Bhaskar Opinion: Nupur Sharma’s statement, the Maulana who provoked her and the Supreme Court’s reprimand

Fighting nations should not be the job of our leaders. This was the work of the British. The British made our culture, gods and goddesses, caste and caste all weapons and kept cutting and cutting us from them. But this cycle continues even now. Why? The Supreme Court raised the same question on Friday.

Nupur Sharma was badly reprimanded for making a statement which falls under the category of blasphemy. The court said that the national fire that started, the atmosphere of hatred that was created is all a result of Nupur Sharma’s statement. The court also expressed astonishment at our system and the negligence of the government. Said that how unjust and unbearable it is that the person against whom Nupur Sharma complained was arrested, but Nupur, who gave the statement, was not arrested.

In fact, the whole matter is made and worsened by being with and against the power. Anyway, over the years, the third party, which you can call neutral or neutral, has completely disappeared. Now you are either in favor of someone or against. The term neutrality has been discarded. Well, the system will give the answer to the court as to why Nupur Sharma was saved, meanwhile, if we do not talk about the Maulana who was provoking Nupur by sitting on the national channel, then the matter will remain incomplete.

There was a debate on TV on Shivling found in Gyanvapi, Varanasi, during this debate Nupur Sharma’s controversial statement came.

The debate was actually on Gyanvapi. Maulana was repeatedly telling Shivalinga as a fountain. The fountain over which the worshipers have been performing Wudu for years. Wudu says to wash hands and feet, to be pure before offering Namaz. Not only this, Maulana said many such things which he should not say. Although what Nupur said in anger was completely wrong, but what about that Maulana? Who got side by side by sparking this whole incident?

The Supreme Court has even raised questions on that national news channel. Actually, in the affair of TRP, these sirens adopt new methods. The question of the court is that then the issue of Gyanvapi was sub-judice in the court. Who allowed the channel to have an open debate on any pending issue? Whereas the issues under consideration in the court are not even debated in the Parliament. Well, the job of channels is to instigate issues, it seems.

After Nupur Sharma’s statement, there were violent agitations across the country.

You are limited to the news, till then everything is fine, but what happens in the name of a debate? One is the person on the side of the issue. Second opposition. The third is the expert who instigates the pros and cons. And the fourth is the anchor who reprimands all three. In such a situation, until the debate is not very heated, till the words of crying, anger, etc. do not reach, then it is not considered successful. Many times the fight has also gone live.

Overall, Maryada went to a country whose name is not known. Restraint is seen floating in that ocean, in which there is nothing but the salty but forceful waters of despair. It should be that the parties should put forward only restrained people to give statements on national matters, otherwise the misrepresentation will continue and fights will continue.