The recent Nagpur violence has once again exposed the deep fault lines in India’s socio-political fabric. While the incident has sparked heated debates, one voice that stands out for its glaring bias is that of senior journalist Rajdeep Sardesai. In his vlog, Sardesai has chosen to blame Hindu political parties and groups for the violence, while conveniently ignoring the role of Islamist provocation in igniting the riots. This one-sided narrative not only distorts the truth but also perpetuates a dangerous double standard in addressing communal violence.
The Nagpur Violence: What Actually Happened
The violence in Nagpur erupted after rumors allegedly spread that a Quran was burned during protests against Aurangzeb’s tomb. While the rumors were later found to be false, they triggered a violent backlash from Islamist mobs, who engaged in stone-pelting, arson, and attacks on police personnel. The riots left the city in chaos, with property damaged and law enforcement struggling to restore order.
The protests against Aurangzeb’s tomb, led by Hindu groups, were indeed provocative. However, it is crucial to recognize that provocation does not justify violence. The Islamist mobs’ reaction was disproportionate and criminal, and it is this reaction that escalated the situation into a full-blown riot. Yet, Sardesai’s analysis conveniently glosses over this critical aspect.
Sardesai’s Selective Outrage
In his vlog, Sardesai spends considerable time criticizing Hindu political parties and groups for their role in stoking communal tensions. He argues that the demand to demolish Aurangzeb’s tomb and the glorification of Chhatrapati Shivaji created a “hate-filled narrative” that led to the violence. He even states, “To unleash a hate-filled narrative where you want to go and demolish Aurangzeb’s tomb, you must be prepared for some reaction and a backlash.”
While there is some truth to the idea that divisive narratives can fuel tensions, Sardesai’s analysis stops short of holding the Islamist mobs accountable for their actions. By focusing solely on the actions of Hindu groups, Sardesai paints a picture where Hindus are the aggressors and Islamists are merely reacting. This is a dangerous oversimplification of a complex issue. It ignores the fact that the violence was initiated by Islamist mobs who chose to take the law into their own hands. Sardesai’s failure to condemn this violence unequivocally reveals a clear bias in his reporting.
The Double Standard In Reporting Communal Violence
Sardesai’s approach reflects a broader trend in Indian media, where Islamist provocation is often downplayed or ignored in discussions of communal violence. When Hindu groups are involved, they are quickly labeled as “communal” or “divisive,” but when Islamist mobs engage in violence, their actions are often excused as a “reaction” to provocation. This double standard not only undermines the credibility of the media but also perpetuates a culture of impunity for those who resort to violence.
In the case of the Nagpur violence, Sardesai’s analysis fails to address the criminality of the Islamist mobs. Stone-pelting, arson, and attacks on police are not legitimate forms of protest; they are acts of violence that must be condemned without reservation. By glossing over this, Sardesai seems to effectively give a free pass to those who disrupted peace and endangered lives.
Sardesai’s analysis of the Nagpur violence is a classic example of selective outrage and biased reporting. By ignoring the role of Islamist incitement and focusing solely on Hindu groups, he has perpetuated a one-sided narrative that distorts the truth and undermines the pursuit of justice. His statement, “To unleash a hate-filled narrative where you want to go and demolish Aurangzeb’s tomb, you must be prepared for some reaction and a backlash,” reflects his tendency to shift blame onto one side while seemingly excusing the other.
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.