Thought experiment:
Who is the problem here: the person who wrote this sort of crap or the people who consumed & celebrated, shared & commented, and agreed & amplified that crap and applauded that person for pushing it out of their rectum?
So, is it more concerning that there is a person (and an influential one on social media) who, despite being educated, articulate, and well-travelled (so, exposed to circumstances that are universally considered to open minds), makes such ill-informed and frankly, dangerous statements as advocating abolishing elections in the Republic of India altogether (his post says they should be held once in 25 years, while his first comment says we must abolish them: ‘Kissa hi khatam karo elections ka.’), or that his post gets, within 18 hours of going public, 826 likes and 30 reposts from other, equally educated, articulate, and well-travelled & well-networked people on a professional social media like LinkedIn? Which of these two is the bigger problem?
Another hypothetical question: If someone like, say, a JNU student had made that same statement about abolishing elections (even in, say, a mock debate or an obviously fictional story), how quickly do you think they would be called anti-national on news channels and Twitter, have their house bulldozed, arrested & charged under UAPA, and put away without bail, trial, or even a charge sheet? And why would it be within 24 hours?
