No, I mean people with loads of common sense who can tell you both side of the story.

>> Not Indian Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Dalits or Shudras who form greater than 50% of the Indian population.

Acc to you, if they are more than 50% AND not happy with Modi, why is Modi winning back to back elections and almost certain to come to power again in 2024?

Of course when you come here with a half-baked knowledge and accuse someone* of astroturfing , one has to call you out.

By your own admission, for the first time you heard Nupur’s name, you did a quick search and within minutes you reached the conclusion what you wanted to reach.

Since when asking to understand the issue in depth - rather than a 2 mins cursory look up - racism?

Political leaders are expected to conduct themselves appropriately in public view because they are selected to represent all of their constituents. If a politician makes an appearance on live television and says something that is offensive to their constituents, they can expect political repercussions regardless of what anyone else said on the TV show.

That other people in the debate compared a Shivling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingam) to roadside signs and poles does not excuse Nupur Sharma from the repercussions of what she said. Sharma made comments that she knew would be offensive to a religious minority, and she was expelled from her position as the national spokesperson of the Bharatiya Janata Party because that was not the behavior the public expected from a high-ranking political figure.

https://indianexpress.com/article/india/bjp-suspends-nupur-s...

When someone like Mohammed Zubair makes a supercut of Sharma's comments to highlight the fact that a politician is not appropriately representing her constituents, it's not Zubair's fault that Sharma made those comments in the first place.

As bad as that is, and it is helpful you've provided some context here, I still don't think that's worthy of jail or any sort of formal state punishment. Which obviously is not a controversial take in most western countries. But more importantly I don't think it's an effective strategy to deal with the problem. Censorship rarely ever works unless you go full-bore and destroy plenty of good will and legitimate human progress in between.

Twitter has a great feature for that not where citizens can provide context / 'fact check' an article without deleting it. That's the best (and IMO only legitimate way) to deal with this stuff, countering bad information with better information. While still exposing publicly that this person is lying to you. As opposed to deleting or censoring it, you put up a big flag that says "there's more to this story".