A bus carrying devotees of Lord Ayyappa was reportedly attacked by extremists in Rayachoti town, Andhra Pradesh. The devotees were playing devotional songs, which the mob claimed were excessively loud. They demanded that the bhajans be stopped and allegedly assaulted the Hindus, including the driver. However, authorities appear to have prioritized defending "secularism" under the pretext of countering misinformation instead of standing up for the victims.
Image via The Hindu/Organiser
Although the Annamayya district police acknowledged the anti-Hindu incident, their focus shifted towards targeting netizens who raised the issue on social media. “Strict action for spreading false information. What happened in Rayachoti is a sensitive matter, but false stories are being spread on social media. Such people would not be spared,” they declared on X (formerly Twitter).
It is essential to take strict action against disruptive individuals who engage in such activities and to prevent the spread of misinformation to maintain stability. However, the heightened vigilance on social media raises concerns about suppressing public discussion of news, which could harm the authorities' reputation beyond merely addressing the issue of false information.
Interestingly, the authorities admitted that the car carrying Ayyappa devotees had stalled near a mosque, prompting an agitated response from some Muslims who allegedly began shouting slogans. They also stated that a “peace committee” was established to defuse tensions involving members of both Hindu and Muslim communities. But in the absence of any communal violence, one might wonder—what tensions needed resolution? Unfortunately, some questions seem destined to remain unanswered. Additionally, the visuals provided clear evidence of the incident. Yet, as is often the case, the police are reluctant to label it a communal event.
These revelations clearly indicate that a conflict did occur between the Muslim and Hindu communities, prompting the formation of a “peace committee,” which would not have been required without such an incident. At the same time, the police are vigorously denying the event, as highlighted by another instance where an individual described the situation as “truly despicable” and criticized the fact that local Muslims objected to the playing of Ayyappa songs on a bus carrying devotees.
The user decided to reveal some uncomfortable truths and shared, “Muslims do namaz on loudspeakers for Allah five times a day. It happens even at 4:30 in the morning but no Hindu ever labelled it as disturbance. Followers of no religion should behave in this manner which can disturb the religious harmony. It is not good for this country.” The police promptly responded to the statement, describing the condemnation of the attack on Hindus as "content that could potentially escalate communal tensions between various religious groups."
Rather than addressing the underlying conditions that led to the assault, the police announced their intention to monitor the individual’s posts and profile, even threatening severe consequences. “Posting or sharing such content without due verification is a punishable offence,” they added. It’s important to note that the remark did not spread any false information; instead, it posed a legitimate question, which the police interpreted as a challenge to law and order.
Regrettably, the authorities are now targeting social media users who discuss the incident, treating them as if they were responsible for the attack, in a strained effort to deny that a Muslim mob targeted Hindus.
Why Do Police Rarely Acknowledge a Communal Angle in Such Cases?
Authorities often claim that there was "no communal angle" to certain crimes or deny any religious bias, even in cases where the motivation is clear but not explicitly stated. This raises questions about why the police consistently avoid acknowledging the true nature of the crime. Several factors may explain this. The police tend to downplay low-level communal incidents because they undermine their authority. Additionally, they may be hesitant to call attention to such incidents, fearing it could provoke further violence or escalate tensions in the area.
The Left-leaning media, intellectuals, and their ecosystem often echo the "no communal angle" narrative, especially when the victim is Hindu. However, a police statement or a media report alone is insufficient to determine if the crime has a communal aspect; the ground realities must be examined to assess the true nature of the crime.
For example, in the 2021 murder of Rinku Sharma, a Bajrang Dal activist who was brutally stabbed at home in Delhi’s Mangolpuri neighborhood, the Islamist-leftist alliance attempted to downplay the communal nature of the crime. The police even rejected the suggestion of a communal motive. However, OpIndia spoke to several witnesses, including the victim's family, who revealed a strong sense of communal hostility in the area. Rinku Sharma’s family explained that Muslims in the neighborhood had long harbored resentment toward him since he supported the historic Ram Mandir decision.
It is important to note that this case is one among thousands of anti-Hindu hate crimes in India that are often downplayed under the banner of ‘secularism.’ This tracker aims to document cases like Rinku Sharma’s, where the victim’s family or relatives provide clear evidence of religious bias driving the crime, even when police deny a communal angle or the Leftist media insists on the "no communal angle" narrative. Similarly, the attack on Ayyappa devotees is categorized as a hate crime against Hindus, as both the police statement and video evidence confirm the religious motive behind it.
Comments