Recently a couple was beaten by some senior citizen commuters of Kolkata Metro, for openly making some lovemaking acts in the metro. After this incident, media and social media went berserk on those senior citizens and started openly abusing everyone who opposed their views and supported the elderly people. The Facebook users not only protested against this (what they called) ‘moral policing’ but also abused an elderly person on his FB profile in filthiest possible language. They created fake FB IDs of that person and then using those fake IDs, they created fake chat messages to show him a pervert. Even a girl has changed her profile picture and name to impersonate that old man. This was evident because in these profiles the names and the pictures were changed after the incident.
24-Ghonta (a Bengali News channel) has published a video that went viral, showed an eye-witness (a journalist) saying that the couple was not doing anything wrong and they were standing at one place hugging each other and there was a war of words with a senior citizen. In this war of words, the senior citizen got violent ‘for no reason’ and started beating the couple while the girl tried to safeguard her boyfriend by guarding him. The first photo that was circulating, showed as if those male senior citizens were beating the girl. There were many memes and posts created as those men being ‘sex-starved’, ‘incapable to enjoy their sex-life’, ‘perverts’ etc.
This was such an outrageous and demeaning logic, it defied all standards of responsible journalism. How could they shame those men about something they didn’t know about? Did this mean anyone who protested open display of sexuality was sex-starved too? Those young people, those parents who wanted to safeguard their children from this obscenity? Also, why it should not mean that those who wanted this open display of sexuality were actually sex-maniac, voyeurs? Why it should not be construed as their frustration for not able to have good sex, hence they wanted to see others in the act?
Nachiketa, a prominent Bengali singer came in a discussion on 24-Ghonta and mocked these men saying they were jealous that they were not able to ‘enjoy’ their sex-life. One journalist claimed, that one of his female colleagues said when men openly pee no one bothers. Her claim was a man openly displays his genitals in public and shows to women.
Debate Over Peeing in Public
I was not sure how the woman could claim that men pee on the road by ‘showing’ their genitals to others. Yes, in India men do need to pee on the roadside but that is in one corner where no one else can see unless of course, those passers-by try to peep over his shoulders to see his genitals. If a woman journalist has claimed that she has seen genitals like that, then understandably she would have tried to peep over someone. Also, peeing in public is still considered a punishable offense in India but people in some cases are forced to do this because of extreme dearth of public toilets in some places. This is not open sexual display as the channel showed. This, however, showed the pathetic standard of journalism in India.
The same act of peeing in public can be considered as ‘vulgar’ when the man tries to show his genitals to others and perform any sexual act. Problem with this yellow-journalism in India is, they try to create misinformation in the minds of the youth and create an unnecessary social disturbance.
Media and Its Fake Propaganda
This news of the couple being beaten in public, first came in media as ‘Senior Citizens Have Beaten A Young Couple for ‘Hugging’ in the Metro Rail.’ Youngsters from all over India went berserk on Facebook with absolute filthy language to the older generation. The matter became huge when they could somehow find a profile similar to one person in the media image. This was an old man and the protesters went all through his profile and commented on his every single post in filthiest possible language.
The protesters, who were so far calling themselves liberals and were protesting against older generation taking laws into their hands, openly gave him all kinds of threat including but not limited to rape him, called him names, wanted to cut his genitals etc. Some youngsters also demonstrated in front of Dum Dum Metro Railway station and openly kissed other girls to mark a protest and to uphold their ‘Rights’ to do whatever they want in public places.
Metro Railway initially protested against the couple’s behavior but after intense threat from this mob, even Metro authorities went back on their words and started protesting against the ‘moral policing’. Some people started threatening Kolkata Metro Railways with ‘Class Action Lawsuit’ as Indian Constitution under Article 19(1)a guarantees the ‘Right to Free Speech and Expression’. With this half-baked knowledge and information about their rights, this group went berserk on Social Media.
One important point to note in the story told by 24-Ghonta journalist was that he boarded the train much later and also he was on another side of the coach. He heard people shouting and then went to the side where the incident was happening. Now, the question is exactly when he went to that side and how much he has actually seen. Another witness came in media after a couple of days and he corroborated Chaitali’s story saying that the couple was extremely misbehaving. Also, his narration of the last part of the story did match the story told by the 24-Ghonta journo but his claim was the couple was very much arrogant and rude in that too. So, the journalist not only told half-story but he has manipulated the incident per his wish.
A Twist in Media Story
A big twist in the story came when a Radio-Jockey of a local FM channel came forward with a video where she claimed that one of her sisters traveled in the same Metro coach that day and saw the incidence from the beginning. She claimed, that whatever people knew until then was a half-truth.
According to her video, her sister boarded the Metro much earlier and witnessed the couple’s vulgar behavior in Metro even when the train was empty. Though there were seats available, they didn’t sit but went around desperately showing their sexual activity to others. Those who didn’t want to bother, the couple stood there to show them how they were making love in public. When some old men protested, they started misbehaving with them in filthy language saying, ‘this is the 21st century’, ‘they know their rights and freedom of expression’ etc. This was going on for some time when the senior citizens could not take it anymore and started beating the couple.
The journalist of the Bengali media, however, disagreed with the version of how the public started beating and claimed that the couple didn’t misbehave in any manner. However, his version did clarify that the girl was trying to save her boyfriend from public thrashing and hence got beaten in the process as she came in between and the crowd actually didn’t target her.
As an MRA I should probably protest saying why the girl was also not equally beaten, this is misandry etc. but I will keep that for some other day.
Another Twist in A Third Video
Meanwhile, another video came to light where a girl who claimed to be a friend of this couple, told how even she was harassed by senior citizens earlier. She claimed, she was with this couple in this journey as well but she boarded off early. Her video did not have any value from acceptable evidence perspective because –
- She is a friend of the victims, hence is an interested party and not an independent person
- She was not present in the Metro when the incident (beating) happened.
- Her claim of being there needed to be proved
Another important point to note is even though she was protesting against people taking laws in their hands, she narrated a story where she herself has proudly beaten another old man in Metro rail. So, liberals when they say that no one can take laws in their hands, actually do the opposite when it comes to their personal form of justice. She wanted to prove that old men who travel by Metro are sex-maniacs, molesters etc. Even Nachiketa, a Bengali Singer (who became famous for his abusive songs) has projected these men as sex-starved, jealous, frustrated etc.
However, that theory doesn’t go well when we see a number of people becoming violent over one or two persons, we understand there was certainly a major problem with those two.
The fate of RJ’s video
The mainstream media hypnotized people with fake news so much that people didn’t believe the RJ’s story at all. Instead, those liberals who frequently talk about women’s rights, women’s liberalization etc.; started abusing her openly. It was so bad, that even as an MRA, I would not have attacked any woman like that so far. Overwhelmed by this public attack, she had to withdraw her video from Facebook and apologize, saying –
“My views on the recent incident have hurt many of you, but I would like to assure you that it was never my intention. My effort has always been to share great music and interact with all of you. I hope we can move past this.”
Her mention of ‘My views’ in this post created a confusion among people that the video was entirely her view and was a fiction. People thought she did not have any sister who witnessed the incidence. However, in her video that RJ did add a portion with her views that people have criticized a lot (and I am sure that was criticized by her channel as well because it was not ‘politically correct’, it was against mainstream media and against the popular view created by the liberals). She was referring to that part of the video. With this update and her deleting the video, the suspicion about the video grew higher and people started bashing her again. While we understood that she was a victim of this politically-correct society, most people didn’t understand that.
Khajuraho Carvings vs Open Sexual Display on Roads
Many started asking on social media that if India has Khajuraho temples where there are sexual carvings for open display, why is it a problem if youngsters show their passion openly in the streets. This, however, needs an understanding of Indian philosophy and history and that is a lengthy discussion. Hence, I promise to discuss this topic in an article in my Vedic India series.
Where Our ‘Rights’ End
It’s very important to understand that we don’t have absolute rights and no society can afford to have absolute rights to its citizens. In a recent submission to Supreme Court, the Indian Govt. has said that citizens don’t have the absolute right even over their own body.
However, without deviating from the subject of Kolkata Metro incident, where some were threatening the use of Article 19(1)a to ensure their ‘Rights’ to open display of vulgarism, we need to understand that this section comes with restriction as mentioned in our constitution like this –
[(2) Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of [the sovereignty and integrity of India,]**** the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.]***
So, if our public behavior doesn’t conform to the standard public norms of decency and morality then action can be taken against anybody.
How Can Society Take Laws into Their Hands?
At this point a very important question was raised how can anybody take laws into their hands? In many earlier occasions of public lynching, I have protested vigorously against people taking laws in their hands. But in all those cases the accused were in police custody or under investigation and the public didn’t know a complete truth. Hence, taking laws into their hands were not acceptable.
However, this is not the case in Kolkata Metro incident. These people knew about the incident and they were a party to it. If the couple had the ‘right’ to show their emotions openly, then public also had the ‘right’ to show their counter emotions to ensure their another ‘right’ to have a peaceful travel without being troubled by open vulgarism.
When we talk about ‘right’ of the couple in such cases, we also need to understand that parents and elders of a family have the ‘right’ to ensure their children don’t get swayed by such vulgarism and ruin their life. Metro is a place where even school kids travel and such open display of sexuality can harm them. So, the parents are very much within their ‘right’ to react in such cases.
Why Society Can’t Stop Reacting
If we want the society to stop reacting to such incidents, then soon the society will be silent about crimes happening around. Recently there were complaints of girls being molested in public and no one reacted. If media and liberals react so violently over senior citizens how can we expect the society to react ever? How will anybody know who is exhibiting what ‘right’? When our ‘rights’ become so vague, social practices become so undefined, then society becomes irresponsible and fragile.
Nachiketa has raised a question in his interview, that none of these old men ever raises a complaint or beat the policeman on duty when they see a policeman taking a bribe. This showed what kind of hypocrite he was. On one hand, he was protesting against people taking the law into their hands in this incident, on the other hand, he was instigating them to do so in another. Is it not their ‘right’ to decide when they want to react and when not? Also, I have never seen public beating the shit out of people like Nachiketa or the irresponsible media that promote vulgarism, too. So, should we start that now?
Many received threats from so-called ‘libtards’ on social media for opposing this open promotion of vulgarism. All that matter to these libtards is mindlessly following what the media tells without understanding the basic fact that no society can be built on the mindless ‘rights’.
Those who still do not understand this, need to know that there is a section of our constitution, that is on ‘Citizen Responsibilities’. Please read that, you will understand why your rights are not absolute and where your rights actually end. If your ‘rights’ infringe that of others, then you will be taken to task, like this –