The encroachment exercises across BJP ruled states are obviously being targeted by the Le-Li (Left-Liberal) gang. While BJP ruled municipalities and state governments are following the law, the Le-Li gang has accused the BJP of persecuting Muslims. The argument that is now being given, came into the limelight back when Jahangirpuri stone pelting took place, ie. in the Muslim Area.
The Muslim area is an argument by many so-called Le-Li gang members, which itself is an oxymoron as a leftist cannot be a liberal and a liberal cannot be a leftist, to hide their Muslim appeasement. The rule of law and its followers are now being branded as hardcore fascists. Let me dismantle the argument one by one.
First, let us understand that the rule of law is there to do nothing else but protect the vulnerable. Yes, some leftists and wokes would argue that the inception of rule of law in the west, especially in the anglosphere countries was to protect private property, which is to protect the rich. But that's a very West-centric point of view, with an assumption that the rule of law was invented by the west. This assumption is wrong as it fails to take into account various ancient Hindu kingdoms and empires, one prominent example would be, Arthashastra by Chanakya which talks about the very thing in his magnum opus. Now, when we understand that the rule of law is invented to protect the vulnerable, we have to admit that the rule of law, if followed, protects the vulnerable from the lawlessness and the miscreant elements in society. Now, let's park this point for a while, and we will revisit it in a bit.
Secondly, in the leftist and Woke, worldview, a Muslim is always oppressed and never the oppressor. We see that with bizarre word creations like Islamophobia, Pakistan is a victim of terrorism and Islam is a religion of peace. So, the followers of Islam will always be oppressed, and never the oppressors as a thumb rule. Hence, in any society, ironically, even within Islamic countries, Muslims will always be the most vulnerable section of society.
Lastly, let's tie these two points. If rule of law is there to protect the vulnerable section and if it is being followed then the vulnerable section is being protected. Now, the problem is, that following the rule of law, means the demolition of the illegal constructions, which happens to be built by the ‘oppressed’ Muslims. Now, either the left has to argue that rule of law doesn't protect the vulnerable, in which case they admit that they believe in anarchy and street power, instead of rule of law. Or, they will have to reevaluate their bigoted presumption of making a community oppressed and oppressor by the virtue of their birth in a particular community.
That is the trap they find themselves in, which is why most LeLi idiots are falling into the first category and admitting that the rule of law is not there to protect the vulnerable. What they fail to understand is by doing so, they appease their eco chamber but lose the masses, whatever is left with them anyway.
Finally, this whole argument about rule of law, not protecting the vulnerable but oppressing the vulnerable, looks a lot like the LeLi argument of the USA. There, they argue that the law is twisted and created to oppress the black population. Hence, creating openly admitted Marxist movements like BLM (Black Lives Matter). We must be careful not to have any such Marxist movement talking about MLM (Muslim Lives Matter).