The Left’s routine whitewashing of Islamist violence
Whenever a Muslim mob indulges in violence, an influential section of India’s so-called “liberal” ecosystem instantly rallies behind them. Their objective? To shift the blame onto Hindus, the BJP, the RSS, or any other convenient scapegoat—while shielding Islamists from accountability. This playbook was followed to the letter in the Nagpur violence case.
The riots erupted because Islamists took offence at demands to remove Aurangzeb’s tomb in Sambhaji Nagar—a demand that, by any rational measure, should have sparked a debate, not a riot. Aurangzeb was a documented religious bigot, a genocidal ruler responsible for the destruction of countless Hindu temples, forced conversions, and mass killings. And yet, instead of asking why Muslims continue to revere such a polarizing historical figure, the Left-wing discourse immediately pivoted to blaming Chhaava and Vicky Kaushal for “hurting sentiments.”
This intellectual dishonesty is not new. It is the same mechanism that kicked in after every major Islamist riot—from the anti-CAA protests to the Udaipur beheading of Kanhaiya Lal. Each time, instead of acknowledging the radicalization within a section of the Muslim community, the Left concocts excuses to exonerate the perpetrators and demonize those who merely speak inconvenient truths.
Whether it is Ram Guha or Apoorvanand, The Wire’s Siddharth Varadarajan or Rohini Singh, popularly referred to as 2 BHK on social media for her alleged proximity with a political party, or politicians of the Left persuasion, all of them have sought to blame truth-telling in the form of movies made on historical events for the Islamist penchant for violence, passing the buck on the victim for committing the unpardonable sin of amplifying the truth and shielding the perpetrators who are champing at the bit of taking to violent means to suppress dissent.
The ever-shifting goalpost: From Aurangzeb’s tomb to Chhaava
A telling aspect of this narrative manipulation is how swiftly Leftist commentators and Islamist apologists changed their justifications. Initially, they claimed that Hindus demanding the demolition of Aurangzeb’s tomb “provoked” Muslims into retaliation, the narrative took a sudden turn to blame Chhaava for igniting sentiments of Hindus by depicting historical truths about Mughal oppression. Whatever narrative floated their boat, liberals went along with it, latched onto Aurangzeb’s tomb controversy as well as Chhaava, alleging that Hindus had “pushed Muslims against the wall.”
This pattern is predictable. When Islamist mobs pelt stones at Hindus, the Left asks, “What provoked them?” When Hindus respond, the Left screams, “Fascism! Majoritarianism!” It is always Hindus who must self-censor, always Hindus who must bend over backwards to avoid offending Islamists.
The Left’s intellectual gaslighting and the “victimhood” industry
The Left’s gaslighting follows a well-rehearsed formula. First, they deny that Islamist violence is a recurring problem. Next, they claim that Muslims are perpetual victims, pushed into a corner by “Hindu majoritarianism.” Finally, they manufacture an excuse for why violence was inevitable—whether it’s a film like Chhaava, an election campaign, or even a mere demand to remove a tyrant’s tomb.
This strategy is designed to provide Islamists with an unchallenged space to operate, ensuring that they remain forever shielded from criticism. It also feeds into a dangerous victimhood complex, where even the most violent and intolerant elements within the Muslim community believe that they are justified in their actions because they have been “wronged” in some way.
The real question: Why are Islamists always itching to riot?
The more pressing question, which no Leftist intellectual dares to ask, is: Why do Islamists so often resort to violence at the slightest “provocation”? Why does a mere film or a historical discussion become an excuse for mayhem? Why does the “secular” Left never challenge this hair-trigger outrage?
The answer is uncomfortable: Islamists have been conditioned to believe that their religious sentiments are above scrutiny and that any challenge to their historical narratives is akin to blasphemy and must be met with force. So whether it’s Allaudin Khilji, Aurangzeb or any other Mongol marauder, the Islamists are trained to hail them as religious warriors and their criticism as sacrilege deserving of a violent response. This conditioning is actively enabled by India’s Left-wing elites, who have consistently provided intellectual and moral cover for their actions.
In the case of the Nagpur violence, no sincere attempt was made to question why 600-1,000 Muslims would riot over Aurangzeb’s tomb. No Leftist questioned why a historical mass murderer is still a revered figure and his grave being allowed to turn into a shrine where the faithful can congregate and draw inspiration for another Nagpur-like riot or Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj like torture. Instead, they followed their script—attacking Hindus, blaming the BJP, and portraying Muslims as helpless victims.
The consequence: Encouraging an endless cycle of violence
This deliberate mollycoddling of Islamists has dangerous consequences. By consistently shifting blame away from rioters and towards their victims, the Left ensures that Islamist violence remains unchecked. Every riot, every street veto, and every act of intolerance reinforces the idea that force, not reason, dictates public discourse in India.
