oppn parties Was Azam Khan Punished By The EC Because He Is A Muslim?

News Snippets

  • Supreme Court rules that functional disability should be the deciding factor in granting road accident damages and not any doctor-issued disability certificate
  • Supreme Court flagged the fact that nearly 56% of the vehicles plying in India were uninsured and asked the government to challan them
  • An Air India flight from Phuket to Delhi encountered severe turbulence and 17 passengers were admitted to hospital with injuries
  • Calcutta HC said that heavens won't fall if Vande Matram is made mandatory to sing in madrasas
  • Kolkata Municipal Corporation has sought government nod for increasing city's wards to 200+ to keep residents in each ward between 16000 to 18000
  • Government has said that partially filled online Census forms may be allowed
  • Government may allow fees on UPI payments above Rs 2000, except on transfer between two individuals
  • Brent crude falls below $80 per barrel
  • Government has increased the LIC offer for sale to Rs 31,400cr with an additional 4% on the block
  • Stock markets become nervous on Tuesday due to Gulf situation: Sensex slides 210 points and Nifty sheds 159 points ahead of RBI MPC meets today
  • Indian cricket team lands in Sri Lanka for a 2-Test series
  • A former French Navy pilot who had alleged that IAF had lost Rafales during Operation Sindoor has been held in France on spying charges
  • An ordinary zari worked living just 100km away from Kolkata was stunned to find Rs 100cr deposited in the bank account. The bank has frozen her account pending enquiry
  • Businessmen in Kolkata gets a Rs 5-crore extortion call, allegedly from the Lawrence Bishnoi gang
  • NTA floats tenders to secure offices and exam materials round-the-clock
Tarun Tejpal, former editor of Tehelka, was sentenced to 10 years in jail by Bombay HC for raping a colleague. This judgment overturns the acquittal by a Goa sessions court
oppn parties
Was Azam Khan Punished By The EC Because He Is A Muslim?

By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2019-04-18 11:59:00

About the Author

Sunil Garodia Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator. Author of Cyber Scams in India, Digital Arrest, The Money Trap and The Human Hack
SP leader Azam Khan’s son Abdullah has displayed the same sick mentality that afflicts a majority of the Muslims and their leaders in India. If any action is taken against any Muslim person, more often than not the aggrieved person or the self-styled guardians of the community immediately try to paint it in communal colour. Azam Khan, says his son Abdullah, was banned from campaigning for 72 hours by the Election Commission because he is a Muslim. He further added that the Hindus would have been incensed if only Yogi Adityanath was banned; hence Azam Khan was banned to counterbalance the action.

Nothing can be more preposterous than making a charge like this. To put things in the correct perspective, the EC did not ban only Adityanath and Azam Khan. It also banned Mayawati and Maneka Gandhi. Those with a crooked bent of mind might say that to two each from the ruling party and the opposition were banned to ‘counterbalance’ the action. There can be no end to such arguments. People must realize that the ban was for those who deviated from the model code of conduct and not because of their religious or political affiliations.

It is sad that Muslims and their self-styled leaders think that they are habitually persecuted in India. If two persons, one Hindu and one Muslim, stand in a queue to get the same work done in a government department and if both of them are unable to get it done, the Hindu might go away cursing his luck or railing against the officer for asking for bribe which he could not pay but, more often than not, the Muslim will say that his work was not done because he is a Muslim. This is not correct and is an oblique way of putting pressure on the officers to get work done. The minority community should not raise the bogey of communalism at every given opportunity or in matters that are not even remotely connected to religion.

Azam Khan made a very misogynistic comment. It is not always required that the name of the person against whom the comment is made is spelled out in black and white. Azam Khan is not stupid and neither is the public. Khan knew who he was meaning and the public knew who he was targeting. Then if he is punished for it, why bring religion into it?