What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
Shahin Mondal, a self-proclaimed journalist who claims to be a member of the Communist Party, had uploaded a Facebook Post urging people to assemble in large numbers at Mothabari and engage in mob violence on 03.04.2026, attempting to frame such aggression as a form of “justice.”
Mondal called upon West Bengal Police personnel to disregard official orders and overlook the mob violence he was advocating for. Such messaging does not merely express dissent, but directly challenges the rule of law and seeks to erode institutional authority.
A review of his public digital activity suggests that this is part of a broader and consistent pattern. His social media posts frequently amplifies Chinese state narratives, particularly on sensitive geopolitical issues. He has dismissed long-standing Tibetan demands for independence and claimed that China has not committed atrocities against Tibetans, positions that stand in sharp contrast to widely documented international assessments.
His posts also include repeated glorification of Chinese state institutions, including the police and the People’s Liberation Army. Alongside this, he has consistently projected a sharply critical view of India, often presenting arguments that appear one-sided and politically loaded.
Equally significant is his engagement with religiously sensitive issues. In a post dated January 31, he trivialized an incident in which a Hindu Brahmin was served beef instead of mutton, describing it as a “mere serving mistake.” He frequently keeps posting hateful remarks designed to hurt the sentiments of Hindu devotees before religious festivals like Holi.
Viewed in totality, this pattern is difficult to ignore and warrants careful and serious scrutiny.. Advocacy of violence, calls for institutional defiance, alignment with foreign state narratives and repeated engagement with sensitive communal issues together create a deeply volatile mix.
In a digital age where influence travels faster than accountability, the line between speech and incitement becomes critically important. When public messaging begins to normalize violence and encourage the breakdown of lawful authority, it ceases to be mere expression and enters far more dangerous territory.
Therefore, the issue raises a larger and more urgent question :
How long can such narratives circulate unchecked before they begin to shape real-world consequences?
A society that values stability, pluralism and the rule of law cannot afford to treat such signals lightly.
