Hustlers of hate

It stands to reason that sound is pernicious to silence. However, there may be a solitary, perturbing circumstance in which sound, ironically, enhances silence. Venkaiah Naidu, the vice president, recently said that hate speech contravenes the nation, its ethics, and its constitutional credo. The prime minister rarely speaks out against hate campaigns as is customary; perhaps on cue, his government prefers this type of glum silence. As several critics have noted, the overall effect of the infrequent noises—Mr. Naidu’s statement is an example—and the deliberate silence is the development of a climate of impunity that shields and supports vigilantes who believe in spreading polarizing rhetoric. Many Indians have been emboldened by Narendra Modi and his government’s complicity in targeting, humiliating, and assaulting Muslims and Christians in what is supposed to be a secular nation, from self-declared holy men to young, tech-savvy Islamophobes.

“Hate speech” must be understood in relation to institutionalised bias and a community’s eventual political marginalisation. It corresponds to a broader context of discrimination; it is not just random condescension. In the 2014 case of Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India stated that “the idea of discrimination lies at the heart of hate speech,” and this is true. Its impact is ascertained not only by how abusive it is, but also by how effectively and consistently it marginalises a population.

As a result, “hate speech” is always infused with social, political, or majoritarian power and creates a democratic deficit with the targeted community by attempting to drive it out of the polity. All Muslims in modern India don’t experience violence in the same way. All Muslims may not encounter personal physical violence, but they do encounter nudges, sneers, and the refrain tum log much more frequently. When talking about current political violence and the harm done to the Hindu psyche, even the most cordial conversations will inevitably turn to the Mughal invasion. There is a sense of solemn sighing over the Congress’s appeasement policies in the face of the community’s conservatism and isolationism, as well as the morbid social-economic indicators for Muslims.

The Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 295(A), imposes fines and up to three years in prison for any speech, writings, or signs that with premeditated and malicious intent disparage citizens’ religion or religious beliefs.

A five-judge Supreme Court bench upheld the validity of Section 295(A) in this case. While Article 19(2) permits reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression for the sake of public order, the Supreme Court reasoned. A more severe form of blasphemy that is committed with the intent to offend the religious sensibilities of any group is punishable under Section 295(A).

In the Fatehgarh v. Ram Manohar Lohia case, 1960, it was ruled that there needed to be a strong correlation between the speech that was spoken and any public disorder that resulted from it in order to invoke Section 295(A) of the IPC. In addition, it came to the conclusion in 2011 that only speech that amounts to inciting impending illegal behaviour can be punished. That is to say, a very high standard must be met before the state can use public disturbance as an excuse to censor expression.

In conclusion, we might begin to think of hate speech as a coordinated political campaign of discrimination and classify it as a constitutional tort. In fact, there is a lot to be said for deliberate silences from those in positions of authority in situations where hate speech is a system of marginalisation. At the very least, it is a contravention of their constitutional duty of care, if not provocation. Certain sections of the IPC that deal with public nuisance or disorder may apply to violent protests. Similar to the heinous murder of a tailor, Kanhaiya Lal, in Udaipur, Umesh Kolhe, a chemist, was allegedly knifed to death in Amravati, Maharashtra, by three men. Kolhe shared a post in support of Nupur Sharma, a former BJP spokesperson, and her remarks on the Prophet. In both instances, the remarks infuriated the suspects, who then turned violent in retaliation for what they saw as a slight against their religion.

The Union and State governments must act immediately to reassure citizens that there is a need for interfaith harmony and that those who spread hate speech and engage in violence in retaliation will face legal consequences even as these hate crimes are being investigated. Justice and the rule of law must be applied fairly and without discrimination on the part of any particular community if they are to be done at all. The secular fabric of the nation must be preserved at all costs, so governments must reorient themselves toward the rule of law and strict adherence to constitutional values.