Why Label Him Bhakt?

Social media has given birth to a few rather forgettable terms. Libtards, Sikular, Bhakt etc. Some, like Presstitute, have also well-known leaders of the country to blame. But by and large, these words have been used and popularized by low-brow users of social media.

Forgettable, but relatively harmless till they were a part of social media lingo.

Unfortunately, in an age where media follows the social media, the Indian mainstream new media seems to have followed trolls into the slang-game. So we have our ‘respectable’ media outlets using these rather objectionable words at will.

For someone who was trained when things were still by and large old school, this has been a worrying trend. To see journalists use words like ‘sikular’ or ‘bhakt’ has been worrisome, if not grieve-worthy.

Take this latest case of reportage, by a well known digital media brand formed by a rather revered media-entrepreneur.

A girl posted screenshots of chat with an orthodox Brahmin guy on facebook. The boy, clearly a douche bag, fails to understand how can a Hindu girl (the girl’s Brahmin by caste) eat beef. He takes the liberty of striking a conversation with her on WhatsApp, and tries to put in some ridiculous argument to support his viewpoint as to why Hindus should not have beef. Gau Mata and such shit!

While the girl could have blocked the jerk and forgotten about the episode, she decided to send out a message to the world by posting the screenshots on her social media profile. Needless to say, the post went viral in time. And the hungry media picked up. While some other sites just called the guy a jerk, this particularly respectable site labeled him ‘bhakt’.

I tried to find reason. It beat my ability to comprehend why anyone would call the guy ‘bhakt’, considering the word has been used in connotation with anyone who supports BJP and its allies. [For the ones who are low on IQ – Bhakts are people who support BJP, Libtards and Sikular are ones who support Congress/the left, presstitute of course is for the press – whichever side it supports]

So is supporting one’s religion also qualifies to be called as ‘bhakt’? Not that the guy was supporting his religion per se… he was rather trying to force his conventional beliefs on to someone who would not be bothered. But the fact is that majority Hindus prefer not to eat beef, and majority Muslims would not eat pork. There will be city-bred people who will defy conventions and orthodox ideas, but they are a minority. So should all of these called ‘bhakts’?

But then, why call anyone ‘bhakt’ anyway? Wasn’t bhakt supposed to be a positive word in Hinduism? Bhakt Prahlad is still revered, isn’t he?

That, however, will be another discussion. Another rambling, another rant…

For now, I just wish someone could help me understand, is it necessary that the media follows social media? Should this respectable site be condoned for using the word ‘bhakt’ as an insult in a headline?