Indian “liberals” are as predictable as religious bigots. As soon as Islamic terrorists barged into the office of Charlie Hebdo, a French satirical magazine, and killed around a dozen of people, one thought they would shed their predictable behaviour of being an apologist for Islamic terrorists. But one was expecting too much.

Take a look at what they had to say.

Sajid Bhombal is not any celebrity or prominent person as such but is one of the oft-seen faces of Indian Twitter liberal circuit. He was worried about “Hindu Right Wing Orgasm” when Islamists were massacring journalists:

A day like this gives collective orgasm to Hindu Right loonies in India. — Sajid Bhombal (@SajidBhombal) January 7, 2015

- Advertisement -

Another liberal tried to shift focus from Islamic terrorists:

Sorry, you cannot use the #Hebdo attack to justify loonies in your own religion saying, "my loonies are not so bad". They're all bad. — ranjona banerji (@ranjona) January 7, 2015

Tanmay Bhatt, a stand-up comedian, who should have been unflinchingly standing by those who were massacred for upholding the art of satire, chose to take pot shots at Modi fans instead of denouncing Islamic terrorists:

https://twitter.com/thetanmay/status/552868046620995584

Aseem Chhabra finds dead bodies of murdered people so opportunistically cool that he shamelessly links it to religious conversions:

@mojorojo Dude, let's also look at the conversation we need to have within our own house of Hinduism with the ban this, convert them people! — Aseem Chhabra (@chhabs) January 7, 2015

And then, Sabbah Haji Baji explains that only peace is onus on Islam and Muslims:

No @mojorojo seriously onus not on 'Islam' or Muslims to defend shits https://t.co/aSr02XKzgY — Sabbah Haji Baji (@imsabbah) January 7, 2015

The BS (Business Standard, not Bull Shit) journalist Mihir Sharma, a well known apologist of the Congress party and Islamist ideology, was less worried about deaths of fellow journalists but more excited about reactions from “Hindutavavadis”:

Hindutvavadi nutters overjoyed they can once again point out they have not killed as many people as Islamists. Yet. — Mihir Sharma (@mihirssharma) January 7, 2015

Rightly pointed out by Raju Das, Mihir Sharma was so disappointed by outrage on PK that he compares killing with outrage:

This sick person is disappointed that VHP did not physically attacked PK team so that he can make his point: http://t.co/UtvfAoofe7 — Raju Das | ৰাজু দাস (@rajudasonline) January 7, 2015

The BS journalist got support from a little known but vocal Internet Liberal called Anna Vetticad, was interested in counting dead bodies in communal riots. For her benefit, ISIS has already killed more people than she can count:

@mihirssharma Somehow no one counts rioting mobs & their leaders as terrorists. If we did, would their numbers be less? Just wondering. — Anna MM Vetticad (@annavetticad) January 7, 2015

Former Tehelka journalist Rana Ayyub too drew parallels between protests against an Ambedkar cartoon and massacre in France. Looks like she erred as her tweet will divide the “Idea of India” community. Protests against Ambedkar cartoons were not organized by any Hindu Right-Wing group, but Dalit groups, who are not considered Hindus by likes of her:

Incase we need a reminder, remember the furore over the 20 year old Ambedkar cartoons in NCERT textbooks. Introspect before you outrage ! — Rana Ayyub (@RanaAyyub) January 7, 2015

If you can’t respect Islam, you can be killed with condolences. In all other cases of religious outrage, you are a bigot communal:

People need to respect the religion of the other . Anyway condolences to families #ParisShooting — Faieza Khan (@faiezakhan) January 7, 2015

You can’t take a stand against terrorism, but you have all the freedom to shout that “Terrorism has no religion”

@TarekFatah @barrybateman we do not mock other religions so why must people mock our prophet. I do not condone the violence though. — Aadil moolla ?? (@Aadil_moolla) January 7, 2015

Terror has no religion, the world must unite to fight this menace once and for all, strongly condemn the Paris terror attack. — ShivrajSingh Chouhan (@ChouhanShivraj) January 7, 2015

What does “Freedom of Expression” actually mean? Is it so so customizable? And can you see victim blaming?

https://twitter.com/srih2481/status/552825399604822019

Since no “Internet Hindu” is involved, Sagarika Ghose is acting a neutral philosopher now:

Religious fanatics of all hues attack journalists as latter are sometimes the only ones left in society who raise questions #ParisShooting — Sagarika Ghose (@sagarikaghose) January 7, 2015

While drawing false equivalences between Hindu groups and Islamist terrorists was always expected, “liberals” went a step ahead this time and indulged in victim-blaming.

Some of them raised question whether the magazine “asked for it”! They thought the magazine was responsible for proving the terrorists. They were treading into an area where they almost said, “It’s bad, but we need to debate what the terrorists want us to debate.”

Coming from a cop like Kiran Bedi, who should never indulge in victim blaming, this tweet was quite shocking:

France Terror-Shoot-Out sends a message: why deliberately provoke or poke? Be respectful and civil. Don't hurt people's sensitivities! — Kiran Bedi (@thekiranbedi) January 7, 2015

For others, Freedom of expression is valid until Islam is not involved. As soon as Islam is mocked, it becomes an “irrational radical crime”:

Why #CharlieHebdo would risk so irresponsibly w/cartoons, forcing France to close embassies/schools in 20 countries? Radical invokes radical — 2kdei ? (@2kdei) January 7, 2015

Another shocking tweet that almost said that the magazine invited the murders upon themselves. Coming from a person who comes on TV as a “rational” and balanced professional:

#CharlieHebdo Horrible and condemnable attack although Q arises whether satirical magazine should be satirising Prophets of any religion? — K. C. Singh (@ambkcsingh) January 7, 2015

The Hindu took no time in becoming an apologist. It also went so far that it blamed the people who are killed: