Two recent incidents in Maharashtra—the Nagpur violence triggered by protests against Mughal emperor Aurangzeb and the vandalism of Mumbai’s Habitat Studio following “comedian” Kunal Kamra’s provocative remarks—expose the glaring hypocrisy of left-leaning intellectuals and their shameless intellectual dishonesty in their selective outrage against two incidents, both of which ended up in grave loss to private property.
While the Nagpur riots saw a furious Muslim mob indulging in arson and destruction of public property, stone-pelting, and torching of private vehicles, the Mumbai incident involved Shiv Sena workers attacking a venue after Kamra’s politically charged jabs at their leader. Yet, the response from the so-called liberal intellectual class has been jarringly inconsistent.
The vandalism in Mumbai was provoked by washed-up comedian Kunal Kamra, who in a meticulously crafted “skit”, criticised former Maharashtra CM Eknath Shinde. On Sunday, 23rd of March, Shiv Sena workers reportedly vandalised the hotel – The Unicontinental Mumbai, in Khar – where Kunal Kamra did his “comedy” skit. Members of Shiv Sena also gathered outside various police stations demanding action against Kamra.
In his skit, Kunal Kamra performed a parody song set to the tune of the 1997 Bollywood song ‘Dil to pagal hai’. In that, he had referred to Chief Minister Eknath Shinde as ‘Gaddar’ (traitor) for his defection in 2022.
#WATCH | Mumbai: Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde faction) workers vandalised Habitat Comedy Club in Khar after comedian Kunal Kamra's remarks on Maharashtra DCM Eknath Shinde here sparked backlash. (23.03)
— ANI (@ANI) March 24, 2025
Source: Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde faction) pic.twitter.com/L8pkt0TLM6
And in no time, the left-leaning liberals on X pulled in support of Kunal Kamra, who instigated vandalism with his political commentary laced as “humour”, days after they held Hindu Groups responsible for Nagpur violence because they criticised Mughal tyrant Aurangzeb and called for the removal of his tomb in Sambhaji Nagar.
Nagpur violence: Whitewashing rioting by Muslim mobs
Nagpur witnessed large-scale violence when Hindu groups, led by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and Bajrang Dal, protested against Aurangzeb’s legacy and demanded the removal of his tomb. This, in turn, triggered an aggressive backlash from a Muslim mob that resorted to vandalism, torching vehicles, and attacking police officers.
Instead of outrightly condemning the rioters, several left-wing commentators rushed to justify, arguing that the violence was a reaction to “provocation.” They suggested that the protesters had crossed a line by demanding the removal of Aurangzeb’s tomb and that this somehow “explained” the violent backlash. The irony is hard to miss—these are the same voices that preach the virtues of free speech and tolerance but suddenly found excuses when Islamist mobs went on a rampage.
Mumbai vandalism: Defending Kunal Kamra while condemning Shiv Sena
Contrast this with the reaction to the vandalism of Habitat Studio in Mumbai. Kamra, known for his politically charged comedy, mocked Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde, calling him a ‘gaddar’ (traitor). Shiv Sena workers took offence and vandalised the venue. This time, the same intellectuals who had excused the Nagpur violence as a “reaction to provocation” suddenly rediscovered their commitment to free speech.
They rushed to defend Kamra, arguing that satire is a fundamental part of democracy and that Shiv Sena’s reaction was an attack on artistic freedom. Nowhere did they apply the same logic they had used in Nagpur—that provocations can lead to violent reactions. Instead of introspecting on whether Kamra’s remarks might have incited anger, they squarely placed the blame on Shiv Sena workers.
India Today journalist Rajdeep Sardesai defended violence that enveloped Nagpur last week, justifying it as a fallout of protests against Aurangzeb’s tomb. “To unleash a hate-filled narrative where you want to go and demolish Aurangzeb’s tomb, you must be prepared for some reaction and a backlash,” Rajdeep Sardesai says in a snippet that has since gone viral on the internet.
This week, Rajdeep pivoted to take a swipe at PM Modi over his “criticism is the soul of democracy” remark. “Will anyone in govt (state or centre) speak up to defend Kamra’s right to free expression? Didn’t like what the stand-up comedian said? Don’t watch!” Sardesai said.
Curiously, Rajdeep didn’t invoke the “Don’t like it, don’t watch it” mantra when hundreds of Muslims in Nagpur orchestrated a violent rampage against Hindu protests over Aurangzeb’s tomb. But when the tables turned—with Shiv Sena workers vandalizing a Mumbai studio after being provoked by Kamra’s “humour”—he suddenly reached for the “right to free expression” argument to condemn the attackers.
Rajdeep is not the only one to somersault and blame the vandals instead of criticizing Kunal Kamra for hurting their sentiments and inciting their anger. Others of the left-leaning intelligentsia shamelessly lined up to rightfully condemn vandalism, but in the process exposed their own selective outrage and intellectual dishonesty.
The hypocrisy of selective outrage
The blatant double standards are impossible to ignore. When Islamist mobs in Nagpur reacted violently to protests against Aurangzeb, the Left defended them, arguing that Muslims were pushed against the wall with unabated criticism of Mughal ruler Aurangzeb, throwing word salad to defend their tenuous stance, and justifying the continued veneration of Aurangzeb by a significant section of the Muslim population.
But when Kamra made provocative remarks against a contemporary political figure, the same group conveniently shifted its stance—now, the responsibility was solely on the offenders, and provocation was no longer an excuse.
If one believes in free speech, it must be defended consistently. If provocations are a valid excuse for one group’s violent reaction, the same logic should apply to the other. However, the selective outrage from left-leaning intellectuals exposes a deeper problem—their response is dictated not by principles but by ideological biases.
Democracy thrives on free speech, but it also demands intellectual honesty. Both the Nagpur riots and the Mumbai vandalism were acts of violence triggered by perceived provocation. If one is condemned, so should the other. But when certain intellectuals engage in mental gymnastics to justify one and denounce the other, they reveal their ideological blind spots. If free speech is sacrosanct, it must be upheld for everyone—not just for those who align with a particular political ideology.
