Udaipur incident is not a regular crime. It is an attack on the Hindu population.

The news of a Hindu tailor from Rajasthan who was beheaded for posting on SM in support of Nupur Sharma is heartwrenching.

But I did not expect it to get such a kind of wide coverage, given the bias of the news channels in India who are the flagbearer of secularism. But one question that remains is, will they show the truth as it is?

Now, what is the truth? 

The truth is, a Hindu tailor was brutally murdered for putting out his opinion.

How do we know whether we should say a Hindu tailor and or a tailor or just a man for that case? You see, the two assailants did not kill because Kanhaiya Lal ji was a tailor, neither they had any personal reasons. Their intention was to avenge the alleged insult to their prophet. So, yes it makes sense to call him a Hindu man/tailor.

Now, how is the media twisting the facts? Well, CNN International which is an American private news channel said, two assailants allegedly killed a tailor. There are two points to note:

1. There is nothing to allege here: alleging is when you have no solid proof to confirm your claims, don't want to take the blame but still wish to show the story. Let's tell CNN that the jihadis themselves proudly acclaimed killing Kanhaiya ji. It is out in open. Nothing alleged.

2. "The two assailants killed a tailor." Looks like a normal crime, and the gullible audience, mostly foreigners, won't understand why there is such hue and cry over a petty affair.

I wish to put it straight: The intent is important! Why was Kanhaiya Lal ji beheaded? Was it a property issue which everyone wanted to pounce upon? Was it about internal enemity? No, it was well planned and well executed murder which was also meant to be a message for the society to keep mum on these issues, to create fear in the minds of a larger community.

You see they were never afraid of getting arrested. Criminals play thousands of games to escape arrest, to protect their identity. When have you seen a criminal committing a crime and coming out in public? Three reasons:

1. One: He is a commoner, truely believes in his ideals and though his acts maybe considered criminal by the system, this is a form of justice for him.

2. Two: He is not afraid of the system. He knows there are people in the larger network who can go to any length to get him released and no one can prevent that.

3. Three: He is pure evil and wants to motivate more people to follow his footsteps.

The case in question belongs to the second and third category. How can I say that? Have you heard of Jamiat ulema e Hind? Well, it is a body which appoints lawyers for such criminals and puts huge money into their pockets.

When I say the third point, I am pointing to something more profound: you see the weapon they used for execution. It is not your regular knife. Ok, for arguments sake, let's say they somehow managed to acquire the weapon, so now they would stab the man. Well, that's the easiest form of attack. But, but.. there's a catch. The man was beheaded! How would you justify that? How would a normal everyday man know how to behead? You see, it is not something which you or your neighbour can do. It is a thing which is perfected through practice.

There is another reason, beheading is one of the most heinous kind of murders. When do you behead? When you want to give a message to the public. Like, why do governments around the world give capital punishments in extreme crimes? It is to discourage the society from committing such heinous crimes.

Every act has a message, every attack has an intent. No crime is small but the intention matters. Because a large population in general is watching.