False equivalence: Hindu editorial on remarks against Prophet and Delhi Police’s FIR

Delhi Police investigates against 30 people The typical example of controversial views being expressed on the Prophet recently for comments allegedly hurting religious sentiments is an unnecessary attempt to strike an artificial balance between unrelated opinions expressed online by others in recent times . After global outrage, BJP has taken action against its spokesperson Nupur Sharma and Delhi media unit chief Naveen Jindal. Among Muslims over his comments on Islam. There is no doubt that his remarks came as part of a long-running trend among BJP office-bearers and several Hindu organizations to malign minorities, especially Muslims, and some would criticize any legal action against them. Will raise questions. Delhi Police has chosen to register an FIR against Mr. Jindal and Ms. Sharma, but also added 30 other social media users. There may be justification for registering a case against someone if there appears to be a deliberate attempt to hurt religious sentiments or incite malice. However, the filing of an all-out FIR involving priest Yeti Narasimhanand, journalist Saba Naqvi, AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi, and Hindu Mahasabha activist Pooja Shakun Pandey and others defies logic. Police believe that many others cutting across religions created enmity and spread provocative misinformation. This may be true in some instances, but rather than the many such instances being investigated and prosecuted separately, it gives the impression that these stem from a general culture of hatred and intolerance and an endless cycle of religious scorn for tit. . , In fact, some of these may be deliberate violations of the law, intended to create disharmony and incite violence for political purposes.

Mr Owaisi has questioned the registration of a case against him, saying the Delhi Police is displaying ‘both partisanism’ for fear of prosecuting former BJP functionaries in isolation. Following up on all these comments in a single investigation and trial would mean that material from different social media platforms would have to be aggregated against them all – leading to longer trials. The strategy of putting a ‘one-at-a-big-conspiracy’ spin on specific crimes is not new. The Bhima Koregaon case was turned into an alleged conspiracy to incite a Maoist insurgency; After the East Delhi riots, the communal violence was linked to protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act. If the idea was to open up larger areas of political dissent in those cases, the strategy now appears to be to drag out those who gave vocal responses, so that the original offense appears thinner and harder to prosecute. Investigative agencies should take legal action against individuals in a proportionate manner and not just through universal prosecution to give an impression of being ‘balanced’.