— Consider reading the article Ravish Kumar claims mob has ‘no religion’ after Bengaluru riots but earlier emphasised that Pehlu Khan was lynched by 100 Hindus on OpIndia website —
Ravish Kumar, the poster-boy of the left-liberal jamaat, has sparked outrage on social media yet again while trying to absolve the radical Islamists of their complicity in the Bengaluru riots that took place on August 11.
In his usual sober voice, which helps propaganda sound seamlessly soothing, Ravish claimed on Friday, “Jo dangai hota hai vo dangai hota hai. Na toh unha Hindu mazhab see koi matlab hota hai na hi koi Muslim mazhab see koi matlab hota hai (A rioter is a rioter. He has nothing to due with Hindusim or Islam.)”
Muslims can be ‘protectors’ not ‘rioters’, suggested Ravish Kumar
Ravish further claimed, “Rioters look for a reason to be provoked. Those who know this game plan are well acquainted with the fact that a post can attract mobs who will unleash.” Through his claims, Ravish tried to deny the ‘communal angle’ in the Bengaluru carnage. Besides, in the same show, the reporter referred to the radical Islamist mobs as ‘rioters’ but deliberately chose to call the so-called protectors of a nearby temple as ‘Muslims.’ The primetime show implicitly suggested that a Muslim can only be a ‘protector’ and not a ‘rioter.’
‘Hindu mob’ lynched Pehlu Khan, Ravish claimed earlier
In a video shared by the Millat Times in January, the NDTV journalist had claimed that a ‘Hindu mob’ lynched Pehlu Khan and Subodh Singh. On being asked whether the current BJP government is anti-Hindu or anti- Muslim, Ravish said, “I am against communalism… 100 people went to kill one Pehlu Khan and one Subodh Singh. The 100 people involved in their killings were Hindus. This politics is aimed at turning Hindus into rioters.”
In stark contrast to his recent statement where he claimed that rioters have no religion, Ravish had earlier explicitly claimed that the lynchers of Pehlu Khan and Subodh Kumar were all Hindus. While Ravish Kumar has preached on ‘journalistic ethics’ on multiple occasions, his doublespeak and contradictory stance on the religion of ‘mob’ certainly casts aspersion on his ‘fairness’ and ‘objectivity’.