[throwaway_9120]

If you watch the full debate, the Muslim panelists were continuously mocking Hindu Gods, Nupur got fed up and replied to them in the similar manner.

What this fact checker cunningly did was to edit out the Muslim panellist mocking and simply showed her part of the clip. He has a mass following in Islamic nations and it got blown out of proportion.

[commoner]

Political leaders are expected to conduct themselves appropriately in public view because they are selected to represent all of their constituents. If a politician makes an appearance on live television and says something that is offensive to their constituents, they can expect political repercussions regardless of what anyone else said on the TV show.

That other people in the debate compared a Shivling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingam) to roadside signs and poles does not excuse Nupur Sharma from the repercussions of what she said. Sharma made comments that she knew would be offensive to a religious minority, and she was expelled from her position as the national spokesperson of the Bharatiya Janata Party because that was not the behavior the public expected from a high-ranking political figure.

https://indianexpress.com/article/india/bjp-suspends-nupur-s...

When someone like Mohammed Zubair makes a supercut of Sharma's comments to highlight the fact that a politician is not appropriately representing her constituents, it's not Zubair's fault that Sharma made those comments in the first place.

[throwaway_9120]

At the end of the day one is a human being who gets triggered on repeated offensive things. If you look-up, what she said was not incorrect since several Islamic scholars make the same claim. I guess the aggressive tone in what she said made all the difference.

For the record, Nupur does not represent any constituents in the purest sense. She was the spokesperson, that’s it. She is neither an MP nor MLA.

[fellellor]

She should be able to say anything she wants on Islam and Muhammed. The only consequence to her should be what is in the Indian Penal Code, and ostracisation by her constituents. She doesn't deserve to be lynched by a muslim mob for that.

People like you who justify mob lynching don't belong in civilised society.

[dang]

Personal attacks will get you banned on HN, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[commoner]

Sharma made incendiary comments on live television. Zubair and many other people called her out for her comments, and in response, her political party (the BJP) expelled her from her position as national spokesperson. She was not "lynched".

When a politician chooses to make incendiary comments that are then met with anger from the public, that politician has nobody to blame but herself for the negative response.

[fellellor]

Gaslighting at it's finest right here. Nupur Sharma can never live a normal life. The moment her security is removed, and whereabouts are known she will absolutely get murdered by some Muslim fanatic, just like Kamlesh Tiwari.

This is mentally sick.

[commoner]

You're abusing the word "gaslighting". Nobody is claiming that Nupur Sharma deserves any retribution beyond expulsion from her position.

High-profile figures are more vulnerable than average individuals and it is not in anyone's interest to make incendiary statements that expose themselves to higher security risks. Sharma should have taken this into consideration before saying what she did on national television, even though any violence against her would be unjustified.

[throwaway_9120]

And guess what Muslim fanatics have butchered few Hindus already on this issue. These were the normal people who simply liked or expressed support for Nupur.

The amazing thing is that even after killings, these fanatics cry victim hood.

[dmix]

As bad as that is, and it is helpful you've provided some context here, I still don't think that's worthy of jail or any sort of formal state punishment. Which obviously is not a controversial take in most western countries. But more importantly I don't think it's an effective strategy to deal with the problem. Censorship rarely ever works unless you go full-bore and destroy plenty of good will and legitimate human progress in between.

Twitter has a great feature for that not where citizens can provide context / 'fact check' an article without deleting it. That's the best (and IMO only legitimate way) to deal with this stuff, countering bad information with better information. While still exposing publicly that this person is lying to you. As opposed to deleting or censoring it, you put up a big flag that says "there's more to this story".