ThePrint SharpEdge: 'Delhi bomber’s video can’t radicalise anyone, Umar Un Nabi isn’t a martyr'
Nov 20, 2025
A controversial video of the alleged Delhi bomber raises debates on transparency versus censorship. Discussions dive into whether the video could inspire future attackers or not, with the host arguing it shows a disturbed individual rather than a hero. The narrative challenges the victimization of terrorists and dismisses martyr claims rooted in religion. Furthermore, it emphasizes that suicide bombing is largely a political act, cautioning against generalizations across communities. The overall stance advocates for transparency in dealing with such disturbing content.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Transparency Over Blanket Censorship
- Vir Sanghvi argues transparency usually beats censorship when terrorist material leaks online and can't be fully controlled.
- He reasons suppressing such videos fuels conspiracies and suspicion more than it prevents radicalisation.
Publicity Doesn't Always Create Heroes
- Sanghvi acknowledges the 'oxygen of publicity' argument that showing terrorist material can inspire copycats.
- He contends that this particular video doesn't make the bomber a hero and is unlikely to radicalise new people.
Restrict Speech Only When Necessary
- Do restrict speech only when absolutely necessary and favour transparency as the default in fighting terrorism.
- Avoid heavy-handed suppression because technology makes secrets hard to keep and suppression breeds mistrust.