In the holy month of restraint, reflection, and repentance, a man was nearly butchered in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.
Saleem Wastik, a 50-year-old YouTuber, was allegedly slashed repeatedly inside his office by two men who had been loitering outside the premises.
The helmeted men struck at his neck, abdomen, and ear before fleeing on a motorcycle, police said. Locals rushed him to a hospital in Loni, Ghaziabad. He was later referred to a facility in Delhi as his condition turned critical.
Seven people have reportedly been booked. A complaint filed by his son, Usman, names two unidentified attackers and also mentions Ashfaq, Sonu, Shahrukh Neta, Bhati Builder, and a local AIMIM functionary, Ajgar.
Police are investigating, while UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath has called for strict action. But beyond the FIR and the ritual official assurances lies a far more troubling question.
Blasphemy and bloodlust
Are we still living in the dark ages, where perceived blasphemy is reason enough to bay for someone’s blood?
If a man renounces his faith, criticises it, or dissects it on YouTube – however distasteful some may find it – does that invite a knife to his throat?
We have seen this horror before. We know how quickly outrage, whipped into frenzy, can culminate in a beheading. The name Kanhaiya Lal still chills the spine.
If someone is hurt by another’s words or by his decision to leave a religion, there are remedies in a civilised society. File a case. Approach a court. Let the law of the land decide.
What is not an option is to stalk, slash, and attempt to silence a man by spilling his blood – leaving behind a traumatised family whose only fault was to be related to him. That is not piety. That is savagery.
Constitution, not clerical command
Last I checked, India is governed by its Constitution – not by Sharia, canon law, Manusmriti, or any other theological code.
The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. That includes the freedom to practise, propagate – and to walk away. Faith cannot be a one-way traffic where entry is celebrated but exit is punishable by death.
We are a secular republic. If one section decides that criticism of its beliefs warrants murder, what happens when others follow the same logic? When their Gods are mocked, their practices lampooned, their scriptures questioned – will they too pick up blades? That road leads only to barbarism.
Civilisation rests on restraint – on courts, on due process, and on the belief that an idea, however offensive, is countered by argument, not by assault.
Reform and reason
History shows that religions and societies evolve. Several Hindu customs and practices were dismantled through reform movements and legislative action over the decades. Debate, dissent and criticism were part of that journey.
No faith is diminished by argument. It is diminished when its followers appear unable to tolerate scrutiny.
BJP spokesperson Shahzad Poonawala said he was ‘absolutely shocked and horrified’ by the brutal attack, adding that one may disagree with what Wastik says but has no right to assault or attempt to kill him.
Advocate Subuhi Khan summed it up bluntly on X: ‘Joining or leaving a religion is a personal choice, and every sentient being deserves to live. To attempt murder over belief is sheer terrorism.’ Strong words – but hard to dispute.
A test for the state
The police must not only track down those who wielded the knives, but also take immediate action against the person who instigated the attack by circulating personal details and inciting violence online.
Those who light the fuse are no less culpable than those who strike the match. Exemplary action is essential – not for optics, but for deterrence.
Ramadan is meant to cultivate self-control, compassion, and reflection. If, instead, it becomes a backdrop for attempted murder over ideas, then the failure is not of one community alone. It is a failure of our collective commitment to the rule of law.
The choice before us is stark – argument or assassination; courtroom or carnage; Constitution or chaos. In the 21st century, the answer ought to be obvious.
