Social Vandalism of Sangh aligned SM warriors

Small Acts of Freedom

“Pakistan did not kill my dad, (the) war killed him”: That was the bold statement by a 19-year-old Gurmehar Kaur in one of her hand-held placards used in a silent video advocating peace between India and Pakistan, that was posted to youtube on 28 of April 2016.

She was the child of Captain Mandeep Singh, one among the seven Indian army personnel who was martyred on August 6, 1999, at 1:15 am IST while a Rashtriya Rifle camp was attacked by militants in J&K. It was reportedly, a statement made by her mother, Rajvinder Kaur when she found that the little Gurmehar at her age six was so much filled with hate against Muslims and Pakistanis. She brought up her daughter to the reality of war.

After a silence of nine months, by the beginning of February 2017, this particular placard was cherry-picked by Sangh Parivar apologists to mock the young student as she went to Twitter to campaign against the ABVP violence following the incidents at Rajas College of Delhi University. In her campaign, she made it clear that ‘she is not afraid of ABVP’. She also claimed that she is not alone, (but) every student of India is with her. Her hashtag campaign included the tagline, #StudentsAgainstABVP that irked the extreme right. What followed was an audacious campaign against a young woman in which, even the central minister Kiran Rijju participated. The cricketer moron Virender Sevag mocked her by flashing a placard saying he didn’t score the triple centuries, but his bat did. Javed Akhtar joined hands. She was declared antinational and was criticised to be playing at the hands of others.

Silencing the Liberal Voice

The Sangh campaign running against Deepak Sankaranarayanan is a repetition of the above. His refusal to bow down before Sangh Parivar hate campaigns made him a target for their social media team. Regretfully, Deepak’s employer is seemingly toying with their vicious line.

One of the primary lessons that a software programmer would master is the use of “if-conditions”. If at all, you qualify that condition, the programme should act accordingly. Else it should scout for other set options where the condition is true or exit the loop. This is also a basic lesson in logic that you are taught at school. Now revisit what, Deepak had reportedly written:

<quote>
It was not a crime committed by a group of ten men.

It was a murder committed by that ten men claiming the consent of 31% of Indian populace.

If they pose a hurdle to the deliverance of justice, even if it involves shooting down these 31% who voted in favour of Hindu militancy, a seven times larger casualty than of the second world war, justice should prevail.

Democracy belongs to an individual. It does not matter, how many are on the other side.

We should do this much at least for the sake of another Kashmiri Pandit, the man who sowed seeds of Indian democracy, who kept it intact from the prying eyes of crows until his death, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru.
</quote>

For the sake of it, we must also read what Deepak Sankaranarayanan wrote after his post was attacked:

<quote>
I understand that one of my posts has created some serious misunderstanding, and there are deliberate efforts and misinterpretations around to create confusion.

“*Fiat justitia ruat cælum*” is a Latin legal phrase, meaning “Let justice be done though the heavens fall.” The maxim signifies the belief that justice must be realised regardless of consequences, and I cited an example of that consequence.

In my post, I clearly made a conditional statement. It’s that irrespective of the number of people opposing it if at all they oppose the justice being done, the justice should be done. I just cited an extreme case as an example, that too with several impossible conditions to explain the scenario. It’s a call for justice, nothing against people. I’ve always been a Democrat, and I continue to be. If anyone genuinely believe that the post is offensive, I urge them to read it again. It’s clearly a call for justice for an individual irrespective of the number of people opposing it, which is the very basis of our great constitution. We’re a democratic country, not mobocratic.

In the light of the misunderstanding and misreading of my post, I hereby withdraw it. I regret the possible misunderstanding it caused. Though it’s a logical position and I don’t see it logically wrong, I apologise for the possible confusion it created.
</quote>

I rest my case.

Those who unleashed the hate campaign against Deepak, those who almost reached the brim of making the company, serve him a pink slip, are not those who didn’t study logic at school. They are the ones who rely on physical violence over any sound logic. If at all, the HR policy of companies like #HP is bound to fall flat in flexing of their muscles, it exposes the true nature of the lockout hasps, we are accustomed to in the pet-name: Social Media!

Personal Becomes Political

There are no safe havens in social media. The digital footprint will snitch you. Each and every word you utter here will be used literally against you even by far fetching its intended meanings. The kid who cries the loudest will be heard the most.

Deepak had always maintained that he has nothing common to talk or share with Sanghies, that he is not talking to them. To avoid unnecessary confrontations with them, this handle used to unfriend every Sangh apologist from his circle, never allowed space for them in his Facebook wall, used to block pro-Sanghi handles from further commenting on his posts and kept a safe distance from them.

This insulation was broken through the gesture of Deepa Nishanth, who reposted his post through her handle. She did it with good intention for sure. But it turned a bane. Deepak used to have zero tolerance for personal attacks. He stood the stand that he was not a public wall, but a personal space. He made his handle in Malayalam to make it less searchable. He made his friend circle trimmed to downplay the visibility, his posts would command. Deepa on the other hand always used to enjoy attacks being diverted at her. She was and is a favourite author among the Facebook addicts who devour at anything soft. As a woman and as an aided college lecturer, Deepa is at a safer position whereas, in the midst of drastic changes in labour rules, Deepak, a software solutions architect by profession is at a much vulnerable position. The gameplay of Sangh Parivar has identified this difference and have used it accordingly to their benefit. I am stating this, not to belittle or accuse Deepa Nishanth, but to showcase the ways, the self-declared enemies of dialectical and historical materialism making use of dialectics and history to strengthen their narrative. They are trying to prove that they could silence a handle that talks vociferously against their political agenda by plucking the owner of the handle from his ability to win bread for his family.

This is not a warning for Deepak Sankaranarayanan alone. It is to whomever, effective enough to build a counter-narrative against the muscle power of Sangh, a warning for each of those who use data against the onslaught on democracy. How well we are to counter these measures will deeply decide the future of civil rights and freedom of speech, we enjoy.

Companies deciding against their employees by considering just the one-sided hate campaign targeted upon their employees on the basis of wrong premises like that against Deepak should be checked at the earliest.

Labour and Freedom of Expression

There should be strong disagreements against targeting an employees’ job in the wake of a comment, he or she makes in social media. It is true that there is nothing like an absolute freedom. If the comment is putrid, you may react accordingly. Make use of rule of law. OTOH, pressurising the incorporated companies to act against their employees is a most regressive tactic, you could ever follow.

The first recorded witch hunt against any such employee that we know started against V M Devadas while he was blogging at two pseudonyms, ‘Lonappan’ and ‘Dinkan’. His whereabouts were hidden. An anonymous comment made by somebody in another person’s blog was attributed wrongly on Lonappan and a complaint was emailed to his employer from across the ocean. From where did they got the original ID and address is unknown. It marked the vicious circle in Malayalam blogosphere sometimes by the year 2005–06. Another episode was against T C Rajesh over his reportedly misogynistic comment, he made in a closed email group. A complaint shot to the head of the PR company where he works cost his job. This was unfortunately done by those who swear by freedom of speech and expression.

Right from the ordeal of Devadas, my stand is consistent on this behalf. Did the assistant manager in Kotak Mahindra made hate speech? File a complaint with the police, Sir. Do not litter on SM pages of the company with concerted trolls. Never pressurise the bank to sack an employee over what he said. His comment must go through the legal scrutiny to make sure that it was a crime. If the finding of the court is used as a ground for disciplinary action, let it be. But a comment that is unrelated to the company shouldn’t be a reason enough to act against a labourer. One should never rejoice in a companies decision to sack an employee for his expression. It will only help the cause of mob justice. If we start celebrating it, there wouldn’t be much to the left, left as a labour force in major companies.

The move against Deepak Sankaranarayanan too is similar. Whoever could raise such complaints against whoever having a loud opinion, different from that of the former. It should be dealt in a court of law. The decision of the court should be binding on the employer company, not the mob pressure on purported or twisted logic. Never a hate campaign run using a misread Facebook posting.

Nuances of the Expressions

Vishnu Nandakumar was attacked on the basis of what he said. It was directly targeting the victim of Katwa violence. On the contrary, Deepak Shankaranarayan is being attacked because the way he is misunderstood. The details of these two cases are lost in the din. Nobody will consider such nuances when a confrontation arises. We are going to face more and more of this strategy unless we unilaterally stand against any such attempt, genuine or conduced. We could hope that the social media policy of a company should only watch for the content, not the additives poured upon by others. But at the other end, the easy way out for a frustrated middle-aged HR guy will be to fire an employee, no matter what.

At the helm of the corporate world, most do support the drastic economic policies of the BJP led NDA government. For the same reason, after this is being played out, Vishnu will be silently absorbed by one or the other corporate entities in India with a decent posting. None of the leftists will enjoy the same privilege. Know your ground before you play along. Watch out.

The Sangh is only trying to divert the attention of the nation from the heinous acts in Katwa and Unnao. The attack against Deepak and other such pressure tactics to contain the protests in social media are just reflecting on their treacherous intent. Threatening a bread-winner at his job is a tactical game to win over the narrative. This is a bloat test to check whether we stand with democratic ethos at the time of distress. We are to counter this gameplay. We are India. We are here to question the rape terrorists. This is #IndiaVsRapists and not the other way around.

Let me end this by quoting Prasanth Alappuzha:

The largest goon army in the world is trying to divert the attention from the heinous crime done by its followers. They are perplexed by the fact that people started realising the fact that the basic ideology of saffron terrorism is the culprit. The indoctrination of venomous ideology of saffron terrorism can make you a hardcore criminal. The attention diversion techniques of challenging private spaces of critics are yet another wicked program.
It has to fail, to protect our freedom of expression. Protect our right to privacy.