(knowing almost nothing about indian culture) The boundary between what's legal and what's culturally accepted can be pretty broad. Just two days ago a coworker was describing his friend getting arrested for flipping off a cop, and when I pointed out that precedent going back hundreds of years clearly shows the cop abusing their authority to violate the constitution with almost no exceptions (proportionally), they still responded that their friend deserved it and should have known that flipping off a cop wouldn't have any positive outcomes. Culturally, a substantive chunk of the country is totally fine with clamping down on offensiveness, especially if it's directed at people risking their lives to make the country better, despite that not being a part of our legal framework in the slightest.
Similarly, I wouldn't be shocked if "by any means necessary" is also illegal in India but is culturally accepted.
On some level it's no different from the stop-sign culture in California. Almost nobody stops, ever, including the police force, and it results in dozens of deaths annually just in my community. The act is blatantly illegal for good reason, but it still happens out in the open, and it's "not illegal" in the sense that if a person blows a stop sign and the police witness it or are sent a video of the act then there's approximately a 0% chance of any negative repercussions for the perpetrator.
Similarly, I wouldn't be shocked if "by any means necessary" is also illegal in India but is culturally accepted.
On some level it's no different from the stop-sign culture in California. Almost nobody stops, ever, including the police force, and it results in dozens of deaths annually just in my community. The act is blatantly illegal for good reason, but it still happens out in the open, and it's "not illegal" in the sense that if a person blows a stop sign and the police witness it or are sent a video of the act then there's approximately a 0% chance of any negative repercussions for the perpetrator.