke bias aside. No lessons learnt it seems.

omg some people think that their so-called discussion on a heavily biased forum such as legally India will change anything.
guys save your time and energy on better things.

#controversial #trollish #propoganda

i have already marked it moderator saved your job as you'd blindly do the same.

Well, a liberal constitutional democracy exists precisely so that a 'nuisance' as you describe it, stays a mere nuisance and does not become an actual problem.

But even if there were evidence for an increase in 'nuisance', besides WhatsApp forwards and a general loosely defined fear or feeling you have, what do you think is the best way of fighting such supposed nuisance or radicalisation? By intentionally offending and trying to provoke the entire community on TV talkshows?

Can you de-radicalise a community by having vigilantes running around under cover of law, beating up and lynching people from that community, for whatever 'reasons' (be that 'love jihad', selling or eating beef, or just because they feel like it)? By passing laws that marginalise the community further? By taking away the independence of Kashmir and imposing martial law on the state, and locking up democratically elected politicians?

Or do you have to spend money, time, thought and money into in the community, improving the education, economic prospects and opportunities available to that community, while also making them feel safe to continue living their life and enjoying the freedoms guaranteed to them under the constition?

It seems like the government's gameplan is very much the former and sowing more fear in and of the 'muslim' community, which encourages radicalisation of both sides.

There are endless historical examples that you can not de-radicalise or eradicate extremism with oppression, which has exactly the opposite effect every time.

Radicalism on which side? Or do you mean to address the typical playbook of many radical governments to encourage the radicalisation of minorities so that their own majority and supporters become more radical in turn, which becomes a virtuous cycle of radicalisation and electoral gains for them?

Free Speech is a fundamental right to Question what may undermine your own limitation or oppression. It cant include you walking with a loudspeaker and unleashing your wild mind to others then you become the tyrant. In that way you could just rename your tyranny to free speech.

I mean, dude I wrote comment 18, I think it’s click bait for y’all to allow this bullshit in here in the first place. Best case scenario you thought you could win this argument and legitimately believed this issue was worth the bother. In which case you’re wrong- you don’t play chess with a pigeon, it’ll shit all over the board and then strut around smugly as if it won. Worst case scenario - you decided website needed clicks so why not do a troll war. You play stupid games though and you’ll win stupid prizes. Y’all want to think long term about what this website and forum can be for the legal profession? Or you want to be my mad uncles Facebook wall?
Moderation exists for a damn reason- filter out this garbage. The more you let people like this set the rules for the game- the more you will fail. Refuse to play. Refuse to discuss nonsense issues like this. If you want to do political discussion- at least ensure it’s worthwhile no? We’re lawyers, we can all reasonably come together to discuss policy, but this isn’t what it looks like.

The comment was a reply to 1.5.1. She is by no means espousing any liberal values. Nupur Sharma's comment saying that the Prophet married an underage girl Aisha is not even contested or refuted by Muslims themselves. She is technically not disrespecting him by stating an obvious fact backed by valid Hadiths and authorities. However, I condemn the intention behind Nupur's presentation of such a fact and her tone. But did it require this level of attention. Probably not.
Does this have no gendered perspective where things were blown out of proportion because it was a non-Muslim 'woman' ? You can answer the question at the intersection of of a woman's role in Islamic society vis a vis respect given to a non-Muslims in the Islamic religion.

This is the dumbest piece of biased moderation i have seen in years.
I am not going ad hominem rather criticising the moderation that is being done by the moderator.
Engaging in debates themselves just because thier side of story is losing.
This is some Republic Bharat level of moderation.
P.s. the moderator pointed out some fallacies in the criticism/counter of other people however failed to see the same fallacies in their own arguments. Pathetic and hypocritical. Sorry, get well soon and do your job as a moderator, don't be another Arnab Goswami.
Please.

You're not wrong that islamic (and nearly all religious) fundamentalism is problematic for a democratic society and the values a liberal democracy espouses and upholds. But the question is whether you genuinely think radical islamism is the biggest / only threat to India's democracy, society and security, and that this is a battle Nupur Sharma waded into because she's a defender or supporter of the values of liberal democracy?

We are not LI readers, but violence should always be condemned. Yet this only seems to happen from the government supporters' when such violence comes from a minority community and is nearly universally ignored whenever such violence comes from its own base (and even when police and state governments actively support and stoke such violence). You can not do one without also acknowledging and demanding condemnation of the other, and that's not about whataboutery but hipocrisy.

On that note, LI as a platform had always walked the talk on that front: here's one of many articles from 2012, condemning attacks on free speech by the previous government and Mamata for instance: https://www.legallyindia.com/201209143113/Analysis/a-short-history-of-indian-freedom-of-speech-laws-who-should-we-blame
While also accepting that some limits on freedom of speech are undesirable but may be required to prevent inciting violence, such as that threatened by fringe groups when Salman Rushdie was to read the Satanic Verses at the Jaipur Literature Festival:
https://www.legallyindia.com/home/column-how-free-should-we-be-to-speak-in-india-20120914-3114

Yet, there's also plenty of coverage and examples of, for instance, intolerance when fringe groups bullied a publisher into pulping an academic book which offended their sensibilities: https://www.legallyindia.com/201402114335/Bar-Bench-Litigation/penguin-pulps-hindu-book

So that's a definite refusal to:
a) engage with the substance of any point
b) condemn any of the things that supposedly 'no sensible person would agree with', according to the original commenter,
c) offer anything beyond ad hominem in response.

That very clearly establishes a lack of bona fide engagement and intentions, and will continue to inform moderation decisions, though we are always open to accepting genuine intelligent discourse on such matters, where not everyone has to agree and have the same political beliefs.

But: LI is intended to be a place for open debate and the sharing of genuine ideas and thoughts on matters, but it can not a place to spread things that are plain untrue or propaganda or bordering on hate, such as selectively trying to vilify minority communities.

By all means, criticise that islam as practiced in many parts of the world can be quite draconian when it comes to religious insult, but then don't try to deny that a lot of other religions have / have had very similar / different / and in some cases worse problems of intolerance linked to violence very close to home (which is particularly dangerous if religious zeal is backed by the force of the state).

As had been requested previously, this thread is a good case for potentially blocking all political discourse on LI, since organised groups of readers don't publish a constant stream of so-called "LW" threads that point out every single problematic thing the government does, and if they did, it would just turn the platform (more?) toxic like Twitter or Facebook.

So, we are proposing a simple smell test for moderation: 'If it smells like you wrote a post primarily because you hate or fear or trying to incite such feelings against any community as a whole (whether that be Hindus, Muslims, Christians or LGBTQ), it is a trollish post'.

And yes Islamists epitomise free flowing liberal values? Let's stick to the gendered perspective to this issue than starting a comparative analysis of which religion is more regressive. There were legit threats by the Al Queda to blow themselves up in public because of comments made on television. The Ummah cares very little about the Muslims in India who would be blown up in such blasts. Let alone any other Muslims in India otherwise. It's no secret that Arab Muslims look down upon other Muslims which is reflected in a lot of systemic ways both contemporary and historically.
This is just their seasonal "I'm offended" movement. It goes to the core of being unable to come to terms with problematic facets of their religion being pointed out (mind you even Muslims pointing this out would be chastised, let alone a non-Muslim). Crying out and virtue signalling once in a while is only their essential coping mechanism while the protestors (mostly misogynistic Muslim men) burn and hang effigies of a woman.

Free speech is a red herring here. It's all nonsense, isn't it? we're really discussing whether it's our right to point out the awful stuff in other people's religion when unemployment is the highest it's been, when fuel prices are sky rocketing, and in the aftermath of a pandemic that left almost every household in the country with dead friends and relatives? This is what you want to focus on? Why is this more important to you than food in the bellies of infants?

This is what the government undoubtedly wants you to focus on, they'd rather you spend your time hating minorities than asking questions about governance and transparency. Why is this more important to you?

I'm an atheist, I can tell you there are as many offensive/ ridiculous things in Hindu scripture. there's also ridiculous offensive stuff in Christian scripture. Nupur Sharma did not go out there and call every religion and tell us how they were all built on these awful stories, she's no free speech hero. She's not David standing up to Goliath, she's not pointing out that the emperor has no clothes, she's the carnival barker eager to distract you so that you don't ask the actually important questions. The commitment to free speech is not just about " I should be able to put others down", its a responsibility to ensure that our speech is meaningful and leads to a better world.

Kian and R, I blame you for allowing this thread to begin with, knowing well about the trash that it would produce. Many of these comments actually count as hate speech, no matter how disguised they are. It adds exactly zero contribution to free speech and enlightened debate and all that jazz. I've got half a mind to screenshot and report these. If you can't run a forum meant for actual lawyers and the law, then close it. Don't add on to the already existing garbage in the Internet.

Okay, you wanted plain lies to be unearthed? What about your claim that Hindus lodge only peaceful protests while Muslims kili at the first opportunity? If that's not a bare faced lie and blatant communal hate, then nothing is. Clearly you disregard all the violence inflicted on muslims alleging love jihad, as well as the actual peaceful protests that have been carried out by plenty of people including from the muslim community all over the country? Logic and enlightened debate my foot!

Actually, the only enemies to democracy are people like you, who keep claiming that only pandits are being killed in kashmir, whereas there have been people from both religious communities in the list of the dead. In addition, you won't know anything about ghar or its shatru. Ghar means a place where people stay together and care for each other regardless of their differences. Unlike you. Who died and made you the arbiter of what being a Hindu or an Indian means?

Thanks for your comment. The original post made under this handle above was clearly a troll, but it seems to have had a result in that it has flushed out some often-made arguments that are non bona fide.

1. Beef: so you're fundamentally accepting that religious offense is very important, so if you are offended by me offending your religion (by eating beef or insulting your prophet), you have the right to punish someone else / take vigilante action (i.e. just like Nupur is getting a slap on the wrist now and will no doubt be politically rewarded again some time soon once things have died down?)

2. Menstruating in temples: again, you making the same point that religious offense is apparently important. If it offends me that you as a woman are doing X, I should have the right to stop you from doing so on religious or cultural grounds?

3. Yes, precisely "there are certain exceptions" who do force others to say Jai Shree Ram, and you say "no sensible person would agree with them". Then how do you explain that such vigilantes and such fringe have never been condemned or cracked down on by this dispensation or states in which it rules, but have actually been encouraged and supported and rarely receive criminal sanction?

4. 'You shoudl not be permitted to comment unless from Assam or WB'? That sounds like a freedom of speech issue, surely anyone should be able to and have an obligation to comment about anything happening in a country (and if geographical closeness is an indication of how strongly you have freedom of speech, then one should certainly have a stronger duty to comment about CAA than about human rights abuses in China).

4a. No one will beat you up if you speak out against CAA? People were literally beaten and imprisoned for speaking out or protesting against CAA, but such memories are short...

5. That's precisely the point: the 'special operation' crackdown in Kashmir was claimed to make things safer in Kashmir, instead it seems to have had the opposite effect. Who knew, government oppression and violence breeds more terrorism and radicalisation? Oh yeah, that's right, the government knows this...

6. 'Nobody has any problem with interfaith marriages'? So the vigilante campaigns by extremist right wingers breaking up random interfaith marriages inventing so-called 'love jihad' as an excuse is not a thing that actually exists then? Do you have any reliable statistics that forced conversions and 'love jihad' is an actual problem that demands vigilante justice?

6a: Can you at least condemn a bunch of vigilante incels who break up weddings violently, as well as condemn the sanction of state and police they often receive for such acts?

Responding to your lastly: 'secularism and inclusiveness' do NOT exist in India BECAUSE it is a Hindu majority country, they exist in India because it is a liberal democracy with a constition protecting minorities. If you want to say our democracy is still more democratic and protecting of fundamental rights than other totalitarian fundamentalist states, then you are probably right.

But that has everything to do with democracy and not with eroding exactly that democracy and vilifying another community and painting them as the root of all evil and bad things in this country that can only be fixed by the majority oppressing a minority.

Because the rational answer to such events should be to condemn both, not be to say, 'another community also has problems' therefore a majority government is justified in tacitly / explicitly encouraging radical fringe majoritarian elements on their own side and further divide and inflame tensions, rather than try to make good inclusive policy?

Can you honestly say, hand on heart, that a lot of posts professing to be espousing RW though are actually making bona fide argument? Most (but not all) seem to be intentionally trolling for a reaction or are basically posted with the intention of vilifying a minority community, which also happens to have experienced disproportionate discrimination by the current regime and its followers.

But well spotted, the post above under was clearly also intended to be trollish and has been marked as such, since it seems to have triggered a fair number of commenters...

My friend, if you want to criticize then be clinical and precise. Coming and name dropping random thought-farts from your brain without a gram of substantiation attached with it is mere emotional reaction bereft of any contention or counter.

You have yourself made so many generalizations in your comment, but I will show you how generalizations are to be picked up and taken apart.

many generalizations and assumptions and plain lies in your comment
Without pointing out what's a generalization or an assumption or a 'plan lie' - this is a mere allegation. Do note that you have to substantiate your accusations validly. For e.g., you say there are 'plain lies' in my comment. Can you point out which one is a plain lie, and while doing so - can you point out the exact truthful scenario that I am controverting with my lies? If you cannot - then you must be a messaging app since you only got 'signals' - no substance.

I'm ashamed to think that you profess to be part of the same religion, profession, nation and species as me
If you harbour such concepts as 'shame', it can be reasonably presumed that you harbour such concepts as 'pride' as well. So unless you have something to counter my incoming allegation - are you someone who takes pride in identity markers that are not of your own making? Lol. That's the first sign of someone who lacks an understanding of self. That's the first marker of someone whose consciousness hasn't awakened yet. Also, I do not know your religion, nor do you know mine - so kindly refrain from making wild assumptive statements. Moreover, first we need to understand what you mean by 'religion' - and whether or not your understanding of that word is conflated or differentiated with terms such as cultism, faith, philosophy, morality, or rituals. So again - what religion are you talking about?

Please stop trying to pose as the sole arbiter of what Hindu religion contains, means, prescribes and teaches.
Hinduism is not a religion firstly. So first get your concepts clear. Secondly, let's assume that whatever I have stated in my comment is what 'Hinduism' teaches - then you my friend have got it terribly wrong. I speak as an enlightened being who is aghast at the blatantly imbalanced and prejudicial state of affairs that seek to ignore the wrongs committed by monotheistic believers and the doctrinal malices contained in their divine codes. I speak as a concerned human being afraid of the dark ages that lie ahead of us if we do not fight the enemies of logic and enlightened debate. Now, I would ask you to lay down precisely and where exactly have I even attempted to lay down what is said in the entirety of 4 vedas, 108 upanishads, 18 puranas, 2 epics, numerous bhasyas, vrattikas, shastras, vedantas? You are ridiculously beyond belief and a waste of oxygen and black robes (if you are a practicing lawyer).

1. They are theocracies (or functionally similar to theocracies). India is (supposedly) a secular democracy. Not sure why you keep comparing it to those countries.
2. No argument there (however if women devotees themselves have an issue, then my position changes).
3. I am from WB. The post-poll violence was overblown and there was concerted effort by RW groups to paint it in the worst light possible. Furthermore, the violence was based on political orientation not religion (WB unfortunately has a history of political violence but this is a long running issue which was not particular to that election). With regards to the CAA, the problem people has is that it excludes only illegal Muslims while permitting illegal aliens from other religions.
3. Nobody is blaming Hindus. We are blaming the current ruling political dispensation which is actively abetting such activities and/or turning a blind eye to it.
4. Who's blaming all Kashmiris now?
5. How is this unjust exactly? That's what their religion says (if it does say that, I know many interfaith couples with one party who is Muslim who got married under the SMA). If the party converting has no issue with converting, I fail to see how that is your problem. With regards to coercion, surely it is for the party being coerced to speak out (unless you have conclusive evidence that they are being silenced). Either way, it has to be decided on a case by case basis not through omnibus legislations.

Once again, India being a secular democracy should be compared with other secular democracies, not theocracies.

There are so many generalizations and assumptions and plain lies in your comment that I'm ashamed to think that you profess to be part of the same religion, profession, nation and species as me. Please stop trying to pose as the sole arbiter of what Hindu religion contains, means, prescribes and teaches. You don't appear to be aware of any of it.

1. The Khilafat movement's leaders had agreed to stop killing cows in exchange for hindu support against the Britishers. Eat whatever you want - where it is permitted. If Nupur Sharma is being found at fault, not for merely stating what Islamic scriptures themselves state, but for the 'tone' in which she said, then the same group of people have no right to hold beef eating festivals only with the intent to hurt hindu sentiments. Eat for all you care, but like any other normal meal. Why hold it to rub in someone's face and make derogatory comments on social media and brag about it? So please keep your one-sided refrain in the trash bin where it belongs.

2. Menstruating women are not prohibited from going to the temple. Only Sabarimala temple has a specific restriction only because the presiding deity is a celibate. You have not only portrayed a reductionist view, but generalized it for all the temples. Your ignorance is equalled only by the British snobbery of treating native beliefs with disdain. Please help clarify if you are incompetent to do basic research or you are motivated by deliberate malice?

3. Being forced to say Jai Shri Ram - how often have you come across news items of the same? Those who do are criminals unrestrained by any fear of law and courts. Why do you bracket it in the same comment with a deliberate intent to associate hinduism with criminals - unless you want to derive some benefit from a deliberate attempt at defamation? If someone has violated the law - they should be booked and brought to justice. Since I am aware of 'whataboutery' - I wouldn't even go into getting started on the numerous instances of how hindus have been victims at the hands of racist crimes committed by muslims, which hardly receive mainstream attention because somehow they are 'marginalized' enough to not be believable as criminals.

4. Your comment attempts to portray that criticising the CAA is somehow crushed with an iron fist and that there is no freedom of speech? If that is so - then how does one explain the months and months of sit-ins organized at shaheen bagh where the government was openly criticised and the reams and reams of articles that were written criticizing the CAA? Please clarify if you suffer from memory loss, or are just plain incompetent to do basic research.

5. You view internet bans in Kashmir as an aspect of some sort of dictatorial character of the present government. Are you aware that internet bans have been imposed in a congress ruled state of Rajasthan as well - when the Karauli riots happened where people of monotheistic beliefs stoned hindu processions out of pure hatred and malice. Aren't you aware that platforms like discord and telegram allow for 'slowing down messages' in order to cool down tempers. Do you have a problem with a mechanism that helps introduce normality and peace? Please don't view decontextualized phenomena in a vaccum - being blind to the factors that lead the government to take such steps. If internet bans were indeed the sole preference of the government, wouldn't it have been a nation wide phenomena?

6. You say that somehow muslims professing love for hindus is a problem. What do hindus really do if that happens? They register a protest like a normal human thing. What do muslims do? They straight away murder people - which is abnormal and vile. Have you forgotten Ankit Saxena? Or the murder of a dalit hindu - Vijay Kamble, and Nagaraju in Hyderabad - which are very recent.

It seems you are living with your horse-blinds. Perhaps you don't want to meet your own incompetence and incapability to address complex developments.

This moderation and editorial response is problematic and requires rethink. A few months ago, there were multiple posts highlighting that LI's editors were moderating on the basis of their personal viewpoints. You decided to withdraw from news publishing because you didn't want to comply with new media rules, but the nature of your comments in this post is the very problem which the rules seek to resolve.

There is absolutely no doubt that 2 should be moderated as trollish. However, the fact that 2.1 was published by the editors is extremely problematic. Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint, but the idea of this portal is to encourage discussions and not to narrate and / or propogate one point of view.

The backlash to Nupur Sharma's statement pertaining to Aisha / horse is definitely disproportional. Nobody in their right minds would ever have a problem to such exercise of free speech. It is a fact after all. Every muslim knows about it. Every human being who has interest in the subject would have already read about it and verified it. It is not a lie.

What is problematic is that Nupur, being a BJP spokesperson, ought to have been more responsible. Even though she is a nobody in the actual power hierarchy (also evident from the way she was tossed out), she represents a political party. Here, Legallyindia's editors are representing the institution and ought to be more responsible.

1. "have you tried talking about eating beef lately"
There are SO MANY BJP RULED STATES and politicians where beef is extremely popular and the leaders over there (including CM) have said that beef will never be banned. There are some states where cow is a religious symbol. Vast majority touches and prays every time a cow passes by. The ruling party appeases their sensitivity in such areas and gives cows a special status. You should read the Constitution also - cows have been given a special status (Article 48). The hip metro janta cares about dogs and expresses anguish when dogs get hurt. The desi janta cares about cows, and some A-holes kill people when they think a cow has been killed. They are criminals and should be punished. Having said that most of us have tried beef. Most of us try it because the RW has a problem with it. All of us are alive. There are isolated unfortunate incidents which took place, and I hope that law will take its course.

2. "go to a temple while menstruating or not wanting to be forced to say Jai Shri Ram or Bharat Mata ki Jai" - Nothing screams more fringe than this. First is a rule which temples prescribe on the basis of their practice. there are no checks. All of us know so many women who do not follow that rule. next is an unfortunate thing which is the fringe acting. I don't think that any mainstream political party, or any sensible human being would care two hoots about it or do anything about it. People have been killed for it, I know. People have been killed for less. If the isolated incidents of the fringe was anywhere close to mainstream, one need not imagine the consequences. My IG and Twitter feed is filled with LW and RW propoganda. The kind of shit they spew, all of them would kill each other if all of them were the same as their worst kind.

3. "or criticise the CAA or try to use the internet in Kashmir, or wanted to profess your love to someone who's a Hindu if you're not, or [insert more examples here]?" - This is probably the most immature comment I have ever seen in LegallyIndia especially given the fact that it is an editorial comment. This is not R, this is not Kian (hopefully), this is somebody who is extremely immature. somebody who gets triggered very easily. Neither does it make any sense to the purpose with which the author's comment started, it is just a biased opinion which has no nexus with reality whatsoever. How many activists do you know of? How many people gave speeches during CAA? how many of them were arrested? How many of them have started their new business? joined / started political parties? new roles? Do you have any idea how many inter religion marriages take place? Any idea how many conversions take place on account of the same? Are you even living in this world? You need to get your head outside of IG and Twitter. Read please!

@Kian Ganz, please intervene and let your staff know about basic ethics and conduct. I am a third party commenter and I have been more responsible here. My rant would come off as RWish because 2.1 is an eyesore and I had posted a lot of comments highlighting R's biasness.

Stupid comments like 2 do not require stupider responses like 2.1, and especially not from LI's editorial.

Classic whataboutism, huh?

Why talk about recent by cherry picking events when you have given given blind eye to these so called Islamophobia issue?
have women been allowed to get into mosque? Equal property rights? Sensible way to get divorce? Alimony rights? Polygamy? Sharia courts? Dalit Muslims? Upper caste Muslims like sheyads, ashrafs? Muslims killing for blasphemy? Trapping of women by changing names? Kashmiris killing in name of religion?

These all issue also falls under freedom of speech.

Let me clarify a few points for you; you appear to be clueless about the majority of issues you have talked about.

1. Beef is legal to eat in the bulk of the north-eastern and southern regions of the country. Furthermore, try eating pork in a Muslim-majority country and let me know how it goes, or try eating dogs in the west and let me know how it goes. Cows are sacred to the majority of the Hindi people. If eating dogs is prohibited because they are pets, and eating pork is prohibited in Muslim-majority countries, why is it permissible to eat beef in Hindu-majority countries?

2. Secondly, going to a temple while on your period is against the rules. It's not sexist; there are numerous temples throughout the country where males are not permitted. Attukal Bhagavathy Temple in Kerala and Lord Brahma Temple in Rajasthan are two examples of such. Every religion has its own set of rituals and norms, which you must obey. The majority of individuals who truly follow these religions are aware of all of this; it is only the fringe elements who have issues with the ceremonies. They will babble about nonsense, but if you ask them to chant the Gaytri mantra, they will be unable to do so.

3. Nobody is forcing you to say "Bharat Mata ki Jai" or "Jai Shree Ram"; there are certain exceptions, but no sensible person would agree with them. Also, blaming Hindus for this is the same as blaming all terrorists on Islam, which we both know is bigotry.

4. I don't think you should be permitted to comment about CAA if you're not from WB or Assam. Visit Assam and watch how illegal immigrants have seized the majority of the land; it appears that you are opposed to the indeginious tribal inhabitants. Also, take a look at what's going on in areas of WB. People are fleeing their lands and seeking refuge in other states while illegal immigrants are setting fire to villages in the name of religion or politics, just to remind you WB and Assam had elections at the same time last year and yet WB was the only state which was burning. CAA is urgently needed; why are security concerns about one's own country a problem? Also, nobody will beat you up if you speak out against CAA. It is not like Bangladesh or Pakistan, where people are lynched if they are of a different religion or hold a different opinion. You are in India.

5. Ah, you want internet in Kashmir eh? How about they stop killing the Pandits first? Have you read the news lately?

6. Nobody has a problem with interfaith marriages, you know. The only issue is that Islam does not accept interfaith marriages, therefore you will have to convert to Islam first before marrying. Most people object to this because it is unjust, and in most circumstances, what you call "love" is actually coercion. In fact, I'm sure individuals like you would embrace interfaith marriages in Pakistan because, according to you, they're done with mutual consent as well. It should make no difference if a 16-year-old Hindu girl is forcibly married to a 60-year-old guy. It's all based on love.

Lastly, all words of secularism and inclusiveness are present only in a Hindu majority country. Try to build a Temple in a Muslim majority country and then we will see how long it lasts. Out of the 50 Islamic countries, there are only 23 that believe in secularism and even that is on paper. You will be a nincompoop to believe that countries like Turkey, Uzbekistan or Burkina Faso are secular. You see it's only in a Hindu majority country you will see that we go to court to claim that a temple must be build in place of a mosque because the mosque was built on a temple. We go to court to argue about how Ram Mandir must be built on a land that is the birth of a Hindu deity. Imagine doing that in a Muslim majority country, imagine going to court to build a temple around Mecca.

Please, don't preach us about all these BS, we have enough of that. We are the victims not the perpetrators. It's only people like you that we should be most worried about, you guys are perfect example of the saying "Ghar ka shatru Bhivishan". Ask your peaceful secular friends to take ownership of the massacre of Hindu Pandits, WB killings and then we shall talk about secularism, unity and other things. Remember, Godhra riots started because a train consisting of 52 Hindu pilgrims were burnt. In Hinduism you can be an atheist and you will still be accepted, we have discourse here and you will see Hindus abusing Hindus openly and that according to me in inclusivity. I don't see that in other peaceful religions, sadly.

An episode regarding free speech and blasphemy took place at NUJS. A person from a senior batch called Lord Ram a murderer of Shambuk Rishi and Lord Krishna womanizer and rapist on social media. He proudly emailed his post to the entire General Body. When some members opposed, requested to delete the post, failing which they tagged Police to take action against the post, they were called anti free speech and Hindutva extremists.

These members who opposed hate speech against Lord Ram and Krishna also included former Vice President of SJA. However, now same members who abused Lord Krishna through post or supported post maker are abusing Nupur Sharma and calling her Islamophobe. This is liberal privilege at NUJS and law schools.

Hi legally india, I think a website such as yours should remain a neutral spectator with may be a little moderation here and there. You are not supposed to outright jump into arguments your self. As it is legally india is reduced to a discussion page. Whatever left credibility it has, it has of feee speech and impartiality and unbiasness, the moment you yourself start picking sides, that goes away. Let the lawyers and users decide amongst themselves, you shouldn't from your official handle interfere here, doesn't look right.

Due warning: any comments citing opindia will get an automatic troll tag - judging by historicla precedent and prior research, more likely than not, whatever is quoted in their articles is quoted out of context and the headline and article are spun to imply the opposite of what the actual facts are... Clicker beware...

She has not been punished by law. BJP is a private entity entiteld to decide its own rules for acceptable and unacceptable speech. So, A. this won't reach the SC; and B. this can't be a precedent to catch hold of people who criticise Hinduism.

Also, even if this were to be an infringement of 19.1.a, a reasonable legal action against her could be defended on the ground of "friendly relations with foreign states" in 19.2.

Nupur Sharma is a DU LLB grad (DUSU president) and then went to LSE. But she always speaks without any manners and uses very crude language. Always!! BJP should really look for spokespersons outside DU/DUSU/ABVP. Congress has had several NLU grads as spokespersons: Brijesh Kalappa, Jaiveer Shergill, Avani Bansal etc. Many Congress sympathisers on TV are also NLU grads, such as Mihira Sood. They all speak very well and calmly. BJP should follow suit and do campus recruitment from NLUs. For example, today India Today invited a girl named Aishwarya Mudgil on Rahul Kanwal's show. She is a pro-BJP tweeter from NUJS. She was decent and can be groomed for the role (link to video below).

https://mobile.twitter.com/IndiaToday/status/1533830778425057284

[ Context: https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/bjp-sacrifices-nupur-sharma-naveen-kumar-jindal-over-inflammatory-remarks/cid/1868540 ]

Front page news everywhere, but not a single media outlet is discussing the legal question involved. No lawyer or jurist is being interviewed and we instead have Chetan Bhagat types commenting. It could actually be a landmark case on free speech if it goes to the SC. The key questions are:

1) Does free speech under arts 19(1) and 19(2) allow criticism of religions?

2) If yes, should all religions and religious figures be given the same protection?

3) Are criticism and ridicule the same? Is one allowed and not the other? Where does one draw the line?

4) In Nupur Sharma's case, Wikipedia has a whole section on the issue she spoke on. So does she have a defence that she was referring to a controversy on which many have spoken similarly in the West?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad#Age_of_3rd_wife_Aisha

As I said, this could be a landmark case, because if the SC says Nupur Sharma's right to free speech does not cover those remarks, then the BJP could use the same precedent to justify arrests of people for criticising Hinduism.