When a man was killed in Dadri on suspicion of cow slaughter and beef consumption, it elicited, and rightly so, concern and outrage from many. The leading outragers were those who self-identify as “liberals”.

Apart from absolving the state government and taking selfies outside the house of the murdered man, these liberals decided to attack the belief that supposedly was the central reason why the man was killed – the belief that cow is a sacred animal which shouldn’t be slaughtered for food.

In fact, they decided to attack the cow itself, even as they desperately tried to paint every crime as cow related violence.

If you are active on social media, you would remember that many of these liberals had changed their display pictures to that of a cow with blood on her mouth – the way lion’s mouth looks after a kill.

- Advertisement -

In fact, the expression on a lion’s face after a kill is that of a contentment, for the big cat has just satisfied its hunger, but that picture of the cow had a sinister look in its eyes with its nostrils blowing out anger, as if it were hungry for more. You know, a bloodthirsty cow.

Cow, the only being who can legitimately say ‘not in my name’, was made a symbol of hate.

This hate campaign resulted into a public slaughter of a cow by the Congress party workers in Kerala. If one is liberal enough to consider speciesism as a form of discrimination, what happened in Kerala was a ‘hate crime’.

It didn’t end with public display of hatred by killing of a cow. Only a few days back, “Cow is food” posters were flashed in ‘not in my name’ protests, because liberals were on a mission to drill some rationalism into the thick head of stupid people who think that cow is mother.

I don’t find it entirely wrong to attack a belief, if that belief is the central reason behind a crime. Except that I never find these liberals attacking Islamic beliefs when a crime has been committed due to that.

Where are “Kaaba is just a building” posters on the lines of “Cow is food” posters? Or worse, if the cow can be drawn as a man-eater, how exactly should one draw Kaaba or the Prophet? A man has died, just like a man had died in Dadri.

I’m referring to Muslim mobs going on rampage, destroying government and private properties and desecrating Hindu temples in the Basirhat region of West Bengal. All because the mobs believe that Kaaba is sacred and a Facebook post didn’t show it in good light.

But there is no outrage at all from the “liberals” directed at Kaaba the way they got all creative and aggressive with the Cow. The spine to take on a belief that leads mobs to indulge in violence is missing.

To be fair, this anatomical mystery is not unique to the Indian liberals. When Charlie Hebdo cartoonists and satirists were killed, even their western counterparts too largely focused on the cartoons rather than the belief that led to the killing. Similarly, a teenager’s Facebook post is being blamed than the belief that makes a mob bay for blood.

We don’t really know what exactly was the nature of the Facebook post that offended the Muslims so much. Some claim that Kaaba was shown as Shiva temple or Shivalingam.

Regardless of whether that Facebook post did show Kaaba as Shivalingam or not, it is anybody’s guess how many “liberals” will endorse such imagery. They will condemn it as “provocative”. The image will be argued to be “supremacist” as it would show Muslims bowing to a Hindu symbol.

Bad to tinker with the sacred of one by inserting another religion’s symbols, no?

How about a painting that shows Hindu god Krishna taking part in Eid celebrations?

A 17th century painting depicting Krishna showing Eid moon to his Muslim friends!Wonder how painter would be labelled today? Anti-national?? pic.twitter.com/gZ7GcMFrYk — Rajdeep Sardesai (@sardesairajdeep) June 26, 2017

That is apparently shared heritage.

Liberals can continue to dodge these questions by dismissing them as “whataboutery” (which is why I used “how about” – so smart of me) but they have to ask themselves why do they employ these double standards when it comes to the faith and beliefs of Muslims.

When a belief leads to violence, why do they choose to counter Hindu beliefs with rationalism (and not much quarrel I have there personally) but choose to avoid countering the Muslim beliefs?

Cow gets their tongue? Or the spine genuflects in sajda?

I can think of only four reasons why they have such glaring double standards:

First. They are scared of the repercussions. If they choose to change their display picture to a cartoon of Kaaba, their own picture will be seen garlanded with flowers the next day. In that case, for god’s sake, and for Allah’s sake, stop your “all religions are the same” nonsense. Clearly some religions are more intolerant and violent; have the guts to acknowledge that without false equivalences.

Second. They actually believe that considering a building or place sacred is more logical and rational a belief than considering an animal sacred. You know, that is not liberal, but Abrahamic belief; or a Hinduphobic belief. And in this case again, stop your “all religions are the same” nonsense as you clearly believe that Hinduism is a lesser religion. Again, have the guts to acknowledge that and be honest like the Jihadis who say the same openly.

Third. They believe that some acts are provocative enough to attract violence. In the current case, they believe that hurting religious sentiments through an image is more provocative than stealing cattle (one of the key reasons leading to cow related violence). Well, you should stop calling yourselves liberal then, for it is very conservative a thought to put religious beliefs over economic considerations.

And the fourth one. They are deluded hypocrites. In which case, you don’t need to do anything. Continue being the same, as you’re only helping your enemies.