Suspended BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma’s remarks on Prophet Muhammad on national television sparked outrage among the Muslim community in India and abroad. Her comments were condemned by many, including those from the Arab world.
Though she quoted Islamic texts to say something about Prophet Muhammad, her tone and tenor made it offensive. The backlash inside the country came by way of violent protests in many cities. However, when it started denting India’s secular credential overseas, and bilateral trade partners in the Gulf region dissenting, the center quickly went into a fire-fighting mode. It suspended Nupur Sharma and an FIR was registered against her.
What did Nupur Sharma say about Prophet Muhammad?
In the Times Now debate, Nupur Sharma counters a fellow panelist, by asking, “Should I start mocking at” and then mentions a few things purportedly mentioned in the Quran and other Islamic texts. She asks, “Should I ridicule the ‘flying horse’ mentioned in the Quran?” Then she says the controversial remark: “Should I mock at — Marries a girl at 6 and consummates with her when she is 9, that too who, Prophet Mohammad?” She then asks, “Should I talk about Quran’s claim that the earth is flat?”
What did the SC bench say about Nupur Sharma?
Justices Surya Kant and Pardiwala, chairing the vacation bench of the Supreme Court gave their observation on Nupur Sharma. They said, “She has a loose tongue and has made all kinds of irresponsible assessments on the television and set the entire nation on fire…She should apologize to the whole country for her comments.” Further, they added, “The lady is single-handedly responsible for what is happening in the country.”
Now, these comments of the Supreme Court have kindled a public debate, not just from the supporters of Nupur Sharma. Given the premise, is Supreme Court — the vacation bench headed by Justice Surya Kant and Justice Pardiwala — right in its observation?
The utterances of the Supreme Court should not be temperamental, not like another spokesperson of a political party arguing back in a televised interview. They can be sharp and striking. They should talk about the act rather than the person, especially when there is no heinous crime or repeated offense committed by the person. A personal remark on an individual (like “She has a loose tongue”) does not befit the stature of the Supreme Court.
Violent retribution for blasphemy
The way Nupur Sharma spoke about Prophet Mohammad, in a way hurting the religious sentiments of Muslims, requires serious condemnation. It’s not like she was concerned about factual and ethical discrepancies in all religions. Nupur Sharma is not a rationalist to do so. She was evidently leaning towards her religion of personal and political interest and pointing out flaws in another faith.
However, violent street protests, hurting cops on duty, and the beheading of a common man to avenge the insult to Prophet Muhammad cannot be justified. How can a lady and her ‘irresponsible statements’ be single-handedly responsible for violent retribution? If Nupur Sharma was wrong, let the court decide a sentence per law. No one should use that to justify the brutal murder of tailor Kanhaiya Lal in Udaipur. The Supreme Court bench should have called a spade a spade and condemned with unequivocal voice the errors and crimes on both sides.
Image: Indian Express