Editorial: Vishal Mayur
 |
| As Karnataka Protests Spark Debate, Questions Rise Over Supporting a Leader Accused of Crushing Dissent and Silencing Iranian Voices |
Supporting Khamenei is not an expression of faith. It is an endorsement of authoritarianism.
For decades, Khamenei presided over a regime that suppressed
dissent, silenced women, and crushed protests with brute force. The Islamic
Republic’s record on human rights is not a matter of speculation. It is written
in the suffering of its own citizens. Women in Iran began resisting soon after
the 1979 Revolution, when compulsory hijab laws and strict social codes were
imposed. Peaceful demonstrations were met with intimidation and violence. Fear
became institutionalised.
The world witnessed the fury of the Iranian people again
during the Mahsa Amini protests of 2022 and 2023, when thousands took to the
streets demanding dignity and freedom. Reports from human rights organisations
estimated thousands of deaths during repeated crackdowns. Even Iran’s own
leadership acknowledged that “thousands” were killed. Khamenei reportedly
ordered security forces to crush protests “by any means necessary.” That phrase
alone defines his legacy.
Is this the man some in Karnataka and other parts of India chose to mourn?
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, formed to protect the
revolution, evolved into an instrument of internal repression. Political
opponents were jailed, exiled, or executed. Economic unrest in cities such as
Mashhad and Qazvin was quelled with force rather than reform. Decades of
silencing dissent created a toxic culture where questioning authority became a
punishable act.
And yet, in India, a democracy built on constitutional
values and pluralism, a handful of protesters stood in solidarity with that
very repression.
Those who lost their lives under his rule lie buried without
justice. Why are some so-called supporters unwilling to see this painful
reality? Where was this outrage when Iranian women were beaten for defying
dress codes? Where were these protests when families buried sons and daughters
killed during demonstrations? Why is religious identity invoked only when it
suits political symbolism?
India is not Iran. Indian Muslims, including Shias, enjoy
freedoms that many in West Asia can only dream of, freedom of speech, freedom
of belief, and the right to dissent without fear of live bullets. To use that
freedom to defend a regime accused of massacring its own people is not courage.
It is moral blindness.
Even across several Muslim-majority nations, there was no
sweeping defence of Khamenei’s record. Many governments maintained silence.
Many citizens privately acknowledged the regime’s excesses. Inside Iran itself,
videos surfaced of people celebrating what they believed was the end of a
suffocating chapter.
This is the uncomfortable truth: many Iranians viewed his passing not as a tragedy, but as liberation.
Indian protesters must ask themselves a simple question. Are
they standing with faith, or with tyranny? Religion cannot be a shield for
cruelty. Loyalty to a foreign strongman cannot override basic human empathy.
History will not judge Khamenei by slogans shouted in distant towns. It will judge him by the lives lost and the voices silenced.
India must decide whether it stands with the oppressed or with their oppressors.
