essay on hate speech in india

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

UPSC Coaching, Study Materials, and Mock Exams

Enroll in ClearIAS UPSC Coaching Join Now Log In

Call us: +91-9605741000

Hate Speech

Last updated on October 29, 2022 by ClearIAS Team

Numerous events, including ones that occurred in a religious setting and on online forums, have targeted minority communities. This has brought attention to problems with the implementation of legislation to curb hate speech. What are the laws related to hate speech in India? Are there any new legal precedents on this menace? To know more, read further. 

In Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India (2014) , the Supreme Court of India outlined its definition of hate speech as “an effort to marginalize individuals based on their membership in a group which seeks to delegitimize group members in the eyes of the majority, reducing their social standing and acceptance within society.”

Hate speech, according to the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), encompasses a wide range of expressions that encourage, incite, promote, or otherwise justify hatred, violence, or discrimination against an individual or a group of individuals for a number of different reasons.

The Law Commission of India’s 267th Report defines hate speech as an incitement to hatred directed principally towards a group of people who are identified by their race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or other characteristics.

Table of Contents

What are the legal provisions related to Hate Speech in India?

• Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India puts reasonable restrictions on the Freedom of Speech including public order, decency or morality, defamation, or incitement to an offense.
• Section 153(a) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) punishes the promotion of enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc. with imprisonment up to 3 years.
• Section 153(b) of IPC punishes assertions prejudicial to national integration (e.g., asserting that a class of persons cannot bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India) with imprisonment of up to 3 years.
• Section 295(a) of IPC punishes deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs with imprisonment for up to 3 years.
• Section 505(2) of IPC punishes statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred, or ill will between classes with imprisonment for up to 3 years.
• Section 8 of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951 (RPA) prevents a person convicted of the illegal use of the freedom of speech from contesting an election.
• Sections 123(3A) and 125 of the RPA b ar the promotion of animosity on the grounds of race, religion, community, caste, or language in reference to elections and include it under corrupt electoral practices.

Suggestions made by Law Commission

In its 267th report, the Law Commission of India proposed including the following two provisions:

• Section 153C covers  crimes committed when someone threatens someone with remarks meant to incite fear, hatred, or violence based on someone’s race, caste, religion, sex, gender identity, or other characteristics.
• Section 505A should be included and have provisions that make inciting fear, alarm, or violence a crime.

Interpretation of the Supreme Court related to Hate Speech

Following are the case laws wherein the Supreme court cleared its stand.

👉 Which year are YOU targeting for success in the IAS/IPS/IFS Exam? 🚀

(1) ⇒ UPSC 2025: Prelims cum Mains

(2) ⇒ UPSC 2026: Prelims cum Mains

(3) ⇒ UPSC 2027 Prelims cum Mains

Tip: Know more about ClearIAS Courses (Online/Offline)

Ramji Lal Modi Case( 1957)

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 type of blasphemy that is done with the intent to outrage the religious sensibilities of any group is punishable under Section 295(A).

Superintendent, Central Prison, Fatehgarh Vs Ram Manohar Lohia case (1960)

It was claimed that in order to invoke Section 295(A) of the IPC, a strong linkage must exist between the speech that was spoken and any public disorder that was brought about as a result of it.

In addition, it came to the conclusion in 2011 that only speech that amounted to “incitement to impending unlawful conduct” is punishable.

That is to say, a very high standard must be met before the state can use public disturbance as an excuse to censor expression.

S. Rangarajan Etc vs P. Jagjivan Ram

In this decision, the Court ruled that the right to free speech cannot be restricted unless the situation it creates is one that endangers the community or the public interest, and that threat cannot be imagined, remote, or improbable.

If the expression is taken, there must be a close connection.

Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2020)

According to the Supreme Court, “hate speech has no valid or redeeming motive other than hostility for a specific group.”

The Problem of over-criminalization of Hate Speech

In a dramatic and very personal turn of events in 2015, Indian novelist Perumal Murugan declared his creative “death,” pulled the entirety of his published works from circulation, and vowed never to write again.

This resulted from the violent backlash he received from religious and caste-based groups who claimed that his fifth book, “Madhorubagan” in Tamil, or “One Part Woman,” offended religious sensibilities, insulted the Kailasanathar temple, Lord Shiva, and female worshippers, among other allegations.

They also claimed that it appealed to prurient interest, among other things.

A Forward Approach

Many of the legal restrictions on hate speech that are in place today date back to the days before the Internet. Specialized law to control hate speech spread on the Internet and, notably, social media, is urgently needed.

It is possible to make reference to the Australian federal law known as the Criminal Code Amendment Act, 2019, which holds Internet service providers accountable if they know that any obscene or violent content—which is defined to include content that a reasonable man would find offensive—is accessible through the service they provide.

In the context of a “digital single market,” the European Union has also adopted a code of conduct to prevent the spread of hate speech. It calls for cooperative, autonomous, inclusive regulation that adheres to global best practices for content filtering and privacy rights while being tailored to local and cultural norms.

Actions usually performed in response to contemporary hate speech have a whack-a-mole effect, whereby the underlying desire to sow division or hatred among communities endures through digital or social media platforms irrespective arrest of the offenders.

By modifying the IPC and the Information Technology Act, it is crucial to implement precise and long-lasting legislative rules that prevent hate speech, especially that which is spread online and through social media.

In the end, only when hate speech is acknowledged as a justifiable limitation on free expression would this be feasible.

Click here to read more about the 100 Must-Know Acts Enacted by the Indian Parliament.

Article Written By: Jis John Sebastian 

Best-Selling ClearIAS Courses

Upsc prelims cum mains (pcm) gs course: unbeatable batch 2025 (online), rs.75000   rs.29000, upsc prelims cum mains (pcm) gs course: ultimate batch 2025 (online), rs.95000   rs.49000, upsc prelims cum mains (pcm) gs course: ultimate batch 2026 (online), rs.115000   rs.59000, upsc prelims cum mains (pcm) gs course: ultimate batch 2027 (online), rs.125000   rs.69000.

About ClearIAS Team

ClearIAS is one of the most trusted learning platforms in India for UPSC preparation. Around 1 million aspirants learn from the ClearIAS every month.

Our courses and training methods are different from traditional coaching. We give special emphasis on smart work and personal mentorship. Many UPSC toppers thank ClearIAS for our role in their success.

Download the ClearIAS mobile apps now to supplement your self-study efforts with ClearIAS smart-study training.

Reader Interactions

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Don’t lose out without playing the right game!

Follow the ClearIAS Prelims cum Mains (PCM) Integrated Approach.

Join ClearIAS PCM Course Now

UPSC Online Preparation

• Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)
• Indian Administrative Service (IAS)
• Indian Police Service (IPS)
• IAS Exam Eligibility
• UPSC Free Study Materials
• UPSC Exam Guidance
• UPSC Prelims Test Series
• UPSC Syllabus
• UPSC Online
• UPSC Prelims
• UPSC Interview
• UPSC Toppers
• UPSC Previous Year Qns
• UPSC Age Calculator
• UPSC Calendar 2025
• About ClearIAS
• ClearIAS Programs
• ClearIAS Fee Structure
• IAS Coaching
• UPSC Coaching
• UPSC Online Coaching
• ClearIAS Blog
• Important Updates
• Announcements
• Book Review
• ClearIAS App
• Work with us
• Advertise with us
• Privacy Policy
• Terms and Conditions
• Talk to Your Mentor

Featured on

and many more...

ClearIAS Programs: Admissions Open

Thank You 🙌

UPSC CSE 2025: On May 25, 2025

Subscribe ClearIAS YouTube Channel

Get free study materials. Don’t miss ClearIAS updates.

Subscribe Now

IAS/IPS/IFS Online Coaching: Target CSE 2025

Cover the entire syllabus of UPSC CSE Prelims and Mains systematically.

• IAS Preparation
• UPSC Preparation Strategy

Hate Speech - UPSC Notes

Hate speech is a term frequently seen in the daily news. It is important to understand the meaning of the term and its implications for Indian polity and society. In this article, you can read all about the term ‘hate speech’ and the legalities involved in it, for the  UPSC 2023 .

Hate Speech:- Download PDF Here

Aspirants would find this article very helpful while preparing for the  IAS Exam .

Hate Speech Meaning

Hate speech refers to words whose intent is to create hatred towards a particular group, that group may be a community, religion or race. This speech may or may not have meaning, but is likely to result in violence.

• The primary reason for the propagation of hate speech by individuals is that they believe in stereotypes that are ingrained in their minds and these stereotypes lead them to believe that a class or group of persons are inferior to them and as such cannot have the same rights as them.
• The stubbornness to stick to a particular ideology without caring for the right to co-exist peacefully adds further fuel to the fire of hate speech.
• In order to determine whether a particular instance of speech is a hate speech or not, the context of the speech plays an important role.
• The Court in the State of Maharashtra v. Sangharaj Damodar Rupawat observed that the effect of the words used in the offending material must be judged from the standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous men, and not those of weak and vacillating minds, nor of those who scent danger in every hostile point of view.
• The existence of hate speech is not a new phenomenon by any stretch of the imagination but the creation of multiple platforms, especially social media has led to hate speech not only increasing but also becoming more vile and abhorrent.
• The amount of hate that is perpetuated through social media platforms like Facebook has been well documented.
• The most prominent instance in this regard has been the persecution of Rohingya Muslims by Myanmar’s military junta.
• Multiple investigative journalists have laid bare the connection between the call for violence against Rohingyas on Facebook and the unabashed killings in Myanmar.

Hate Speech – Position in India

Freedom of Speech and Expression is guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution as a fundamental right but this right is not absolute and as such restrictions are imposed on this right under Article 19(2).

• It has to be understood that the right to free speech ends where hate speech begins.
• Under the pretext of exercising inherent rights, many commit the crime of hate speech, leading to an air of distrust and terror.
• It must be appreciated that liberty is there for all. If in the name of free speech, a ‘hate speech’ is delivered which marginalises certain people, then the liberty of those people is snatched away.
• In the 267th Report of the Law Commission of India, it was stated that “Liberty and equality are contemporary and not antithetical to each other. The intention of having the freedom of speech is not to disregard the weaker sections of society but to give them an equal voice. The intent of equality is not to restrain this liberty but to balance it with the necessities of a multicultural and plural world, provided such constraint does not unduly infringe on the freedom of expression. Thus, incitement to not only violence but also to discrimination has been recognized as a ground for interfering with freedom of expression.”

Aspirants can go through the relevant links given below for their exam preparation-

The penal provisions which relate to this aspect are as follows:

• Sections 153A and 153B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) punish acts that cause enmity and hatred between two groups.
• Section 295A of the IPC deal with punishing acts which deliberately or with malicious intention outrage the religious feelings of a class of persons.
• Sections 505(1) and 505(2) make the publication and circulation of content which may cause ill-will or hatred between different groups an offence.
• Section 8 of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951 (RPA)  prevents a person convicted of the illegal use of the freedom of speech from contesting an election.
• Sections 123(3A) and 125 of the RPA bar the promotion of animosity on the grounds of race, religion, community, caste, or language in reference to elections and includes it under corrupt electoral practices.

FAQ about Hate Speech

Is hate speech free speech in india, give examples of hate speech..

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Request OTP on Voice Call

Post My Comment

IAS 2024 - Your dream can come true!

Download the ultimate guide to upsc cse preparation, register with byju's & download free pdfs, register with byju's & watch live videos.

'Online Hate Speech in India: Legal Reforms and Social Impact on Social Media Platforms'

17 Pages Posted: 25 Feb 2024 Last revised: 7 May 2024

Ritika Singh

CMR University, School of Legal Studies

Lakshmi P Nath

Priyanshi mishra, surabhi jain, aditi singh, sunil maria benedict.

United International Degree College; Sunrise University; Orthodox Catholic Church of France

Date Written: February 2, 2024

This paper examines the prevalence, felony frameworks, social effect, and ability solutions for online hate speech in the Indian context, specializing in popular social media structures. It analyzes India's felony panorama, its strengths and weaknesses, and explores the cultural nuances influencing on-line discourse. Finally, it proposes prison and social strategies to cut back hate speech even as respecting cultural variety. This studies paper delves into the complex dynamics surrounding online hate speech in India, focusing mainly on criminal reforms and the ensuing social effect within the realm of social media. With the proliferation of internet access and the vast adoption of social media structures, the dissemination of hate speech has turn out to be a pressing situation, providing demanding situations for both policymakers and society at massive. Through a complete assessment of present literature, legal frameworks, and case research, this paper examines the evolving landscape of on-line hate speech law in India. It explores the constitutional and statutory provisions governing hate speech, whilst additionally studying the effectiveness of modern felony mechanisms in addressing online hate speech. Furthermore, the paper investigates the function of social media systems in facilitating the spread of hate speech, in addition to their processes to content moderation and community pointers. In addition to prison analysis, this paper explores the socio-cultural implications of online hate speech, considering its impact on marginalized communities, social brotherly love, and democratic discourse. It investigates the methods wherein online hate speech intersects with broader troubles including identity politics, polarization, and freedom of expression. Drawing upon qualitative and quantitative research methods, inclusive of interviews, surveys, and content material analysis, this paper seeks to provide insights into the attitudes, experiences, and perceptions of numerous stakeholders, which includes policymakers, regulation enforcement businesses, social media customers, and civil society businesses. Ultimately, this research objectives to make contributions to a nuanced knowledge of the demanding situations posed with the aid of online hate speech in India and to provide hints for legal reforms, policy interventions, and social projects that sell a more inclusive and tolerant on-line surroundings. By addressing the prison and social dimensions of on line hate speech, this paper seeks to contribute to efforts aimed at fostering a more fit and more resilient digital public sphere in India.

Keywords: Online hate speech, India, Social media, Legal frameworks, Social effect, Cultural nuances, Solutions.

JEL Classification: I31, I24, F01, A13, A12, K14, K22, K32, K34, K35

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

Ritika Singh (Contact Author)

Cmr university, school of legal studies ( email ), united international degree college ( email ).

Hennur-Bagalur Main Road, Kannur Post Bangalore, 562149 India

Sunrise University

Alwar Rajastan Alwar India

HOME PAGE: http://https://www.sunriseuniversity.in/

Orthodox Catholic Church of France ( email )

96, Boulevard Auguste Blanqui 75013 Paris Paris, 75013 France

HOME PAGE: http://https://eglise-catholique-orthodoxe-de-france.fr

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics, related ejournals, harvard law school, public law & legal theory research paper series.

Subscribe to this free journal for more curated articles on this topic

University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series

Humanities education ejournal.

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

Law & Literature eJournal

The c. boyden gray center for the study of the administrative state research paper series, global commodity issues ejournal, literary theory & criticism ejournal, international political economy: globalization ejournal, legal, medical & applied linguistics ejournal, sociology of law ejournal, communication law & policy ejournal, library management & operations ejournal, libraries & information technology ejournal, library services & librarianship ejournal, art law ejournal, social demography ejournal, social media studies ejournal.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

As Officials Look Away, Hate Speech in India Nears Dangerous Levels

Activists and analysts say calls for anti-Muslim violence — even genocide — are moving from the fringes to the mainstream, while political leaders keep silent.

By Mujib Mashal Suhasini Raj and Hari Kumar

HARIDWAR, India — The police officer arrived at the Hindu temple here with a warning to the monks: Don’t repeat your hate speech.

Ten days earlier, before a packed audience and thousands watching online, the monks had called for violence against the country’s minority Muslims. Their speeches, in one of India’s holiest cities , promoted a genocidal campaign to “kill two million of them” and urged an ethnic cleansing of the kind that targeted Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar.

When videos of the event provoked national outrage, the police came. The saffron-clad preachers questioned whether the officer could be objective.

Yati Narsinghanand, the event’s firebrand organizer known for his violent rhetoric, assuaged their concerns.

“Biased?” Mr. Narsinghanand said, according to a video of the interaction. “He will be on our side,” he added, as the monks and the officer broke into laughter.

Once considered fringe, extremist elements are increasingly taking their militant message into the mainstream, stirring up communal hate in a push to reshape India’s constitutionally protected secular republic into a Hindu state. Activists and analysts say their agenda is being enabled, even normalized, by political leaders and law enforcement officials who offer tacit endorsements by not directly addressing such divisive issues.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Brill | Nijhoff

Brill | Wageningen Academic

Brill Germany / Austria

Böhlau

Brill | Fink

Brill | mentis

Brill | Schöningh

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

V&R unipress

Open Access

Open Access for Authors

Transformative Agreements

Open Access and Research Funding

Open Access for Librarians

Open Access for Academic Societies

Discover Brill’s Open Access Content

Organization

Stay updated

Corporate Social Responsiblity

Investor Relations

Policies, rights & permissions

Review a Brill Book

Author Portal

How to publish with Brill: Files & Guides

Fonts, Scripts and Unicode

Publication Ethics & COPE Compliance

Data Sharing Policy

Brill MyBook

Ordering from Brill

Author Newsletter

Piracy Reporting Form

Sales Managers and Sales Contacts

Ordering From Brill

Titles No Longer Published by Brill

Catalogs, Flyers and Price Lists

E-Book Collections Title Lists and MARC Records

How to Manage your Online Holdings

LibLynx Access Management

Discovery Services

KBART Files

MARC Records

Online User and Order Help

Rights and Permissions

Latest Key Figures

Latest Financial Press Releases and Reports

Annual General Meeting of Shareholders

Share Information

Specialty Products

Press and Reviews

Share link with colleague or librarian

Stay informed about this journal!

• Get New Issue Alerts
• Get Advance Article alerts
• Get Citation Alerts

‘Kill Two Million of Them’: Institutionalised Hate Speech, Impunity and 21st Century Atrocities in India

Hate speech and incitement have been instrumental in atrocity crimes that have occurred in India, even prior to its independence. These atrocities include targeted killings of minorities based on religious and ethnic identity, and demonstrate persistent features of systematic, orchestrated violence that is fuelled by a Hindu nationalist ideology. This ideology is routinely promulgated at the highest levels of political leadership. This article traces both the historical and institutional character of hate speech and incitement in India to understand its repeated manifestation over time. Through case studies of recent violence, it considers the implications of new legal developments, technology and the covid -19 pandemic on the character and dynamic of hate speech, incitement and atrocity violence in India. It considers key reforms and areas for accountability on which the international community could engage the government and civil society in India on the issue of hate speech and incitement to promote atrocity prevention at the domestic level.

• 1 Introduction

This article examines the issue of hate speech and incitement leading to targeted violence and atrocities in India to understand the dynamics leading to escalation, and to identify pathways for violence mitigation. Violence against minorities on the basis of religion and ethnicity has been a regular feature throughout India’s modern history. The rise of the Hindu nationalist movement, and particularly the mainstreaming of the Hindu nationalist party, the Bharatiya Janata Party ( bjp ), has fostered a political climate that is conducive to hate speech. This hate speech has regularly transformed into calls for violent action, rioting, and pogroms through which thousands of people have experienced horrendous atrocities. India was acutely affected by the covid -19 pandemic, with significant costs in terms of lives lost, damage to the national economy, and an overrun health system. As this article illustrates, the pandemic also exacerbated underlying social tensions, hate speech is on the rise across the country, as are the numbers of hate crimes targeting vulnerable minority groups. A recent call to ‘kill two million of them [Muslims]’ is an example of an overt and unchecked call from a high-profile Hindu leader to commit genocide and ethnic cleansing that is entering mainstream discourse. 1

This article starts with a historical background to contextualise the current situation of hate speech and violence against religious and ethnic minorities in India, followed by an analysis of the legal and policy framework in place concerning the regulation of hate speech and other forms of discrimination against minorities. To illustrate the dynamics and character of hate speech, incitement, and violence, the article provides case studies of the 2020 Delhi riots, the targeting of the Tablighi Jamaat during the covid -19 lockdown in 2020, and a discussion of hate speech and violence towards Christian and ethnic minority groups in the North Eastern states.

In doing so, the article contributes to the overarching objective of this special issue by showing the wider historical, institutional, and legal context in which hate speech is enacted. The case studies demonstrate that the specific actors and trigger events through which hate speech develops into incitement and atrocities are highly contingent. However, a powerful enabling environment for hate speech leading to incitement and atrocities has been cultivated by Hindu nationalists for decades. Systematic patterns of behaviour can be mapped and identified over the long durée, and indeed intensified over the past few years with the compounding effects of new social media technologies, the global pandemic, and a pervasive communalist ideology propagated by leading politicians in positions of authority. Mitigating institutions, such as legal bodies and a robust judiciary, have eroded in the past decade due to increased politicisation of the courts and the introduction of discriminatory laws. A comprehensive overview of the trends in India explains why hate speech has become so dangerous, and why greater attention needs to be paid to communal violence within India from an atrocity prevention perspective.

• 2 Historical Background: Communal Violence in India

To understand the nature of hate speech and, in numerous cases, ensuing patterns of incitement, riots and pogroms in India, it is important to contextualise communal politics that have made religion one of the most volatile issues shaping the current political landscape. Constitutionally, India is a secular state; however, Hindus are by far the largest religious group at 80 per cent of the population. Muslims are the largest minority group at 14 per cent of the population, followed by Christians (2.3%), Sikh (1.72%), Jain (0.37%), and others/none (less than 1%). 2 Communal violence between Hindus and Muslims is the most prevalent, although there have been significant instances of communal violence targeted at other minorities, such as the 1984 anti-Sikh pogrom and the 2008 anti-Christian riots in Orissa state. Although with strong ideological overtones defined by Hindu nationalism, communal violence is often exacerbated by electoral politics, often the need by Hindu nationalist groups to galvanise support across its wide caste-base along religious lines. 3

Historian Gayendra Pandey has argued that the politicisation of communal difference in India is a product of colonial knowledge generated through the classification practices of the British during their colonisation of Greater India. 4 The classification of population groups along the lines of religion shaped group consciousness of communal difference that spurred nationalist movements headed by the Muslim League and the secular Indian National Congress party that were central to the creation of Pakistan as a homeland for Muslims (including East Bengal – now Bangladesh) and India in 1947. Unprecedented communal violence between Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs occurred during the 1947 Partition and became constitutive of the nationalist ideology that shaped the nation-building programs of both states following Partition. 5 In the decades that followed, politicians across the political spectrum have periodically leveraged communal identities both at central and state levels to advance their political goals. 6 The high levels of impunity within the security sector and justice system that have become hallmarks of India’s communal violence today are a result of the deep politicisation of communalism during these early years. 7

The Hindu nationalist ( Hindutva ) movement has its origins in the early twentieth-century independence movement against British colonialism. Independence activist Vinayak Damodar Savarkar developed the political philosophy of Hindutva in the 1920s, defining the essence of Indian national identity in the Hindu religion – it is a far-right organisation that has been backed by the voluntary paramilitary organisation Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh ( rss ) since 1925. In the 1960s, Sangh Parivar was created as the umbrella organisation for a family of right-wing Hindu nationalist organisations in the country. Among its key institutions are the bjp (the political wing), the rss (the paramilitary wing), the Bajrang Dal (the youth wing), and the Durga Vahini (the women’s wing). They have been responsible for orchestrating and actively participating in much of the communal violence that has taken place in India over the past decades. 8

The Hindutva movement rose as a significant political force in India during the 1980s and 1990s, and was accompanied by a rise in communal violence orchestrated by member organisations of the Sangh Parivar that continues to shape the contours of modern politics and political violence today. 9 As a sign of the formal mainstreaming of Hindu nationalist ideology in the domestic political landscape, the bjp was in government from 1998 to 2004 under Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, and has again been in government under Prime Minister Narendra Modi since 2014.

Hate speech propagated by Hindu nationalist leaders that exemplifies their exclusionary agenda includes statements such as those by bjp and rss leader Rajeshwar Singh that ‘Muslims and Christians will be wiped out of India by December 31, 2021’. 10 The use of terms such as ‘wiping out’ has been interpreted as a statement of intent for ethnic cleansing by observers. 11

Tell me, when you heard the word Hindu terrorist, did you not feel deeply hurt. In a thousand-year history there has been no instance of a Hindu committing an act of terrorism … Brothers and Sisters, a few days ago decisions have revealed the truth. Congress’ conspiracy to the country. Congress for trying to insult Hindus, of staining the basic tenants of our culture, making thousands of our country/people look smaller in front of the world … The ones they called terrorists have awakened. The ones of our peace-loving hindu culture, the Hindus that live for brotherhood, the Hindus that love everyone in the world as their family, have been called terrorists. Joined terrorism with hindus.

The speech was intentionally divisive along religious lines, 12 and many complaints were filed to the Election Commission of India ( eci ) against the speech for stirring majoritarian Hindu sentiment and communal passion. The eci exonerated the Prime Minister, with one dissenting opinion (30 April 2019). India Today filed a Right to Information request to disclose the text of the eci opinion; however, the eci refused the request on the basis that ‘disclosure will endanger the life and physical safety of the person or identifies’. 13 Such lack of accountability at the highest level of political authority has emboldened Hindu nationalists to employ polarising language, and therefore pursue the objectives of their agenda.

• 3 Context of Communal Divisions, Hate Speech and Violence in India

Hundreds of episodes of communal violence occur in India every year. The National Crime Records Bureau recorded over 4,500 episodes of communal or religious riots from 2016 to 2019. 14 Although official records show a decrease in the number of such riots in recent years, the number of riot victims increased by 22 per cent from 2017 to 2018, indicating that these riots have become more deadly. 15 Further, statistics collected by the organisation Statistica show that the number of hate crimes on the basis of caste, ethnicity or religion reported in the media have increased significantly, from eight crimes reported in 2010 to 92 reported in 2018.

Religious and communal tensions have come under intense scrutiny since the election of Modi in 2014, and accordingly the flow of information on religiously motivated incidences has been curtailed. The Ministry of Home Affairs ceased releasing annual data on the communal and religious rioting in recent years, and a number of independent databases that were tracking religiously motivated hate crimes have been shut down, including the Hate Tracker website published by the Hindustan Times in September 2017, with the forced resignation of the editor-in-chief occurring shortly after a meeting between the newspaper’s owner and the Prime Minister. 16 In September 2019, the award-winning Hate Crime Watch database was removed from its website IndiaSpend . 17 Journalists and human rights advocates have also been targets of threats and intimidation for their vocal opposition to state-sponsored communal violence and impunity. 18

Far from mitigating instances of inflammatory hate speech, the current bjp government has fostered an environment where hate speech is not only tolerated but also rewarded. ndtv conducted a survey of ‘statements that are clearly communal, casteist, and calls to violence’ made by politicians and public figures. They found that hate speech by public figures increased by 490 per cent in the first four years of bjp rule, with 90 per cent of the politicians involved being members of the bjp . 19 Most of them go unpunished; some of them are even rewarded. For example, in 2016, bjp Member of Parliament from Karnataka state, Ananth Kumar Hedge was recorded as saying: ‘As long as we have Islam in the world, there will be no end to terrorism. If we are unable to end Islam, we won’t be able to end terrorism.’ He was promoted as the Union Minister of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship in 2017 and continues to espouse far-right nationalist views through social media and public statements. 20

A small percentage of communal riots escalate to large-scale killings and displacement, such as the Hindu‒Muslim violence in Mumbai in 1992 and Gujarat in 2002; however, there is a consistency and familiarity between these episodes in terms of the social and political dynamics through which they are mobilised. Common among these are the intensification of hate rhetoric along the contours of the communal divisions concretised during Partition and inflamed through extremist political ideologies. Hate speech spreads rumours to instil fear among communities during periods of tension, followed by a systematic mobilisation of populations to participate in riots by local criminal networks. These events are often in the wake of a triggering event, such as the desecration of a holy site such as a temple or mosque (real or orchestrated) or an assassination of a leading religious figure. Many of these riots, or acts of communal violence, have transformed into pogroms as mob leaders exploit the popular unrest to engage in targeted violence. 21

Major episodes of communal violence have caused the death of hundreds, in some cases thousands of people, such as the riots in Ahmedabad in 1969, the anti-Sikh riots across India in 1984, the Bhagalpur riots in 1989, the Mumbai riots in 1992 following the destruction of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya, and the Gujarat riots in 2002. The official death toll of each event sits between 1,000 and 3,000. Tens of thousands of people have been displaced during these periods, and thousands of homes, businesses, and places of worship have been destroyed. In addition to targeted killings, victims of communal violence suffer from brutal sexual violence, including the gang rape of women and children and destruction of foetuses in pregnant women, and the mutilation, torture, and burning of women and children who have been raped. 22

Prominent scholars who have written on communal violence in India have, at times, documented the genocidal logic operating during periods of extreme communal violence when the direct targeting, torture, killings, and forced displacement of populations according to their religious or ethnic identities were defining features of the violence. 23 Despite prosecution of a small number of individuals accused of specific attacks, there is an overall trend of persistent impunity, notably for security forces, and the absence of meaningful accountability and reconciliation mechanisms for the populations affected. 24

Police in India are often complicit in communal violence, either through actively aiding the violence (such as providing weapons), committing acts of violence themselves, or abetting the violence on orders by senior officials. High levels of impunity for political leaders, at both central and state levels, and police units who engage in aiding or abetting communal violence continue to undermine the performance of the security sector in India at protecting civilians on an impartial basis from religious and other identity-based violence. 25 As the three case studies discussed below demonstrate, the historical impunity exercised by state security forces has only deepened since 2014.

In addition to national political cleavages, there are a number of explanations for the persistence of communal violence in India. First is the presence of ‘institutionalised riot systems’, through which political elites mobilise networks to orchestrate ‘riots’ by spreading rumours and instigating violence that appear spontaneous. The production of riots is used to shape the trajectory of local politics, and they are an integral aspect of political life in a number of Indian cities where communal tensions are endemic. 26

Second, a direct correlation between communal violence and electoral politics in India has also been found through quantitative studies, and scholars have argued that riots help to galvanise Hindu constituencies that are divided by caste conflict around a homogeneous Hindu identity. 27 Finally, other socio-political factors that account for the consistent reoccurrence of communal violence in India include the mobilisation of communal difference in day-to-day routine political transactions; 28 variations in the level of civic engagement across communal lines; 29 and historical impunity for policing and law enforcement complicity in communal violence and other widespread human rights violations such as torture and extrajudicial killings. 30

Despite the large body of evidence showing the complicity of India’s political and security establishment in communal violence, India has been subjected to little accountability for the persistent levels of religious persecution and violence. India’s record has been scrutinised through the Universal Periodic Review ( upr ) process within the Human Rights Council ( hrc ) where the problem of hate speech, violence against religious, tribal, and Dalit communities and restrictions on religious freedom has been routinely raised. 31 However, India has persistently disregarded the recommendations of the hrc , and the hrc ’s lack of enforcement mechanisms to ensure that India follows through on its human rights obligations under international law reinforces the absence of a meaningful recourse to accountability of the state at the international level.

4 Legal Framework

• 4.1 Constitutional Status of Hate Speech in India

The provisions dealing with hate speech are incidental to the provisions dealing with state authority, law and order, and infringement of individual liberties as enshrined in the Constitution. Accordingly, in the Indian Constitution, the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 is ensconced in Part iii , which pertains to the fundamental rights of the individual. This right is subject to ‘reasonable restrictions’ as given in clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19 which subject the right to restriction on grounds of: ‘sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence’.

At the outset it may be noted that within the Constitution no separate section deals with hate speech, instead different laws and penal articles deal with offences which may be understood as hate speech. Thus, as the Law Commission of India notes, hate speech is not defined in the Constitution. 32 The 267th report of the Law Commission of India was an outcome of the directives issued by the Supreme Court of India ( sci ) to look into the definition, if necessary, of hate speech under the Constitution. 33 As the Commission in its report subsequently noted, the concern that the sci has with defining hate speech is the restriction and curtailment of free speech which may result from misuse of such legislation or definition. 34 Specifically, the sci has held that in order to breach the limits of Article 19(1) a differentiation must be made ‘between discussion and advocacy from incitement’, and further that incitement must amount to incitement to violence, 35 otherwise restrictions would not apply.

In its report, the Law Commission annexed a proposed Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2017, recommending an amendment of the Penal Code to include two new provisions to address hate speech, which it defined as: ‘incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief and the like’. Thus, ‘hate speech is any word written or spoken, signs, visible representations within the hearing or sight of a person with the intention to cause fear or alarm, or incitement to violence’. 36

The Commission proposed to add two sections – 153C (prohibiting incitement to hatred) and 505A (causing fear, alarm, or provocation of violence in certain cases) – to the Indian Penal Code and make the necessary changes in the Criminal Procedure Code. The proposal included punishments of limited jail terms and a fine. 37 To date, however, the recommendations of the Commission have not been accepted.

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( ipc ) The ipc contains provisions which deal with deliberate acts intended to outrage the feelings of any community so as to incite violence or to create animosity, based on grounds which include religion. (Sections 153A, 295A, 298, 505(1) and (2)). It also deals with provisions which penalise acts (including speech) prejudicial to national integration (i.e., sedition). (Sections 124A, 153B) The Representation of The Peoples Act, 1951 ( rpa ) This Act deals with elections, and the specific provisions under Sections 8, 123(3A), and 125 that prohibit and result in disqualification of people indulging in electoral malpractice on the grounds of the illegitimate use of freedom of expression to create enmity on grounds which include religion, race, caste etc. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPc) Section 95 empowers the state to penalise and forfeit publications prosecutable under the above provisions of the ipc . Sections 107 and 144 empower the administration to censor or prevent a breach of peace or disturbance of the public order on account of offences and acts which may include or occur on account of hate speech. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ‘Section 3. Punishment for offences of atrocities (1): Whoever not being a member of a Scheduled Cast or a Scheduled Tribe,- (r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view.’

• 4.2 Draft Prevention of Communal Violence Bill

Communal violence continues to be highly politicised in India. In the lead up to the 2014 general elections, the United Progressive Alliance, led by the Congress party, attempted unsuccessfully to reintroduce the Draft Prevention of Communal Violence (Access to Justice and Reparations) Bill to the Upper House in the last parliamentary session, inflaming political debate. The original Bill, drafted by secular civil society actors and adapted without their approval, was introduced into the Lower House of parliament in 2011 where it was rejected. The bjp is ideologically opposed to the Bill, and their position is defended on the basis that the definition of ‘majority’ communities in India discriminates against Hindu populations. The bjp also argued that the Bill would enable the central government to encroach on state-level jurisdiction for policing and that provisions in the existing Constitution, Criminal Code, and Penal Code provide adequate protection for populations without requiring further legislation. 38 Secular activists rejected the original Bill, arguing that the changes made to the text were too ambiguous and that it was too draconian given the heightened power it allocated to the central government to intervene in states. 39

India experienced violent communal riots in Muzzafarnagar in the swing state of Uttar Pradesh in September 2013, where there was a tardy police response, and over 50,000 people were displaced. The event provided the impetus for the then ruling Congress party to reintroduce the Bill in the last sitting of parliament before the election in December 2013. The revised 2013 Bill contained provisions to address deficiencies in the Constitution, the Penal Code, and the Criminal Code by offering additional protections to religious and other minority communities from persecution, by providing compensation and rehabilitation rights for victims, and by including penalties for district-level officials. The revised version also removed a clause that gave the central government additional powers to intervene in state jurisdictions during communal violence, and enhanced the authority of the National Human Rights Commission. Despite the persistence of communal tensions throughout the country, the draft bill was rejected in parliament, and was removed from the agenda after the election of the bjp to government in 2014.

• 4.3 Discriminatory Legal Provisions and Policies under the bjp Government

Since the bjp came to power in 2014, and notably after the 2019 election in which the bjp won a majority government, a number of discriminatory policies and laws have been enacted. These are widely interpreted to target minorities, most notably Muslim populations, but also other non-Hindu minority religions and ethnic minorities. These moves by the bjp have signalled their support for Hindu nationalist groups and has created a political space in which hate speech has flourished and hate crimes have burgeoned across the country. The most controversial provisions are summarised below, before turning to the case studies.

4.3.1 Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 ( caa )

The Citizenship Amendment Bill was passed in December 2019. The amendment provides a pathway for illegal migrants from six different religions, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians, from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, who have fled their country to escape from religious persecution. However, the Bill is the first to legislate exclusionary religious qualifications for defining persecution and protecting minorities. The exclusion of Muslims has been especially controversial, as the Bill has been seen to directly target Muslims from gaining citizenship in India, whereby persecuted Muslims in the region 40 are denied the same pathways for formal citizenship. Furthermore, those opposed to the caa argue that it violates Article 14 of the Indian Constitution that guarantees the right to equality and undermines India’s secular status. Protests against the caa were the major impetus for the 2020 Delhi riots examined below and are evidence of increased religious polarisation instigated by the bjp government since it secured a majority government in the 2019 general election.

4.3.2 National Register of Citizens

The rollout of the National Register of Citizens ( nrc ) in the state of Assam in the North Eastern Region of India left millions excluded from the formal register, particularly poor citizens who lacked formal registration documents, or those with minor irregularities in their documentation who were designated as ‘doubtful citizens’. 41 The precarious status of these populations raised international concerns that alongside rising hate speech against minorities in Assam, the nrc process would ‘exacerbate the xenophobic climate while fuelling religious intolerance and discrimination in the country’. 42 United Nations experts not only challenged the legality of the practice, but also called on the Indian government ‘to take resolute action to review the implementation of the nrc and other similar processes in Assam and in other states, and to ensure that they do not result in statelessness, discriminatory or arbitrary deprivation or denial of nationality, mass expulsion, and arbitrary detention’. 43

The nrc , if implemented nationwide in tandem with the caa , would create a tenuous situation for millions of Muslims who would have to provide legal documentation proving their Indian citizenship, in a country where the system of birth registrations and formal documentation is not reliable.

4.3.3 Jammu and Kashmir Media Policy

In August 2019, with the support of the bjp and other right-wing political parties, the government of India stripped Muslim-majority Jammu and Kashmir of its autonomy granted under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. In a continuation of policies that target Muslim populations, the government cited security reasons (countering foreign terrorism) as a rationale for taking federal control of the long-disputed region. The government imposed a curfew, cut communications, deployed large numbers of security forces to the region, and restricted the freedom of movement and assembly. The government arrested Kashmiri politicians and religious leaders. Despite efforts to challenge the government actions through the Supreme Court, and international concern over the restriction of freedom and access to information, the government of India succeeded in changing the status of the region into two Union Territories.

4.3.4 Cow Protection

Many states in India already have laws that criminalise the slaughter of cows, considered sacred in the Hindu religion. While the issue of cow protection is longstanding and divisive, it has become particularly prominent through the bjp ’s leadership and rss activism. Vigilante groups of self-proclaimed ‘cow protectors’ have mobilised campaigns of violence, targeting Muslims, Christians, and Dalits suspected of eating beef, slaughtering cows, or transporting cattle for slaughter. 44 According to the US Commission on International Religious Freedom: ‘Since the bjp came to power in 2014, there have been over 100 attacks, amounting to over 98 percent of such attacks since 2010. Lynching victims, rather than the perpetrators, are often arrested under these laws.’ 45

These figures show both an upward trend in the mobilisation of hate crimes through inflammatory rhetoric, backed by political ideology of the far-right bjp nationalist agenda, combined with an environment of widespread impunity for perpetrators, and for police groups that have been unwilling to intervene to halt assaults on victims, or have themselves been complicit in acts of violence. 46

4.3.5 Anti-Conversion Laws

Hindutva groups pursue mass conversions through ceremonies known as ghar wapsi (homecoming), without interference from authorities. Empowered by anti-conversion laws and often with the police’s complicity, Hindutva groups also conduct campaigns of harassment, social exclusion, and violence against Christians, Muslims, and other religious minorities across the country. Following attacks by Hindutva groups against religious minorities for conversion activities, the police often arrest the religious minorities who have been attacked. 48

The ideological rejection of conversion to any other religion than Hinduism is not only enshrined in the laws of some ten states across India, but also manifested in the nature of hate speech targeted at religious minorities. Through vitriolic social media slogans, popular protests, and Hindu nationalist political campaigns, the anti-Muslim campaign ‘love-Jihad’ perpetuates false claims that Muslim men intentionally lure Hindu girls into romantic relations so that they will marry and convert to Islam. 49 In November 2020, the state of Uttar Pradesh passed the Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Ordinance, giving the state effective control over any decision to convert. The law has been used to harass, separate interfaith married couples, and arrest individuals suspected of breaching the law. 50

The remainder of this article turns to several case studies through which hate speech and incitement to violence have catalysed targeted violence and human rights violations against religious and ethnic minorities in India. Importantly, it shows the complicity and impunity of authorities and policing in aiding and abetting communal violence, the operation of genocidal logics in violence, and the elevated role of individual influencers in stoking communal tensions through real-time and extensive use of social media platforms.

5 Delhi Riots

The violence in Delhi which took place from 23 to 27 February 2020 came about as fallout from the protests against India’s Citizenship (Amendment) Act which the Muslim community perceived to be aimed at them. 51 The following case study is divided into four sections, the first deals with the extant provisions in the Indian Constitution dealing with hate speech, the second deals with the hate speech issued by various figures before the violence spread including the speech which triggered the violence, and the third deals with the use of social media to mobilise and incite violence by examining the video of Ragini Tiwari who arrived at the main scene of violence. A concluding section notes the observations from the case study.

• 5.1 Context: Continuum of Violence

This section uses data from the Delhi Minorities Commission ( dmc ) fact-finding committee report 52 and alternative news media reports on the Delhi riots of 2020 which took place on 23 February and continued unabated for the next few days. These sources highlight how violence was triggered by hate speech 53 widely disseminated over social media targeting the Muslim minority in India’s capital coinciding with the Delhi Assembly elections. What these reports identify is the way in which the government machinery both failed to respond appropriately and was in many ways complicit in the outbreak of violence resulting from hate speech. 54 Furthermore, social media also played a significant role in the mobilisation of people and incitement of communal violence, primarily by way of live broadcasts and large-scale dissemination of hate speech. 55 Mass protests against India’s controversial Citizenship (Amendment) Act ( caa ) were painted by the ruling dispensation as anti-national (read anti-Hindu) and ably assisted by the mainstream media which amplified government narratives and fuelled communal hatred. The violence was preceded by hate speeches by members of the ruling bjp party who were campaigning for the Delhi elections. The Election Commission had already censored and flagged two star-campaigners for violation of the Model Code of Conduct. 56 These speeches and precedents of violence should have indicated the tense and combustible atmosphere surrounding the anti- caa protests and ideally led the government in Delhi to set up countermeasures and safeguards.

• 5.2 Build-up: ‘Goli Maro Saalon Ko’

The slogan ‘Goli Maro Saalon Ko’ became associated with all incidents of violence triggered by hate speech and inflammatory media coverage of anti-government and anti- caa protests. 57 The violence can be mapped on a continuum stretching from police brutality against students of jmi University 58 to individual acts of violence perpetrated by pro- caa individuals around the protest site at Shaheen Bagh, 59 which eventually escalated into a full-scale pogrom in the aftermath of inflammatory speeches given in the course of the Delhi election campaigning. The general contours of campaigning especially by bjp revolved around the juxtaposition of anti- caa protesters as Pakistanis against pro- caa government supporters as patriotic nationalists. Kapil Mishra continued to tweet aggressively during the campaign including likening the election to an India-Pakistan cricket match as well as accusing the opposition of creating ‘mini Pakistans’ in the form of Shaheen Baghs around the capital and the rest of the country. 60 He further alleged that 5 lakh rupees were being given as a bounty to assault police officers and indulge in anti- caa protests. 61 Multiple Union ministers including Union Home Minister Amit Shah kept issuing statements in the same frame resulting in an acute atmosphere of polarisation.

On 27 January 2020 in an election rally, the Home Minister of India, Amit Shah, asked the attendees to press the voting button with such ferocity that the protesters at Shaheen Bagh would ‘feel the current’. Shah said: ‘Your vote to bjp candidate will make Delhi and the country safe and prevent thousands of incidents like Shaheen Bagh.’ 62

The people of Delhi know that the fire that raged in Kashmir a few years ago, where the daughters and sisters of Kashmiri Pandits were raped … caught on in UP, Hyderabad, Kerala, the same fire is raging in a corner in Delhi. Lakhs of people gather there. This fire can reach the residences of Delhi anytime. People of Delhi will have to decide wisely. These people will enter your houses, rape your sisters & daughters, kill them. There’s time today, Modi ji & Amit Shah won’t come to save you tomorrow… 63

We will not let Delhi become Syria and allow them to run an isis -like module here, where women and kids are used. They are trying to create fear in the minds of people of Delhi by blocking the main route. We will not let this happen. (We will not let Delhi burn). #ShaheenBaghKaSach. 64

These events culminated with a call to open violence in the campaign by one of the Union ministers, Anurag Thakur. Thakur’s speech on 20 January 2020 openly advocated shooting the traitors of the country and equated opposition parties and anti- caa protesters with traitors who support Pakistan. 65 In the speech he repeatedly asks the crowd ‘Desh ke Gaddaron ko?’ [the traitors of the nation?] to solicit the response from the crowd, to which they obliged him by saying ‘goli maaro saalon ko’ [shoot those scoundrels]. 66 He shared the podium with other members of the party and another Union minister, Giriraj Singh. The Election Commission sent warning notices and eventually struck Thakur and another fellow party member from the campaign roster in Delhi. 67

• 5.3 Trigger: Kapil Mishra

This is what they wanted. This is why they blocked the roads. That’s why a riot-like situation has been created. From our side not a single stone has been pelted. dcp is standing beside us. On behalf of all of you, I am saying that till the time [US President] Trump goes back [from India], we are going to go forward peacefully. But after that, we will not listen to the Police if roads are not cleared after three days. By the time Trump goes, we request the Police to clear out Jafrabad and Chaand Bagh. After that, we will have to come on the roads. Bharat mata ki jai! Vande Mataram! [Victory to mother India! 69 Long live the motherland!] 70

Within a few hours of the speech, systematic and targeted violence took place at various localities in Delhi’s North-East district, beginning in the area threatened in the speech itself. 71 What is significant in this case is that while giving the speech he was flanked on his right by the Delhi police’s Deputy Commissioner of Police, as visible in the video, and though existing provisions allowed the police to censor the speech and place him in preventive detention, no such action took place. Further, the charge-sheet filed by the police fails to mention these hate speeches, especially the one given by Kapil Mishra. The High Court also noted this strange occurrence and sought clarification on the matter from the Delhi police and central government. 72 This points us towards another peculiarity in this case, wherein because Delhi is the National Capital Territory and not a fully-fledged state, the law enforcement falls under the control of the Union Home Ministry and not the elected Delhi government. Thus, in relation to the Delhi riots, malpractice and a nexus between the central executive and law enforcement in Delhi seem highly probable.

• 5.4 Incitement and Mobilisation: Medium and Message in the Delhi Riots

Aree Delhi Police lath Bajao Hum thumare Saath Hain. Aree mote mote lath bajao hum tumhare saath hain. Zaroorath padi toh hume bulao hum tumhare saath hain. Aree Kya hua? Kya Hua? Jo bi gaddar hai Kat dalo usko. Katt dalo. Ye Bheemti hai kya? Kon Hai be Tu? Boht Hua Sanatan par var. Ab nahi sahenge var. Arr par ki ladai, Sabhi sanatani bahar aao. Maro ya Mar dalo, badh mai dekhi jayegi. Boht hua. Khun na Khola Khun nahi wo pani hai. 74 [Translation] Delhi Police use your batons we [pro- caa Hindu mobs] are with you. Use heavy batons we are with you. If you require then call upon us we are with you. What happened? What happened? Whoever the traitor is cut them down. Cut them down. Is she a Bheemti? [referring to a person of the lower caste who supports Ambedkar]. Who are you? Enough of the attacks on Sanatan [Hinduism]. No longer shall we suffer attacks. Come out all Sanatanis [i.e. Hindus]. This is the fight for now or never. Kill or be Killed, whatever happens will see afterwards. Enough of this [tolerance]. Blood which doesn’t boil is water.

In the video she openly advocates for violence and bloodshed, and goads the Delhi police to undertake violence. She also goads the mob on the basis of defence of Hindu religion. This is happening live and being broadcast on Facebook, and no action is taken by the administration to stop it or take into cognisance the effect this may have in further exacerbating the situation. All this is happening while she stands surrounded by paramilitary and reserve police personnel in full riot gear. It takes place on the very first day of violence on 23 February. Another video is captured by a journalist who records her in the act at one of the sites of violence in Delhi where she is seen repeating the same sentiments and hurling stones to stoke violence, which had apparently abated. 75

The dmc report has noted the complicity 76 and inaction of the Delhi police in the riots, 77 and in its recommendations asked the government to make the Delhi police accountable. 78 Given the mounting evidence and ample availability of these mobilisation videos covered in investigative reporting, 79 the undefined contours of hate speech, and the targeting of minorities in these speeches, the anti-Muslim bias of law enforcement in Delhi represents a singular challenge to the provisions dealing with hate speech in the Indian Constitution. However, the only ray of hope seems to be the report commissioned by the dmc as it is a statutory body of the Delhi government, and the report may be used by courts in judgement of the case. 80

6 Hate Speech and Violence during the covid -19 Pandemic: The Tablighi Jamaat Case

In India the spread of covid -19 was disproportionately and specifically associated with Muslims because a significant number of Tablighi Jamaat members were diagnosed with the disease. This association of covid -19 with Muslims occurred in an already charged atmosphere of xenophobic hatred. The discourse on the coronavirus pandemic morphed and superimposed itself on local prejudices in India. This case study looks at the case of Tablighi Jamaat, the world’s largest Muslim missionary organisation, and the hate mongering that caused the targeting of Muslims as primary carriers and spreaders of the coronavirus in India. The hate-filled coverage and comments targeting Tablighi Jamaat aimed at painting the whole Muslim community as the main carrier of the coronavirus and, further, Muslims were attributed as having done so intentionally as an act of ‘Jihad’ (holy war). The most perturbing thing about this event is that politicians across the entire political spectrum partook in criminalising the group and attributing malicious intentions to Tablighi Jamaat, and by extension giving ample space to the media and the central executive to target the community. This took place with the backdrop of a massive state failure to properly execute its lockdown plan because of which hundreds of thousands of labourers were stranded across interstate borders in India.

• 6.1 The Event

The Tablighi Jamaat is headquartered at Nizamuddin Markaz in New Delhi where, apart from it being a guest house, they annually conduct the consultation program over its activities with its international members. In 2020 the program was scheduled to take place between 14 and 16 March. No prior screening was conducted at the airports before letting in the members who had arrived from across the world. On 13 March the Delhi government, invoking the colonial era Epidemic Diseases Act of 1897, banned gatherings of more than 2,000 people. However, it was only three days later that the ban was extended to religious gatherings, and by then Tablighi’s consultation program was over and many of its members had begun dispersing across the country as a matter of practice while some had stayed back. 81 By the time the Prime Minister had announced a civil curfew (Janata curfew) on 19 March, reports had begun trickling in about the members of Tablighi Jamaat who were diagnosed with the virus in different parts of the country. 82

Meanwhile, the relocation of members from the premises became a problem as the Jamaat representatives made appeals to the local administration who instructed them to stay in place and shut the gates of the Markaz. 83 On 30 March it was reported that the Chief Minister of Delhi had instructed the police to bring criminal charges against the group, 84 and the following day the Delhi police charged its head Maulana Saad and six other Jamaat officials for ‘deliberately, wilfully, negligently and malignantly’ disobeying its orders in holding a mass gathering without proper social-distancing norms and without recourse to necessary sanitary mechanisms. 85 On 2 April the federal government moved to blacklist as many as 960 foreign members of the group for infringement of visa norms and directed the heads of all state police forces, including the Delhi police, to take legal action on the basis of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and Disaster Management Act, 2005. 86 Subsequently, extending over a couple of weeks, the mainstream media joined the chorus with the Union government in claiming that Tablighi Jamaat and, by extension, the Muslim community had been instrumental in spreading the coronavirus in India. 87

• 6.2 Media Narratives: ‘Super Spreader’ to ‘Corona Jihad’

Union minister of the bjp Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi called the Tablighi Jamaat activities a criminal act wherein by dispersing across the country the Tablighi Jamaat had acted as ‘coronavirus carriers’. 88 However, it was the ruling Aam Aadmi Party ( aap ; seen as a liberal opposition to the right-wing bjp ) in Delhi that had sought to initiate and criminalise the Tablighi Jamaat’s negligence. 89 Providing an opening to the Union government of the bjp and its media cohorts, the mainstream media flooded the television screens and social media platforms of Twitter and Facebook with inflammatory hashtags aimed at demonising the Muslim community. 90 Some analysts began linking the so-called ‘Corona Jihad’ to the broader ‘designs’ of Muslims on India historically. 91 Inflammatory headlines to equally bigoted tv segments pushed the narrative that Tablighi Jamaat had used religion to endanger the nation, brought the pandemic to devastating proportions, and increased the risk and speed of spread of the virus in the entire country. The ‘investigative’ coverage of the Tablighi Jamaat from Zee News’s title reads ‘Crona Jihad का “Maulana” कब होगा गिरफ्तार? | Escaped | Maulana Saad | Coronavirus | Most Wanted’ (Corona Jihad’s Maulana, when will he be arrested?). 92

Dunya ka koi bi Dharm ho wo Qanoon tod ne ki baat nahi karta. Koi bi Dharm Desh ko dhokha dene ke liye nahi kehta. Aur koi bi Dharm jhoot Bol ne ke liye nahi kehta. Lekin bahrat ko coronavirus ke naye khatre ki taraf dakel ne wale Tablighi Jamaat ne Dharm ke naam par yehi sab kuch kia hai. Pure desh ke saath dhokha dia hai. Desh ko jhoot bola hai. (0:09-0:32s) 94 [Translation] No religion of the world talks about breaking laws. No religion teaches to betray the nation. No religion teaches to speak lies. But in pushing India towards the new danger of coronavirus, Tablighi Jamaat in the name of religion has done exactly all this. [They have] betrayed the entire nation. [They have] lied to the nation.

Another English news channel debate propagated falsified information, attributing violence and misdemeanour to the Tablighi Jamaat people against the medical staff, quarantine personnel, and police. 95 At one point even the official police handles on social media had to step in and flag biased and fake news reporting by news channels. 96 Various other vernacular news channels ran similar polarising coverage to that in Karnataka, generating the image of Muslims as ‘others’ who were carrying the virus. 97 Old videos shared over social media without context and edited subheadings also became a cause of rising xenophobia wherein viral clips showcasing Muslims as breaking social-distancing norms and protocols were shared countless times over platforms such as Tik Tok and WhatsApp. 98

• 6.3 Aftermath

Many unfortunate acts of violence took place against Muslims as a consequence of the narratives being generated over the media. 99 As for the foreign citizens the cases were ultimately quashed by the courts after prolonged hearings, in many cases noting the frivolous and malicious nature of the charges brought by the police and the government against the accused. 100 It is important to note the role of various embassies in pressuring the Indian government for the release of their citizens 101 as well as pressure from the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation noting the incessant Islamophobia in India. 102 Mike Ryan, the Emergency Program Director of the World Health Organization, also intervened to highlight the disapproval of the handling of the coronavirus in India: ‘Having Covid-19 is not anybody’s fault. Every case is a victim. It is important that we do not profile the cases on the basis of racial, religious and ethnic lines’. 103 None of the other religious gatherings on at that time received the attention Tablighi Jamaat did in the media despite developing a broader scope of infection. 104 No retraction or apology was rendered for the trauma inflicted upon the members of Tablighi Jamaat or any responsibility allocated to the mainstream media’s misreporting of the event. This, even after multiple fact-checking sources debunked most of the malicious vitriol spread by the news channels and social media platforms. 105

To conclude, the majoritarian context in India and a sensationalist media form a bulwark against a genuine reporting of events, simply by way of the volume and repetition of news and the lack of accountability placed on the executive. This case demonstrates that the tacit nexus between the media and the central executive is a serious challenge to the maintenance of ethical norms of media reporting. Further, judicial enforcement remains circumscribed on account of executive inaction and non-compliance.

The Tablighi Jamaat case also shows that while outsiders who share the same faith as Muslims become subject to local prejudices, embassy support and international pressure is remedial for these cases, whereas the local Muslim residents are exposed to prolonged stigmatisation. In sum, the absence of external pressure and demands for accountability from outside India leave a protection gap for minorities within the state, a lacuna that is consistent also in the cases of the Christian and North Eastern ethnic minorities discussed below.

• 7 Hate Speech Targeting Christian Minorities

The two case studies presented above document the relationship between hate speech, incitement, and the surge of violence in the case of Muslim minorities, the most significant minority group targeted by Hindu nationalists. However, other religious minorities in India, including Christians, Sikhs, and Jain, and ethnic minorities such as those in the North-Eastern states are routinely subjected to hate speech and violence. These next two sections briefly describe the situation of Christians and ethnic minorities to demonstrate the breadth and consistency of the patterns of hate speech and targeted violence in India that capitalise on the Hindu nationalist ideology.

Christianity has been practised in India since the 1st century ad , and there are some 24 million Christians in the country according to 2011 census data. Christians have faced persecution in India for many years. However, the international profile of Christian persecution in India rose significantly in the late 1990s, concurrent with the rise of the bjp in mainstream politics, when a string of attacks on Christian churches was publicised in the international media. 106 As with the Muslims, Christians are targets of the Hindu nationalist ideology.

In 1999, Hindu nationalists from the Bajrang Dal youth organisation killed Australian missionary Graham Staines and his two young sons by burning them to death in their car in Orissa (Odisha) state, drawing high profile international media attention. In 2021, the charity Open Doors ranked India tenth in the world for the persecution of Christians, 107 in this case on the basis of religious nationalism. The most recent example of Christian persecution escalating into widespread, targeted violence was the 2008 Orissa violence. Hindu nationalist groups targeted Christian communities in the Kandhamal district through a planned and tightly orchestrated campaign of systematic violence, for which rss and Bajrang Dal members had prepared for several years in advance. 108 A people’s tribunal found that at least 39 Christians were killed, 232 churches destroyed, 600 villages ransacked, 5,600 houses looted and burned, and 54,000 people forcibly displaced – human rights organisations claim that the actual figures are much higher. 109 The nature of the violence was very cruel, involving rape, torture and mutilation, alongside efforts at forced mass conversion to Hinduism. 110

Christian persecution, including inflammatory hate speech and intimidation leading to direct acts of violence, has increased since the bjp came to power in 2014. rss -led accusations of forced Hindu to Christian conversions misuse the anti-conversion laws to intimidate Christian communities and spread misconceptions among Hindu populations that Christians are a threat to their religion. 111 The Evangelical Fellowship of India’s Religious Liberty Commission ( efirlc ) recorded a 57 per cent increase in hate speech and violence against Christian minorities in 2018 as evidence of a steep rise in targeted religious violence across the country. 112

Harassment, intimidation, and lynching of Christians are also reported to have increased significantly during the pandemic lockdown. The organisation Persecution Relief recorded a 41 per cent rise in hate crimes against Christians during the first half of 2020 compared to the same period in 2019, with 293 cases recorded. Noting that most hate crimes go unreported for fear of retribution, these figures included six killings, five rapes, and 51 crimes of a ‘heinous nature’ against women and children. 113 Despite these trends, there has been little response from police to accept reports, and there is documented evidence that police have directly participated in using violence to harass and arrest Christians. 114 In sum, the contours of hate speech and targeted violence that support a majority Hindu nationalist ideology are familiar and consistent across Muslim and Christian communities. The emphasis on forced conversion has prompted the spread of misinformation and rumour that have tainted Hindu perceptions of Christians and cultivated sympathy for rss -led harassment and intimidation of this population. These trends intensified during the pandemic lockdown.

8 Hate Speech Targeting Ethnic Minorities in the North East

• 8.1 Racism against North Eastern Peoples

The peoples from the North Eastern Region have long been targets of racial stereotyping and profiling in many parts of India. In general they have been subjected to abuse and racial slurs such as ‘chinky’, ‘Chinese’, ‘momo’, and ‘chowmein’ and treated as outsiders. 115 Many young people from the eight states that make up India’s North East travel in search of employment and higher education to metropolitan centres like Delhi and Bengaluru. 116 As such they are subject to harassment from landlords and employers. 117 Women from this region are subject to unwarranted attention and sexual harassment, in many cases stereotyped as sex workers. 118 Under Indian law the punishment for racial abuse is imprisonment for up to five years or a fine, or both. However, because of an absence of laws specifically targeting racial discrimination against these ethnic minorities, the people from these regions prepare themselves to face discrimination in the Hindi heartland of the country. 119

• 8.2 Racial Discrimination and the Pandemic

In the early phases of the covid -19 crisis, Chinese and East Asian peoples became the centre of attention in a global threat discourse due to the origin of the virus in Wuhan district. However, the implications went far beyond the Chinese nation-state and extended to average Chinese citizens and anyone who shared the facial features of far-eastern peoples. These people became subject to racist attacks that jeopardised their person irrespective of whether they were Chinese or had any part in the spread of the virus. The pandemic brought out multiple cases of profiling and bigotry aimed at racial minorities in India. The people from the North East who share similar facial features with East Asian peoples became victims of pre-existing biased attitudes towards them and were treated as unhygienic carriers of the coronavirus. 120 During the pandemic many persons from these ethnic minorities came under attack and were literally called ‘coronavirus’, spat on and in many cases told to leave their accommodation without notice. 121 In places they were barred from entering supermarkets because of racial profiling. 122 Many faced harassment and undue screening for coronavirus when they had no symptoms and were seeking treatment for other ailments. 123

• 8.3 Legal Frameworks

Although India has signed the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, it lacks legislation specifically aimed at racism. 124 In the aftermath of the brutal murder of Nido Tania (from Arunachal Pradesh in India’s North East) in 2014, the home ministry and the North Eastern Council set up a committee to advise on the legal mechanisms to combat racism. 125 The M.P. Bezbaruah Committee gave recommendations on how to combat racism; however, these recommendations are yet to be comprehensively implemented via legislation. 126 The Bezbaruah Committee recommended introduction of specifically anti-racial legislation which would be ‘gender-neutral’ and would recognise these instances as non-bailable offences. 127 Among other institutional measures, it pointed out the need to sensitise law enforcement personnel to the nature of these crimes. 128

To conclude, the hate speech/slurs aimed at these ethnic minorities have a predominantly racial bias. The racial bias is further aligned to a discrimination based on linguistic difference at local levels. The pandemic has exacerbated the already prevalent biased attitudes towards these minorities, especially in the Hindi heartland. The anti-discrimination laws that exist do not seem to be alleviating the discrimination against ethnic minorities because they are rarely implemented. A comprehensive policy is needed in order to rectify these legal shortcomings, taking into account the recommendations of the Bezbaruah Committee at both central and state government levels.

• 9 Conclusions

… it was also clear enough to me that what have been called Hindu‒Muslim riots in India are misnamed, that they could not have been carried out with such force in so many places, in many cases for extended periods of time, and repeatedly, with the complicity of the police and the failure of political parties in control of government and the administrative and police officers in the district to prevent or at least to contain them once they have begun. In short, what are called Hindu‒Muslim riots in India are, in fact, more like pogroms, and have recently, in Gujarat and elsewhere taken the form of genocidal massacres and local ethnic cleansing as well. 129

The article shows that hate speech in India follows the contours of a historical narrative of communal identity and a violent Hindu nationalist ideology expressed routinely through mainstream politics that associates Indian nationhood with Hinduism. There remain high levels of impunity for past episodes of major communal violence and pogroms throughout the political establishment along all sides of politics, and impunity is deeply institutionalised in national and state-level policing. Hate speech and violence along religious and ethnic lines has increased sharply since the election of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Hindu nationalist party bjp in 2014 and again in 2019. Hate speech expressed at the highest levels of political authority remains unchecked, and new policies have exacerbated a climate of intercommunal tension and impunity for offenders. There is a dearth of accountability mechanisms both nationally and at the regional or international level, nor meaningful national reconciliation strategies to address historical impunity and intergroup grievances.

This research show that the character and dynamics of hate speech is historically and politically situated context of far-right nationalist narratives that transcend democratic and constitutional protections for minorities. Mitigating hate speech and preventing atrocities requires a holistic approach across sectors of governance and civil society. First, impunity within the highest echelons of political authority in India, alongside explicit inflammatory speeches, creates a permissive environment for unchecked and routine atrocities to continue to be committed in India. The need for accountability of India’s political leaders must be the highest priority for reigning in hate speech in the country and curtailing communal violence.

Second, sweeping reforms in the law and practices within the legal system are needed to address the problem of impunity and partiality in its rulings, from state to federal level. 130 A growing partiality has become apparent within the Supreme Court of India since 2014. 131 To this end, constitutional reforms to disincentivise political influence over the judiciary, such as a prohibition on joining political parties or holding additional ad hoc government appointments, are needed. Third, deep reform of the security sector in India to address bias and impunity and to improve the professional capacity of the police force at both state and federal level to investigate, monitor and de-escalate intergroup tensions.

Beyond formal reforms at the state level, grassroots transitional justice and reconciliation are needed to extend justice for past and recent grievances, and to transform the hostile narratives between religious and ethnic groups. Since the 1980s, civil society, faith-based organisations, and the media have been integral to strengthening democracy in India and holding political actors to account. One of the most concerning trends in recent years has been the imposition of increasingly harsh restrictions on the civil liberties of these groups. 132 The failure of the government to condemn these restrictions, such as the suspension of social media accounts, personal threats and physical attacks, has curtailed the ability of civil society to hold the government to account and advocate for human rights and peacebuilding across ethnic, religious, and other social divisions. 133

Hate speech in the age of digital media and instant accessibility has proved particularly debilitating in prevention of hate crimes, rather it has proved to be exceptionally influential in the mobilisation and incitement to violence. Many cases, including those of Kapil Sharma and Ragini Tiwari, highlight the potency of social media platforms particularly live video broadcast on individual smartphones in communication, receiving mobilisation, and command on ground. Greater regulation is needed both within India and by social media giants such as Facebook and Twitter 134 to curtail hate speech 135 and direct incitement and mobilisation of violence. 136

Finally, international engagement with the issue of religious and minority persecution in India is limited. The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom releases an annual report in which it monitors religious freedom in India and makes recommendations. The issue of hate speech and the targeting of religious and minority groups has also been raised regularly at the UN Human Rights Council through the Universal Periodic Review. International human rights groups, such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, have also documented persecution of religious and ethnic minorities in India and called on the government to take action. However, India has no formal obligations and is not subject to sanctions for not adhering to these recommendations. Largely, it has been able to circumvent international attention and pressure, particularly as India’s rapid economic growth and political significance has meant that governments around the world have prioritised political relations and trade with India over its human rights record.

Members of the international community, including international organisations and governments, should pay greater attention to the recent spike in instances of hate speech, communal violence, and the passing of numerous discriminatory laws. Coinciding with the leadership of a far-right government, these legal provisions have engendered an atmosphere of fear and mistrust between communities, and fuelled the targeting of minority groups, on several occasions escalating into major episodes of targeted violence and displacement. Accordingly, greater international pressure for accountability, and for the government of India to make relevant reforms in political rhetoric, law, security, and regulation of the media, including social media, to prevent the continued proliferation of hate speech, incitement, and violence targeting minorities is needed.

Returning to the purpose and themes of this special issue, the experiences of hate speech and incitement to violence in India confirm that their relationship to atrocity prevention is not linear, and requires a holistic understanding to identify potential pathways of violence. Hate speech is deeply implicated in the dynamics of atrocity violence in India, and systematic patterns of behaviour are identifiable. Still, these need to be conceptualised as part of a complex array of historically situated and politically contingent factors, and the role of new social media, including social media influencers, in accelerating the spread of hate speech and incitement accounted for.

Mujib Mashal, Suhasini Raj, and Hari Kumar, ‘As Officials Look Away, Hate Speech in India Nears Dangerous Levels’, The New York Times , 8 February 2022.

According to the most recent census data in 2011. See Census Organisation of India, ‘Religion Census 2011’, Indian National Census (2011), https://www.census2011.co.in/religion.php , accessed 27 January 2023.

Ashutosh Varshney, Ethnic Conflict and Civic Life: Hindus and Muslims in India. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002); Steven I. Wilkinson, Votes and Violence: Electoral Competition and Ethnic Riots in India (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).

Gayendra Pandey, The Construction of Communalism in Colonial North India (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1992).

Ritu Menon and Kamla Bhasin, Borders and Boundaries: Women in India’s Partition (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1998), pp. 67–129; Gayendra Pandey, Remembering Partition: Violence, Nationalism, and History in India (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), pp. 21–44.

Lance Brennan, ‘The State and Communal Violence in UP: 1947–1992’ in Politics of Violence: From Ayodhya to Behrampada , ed. John McGuire, Peter Reeves, and Howard Brasted (New Delhi: Sage, 1996), pp. 127–41.

Cecilia Jacob, ‘The Politics of Protecting Religious Minorities: The State and Communal Violence in India’ in Cecilia Jacob and Alistair D. B. Cook (eds.), Civilian Protection in the Twenty-First Century: Governance and Responsibility in a Fragmented World (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2016), pp. 107–26; Cecilia Jacob, ‘State Responsibility and Prevention in the Responsibility to Protect’, Global Responsibility to Protect , 7(1) 56–80 (2015).

John McGuire, Peter Reeves, and Howard Brasted (eds.), Politics of Violence: From Ayodhya to Behrampada (New Delhi: Sage, 1996); Martha Nussbaum, The Clash Within: Democracy, Religious Violence and India’s Future (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2007).

The most significant being the Bombay riots (December 1992–January 1993) in which some 900 people were killed in the wake of the destruction of Babri Masjid (mosque) – one of the most disputed sites between Muslims and Hindus, with Hindus claiming the site to be the birthplace of Hindu god Ram – and the 2002 violence in Gujarat where an estimated 2,000 mostly Muslims were killed.

‘Muslims and Christians will be wiped out of India by December 31, 2021: bjp leader Rajeshwar Singh’, Sabrang India, 14 December 2014, https://sabrangindia.in/article/muslims-and-christians-will-be-wiped-out-india-december-31-2021-bjp-leader-rajeshwar-singh , accessed 27 January 2023.

Jeffrey Gettleman, Kai Schultz, Suhasini Raj, and Hari Kumar, ‘Under Modi, a Hindu Nationalist Surge Has Further Divided India’, New York Times , 11 April 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/11/world/asia/modi-india-elections.html , accessed 27 January 2023.

Government of India, Right to Information Act, 2005, Section 8(1)(g), https://rti.gov.in/rti-act.pdf .

Bharath Kancharla, ‘The Intriguing Case of Data on “Communal Incidents” in India’, Factly , 8 November 2019, https://factly.in/the-intriguing-case-of-data-on-communal-incidents-in-india/ , accessed 27 January 2023; Press Trust of India, ‘952 Cases of Communal, Religious Rioting in 2018–19: Govt’, The New India Express , 10 March 2021, https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2021/mar/10/952-cases-of-communal-religious-rioting-in-2018-19-govt-2274869.html , accessed 27 January 2023.

Mukesh Rawat, ‘Riots in India Are Decreasing but Becoming More Intense: ncrb Data’, India Today , 22 October 2019, https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/ncrb-crime-in-india-2017-report-rioting-cases-data-1611821-2019-10-22 , accessed 27 January 2023.

Wire Staff, ‘After Editor’s Exit, Hindustan Times Pulls Down Controversial “Hate Tracker”’, The Wire , 25 October 2017, https://thewire.in/media/hindustan-times-hate-tracker , accessed 27 January 2023.

Scroll Staff, ‘FactChecker Pulls Down Hate Crime Database, IndiaSpend Editor Samar Halarnkar Resigns’, Scroll.in, 12 September 2019, https://scroll.in/latest/937076/factchecker-pulls-down-hate-crime-watch-database-sister-websites-editor-resigns , accessed 27 January 2023.

Front Line Defenders, ‘Judicial Harassment of Teesta Setalvad’, 2017, https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/en/case/judicial-harassment-teesta-setalvad , accessed 27 January 2023; Wire Staff, ‘Teesta Setalvad’s Organisation Calls for Help as She Faces Threat to Personal Freedom’, The Wire , 7 March 2018, https://thewire.in/rights/teesta-setalvads-organisation-calls-for-help-as-she-faces-threat-to-personal-freedom , accessed 27 January 2023.

Nimisha Jaiswal, Sreenivasan Jain, and Manas Pratap Singh, ‘Under Modi Government, vip Hate Speech Skyrockets – By 500%’, New Delhi Television ( ndtv ), 19 April 2018, https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/under-narendra-modi-government-vip-hate-speech-skyrockets-by-500-1838925 , accessed 27 January 2023.

Ward Berenschot, Riot Politics: Hindu‒Muslim Violence and the Indian State (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011).

Mohammad Ali, ‘Gang-Rape Stokes Tensions in Muzzafarnargar’, The Hindu , 5 November 2013; Brass, Forms of Collective Violence ; Martha Nussbaum, ‘Rape and Murder in Gujarat’ in Amrita Basu and Srirupa Roy (eds.), Violence and Democracy in India (Calcutta: Seagull Books, 2007); Nussbaum, The Clash Within ; Raj K. Raj, ‘UP Riots: Rape Victims Tell Their Tales’, Hindustan Times , 5 January 2014; and personal interview by Cecilia Jacob with human rights activist seeking justice for victims of the 2008 Kandhamal violence in Orissa, India, 2012.

Amrita Basu and Srirupa Roy, ‘Beyond Exceptionalism: Violence and Democracy in India’, in Amrita Basu and Srirupa Roy (eds.), Violence and Democracy in India (Calcutta: Seagull Books, 2007), pp. 1–35; Brass, Forms of Collective Violence ; Nussbaum, ‘Rape and Murder in Gujarat’, pp. 44‒51.

For a detailed account of the justice, see Priti Gulati Cox, ‘Fifteen Years after the 2002 Gujarat Pogrom, the Fight Continues for Accountability and Justice Continues’, Countercurrents, 1 March 2017, https://countercurrents.org/2017/03/fifteen-years-after-the-2002-gujarat-pogromthe-fight-for-accountability-and-justice-continues/ , accessed 27 January 2023.

Zoya Hasan, ‘Mass Violence and the Wheels of Indian (In)justice’, in Amrita Basu and Srirupa Roy (eds.), Violence and Democracy in India (Calcutta: Seagull Books, 2007), pp. 198‒222; Taylor C. Sherman, State Violence and Punishment in India (Abingdon: Routledge, 2010); K. S. Subramanian, Political Violence and the Police in India (New Delhi: Sage, 2007).

Paul Brass, The Production of Hindu‒Muslim Violence in Contemporary India (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003).

Ornit Shani, Communalism, Caste and Hindu Nationalism: The Violence in Gujarat (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007); Wilkinson, Votes and Violence .

Berenshot, Riot Politics ; Gayendra Pandey, Routine Violence: Nations, Fragments, Histories (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2006).

Varshney, Ethnic Conflict and Civic Life .

Beatrice Jauregui, ‘Law and Order: Police Encounter Killings and Routinized Political Violence’ in Isabelle Clark-Decés (ed.) , A Companion to the Anthropology of India (West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), pp. 371‒388; Sherman, State Violence and Punishment in India ; Rachel Wahl, ‘Policing, Values, and Violence: Human Rights Education with Law Enforcers in India’, Oxford Journal of Human Rights Practice , 5(2) 220–242 (2013).

The most recent recommendations to India in which these themes are addressed are found in UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: India , a/hrc /36/10, 17 July 2017, https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G17/193/56/PDF/G1719356.pdf?OpenElement , accessed 27 January 2023.

B. Chauhan, G. Narayana Raju, S. Chandra, S. Singh, S. Sivakumar, and R. R. Tripathi, ‘Hate Speech’, Law Commission of India Report , no. 267 (2017), p. 5, chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/ http://www.latestlaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Law-Commission-Report-No.-267-Hate-Speech.pdf , accessed 27 January 2023.

ibid ., p. ii.

ibid ., p. 9.

ibid ., p. 13.

ibid ., p. 49.

ibid ., pp. 52–53.

Vinay Kumar and Smriti Kak Ramachandran, ‘Bill on Communal Violence Invites Strident Debate’, The Hindu , 6 December 2013.

Javed Anand, ‘Targeting the Lawbreakers’, Economic and Political Weekly , 66(34) 19–21 (2011).

Such as Shia, Balochi, and Ahmadiyya Muslims in Pakistan and Hazaras in Afghanistan who face persecution, but also persecuted Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar and Tamils from Sri Lanka.

United States Commission on International Religious Freedom ( uscirf ), ‘India: uscirf – Recommended for Countries of Particular Concern ( cpc )’, in Annual Report (Washington, DC: uscirf , 2020), p. 21.

Ahmed Shaheed, Fernand de Varennes, and E. Tendayi Achiume, ‘UN Experts: Risk of Statelessness for Millions and Instability in Assam, India’, ohchr , 3 July 2019, https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24781&LangID=E , accessed 27 January 2023.

Human Rights Watch ( hrw ), ‘India: “Cow Protection” Spurs Vigilante Violence’, News Release, 27 April 2017, https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/04/27/india-cow-protection-spurs-vigilante-violence , accessed 27 January 2023; uscirf , ‘India’, p. 21.

uscirf , ‘India’, p. 21.

For evidence of cooperation between authorities and vigilante groups, the inadequacy of judicial processes for perpetrators of such violence, and the targeting of those who publicly campaign against the cow protection movement, refer to the report from Human Rights Watch, ‘India: “Cow Protection” Spurs Vigilante Violence’.

For a fuller discussion, see uscirf , ‘Limitations on Minorities’ Religious Freedom in South Asia’, uscirf Special Report, November 2018, https://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/Limitations%20on%20Minorities%20Religious%20Freedom%20in%20South%20Asia.pdf , accessed 27 January 2023.

Ghazala Wahab, ‘How “Love Jihad” Went from being Propaganda to Policy’, The Indian Express , 15 April 2021, https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/how-love-jihad-went-from-being-propaganda-to-policy-7273946/ , accessed 27 January 2023.

Geeta Pandey, ‘“Love Jihad”: What a Reported Miscarriage Says about India’s Anti-conversion Laws’, bbc News , 17 December 2020, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-55314832 , accessed 27 January 2023.

Jayshree Bajoria, ‘Shoot the Traitors: Discrimination against Muslims under India’s New Citizenship Policy’, Human Rights Watch, 9 April 2020, https://www.hrw.org/report/2020/04/09/shoot-traitors/discrimination-against-muslims-under-indias-new-citizenship-policy , accessed 27 January 2023.

M. R. Shamshad, ‘Report of the Fact-Finding Committee on North-East Delhi Riots of February 2020’, (New Delhi: Delhi Minorities Commission, Government of nct of Delhi, 2020), https://ia801906.us.archive.org/11/items/dmc-delhi-riot-fact-report-2020/-Delhi-riots-Fact-Finding-2020.pdf , accessed 27 January 2023.

ibid ., pp. 26–29 and 32.

ibid ., pp. 99–103.

Sagar, ‘Delhi Violence Unmasked: Part One’, The Caravan , 1 March 2021, https://caravanmagazine.in/politics/part-one-how-rss-bjp-members-invoked-hindu-identity-to-mobilise-hindutva-mobs-at-maujpur , accessed 27 January 2023; Sagar, ‘Delhi Violence Unmasked: Part Two’, The Caravan , 1 March 2021, https://caravanmagazine.in/politics/part-two-how-modi-speeches-fomented-hate-aided-hindutva-mobilisation-against-anti-caa-protesters , accessed 27 January 2023; Sagar, ‘Delhi Violence Unmasked: Part Three’, The Caravan , 1 March 2021, https://caravanmagazine.in/politics/how-bjp-and-youth-wing-bjym-used-delhi-elections-to-mobilise-hindutva-mobs , accessed 27 January 2023.

Shamshad, ‘Report of the Fact-Finding Committee on North-East Delhi Riots of February 2020’, p. 31.

Bajoria, ‘Shoot the Traitors’.

Shamshad, ‘Report of the Fact-Finding Committee on North-East Delhi Riots of February 2020’, pp. 29–30.

ndtv , ‘“India vs Pakistan”: bjp Leader Kapil Mishra Tweets on Delhi Polls’, YouTube, 24 January 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZbcK5Ez-zA , accessed 27 January 2023.

Rohini Chatterji, ‘Press Button with Such Anger That Shaheen Bagh Feels Current, Says Amit Shah’, Huffington Post , 26 January 2020, https://www.huffpost.com/archive/in/entry/delhi-assembly-elections-2020-amit-shah-shaheen-bagh_in_5e2e62d9c5b67d8874b4f4d7 , accessed 27 January 2023.

fe Online, ‘Delhi Election 2020: bjp mp Says Shaheen Bagh Will be Cleared in an Hour if bjp Comes to Power’, Financial Express , 28 January 2020, https://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/delhi-election-2020-bjp-mp-says-shaheen-bagh-will-be-cleared-in-an-hour-if-bjp-comes-to-power/1837215/ , accessed 27 January 2023.

pti , ‘Won’t Allow Delhi to become Syria, Says bjp Leader Tarun Chugh on Shaheen Bagh Protest’, National Herald , 30 January 2020, https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/india/wont-allow-delhi-to-become-syria-says-bjp-leader-tarun-chugh-on-shaheen-bagh-protest , accessed 27 January 2023; ani , ‘Shaheed Bagh Means Shaitan Bagh: bjp ’s Tarun Chugh’, Asian News International, 30 January 2020, https://www.aninews.in/news/national/politics/shaheen-bagh-means-shaitan-bagh-bjps-tarun-chugh20200130115030/ , accessed 15 February 2022.

ndtv , ‘Prime Time with Ravish: “Goli Maaro” Slogans at Union Minister Anurag Thakur’s rally’, YouTube, 27 January 2020, 1:10–1:48. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ndq79y1ar4 , accessed 27 January 2023; India Today , ‘Gun Down Traitors of Country: Anurag Thakur’s Open Provocation Caught on Camera’, YouTube, 28 January 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6u9P1J_WopU , accessed 27 January 2023; Shamshad, ‘Report of the Fact-Finding Committee on North-East Delhi Riots of February 2020’, p. 27.

India Today , ‘ ec Cracks Whip against bjp Leaders’ Hate Speech against Anti- caa Protesters in Delhi’, YouTube, 30 January 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7A37uTuyRxY , 27 January 2023.

Shamshad, ‘Report of the Fact-Finding Committee on North-East Delhi Riots of February 2020’, p. 30.

In right-wing iconography India is conceptualised as a mother goddess.

India Today Web Desk, ‘Won’t Listen after 3 Days: Kapil Mishra’s Ultimatum to Delhi Police to Vacate Jafrabad Roads’, India Today , 23 February 2020, https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/won-t-listen-after-3-days-bjp-kapil-mishra-ultimatum-to-delhi-police-to-vacate-jaffrabad-chand-bagh-roads-1649271-2020-02-23 , accessed 27 January 2023; Wire Staff, ‘ bjp ’s Kapil Mishra Has Issued an “Ultimatum” to the Delhi Police. But Who Is He?’ The Wire , 2 February 2020, https://thewire.in/communalism/kapil-mishra-delhi-bjp , accessed 27 January 2023; Mojo Story, ‘Kapil Mishra among These 4 Videos Delhi High Court Made Police Watch on Hate Speeches by Politicians’, YouTube, 28 February 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1RcLjP9068 , accessed 27 January 2023.

Shamshad, ‘Report of the Fact-Finding Committee on North-East Delhi Riots of February 2020’, pp. 33–67, 99–101.

Live Law (@LiveLawIndia), ‘When you’ve registered fir  s for damages to property, why aren’t you registering it for these speeches’, Twitter, 26 February 2020, 9:42 p.m., https://twitter.com/LiveLawIndia/status/1232616828045643776 , accessed 27 January 2023; Shamshad, ‘Report of the Fact-Finding Committee on North-East Delhi Riots of February 2020’, p. 32.

Vijayta Lalwani, ‘Who Is Ragini Tiwari Whose Video Threatening Protesting Farmers Has Gone Viral?’ Scroll.in, 13 December 2020, https://scroll.in/article/981110/who-is-ragini-tiwari-whose-video-threatening-protesting-farmers-has-gone-viral , accessed 27 January 2023.

The video of Ragini Tiwari was shared by fact-checking handles on Twitter including this one by Mohammed Zubair (@zoo_bear), ‘Here is the video of Ragini Tiwari’, Twitter, 18 July 2020, 5:24 p.m., https://twitter.com/zoo_bear/status/1284388654077493248 , accessed 27 January 2023; see also apb News, ‘Delhi Violence: Ragini Tiwari Spews Poison, Instigates Riot through Social Media’, 28 February 2020, https://www.abplive.com/news/india/delhi-violence-ragini-tiwari-controversial-social-media-video-1314399 , accessed 27 January 2023; Lalwani, ‘Who is Ragini Tiwari whose video threatening protesting farmers has gone viral?’

The Wire, ‘Delhi Riots Witness Who Filmed Ragini Tiwari’s Violent Acts Asks Why Police Has Not Arrested Her’, YouTube, 17 September 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMkBY-Rh1C8 , accessed 27 January 2023.

Shamshad, ‘Report of the Fact-Finding Committee on North-East Delhi Riots of February 2020’, pp. 68–80.

ibid ., pp. 101–104.

ibid ., p. 108.

Sagar, ‘Delhi Violence Unmasked: Part One’; Sagar, ‘Delhi Violence Unmasked: Part Two’; Sagar, ‘Delhi Violence Unmasked: Part Three’.

On the status of various fact-finding reports and objections to them raised by the prosecution, see Sofi Ahsan, ‘Can’t Have Parallel Judicial System: Centre on Plea in Delhi hc against Fact-Finding Reports’, The Indian Express , 24 February 2021, https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/cant-have-parallel-judicial-system-centre-on-plea-in-delhi-hc-against-fact-finding-reports-7201799/ , accessed 27 January 2023.

Seema Chishti, ‘The Nightmare: The Modi Government’s Persecution of the Tablighi Jamaat’, The Caravan , 30 January 2021, https://caravanmagazine.in/politics/nightmare-persecution-tablighi-jamaat , accessed 27 January 2023.

pti , ‘Nizamuddin Congregation: Arvind Kejriwal Orders fir against Maulana’, India Today , 30 March 2020, https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/nizamuddin-congregation-arvind-kejriwal-orders-fir-against-maulana-1661514-2020-03-30 , accessed 27 January 2023.

Chishti, ‘The Nightmare’.

India Today Web Desk, ‘Coronavirus in India: Tablighi Jamaat’s Criminal Act Cannot be Forgiven, Says Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi at e-Agenda’, India Today , 30 May 2020, https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/coronavirus-in-india-tablighi-jamaat-s-criminal-act-cannot-be-forgiven-says-mukhtar-abbas-naqvi-at-e-agenda-1683674-2020-05-30 , accessed 23 January 2023.

Sweta Goswami, ‘Kerjiwal Warns of Rise in Cases after Tablighi Jamaat Episode’, Hindustan Times , 1 April 2020, https://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi-news/kejriwal-warns-of-rise-in-cases-after-tablighi-jamaat-episode/story-WBnIqyYQgzfGoX3jrxiADN.html , accessed 27 January 2023.

Ritika Jain, ‘Covid-19: How Fake News and Modi Government Messaging Fuelled India’s Latest Spiral of Islamophobia’, Scroll.in, 21 April 2020, https://scroll.in/article/959806/covid-19-how-fake-news-and-modi-government-messaging-fuelled-indias-latest-spiral-of-islamophobia , accessed 27 January 2023.

New Delhi Times, ‘India faces Coronavirus Jihad’, YouTube, 11 April 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCEi-WFyyfo , accessed 27 January 2023.

Zee News, ‘Crona Jihad का “Maulana” कब होगा गिरफ्तार? | Escaped | Maulana Saad | Coronavirus | Most Wanted’, YouTube, 6 April 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRsx843BDzk , accessed 27 January 2023.

Zee News, ‘ dna : तबलीगी जमात का देश से ‘विश्वासघात’? | Sudhir Chaudhary | Analysis | Tablighi Jamaat Coronavirus’, YouTube, 1 April 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYmqyKQyKFg , accessed27 January 2023.

Republic World, ‘Arnab Goswami Debates: Tablighi covid -19 Scare Continues’, YouTube, 7 April 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQCzxkOBv7Y , accessed 27 January 2023.

nl Team, ‘Firozabad Police Refute Zee News Claim That Medical Staff Escorting Tablighi Jamaat Men Was Pelted with Stones’, Newslaundry, 6 April 2020, https://www.newslaundry.com/2020/04/06/firozabad-police-refute-zee-news-claim-that-medical-staff-escorting-tablighi-jamaat-men-was-pelted-with-stones , accessed 27 January 2023; Wire Staff, ‘Police Say Zee News Reports on Medical Workers, Tablighi Jamaat Members Being Attacked Is False’, The Wire , 7 April 2020, https://thewire.in/media/firozabad-police-zee-news-tablighi-jamaat , accessed 27 January 2023.

Prajwal Bhat, ‘“Tablighi Virus”, “Pakistan Devils”: Hate Speech in Kannada Media Coverage Documented’, The News Minute, 21 September 2020, https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/tablighi-virus-pakistan-devils-hate-speech-kannada-media-coverage-documented-133574 , accessed 27 January 2023; Vikhar Ahmed Sayeed, ‘Lapdog Narratives of the Kannada Media’, Frontline , 9 October 2020, https://frontline.thehindu.com/the-nation/lapdog-narrative/article32633273.ece , accessed 27 January 2023.

The Quint, ‘Old Video Shared as Muslims Licking Plates to Spread Coronavirus’, YouTube, 3 April 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNBN97p6jW8 , accessed 27 January 2023; Ritika, ‘Covid-19’; Siddharthya Roy, ‘Hate Goes Viral in India’, The Diplomat , 4 May 2020, https://thediplomat.com/2020/05/hate-goes-viral-in-india/ , accessed 27 January 2023.

Al Jazeera English, ‘India Muslims Targeted in Attacks Over Coronavirus’, YouTube, 3 May 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC2zNBDmLas , accessed 27 January 2023; dw News, ‘Muslims in India Accused of “Corona Jihad” | Interview with Arundhati Roy’, YouTube, 17 April 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8Psit-wr_U , accessed 27 January 2023; Times Now, ‘Muslim Woman Activist Attacked While Distributing Food, Accused of “Spreading Coronavirus”’, YouTube, 7 April 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4D64h_YqMDk , accessed 15 October 2021.

oic - iphrc (@ oic - iphrc ), ‘1/2 # oic - iphrc condemns the unrelenting vicious #Islamophobic campaign in #India maligning Muslims for spread of # covid -19’, Twitter, 19 April 2020, 8:53 p.m., https://twitter.com/OIC_IPHRC/status/1251826155939926017?s=20 , accessed 27 January 2023.

Rasia Hashmi, ‘No One’s Fault, Don’t Profile covid -19 along Religious Lines: who ’, The Siasat Daily , 8 April 2020, https://www.siasat.com/no-ones-fault-dont-profile-covid-19-along-religious-lineswho-1871048/ , accessed 27 January 2023.

Roy, ‘Hate Goes Viral in India’.

News Laundry, ‘Corona & Sudhir Chaudhary’s Jihad: tv Newsance Episode 81’, YouTube, 15 March 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVaHOtAHHqY , accessed 27 January 2023; News Laundry, ‘Tablighi Jamaat versus Arnab Goswami: tv Newsance Episode 84’, YouTube, 4 April 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXU8PuTGkUk , accessed 27 January 2023; Media Scanner, ‘Fake Alert: Long List of Islamaphobic Fake News which Is Going Viral During Coronavirus Pandemic’, Media Scanner , 9 May 2020, https://mediascanner.in/fake-alert-long-list-of-islamophobic-fake-news-which-is-going-viral-during-coronavirus-pandemic/ , accessed 27 January 2023; Syeda Zainab Akbar, Divyanshu Kukreti, Somya Sagarika, and Joyojeet Pal, ‘Temporal Patterns in covid -19 Misinformation in India’, University of Michigan, 2020, http://joyojeet.people.si.umich.edu/temporal-patterns-in-covid-19-misinformation-in-india/ , accessed 27 January 2023.

Dugger, Celia W. ‘Attacks on Christians Are Increasing in India’, The New York Times , 23 January 1999, https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/world/asia/012399india-christians.html , accessed 27 January 2023.

Open Doors, ‘World Watch Map: The 50 Most Dangerous Countries to Follow Jesus’, 2021, https://www.opendoors.org.au/persecuted-christians/world-watch-list/ , accessed 27 January 2023.

Cecilia Jacob, personal interview with former rss prechavak ( rss preacher/promoter) from Kandhamal district, India, January 2012.

Priya Ramani, ‘“They Don’t Feel Sorry”: Revisiting Kandhamal 10 Years after the Violence against Christians’, Scroll.in, 26 August 2018, https://scroll.in/article/891587/they-dont-feel-sorry-revisiting-kandhamal-10-years-after-the-violence-against-christians , accessed 27 January 2023.

Ibid .; Gethin Chamberlain, ‘Convert or We Will Kill You, Hindu Lynch Mobs Tell Fleeing Christians’, The Guardian , 19 October 2008, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/oct/19/orissa-violence-india-christianity-hinduism , accessed 27 January 2023; International Christian Concern, ‘Martyrs of the 2008 Orissa Riots Continue to Inspire the Church of India’, Persecution, 3 April 2019, https://www.persecution.org/2019/03/04/martyrs-2008-orissa-riots-continue-inspire-church-india/ , accessed 27 January 2023; pti , ‘2008 Kandhamal Nun Gang-rape Case: 3 People Convicted, 6 Acquitted’, Times of India , 14 March 2014, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/2008-kandhamal-nun-gang-rape-case-3-people-convicted-6-acquitted/articleshow/31998696.cms , accessed 27 January 2023.

France24 English, ‘Sharp Rise in Attacks on India’s Christian Minority’, YouTube, 3 April 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYM7LSrYDHk , accessed 27 January 2023.

Ziya Us Salam, ‘Christians as Targets During the Lockdown’, Frontline , 28 August 2020, https://frontline.thehindu.com/the-nation/christians-as-target/article32284946.ece , accessed 27 January 2023.

cbn News, ‘Pastor Murdered, Church Burned, Anti-Christian Violence on Upswing in India’, YouTube, 24 January 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCskTttTyMI , accessed 27 January 2023; see also Al Jazeera English, ‘Indian Christians accuse police of “taking sides”’, YouTube, 5 October 2008, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCHPmzk0kEQ , accessed 27 January 2023.

Annie Banerji, ‘Spat On and Abused: Coronavirus Fuels Racism against India’s Northeasterners’, Reuters, 20 June 2020, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-india-discriminati-idUSKBN23Q2JS , accessed 27 January 2023.

See Alana Golmei, ‘Let’s Talk About Racism: Don’t Call Us ‘Chinky, Momo, Chowmein’ Says a Northeastern Woman’, Hindustan Times , 23 May 2017, https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/let-s-talk-about-racism-don-t-call-us-chinki-momo-chowmien-asks-a-northeastern-woman/story-SJckp4InptNV6Te29dlItJ.html , accessed 27 January 2023.

ibid .; Banerji, ‘Spat On and Abused’.

Golmei, ‘Let’s Talk About Racism’.

ibid .; Linda Chhakchhauk, ‘Another pandemic: Northeasterners in India Face Racist Harassment, Assault’, The Citizen, 27 March 2020, https://www.thecitizen.in/index.php/en/NewsDetail/index/9/18503/Another-Pandemic-Northeasterners-in-India-Face-Racist-Harassment-Assault , accessed 27 January 2023.

Sharan Poovanna, ‘Covid-19: People from Northeast Face Discrimination in Karnataka’, Mint , 29 March 2020, https://www.livemint.com/news/india/covid-19-people-from-northeast-face-discrimination-in-karnataka-11585479540806.html , accessed 27 January 2023.

Kimi Colney, ‘Indians from the Northeast Face Intensified Racism as Coronavirus Fears Grow’, The Caravan , 4 April 2020, https://caravanmagazine.in/communities/coronavirus-increases-racism-against-indians-from-northeast , accessed 27 January 2023.

Sukanya Singha, ‘Governments Have Failed to Address Racial Abuse of People from the Northeast’, The Wire , 14 May 2020, https://thewire.in/rights/governments-have-failed-to-address-racial-abuse-of-people-from-the-northeast , accessed 27 January 2023.

Paul Brass, Forms of Collective Violence: Riots, Pogroms, and Genocide in Modern India (New Delhi: Three Essays Collective, 2006), pp. xv–xvi.

Valay Singh, ‘After Ayodhya, another Mosque-Temple Dispute Brews in India’s UP’, Al Jazeera English, 9 April 2021, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/4/9/after-ayodhya-another-mosque-temple-dispute-brews-in-indias-up , accessed 27 January 2023; Akash Bisht, ‘Babri Mosque Demolition Case: India’s bjp Leaders Acquitted’, Al Jazeera English, 30 September 2020, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/9/30/indian-court-acquits-all-accused-in-babri-mosque-demolition-case , accessed 27 January 2023.

Shubhankar Dam, ‘Second Innings: How Post-Retirement Ambitions Imperil Judges’ Integrity’, The Caravan , 1 February 2020, https://caravanmagazine.in/reportage/retired-judges-gogoi-integrity-corruption-supreme-court , accessed 27 January 2023; Atul Dev and Nikita Saxena, ‘Supreme Charge’, The Caravan , 20 April 2019, https://caravanmagazine.in/law/former-supreme-court-employee-accuses-cji-ranjan-gogoi-sexual-harassment , accessed 27 January 2023.

Amrita Basu, ‘Whither Democracy, Secularism, and Minority Rights in India?’ The Review of Faith & International Affairs , 16(4) 34–46 (2018).

Paul Cheyney, ‘India at the Crossroads? Civil Society, Human Rights and Religious Freedom: Critical Analysis of cso  s’ Third Cycle Universal Periodic Review Discourse 2012–2017’, The International Journal of Human Rights , 24(5) 531–562 (2020).

Yuthika Bhargava, ‘Indian Laws Must be Followed: Government to Twitter’, The Hindu , 11 February 2021, https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/indian-laws-must-be-followed-government-to-twitter/article33798461.ece , accessed 27 January 2023; K. Venkataramanan, ‘Explained: Why Has the Centre Issued a Notice to Twitter, and What Are the Laws Governing the Cyber World?’ The Hindu , 7 February 2021, https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/the-hindu-explains-why-has-the-centre-issued-a-notice-to-twitter-and-what-are-the-laws-governing-the-cyber-world/article33770912.ece , accessed 27 January 2023.

Newley Purnell and Jeff Horowitz, ‘Facebook’s Hate-Speech Rules Collide with Indian Politics’, The Wall Street Journal , 14 August 2020, https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-hate-speech-india-politics-muslim-hindu-modi-zuckerberg-11597423346 , accessed 27 January 2023; Niharika Sharma, ‘Allegations of Favouritism in India Couldn’t Have Come at a Worse Time for Facebook’, Quartz India, 18 August 2020, https://qz.com/india/1893001/zuckerbergs-facebook-under-fire-over-hate-speech-modis-bjp/ , accessed 27 January 2023.

Anam Ajmal, ‘Kapil Mishra’s Speech on caa Example of Inciting Violence: Zuckerberg’, The Times of India , 7 June 2020, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/kapil-mishras-speech-on-caa-example-of-inciting-violence-zuckerberg/articleshow/76240114.cms , accessed 27 January 2023.

Content Metrics

Reference Works

Primary source collections

COVID-19 Collection

How to publish with Brill

Open Access Content

Contact & Info

Sales contacts

Publishing contacts

Stay Updated

Newsletters

Social Media Overview

Terms and Conditions  

Privacy Statement  

Cookie Settings  

Accessibility

Legal Notice

Terms and Conditions   |   Privacy Statement   |  Cookie Settings   |   Accessibility   |  Legal Notice   |  Copyright © 2016-2024

Copyright © 2016-2024

• [81.177.182.174]
• 81.177.182.174

Character limit 500 /500

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Download Free PDF

Law, Language and Community Sentiment: Behind Hate Speech Doctrine in India

2018, Meaning and Power in the Language of Law - Janny HC Leung & Alan Durant (eds.)

Abstract: Hate speech has precipitated heated debate in many countries, and is perplexed by differing standards of protection governing such language that have evolved in different jurisdictions. In India, ‘hate speech’ law can be traced back to colonial concerns regarding public order, but now consists of two main streams of provision: laws aimed at protecting against ‘promoting enmity between groups’; and laws aimed at protecting hurt community sentiment (specifically hurt religious sentiment). Through close analysis of the language used in assessing particular instances of hate speech, the chapter traces connections between legal language and its deeper cultural as well as immediately situational context, and explores how hate speech law on India has been used by powerful groups to curtail criticism and – somewhat ironically – to reinforce hate. This paper is part of an edited collection titled Meaning and Power in the Language of Law, Janny HC Leung & Alan Durant (eds.), Cambridge University Press, 2018.

Free related PDFs Related papers

LLM (Master's) dissertation submitted at Harvard Law School in May 2014

The State of Hurt: Sentiment, Politics, Censorship, (eds.) Rina Ramdev, Sandhya D Nambiar & Debaditya Bhattacharya, 2015

The term ‘hate speech’ eludes a universal definition. It derives its significance from the particular context it operates in formed through the influence of peculiar sensibilities, “identities” and “assessments” in particular contexts. Black’s Law Dictionary identifies hate speech as the “speech that carries no meaning other than expression of hatred for some group, such as a particular race, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence”. Therefore, it can be said that hate speech is “speech that is, broadly speaking, derogatory towards someone else”. Most common grounds of hate speech across countries are race, ethnicity, religion or class. India presents a peculiar case for regulation of hate speech with its rich diversity of language, caste, race, religion, culture and beliefs. The words either spoken or written, or employing signs or any kind of visual representation qualifies as ‘speech’. If such speech offends the religious, ethnic, cult...

Commentary on the Doniger affair has focused overwhelmingly on the principle of freedom of speech and the illiberal character of censorship (Shainin 2014). There is a degree of valuable analytic abstraction to this discourse, which allows scholars and free speech advocates to compare the Doniger case with instances of the censorship of writing and art earlier in Indian history (for example, with the Rushdie affair; Malik 2014), and with cases elsewhere in the world. But the abstraction comes at the price of bracketing out the specific economy of forces within which freedom of speech is regulated in India. After all, not all offensive speech is challenged, and not all challenges result in successful silencing of the putative offender, as was the case with Wendy Doniger's book, The Hindus: An Alternative History. In what follows I trace the regulation of what Indian legal language describes as " hurt religious sentiments " to its colonial origin, demonstrating that historically, the mandate of rulers has been to favor the powerful by reinforcing their capacity to silence the weak. To discern patterns in the contemporary governance of offense,

Culture Unbound, 2018

With the advent of the internet and increasing circulation of hate speech, and ma- terial that has been linked to public order disturbances, there has been a shift in the legal discourse around hate speech. What has emerged, especially post the striking down of section 66A of the Information Technology Act, are categories such as ‘objectionable’, ‘provocative’ content. The focus has shifted from the con- tent itself, what it says, and the intention of the author, to being able to pre-empt the circulation of such material. Law is increasingly invoked to prevent speech (through prior restraint) rather than post facto investigation and prosecutions. This in turn has given rise to a range of institutional mechanisms such as monitoring labs that are now part of policing practice. Additionally, civil society organizations are now collaborating with police to help trigger mechanisms to take content off internet platforms. Increasingly it is through keywords and al- gorithmic searches that the category of hate speech has been defined rather than traditional legal doctrine. In the words of Lawrence Lessig, code plays the role of law, and the architecture of the internet becomes policy. This paper will examine the issues outlined above relying heavily on a series of interviews with lawyers, policy analysts, journalists, academics, civil society ac- tivists, and police personnel conducted in Delhi, Bengaluru, Mumbai and Pune. Published in Culture Unbound, Journal of Current Cultural Research, Vol. 10, Issue 3, 2018, 388-404.

Synopsis There is uproar in India over Prime Minister Narendra Modi's studied silence on the seemingly increasing communal intolerance in the country. It is more important to focus on why these acts are being committed and how the government tackles the sectarian violence. Commentary PRIME MINISTER Narendra Modi's studied silence on recent incidents of sectarian violence and anti-Muslim hate speech have been seen as giving the green light to right-wing Hindu extremists to wreak havoc among minority communities.

Culture Unbound, 2019

With the advent of the internet and increasing circulation of hate speech, and material that has been linked to public order disturbances, there has been a shift in the legal discourse around hate speech. What has emerged, especially post the striking down of section 66A of the Information Technology Act, are categories such as ‘objectionable’, ‘provocative’ content. The focus has shifted from the content itself, what it says, and the intention of the author, to being able to pre-empt the circulation of such material. Law is increasingly invoked to prevent speech (through prior restraint) rather than post facto investigation and prosecutions. This in turn has given rise to a range of institutional mechanisms such as monitoring labs that are now part of policing practice. Additionally, civil society organizations are now collaborating with police to help trigger mechanisms to take content off internet platforms. Increasingly it is through keywords and algorithmic searches that the ca...

Counter Currents, 2019

Known to be a single nation despite diversity in almost all spheres, India’s spirit of ‘unity in diversity’ is under threat because of the hate culture that has grown to gargantuan proportion over the years and spread across the country. Expressed in many forms and forums, words of hate, generally called hate speech, have not only spread hatred and incited violence across the length and breadth of India, but also are severely endangering the very fabric and ethos of Indian society. In a more dangerous trend, hatred is aggressively conquering the civic space of the country, restricting free speech and the fundamental rights granted by the Constitution to every citizen of India.

Language Literacy: Journal of Linguistics, Literature, and Language Teaching, 2019

In recent times, we have witnessed a spike in cases of hate speech, delivered either by the politicians or by the media that has resulted in violence among the public. Sensational reporting and discourse on critical issues just for the sake of viewership and notoriety has resulted in the tarnishing of an individual or community's image. This research examines the work of various authors and columnists, published on reputable websites. It is done in order to check the contemporary state of freedom of expression and the critical conditions of working journalists in India. The research also studies the status of freedom of the press and the upsurge in instances of hate speech in current times. The purpose of the study is to answer how the Indian government is restraining the individual's right to express, how the Indian politicians and media are liable for hate speeches by presenting biased views and prompted news, respectively. It demonstrates instances of hate speech where a ...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

Jus Corpus Law Journal , 2023

International Dalit Solidarity Network, 2021

Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal

Law 32, 2023

Statelessness and Citizenship Review, 2020

Proceeding, 2020

"Emotions, Mobilisations and South Asian Politics", eds. Amélie Blom and Stéphanie Tawa Lama-Rewal, Routledge India, pp. 243-263, 2019

Journal of Indian Law and Society , 2020

IAFOR Journal of Cultural Studies

International Journal of Interdisciplinary and Strategic Studies

Related topics

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Shopping Cart

No products in the cart.

Hate Speech in India- Causes, Impacts, Way forward

From Current Affairs Notes for UPSC » Editorials & In-depths » This topic

Recently, the report by The Wall Street Journal highlighting the challenges of monitoring content with a large social media userbase specifically in a country like India went viral. The report claimed that Ankhi Das, Facebook’s top public policy executive in India “opposed applying hate-speech rules” to at least four individuals and groups linked with the BJP, despite they or their post being “flagged internally for promoting or participating in violence.” According to the policy called “Dangerous Individuals and Organizations”, content that praises or supports activity such as “organized hate, mass murder, hate crimes, or terrorist attacks” is to be banned. Owing to this policy, Facebook employees reportedly found that the account of one of the individuals – Telangana BJP MLA T Raja Singh – should have been banned. However, the employees were pulled back from doing so by Ankhi Das claiming “punishing the violations” done by the politicians “would damage the company’s business prospects in the country”.

In this context, let us make an in-depth analysis of the issue of hate speech in India.

What is Hate Speech?

• There is no legal definition internationally for hate speech , and the characterization of what is ‘hateful’ is controversial and disputed .
• It is generally understood as any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are.
• In other words, it is based on their religion , ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factors .
• This is often rooted in, and generates intolerance and hatred and, in certain contexts, can be demeaning and divisive.
• International law prohibits the incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence rather than prohibiting hate speech
• Because Incitement explicitly and deliberately aims at triggering discrimination, hostility and violence , which may also lead to or include terrorism or atrocity crimes, It is a very dangerous form of speech.
• If it does not reach the threshold of incitement then it is not something that international law requires States to prohibit.
• It is important to underline that hate speech may to be harmful even when not prohibited.

Express Learning Programme (ELP)

• Optional Notes
• Study Hacks
• Prelims Sureshots (Repeated Topic Compilations)
• Current Affairs (Newsbits, Editorials & In-depths)
• Ancient Indian History
• Medieval Indian History
• Modern Indian History
• Post-Independence Indian History
• World History
• Art & Culture
• Geography (World & Indian)
• Indian Society & Social Justice
• Indian Polity
• International Relations
• Indian Economy
• Environment 
• Agriculture
• Internal Security
• Disasters & its Management
• General Science – Biology
• General Studies (GS) 4 – Ethics
• Syllabus-wise learning
• Political Science
• Anthropology
• Public Administration

SIGN UP NOW

What is the global trend on the issue of hate speech?

• We are seeing a disturbing groundswell of xenophobia, racism and intolerance including rising anti-Semitism, anti-Muslim hatred and persecution of Christians around the world.
• Social media and other forms of communication are being exploited as platforms for bigotry .
• Neo-Nazi and white supremacy movements are on the march.
• Public discourse is being weaponized for political gain with incendiary rhetoric that stigmatizes and dehumanizes minorities, migrants, refugees, and women and any so-called “other”.
• As hate is moving into the mainstream in liberal democracies and authoritarian systems alike, this is not an isolated phenomenon or the loud voices of a few people on the fringe of society.

Prelims Sureshots – Most Probable Topics for UPSC Prelims

A Compilation of the Most Probable Topics for UPSC Prelims, including Schemes, Freedom Fighters, Judgments, Acts, National Parks, Government Agencies, Space Missions, and more. Get a guaranteed 120+ marks!

What are the causes of hate speech?

• Negative stereotypes are leading one to think of other groups or individuals as inferior, different and less worthy of respect
• Negative stereotypes appear as a result of the discriminatory institutions, structures and norms which are embedded in the fabric of society and justify and sustain unequal social relations
• There are many such systems including the systems of racism, casteism, sexism, class of colonialism and many others.
• The stereotypical ideas of lower and upper-class people, of indigenous and colonialist, of woman and man, are important parts of these systems.
• According to some research study from US, there are four ‘types’ of perpetrators , including thrill-seekers (those motivated by a thrill and excitement); defensive (those motivated by a desire to protect their interest/ territory); retaliators (those who act in retaliation for a perceived attack against their own group); and mission (perpetrators who make it their mission in life to eradicate ‘difference’).
• Perpetrators may be influenced by their perception that certain groups pose a threat to them .

What are the forms of hate speech?

• Hate speech not only includes the form of direct enforce .
• Though hate speech is generally defined as direct verbal expressions , it includes also non-verbal expressions such as those contained in images, videos, music or any communicative form of online and offline activity.
• A song/video/tweet/cartoon/manipulated image etc.

What are the Impacts of hate speech?

• Human rights violation
• Atrocity crime
• The spread of violent extremism
• Gender-based violence
• Communal Violence
• Polarization of communities and sections of the society
• Threat to the protection of civilians, minorities, refugees, women and children
• Alleviate the fight against all forms of racism and discrimination
• Erosion of democratic values
• Mobocracy and Mob lynching
• Deteriorate peace, growth and development
• Hate speech alienates, marginalizes and undermines personal dignity
• Property damage- public and private
• It can even deteriorate bilateral relations and lead to tussles/wars

What are the criteria to assess the various forms of hate?

• Whatever form a hate speech takes there is no such a thing as “Good hate or Positive hate ”
• Assessment of hate speech is essential to make an informed decision about the type of action that one will undertake to a particular case- legal action, mobilizing action, support to the victim or no action at all.
• In order to assess hate speeches, there are a number of criteria that may help to find the degree of hate speech.
• Content or Tone of expression, which covers the type of language used such as an insult or joke
• The intent of the person making the statement- whether they mean to hurt someone or not
• Target group
• The context
• The impact of the statement on individuals or society as a whole

Role of Hate speech in Mob Lynching

• Though these are two different terms but are connected.
• Mob Lynching is connected with the hate speech as most of the time perpetrators of this criminal record and circulates the videos of the issues which is attached with the sentiments of a particular group through various modes like social media and thus provoke Mob Lynching.
• Mob against the accused are always instigated by hate speech .
• In 2018 in Bihar, a person was killed by the mob on a message that persons of a particular community had thrown stones at the procession of another community.
• In 2019 a 44-year-old man was lynched to death in this district of Bihar over a hate message of cattle theft.
• In 2018 multiple mob attacks in Andhra Pradesh of Hindi-speaking people as false hate messages spread that child abductor gangs from Bihar and Jharkhand were active in the state.
• Violence against the Sikh community in the year 1984 is the best example of hate speech and mob lynching in India
• Lynching is not a problem that is limited to India. Various UN reports refer to lynching cases from the US, Sudan, Nigeria, Haiti and other countries.

Hate Speech and Recent Elections in India

( NB : Though India claims POK is a part of it, Globally Indian map is represented as in the image)

• The recent trend of elections worldwide shows that social media has become a buzzword. It had a huge role to play in determining the fate of elections.
• Similar to the global trend the Indian elections are also been affected by social media and it has been responsible for swaying people’s opinion one way or the other .
• The political parties in the country have not shied away from using these platforms to get an edge over other parties.
• The ways they adopted have not all been ethical and rather Machiavellian as trolls, hate speech and propaganda are unethical means to achieve ambitious political goals as against rational and constructive speeches to gain the favour of the public. They have led to an increased amount of fake content and flow of misinformation and disinformation.
• Social media has been instrumental rather negatively in the dissemination of hate speech . It can be defined as an effort to marginalize individuals based on their membership in a group and expressing hatred of a particular group of people .
• Also, speeches in most of the recent election rallies or during campaigning of various political parties were in the tone of generating ‘hatred’ .
• This dissemination becomes dangerous during the time of elections since hate speech is an extremely powerful medium of changing popular opinion against a community as even the basis of hate speech is the ‘politics of hate’.

Hate Speech and Communal tensions in India

• Communal violence has a long history in India. In fact, communal violence had started before the arrival of the British rulers in India.
• Because of communal hate campaign, India has experienced many communal riots in past as well as in present. Out of which the recent example is Delhi Riots 2020
• In a country like diverse India, it is easy to incite an immediate breach of peace by using fighting words on the bases of religion and caste and in the present era, many controversial people for getting unfair advantage have been using their freedom of speech and expression for inciting violence between people belonging to different religion, caste, beliefs and customs.

Hate speech Vs Freedom of Expression :

What is freedom of expression and where does it come from.

• Indian Constitution provides the right of freedom, given in article 19 with the view of guaranteeing individual rights that were considered vital by the framers of the constitution.
• The right to freedom in Article 19 guarantees the freedom of speech and expression, as one of its six freedoms.
• Article 19(1) (a)  of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression to all its citizens.
• The law states that “all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression”.
• Under Article 19(2) “reasonable restrictions can be imposed on the exercise of this right for certain purposes.
• Any limitation on the exercise of the right under Article 19(1)(a) not falling within the four corners of Article 19(2) cannot be valid.
• The freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) includes the right to express one’s views and opinions at any issue through any medium, for example,  by words of mouth, writing, printing, picture, film, movie etc.
• It thus includes the freedom of communication and the right to propagate or publish opinion.
• This freedom is not a license to make unfounded and irresponsible allegations against the judiciary.

What is the status of hate speech in the Indian constitution?

• Hate Speech has not been defined in any of the laws of the country, only prohibitions for using certain forms of speeches and expressions are stated.
• In the 267th Report of the Law Commission of India, hate speech is stated as “an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religious belief and the like.
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 124A; Section 153A [5] etc.
• The Representation of the People Act, 1951: Section 8[11]; Section 324 etc.
• The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955: Section 7[13] etc.
• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 95[15] etc.

That is, Hate speech becomes an exception to Article 19(1) (a) though it guarantees free speech that is necessary to promote a plurality of opinions.

TK Viswanathan Committee Recommendations to deal with hate speech on the internet

• An expert committee headed by former Loksabha secretary general TK Viswanathan to deal with cybercrimes especially online hate speech has submitted its report to Union Home Ministry.
• It was formed in 2017 after Supreme Court struck down Section 66 A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000 in Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India .
• Section 66 A of IT Act was added to criminalize sending of offensive messages through a computer or other communication devices.
• It was formed to assist the government in establishing an effective legal framework to deal with cybercrimes related to hate speech on the internet.
• The committee was having members from Law Ministry, CBI and Ministry of Home Affairs.
• It was tasked to study and examine existing domestic cyber laws and international cyber legislation and propose measures, amendments to present laws.
• The Information Technology Act, 2000
• Corresponding provisions in IPC, CrPC and Evidence Act
• The committee was also mandated to draw a roadmap taking into account the need of legal competence and expertise on cyber laws from investigation, prosecution and judiciary angles.

Recommendations

• Appoint cybercrime coordinators in all states
• Establish cybercrime cells in each district.
• Replace some clauses of the IT Act, 2000 and amend some sections of IPC like 153, 505A to deal with online hate crimes .
• The punishment under the amended clause which deals with the prohibition of incitement to hatred is two years imprisonment or fine of Rs. 5,000 or both.
• Offences under amended Section 505A are punishable with imprisonment of up to one year or fine of Rs. 5,000 or both.
• State cybercrime coordinator should be an officer not below the rank of Inspector General of Police (IGP).
• The head of district cybercrime cell should be an officer not below the rank of sub-inspector of police.

Way Forward

• Education is the most efficient way to dilute hatred. Our education system has a significant role to play in promoting and understanding compassion with others.
• Private companies should also be encouraged to take awareness programs and initiatives about maintaining cordial relationship similar to that of government.
• There are many laws regarding hate speeches but stricter penalizing is what absent and to be focused upon because religious sentiments and beliefs are a precious thing for an individual.
• Fight against hate speech cannot be isolated. Wider platform such as the United Nations shall take up the matter for discussion .
• Each and every responsible government, regional bodies, and other international and regional actors should respond to this threat.
• Negotiation
• Arbitration and/or Conciliation.
• Subjects like hate speeches become a complex issue to deal with, in a country like India which is very diverse, as it was very difficult to differentiate between free and hate speech.
• There are many factors which should be considered while restraining speeches like strong opinions, offensive comments towards certain communities, the effect on values like dignity, liberty and equality
• There are laws for such atrocities but certainly, a major part of work is still left
• We all have to work together and communicate efficiently for our country to be a healthy place to live in

Practice Question for Mains

• Examine how hate speech poses complex challenges to freedom of speech and expression (250Words)
• What is mean by hate speech? List down the recommendation made by TK Vishwanathan committee to deal with hate speech on the internet (150Words)

https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2020/aug/19/urgent-need-to-change-criminal-law-to-regulate-hate-speech-expert-panel-2185290.html

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/government-checking-report-on-law-to-deal-with-internet-hate-speech-1756525

https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/freedom-of-speech-and-expression/#:~:text=Article%2019(1)(a)%20of%20the%20Constitution%20of%20India,freedom%20of%20speech%20and%20expression%E2%80%9D.&text=This%20right%20is%20available%20only,and%20not%20to%20foreign%20nationals.

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/UN%20Strategy%20and%20Plan%20of%20Action%20on%20Hate%20Speech%2018%20June%20SYNOPSIS.pdf

http://rsrr.in/2019/06/23/hate-speech-trolls-and-elections-a-nefarious-nexus/

https://sharingperspectivesfoundation.com/video-lecture/causes-and-consequences-of-hate-speech/

https://sharingperspectivesfoundation.com/video-lecture/forms-of-hate-speech/

https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/in-hate-crime-fight-a-voice-still-feeble/article28775760.ece

https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000233231

https://www.latestlaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/NLUD-Report-on-Hate-Speech-Laws-in-India.pdf

http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-1056-hate-speech-in-india.html

If you like this post, please share your feedback in the comments section below so that we will upload more posts like this.

GET MONTHLY COMPILATIONS

Related Posts

Criminal Tribes Act (CTA) – Main Features and Effects

Handling the Monkeypox Issue

India Enterprise Architecture (IndEA): Catalysing One Nation One Gover...

There was a problem reporting this post.

Block Member?

Please confirm you want to block this member.

You will no longer be able to:

• See blocked member's posts
• Mention this member in posts

Please allow a few minutes for this process to complete.

• Our Selections

• About NEXT IAS
• Director’s Desk
• Advisory Panel
• Faculty Panel
• General Studies Courses
• Optional Courses
• Interview Guidance Program
• Postal Courses
• Prelims Test Series
• Mains Test Series (GS & Optional)
• ANUBHAV (All India Open Mock Test)
• Daily Current Affairs
• Current Affairs MCQ
• Monthly Current Affairs Magazine
• Previous Year Papers
• Down to Earth
• Kurukshetra
• Union Budget
• Economic Survey
• Download NCERTs
• NIOS Study Material
• Beyond Classroom
• Toppers’ Copies
• Student Portal

Issue of Hate speech

• Recently, the Supreme Court reprimanded the government for its failure to stop hate speech and hate crimes in the country.

What is Hate Speech?

• Hate speech is defined as any speech, gesture, conduct, writing, or display that may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by any individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a particular individual or group.

Reasons to Curb Hate Speech

• It undermines social equality as it reaffirms historical marginalization, oppression & discrimination .
• It is enacted to cause psychological and physical harm to its victims as it incites violence.
• It is used to provoke individuals or society to commit acts of terrorism, genocides, ethnic cleansing etc.
• It is a tool to create panic through rumour mongering against targeted people . For example, the Northeast exodus.

Laws and regulations on hate speech

• Section 153A : It deals with actions promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony. 
• Section 295A : It deals with deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.
• Section 505: It pertains to statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes)
• Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): It provides for the arrest of individuals who have committed a cognizable offense, such as hate speech.
• Indian Information Technology (IT) Act: It r egulates online speech, including hate speech. Under the act, intermediaries such as social media platforms are required to remove content that is in violation of the law within 36 hours of being notified.
• Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015):  The court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, which had criminalized online speech, stating that it violated the right to freedom of speech and expression. 
• Sukumar v. State of Tamil Nadu (2019) : The court held that hate speech on social media platforms is not protected by the right to freedom of speech and expression.
• Section 8: It prevents a person convicted of the illegal use of the freedom of speech from contesting an election.
• Sections 123(3A) and 125 of the RPA: It bars the promotion of animosity on the grounds of race, religion, community, caste, or language in reference to elections and includes it under corrupt electoral practices.
• Freedom of speech: The right to freedom of speech is protected under Article 19 of the Constitution but it is not absolute and can be limited in certain circumstances, such as when it incites violence or discrimination.
• Online Hate speech : The i nternet has made it easier for hate speech to spread, and many social media platforms have policies in place to address hate speech on their platforms. However, the effectiveness of these policies can be limited , and more needs to be done to combat online hate speech.
• Prevention: It begins with education, raising awareness about the harmful effects of hate speech and promoting tolerance and inclusivity. In this regard, the government, civil society organizations and communities at large can play a role in preventing hate speech.

Challenges to Hate speech:

• Defining hate speech: There is no universally accepted definition of hate speech, and different countries and cultures have different norms and expectations in this area. This makes it difficult to establish clear guidelines for what constitutes hate speech and what does not.
• Balancing free speech and hate speech: Hate speech laws are often viewed as a restriction on free speech. This can lead to legal challenges and pushback from civil liberties groups.
• Identifying and removing hate speech online: The vast majority of hate speech takes place online, and it can be difficult to identify and remove this content. Platforms like Facebook and Twitter have struggled to effectively moderate hate speech, and there is no consensus on how to approach this problem.
• Addressing hate speech in non-English languages: Hate speech is not limited to English-speaking countries, and it can be difficult to identify and remove hate speech in other languages. Additionally, cultural and linguistic nuances may not be well understood by those trying to moderate content.
• Addressing hate speech by public figures and politicians: Expression of hate is not limited to anonymous internet users, public figures and politicians also contribute to spreading hate speech. However, due to their public platform, it may be challenging to hold them accountable for their statements.
• Lack of resources and legal framework: Many countries lack the resources and legal framework to effectively address hate speech. This can make it difficult to enforce laws and regulations, and it can also create a sense of impunity for those who engage in hate speech.
• India has a diverse population with different languages, religions, and cultures, thus there is a need to curb  incidents of hate speech and crimes that can have a detrimental impact on individuals and communities. 
• It is a complex and multifaceted issue that poses significant challenges for regulators and policymakers which will require a multifaceted approach that includes education, technology, and legal enforcement.
• Thus, it becomes important for governments, civil society organizations, and individuals to work together to combat hate speech and promote a more inclusive and tolerant society.

Editorial Analysis

• Empowering India’s Informal Economy
• Strengthening Industrial Safety
• India’s Widening Trade Deficit
• Enhancing Logistics Efficiency
• Deregulating Non-Subsidised Fertilisers in India

Headlines of the Day

• Headlines of the Day 25-09-2024
• Headlines of the Day 24-09-2024
• Headlines of the Day 23-09-2024
• Headlines of the Day 21-09-2024
• Headlines of the Day 20-09-2024

Other News of the Day

• News In Short-25-09-2024
• India Starts Work on a Policy on GM Crops
• SPICED Scheme of Spices Board of India
• India’s First-ever National Security Semiconductor Fabrication Plant
• National Credit Framework (NCrF) for Well-Rounded Education

General Studies

All Programmes

Study Material

Hate Speech in India

What’s in today’s article?

Why in news, about hate speech, article 19 and hate speech, legal provisions of hate speech, important judgements, guidelines issued by supreme court to curb misuse of legal provisions w.r.t. hate speech, suggestions, news summary.

• Two-judge bench of the Supreme Court observed that defining hate speech is complex but the real problem in tackling hate speech lies in the implementation and execution of law and judicial pronouncements.

• Hate speech covers many forms of expressions which advocate, incite, promote or justify hatred, violence and discrimination against a person or group of persons for a variety of reasons.
• It poses grave dangers for the cohesion of a democratic society, the protection of human rights and the rule of law.
• If left unaddressed, it can lead to acts of violence and conflict on a wider scale.
• In this sense hate speech is an extreme form of intolerance which contributes to hate crime.
• Article 19(2) of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression to all citizens of India .
• This article is subjected to certain restrictions, namely, sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.
• Provisions in clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19 authorizes the State to restrict the exercise of the freedom guaranteed under the article .
• Hate speech has not been defined in any law in India .
• However, legal provisions in certain legislations prohibit select forms of speech as an exception to freedom of speech.
• Under Section 153A of IPC , ‘ promotion of enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony’, is an offence punishable with three years’ imprisonment .
• Section 505 of IPC makes it an offence to making “statements conducing to public mischief”.
• Section 8 disqualifies a person from contesting election if he is convicted for indulging in acts amounting to illegitimate use of freedom of speech and expression.
• Section 7 penalizes incitement to, and encouragement of untouchability through words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise.
• Section 3(g) prohibits religious institution or its manager to allow the use of any premises belonging to, or under the control of, the institution for promoting or attempting to promote disharmony, feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities.
• In Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India , the Supreme Court held that the implementation of existing laws would solve the problem of hate speech to a great extent .
• However, the Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution regarding speeches delivered during election campaign does not qualify as public interest litigation and that the Court cannot legislate on matters where the legislative intent is visible.
• In Tahseen Poonawalla vs Union of India (2018) , the Supreme Court had issued comprehensive guidelines to the Union and State Governments regarding prevention of mob violence, lynching.
• Again, in Kodungallur Film Society case (2018) , directions were issued to control vandalism by protesting mobs.
• Fast-tracked trials,
• Victim compensation,
• Deterrent punishment,
• Disciplinary action against lax law-enforcing officials,
• Nodal officers to be appointed to take note of hate crimes and register FIRs across the nation.
• The Law Commission has proposed that separate offences be added to the IPC to criminalize hate speech more specifically instead of being subsumed in the existing sections concerning inflammatory acts and speeches.
• Similar proposals to add sections to the IPC to punish acts and statements that promote racial discrimination or amount to hate speech have been made by the M.P. Bezbaruah Committee and the T.K. Viswanathan Committee .
• At present, the Committee for Reforms in Criminal Laws , which is considering more comprehensive changes to criminal law, is examining the issue of having specific provisions to tackle hate speech.
• A bench of the Supreme Court was hearing a plea against the rallies being organized by Vishva Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal in Delhi-NCR region over the communal clashes in Haryana along with other petitions against hate speeches.
• The Court observed that defining hate speech is complex but the real problem in tackling them lies in the implementation and execution of law and judicial pronouncements.
• The bench told the petitioner that a solution to hate speeches can be found through collective efforts alone.
• The bench said that the Supreme Court has specified what hate speech is in the 2018 verdict in Tehseen Poonawalla case and no one can justify hate speech against any community .
• The bench said there should be a mechanism so that no one has come to the Supreme Court time and again.

Q1) When did IPC come into force?

The objective of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is to provide a general penal code for India. It was enacted on 6 October 1860 . It was drafted by the first Law Commission which was chaired by Thomas Babington Macaulay .

Q2)  Is Fundamental Right under Article 19 available to non-citizens in India?

The Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Articles 15, 16, 19, 29, and 30 are available only to citizens of India.

Source:   Definition of hate speech complex, real problem is implementation and execution of law: SC

© 2024 Vajiram & Ravi. All rights reserved

Read The Diplomat , Know The Asia-Pacific

• Central Asia
• Southeast Asia
• Environment
• Asia Defense
• China Power
• Crossroads Asia
• Flashpoints
• Pacific Money
• Tokyo Report
• Trans-Pacific View

Photo Essays

• Write for Us
• Subscriptions

Online Hate Speech Is a Challenge for India’s Foreign Policy

Recent features.

How China Soured on Nepal

The Hidden Significance of China’s Aircraft Carrier Passage Near Japan’s Yonaguni Island

Will Indian Courts Tame Wikipedia? 

The Asia-Pacific and the Israel-Lebanon Flashpoint: The UNIFIL Variable

Voters Show up in Record Numbers to Kick off Jammu and Kashmir Assembly Elections

What Could a Harris Administration Mean for Southeast Asia? 

Central Asia: Facing 5 Assertive Presidents, Germany’s Scholz Gets Rebuffed on Ukraine

Envisioning the Asia-Pacific’s Feminist Future

Normalizing Abnormalities: Life in Myanmar’s Resistance Zone

Japan’s LNG Future: Balancing Energy Security With Sustainability Commitments

Why Is South Korea’s President Yoon So Unpopular?

The Logic of China’s Careful Defense Industry Purge

The pulse  |  diplomacy  |  society  |  south asia.

Hate content on Facebook amplifies India’s growing illiberal tendencies, denting the country’s global reputation.

Hate speech is making global headlines with unfailing regularity. With 59 percent of the global population digitally connected, the internet, apart from enabling instantaneous networks of people and associations, is equally encouraging fake news peddlers and conspiracy theorists, while also abetting authoritarianism. Digital media’s ability to reach a large audience base at a phenomenal speed has expanded political influence through polarization of opinions and communities, particularly visible during the ongoing COVID-19 crisis. Several countries, including India, are combating online hate speech, which has had serious foreign policy ramifications while adversely impacting their global images.

India’s rising illiberal tendencies have been flagged by prominent influential policymakers in the West, denting its global image. Hate content proliferating on India’s online space serves to amplify them. Hate speech connected to India is not limited to specific minorities alone, but targets women and weaker sections as well. India’s strong patriarchal framework excessively glorifies “a vegetarian diet, extreme reverence of Hindu deities and the cow as the emblematic holy animal” apart from stereotyping “notions of gender and sexuality, moral policing of sexuality and its expression, and xenophobia.”

Online and offline hate speech, particularly against Muslims, has been on the rise in India, acquiring grave proportions. The digital hatred and majoritarian radicalization were particularly visible during the early months of the onset of the pandemic. The resultant impact has been damaging for foreign relations, particularly with respect to India’s strategic partners in the Gulf. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) expressed its concern over the rise of Islamaphobia on social media , with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi also tweeting a response to placate the country’s Gulf partners. India’s ambassador to Oman and his counterpart in the United Arab Emirates reached out to the Indian diaspora as well, asking them to steer away from fake news after several tweets surfaced quoting Hindus blaming Muslims for spreading the coronavirus in India.

Online hate speech has also been alienating a long-time friendly neighbor like Bangladesh with many liberals condemning India’s “discriminatory” National Register of Citizens (NRC) and Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) – regarded as state instruments to spread chaos and deliberately demonizing the “other” in order to reap domestic dividends. These measures have also provided Pakistan – India’s historical adversary – an opportunity to weaponize these state actions and draw global attention toward New Delhi’s ongoing anti-Muslim campaign.

With social media publicizing acts of violence across continents, analysts fear mounting hate crimes echo changes in the political climate, and magnify social and political discord fueled by social media-driven rumors and invectives contributing to violence . India’s evolving hate culture, and Facebook’s visible role in its spread, was reported at length by the Wall Street Journal . The Indian Parliamentary Standing Committee on Information and Technology summoned the social media behemoth’s representatives for not acting against anti-Muslim posts on its platform, reflecting the extent to which Facebook’s role has impacted concerns in the legislature and among various state and non-state actors.

India is not the first country where Facebook and propagation of hate speech have been identified together. The American tech company, already blamed for not doing enough to fight disinformation and racial posts on its platform worldwide, particularly in the United States, decided to act, keeping in mind its reputation and credibility in India which has the largest global daily Facebook users. Accused of favoring elites and establishments, over grassroot activists and minorities, Facebook banned a  particular political leader from the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party for violating its policies against hate speech. While welcome in spirit, the move is hardly enough for reining in dangerous trends that have already been set in motion.

Digital platforms have ushered in a new age of virtual, networked communication, which is revealing the dark contours of modernity and technology. Platforms like Facebook have fundamentally altered the communication landscape, and pushed the global political environment more toward inequality, populism, and nationalism in their new avatars. For countries like India, apart from critical domestic challenges, these create major foreign policy issues.

There are several instances of digital platforms enabling the decline of democratic constraint on foreign policy with the current political environments lacking “significant moderation,” since the platforms muffle neutral or opposing perspectives while perpetuating social, political, and religious divisions. While modern nation-states are trying to make digital diplomacy more effective by urging digital platforms to filter out lies and junks, there is also an urgent need to educate the public, who now figure prominently in the communication network, and can spread disinformation, threatening national foreign policies and undermining global reputations. India’s brush with online hate speech proliferating through social media platforms like Facebook, and the impact domestic disinformation efforts has had on its external relations management, is a key pointer in this regard.

Parama Sinha Palit, author of “Analysing China’s Soft Power Strategy and Comparative Indian Initiatives” (Sage, 2017), is an Adjunct Senior Fellow with the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore and an Affiliated Researcher with the Swedish South Asian Studies Network, Lund University, Sweden.

Modi in the US: India’s Pursuit of Strategic Autonomy

By shanthie mariet d’souza.

India’s Modi Heads to Ukraine, Six Weeks After Moscow Visit

By krutika pathi.

India in Wait-and-watch Mode as Yunus Takes Charge in Bangladesh

By elizabeth roche.

What Modi 3.0 Can Expect from Maldives

By athaulla a rasheed.

President Anura Kumara Dissanayake: A New Era of Reform Amid Economic Turmoil in Sri Lanka

By rathindra kuruwita.

South Korea’s Changing Position on Kim Jong Un’s Daughter

By isozaki atsuhito.

The Sanctioning of Ly Yong Phat: Milestone or Mirage?

By jacob sims.

Which Candidate Is China Likely to Back in Sri Lanka’s 2024 Presidential Election?

By Atul Kumar

By Cheng-kun Ma and K. Tristan Tang

By Pete Hunt

By Kenneth Houston

• Law of torts – Complete Reading Material
• Weekly Competition – Week 4 – September 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 1 October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 2 – October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 3 – October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 4 – October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 5 October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 1 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 2 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 3 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 4 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 1 – December 2019
• Sign in / Join

• Hate speech

Hate speech in India

This article has been written by Nidhi Yadav and Vikash Yadav.

Table of Contents

Introduction

The literal explanation of Hate speech as per Oxford may be defined as expression which is likely to cause offence or distress to other individuals on the basis of their association with a particular group and/or incitement.

The Freedom of speech and expression is an internationally recognised right. Freedom of speech and expression is an absolute right Hence various debates have proved it a very controversial topic as to what should be the extent of the freedom of speech and expression. Hence, a certain limit is drawn by the constitutional experts of various constitutional benches over a period of time to mark a line of distinction beyond which such freedom is prohibited by law and needs to be assessed critically. This article talks about the constitutional foundation of hate speech in India extending the discussion of the expression towards its consequences and procedure to deal with such matters in IPC and CrPC respectively.

Internet access/ surfing and social media have connected the entire world so beautifully but on the other side, it has been misused by various communities, organizations, political groups etc. Along with bringing an unexpected Not only Globalisation, but Internet has also markedly helped in proliferating Hate Speech across the world via social media and internet access all in every corner of the world which has now come across as one of the major side effects of the internet and social media usage. The prevalence of hate speech on Facebook in the July-September period in the year 2020 was 0.10 per cent to 0.11 per cent, meaning that out of every 10,000 views of content,10 to 11 of them included hate speech.

Indian Constitution and hate speech

Various judgements have very liberally interpreted the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. But at the same time, a reasonable restriction has been imposed on this fundamental right, misuse of which might fall under the ambit of hate speech. Freedom of speech and expression is an internationally recognized human right where various principles have been made to uphold its validity through the framework provided by International human rights law which recognizes both the right to freedom of speech and expression and the duty of the states’ to prohibit speech which advocates hatred. For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was accepted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948.

Freedom of Speech and Expression is protected as a fundamental right in the Lengthiest Constitution i.e. Constitution of India under Article 19(1)(a) which states as all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression.

However, under Art 19(2), a reasonable restriction has been put forth by the Indian constitution where the word reasonable should strike a balance between the use and misuse of this freedom. As per Article 19(2) of the Indian constitution, it reads as follows:

“Nothing in Article 19(1)(a) shall influence the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in thus far intrinsically law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the nation, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, dignity or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or instigation to an offence.”

In cases where restriction does not fall into the ambit of Art 19(2), it must be reasonable. Exceptional circumstances can be viewed within the spectrum of reasonability but it cannot be reviewed in each circumstance as a general pattern. The test of reasonableness must be applied to every individual statute impugned, since the Supreme Court has found that no abstract standards are often made applicable to all or any cases. (Ref: Row (n. 10); Virendra v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 836)

The phrase “In the interest of” in Article 19(2) has been referring to the restriction imposed on this right while protecting the country’s sovereignty, integrity, security and its relations with other states’ creating few exceptions to the complete freedom of speech and expression.

SC held an anticipatory action, or prior restraint on speech is permissible as long as it meets the requirements of Article 19. (Ref: Babulal Parate v. the State of Maharashtra, 1961 SCR (3) 423)

Along with other exceptions notified in Art 19(2), public order has been an exception that has been given a liberal interpretation in various judgements given by constitutional benches. This exception brings into its ambit all the activities that can possibly cause public disorder irrespective of any actual disruption whether caused by such activity or not. If no law deals with public order directly, it could be read as “in the interest of” public order (Ref: Ramji Lal Modi Vs. state of UP17 (Ramji Lal Modi), Public order has been further read to mean ‘public peace, safety and tranquillity’. (Ref; Lohia-I (n. 19), para 11)

Legal provisions governing a hate speech

India penal code and hate speech.

Indian Penal Code contains various sections which are applicable to hate speech. These Sections criminalizes hate speech and prescribes punishment for such an offence. Section 153A of the IPC, which criminalizes the promotion of enmity between groups of people on grounds such as religion and race, place of birth, residence language, etc. and acts that are prejudicial to maintaining harmony prescribing the punishment in such cases which may be imprisonment up to five years and fine. 

The intention has been a crucial and important factor in this offence. Mens Rea has got to be proved for proving the commission of the offence. (Ref: Balwant Singh (n. 4) 

Truth can be taken as a defence in this offence but it may not serve as an absolute defence under Section 153A. Truth connected to history to some extent can be considered as a defence but it is no defence such historical truth has a tendency to incorporate ill-will and hatred amongst various groups, organizations and communities. 

Section 153B of the IPC, which criminalizes imputations and assertions by speech directed towards certain members of a group which arises by virtue of them being a member of such a community prejudicial to national integration holding them liable for such speech.

Section 295 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, which criminalizes the destruction of places of worship or sacred objects. In this section, the intention or knowledge of likelihood to insult is an important factor that must be done along with the destruction or injury to the place of worship or sacred object. 

Section 295A of the IPC 1860, which criminalizes deliberate and malicious acts that outrage the religious feelings of any class of people by insulting their religion or religious beliefs. Critique done in good faith should be protected by law which needs a high threshold of deliberate and malicious intention for unlawful speech that would outrage the religious feeling of any class of people where truth is no defence. The offence under Section 295A is cognizable and a non-bailable and non-compoundable offence. The police are authorized to arrest a person charged under Section 295A of IPC with a warrant.

Section 298 of the IPC, criminalizes speech that would hurt the religious sentiments of a person. ‘Deliberate intention’ is the necessary component to be proved by the victim or the community whose religious feelings have been hurt or insulted by the accused. In comparison to Sections 295A and 298, the former is applicable to much graver instances of hate speech. Further, Section 298 applies only to speech against ‘any’ person, as opposed to a section or class of people.

Section 505 of the IPC, criminalizes the publication or circulation of certain statements, rumours or reports, intention of such statement or the effect of such a statement is to create mischief and to upset the public tranquillity. Therefore, the text of Section 505 of IPC provides for a wider scope and application. Whereas Section 502 is interpreted conservatively by the judiciary, such interpretation falls under the ambit of reasonable restriction of public order as stated in Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution. Section 505 of the IPC is direct to check and punish the spreading of false and mischievous news intended to upset the public tranquillity.

Section 124A of the IPC talks about sedition and penalizes it stating that if any words written or spoken promotes hatred or contempt disaffection against the government established by law is said to be charged under Section 124A.

The Law Commission in its 267th report recognizes the discrimination faced by groups based on ‘sex, gender identity and sexual orientation’, such people facing discrimination should also be provided protection under hate speech laws. 

There are various famous case laws of which one is the case of Arundhati Roy, Hurriyat leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani and others were booked under section 124A by Delhi Police for their “anti-India” speech at a seminar in 2010, for advocating independence for the clashed Kashmir region. The other famous case was in 2003 in which Praveen Togadia was charged with sedition by the Rajasthan government. The charges impose an attempt “to wage a war against the nation.”

The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and hate speech

CrPC provides the procedures to be followed for the administration of criminal law. Few sections of CrPC that provide procedures to be followed in cases when hate speech is criminalised are discussed in this article. 

Sections 95 and 96 of the CrPC authorize the state government issues a valid order to forfeit any ‘book, newspaper or document’ as per the guidelines given by judiciary after its liberal interpretation, such publication should contain matter, the publication of which is punishable under various sections of IPC. Section 124A, Section 153A, Section 153B, Section 292, Section 293, and Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code 1860. Once the forfeiture order is issued, a search and seizure order under section 100 of CrPC should be obtained from the magistrate in order to execute a forfeiture order. Under Section 96 of CrPC, an appeal can be filed to challenge the forfeiture order.

Section 95 authorizes the state government to censor the publications. Orders passed under this section can also be reviewed by application under Section 96.

Section 196 is a procedural safeguard that prevents frivolous prosecution for ‘hate speech’ offences which can disturb public peace and tranquillity and is considered serious and exceptional in nature. A court takes cognisance to determine the stage at which prior sanction from authorities is required.

Section 144, which permits the issuance of temporary orders in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended damage. This section has been famous to suppress speech by being used repeatedly by the various state government to order internet shutdown and ban films. A written order on merits under Section 144 provides a speedy remedy in cases when imminent danger is suspected.

Section 178 comes into play where the offence is done across multiple jurisdictions by the publication of hate speech at multiple locations.

Section 151 of the CrPC provides power to the state to arrest a person without a warrant in order to prevent hate speech in this case which is a cognizable offence. Section 107 of the CrPC gives power to a magistrate to execute the maintenance of peace with the help of people that will be required for implementing such bonds. Sections 151 and 107, provides preventive powers to the state. Though in real-world preventive arrests are more than substantial criminal arrest.

Election laws and hate speech

Section 123 of Representation of people act (RPA), 1951 deals with corrupt electoral parties. Under this Act, various sections refrain any candidate himself or by his consent through another person from corrupt electoral practices, where such corrupt practices would annul the election if any such appeal was in the name of the candidate’s religion or the religion of the election agent or that of the opponent or that of the voter’s (ref: Abhiram Singh v C.D. Commachen). 

An appeal to vote or refrain from voting on the ground of his religion, race, caste, community or language or appeal to religious symbols or nation symbol to impact an election is considered a corrupt electoral practise under Section 123(3). 

Promotion of hatred on grounds of his religions, race, caste, community, or language or appeal to religious symbols or nation symbols refrains that can possibly impact election under Section 123(3A). In the case of Abhiram Singh v C.D. Commachen, a seven-judge Constitution Bench held that an election will be void if votes are sought in the name of the religion of the contestant.

Prevention of Atrocities Act and hate speech

Speech directed by any person who himself is not a member of SC or ST community towards the SC or/ and ST community to demean them and hurt them are prevented from occurrence under the Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989. Prosecution will have to prove the ingredients of such a criminal offence. Social media has been used to post speeches which has been prohibited by few platforms like twitter.

Media law and hate speech

The Cinematography Act, 1952 governs the exhibition of cinema framing various laws that provides power to the state to take actions against such an exhibition of cinema. Section 4, Section 5B and

Section 7 of the Cinematography Act, 1952 are various legislations that empowers the Board of Film Certification to prohibit and regulate the screening of the film. Section 4 talks about the examination of the film.

Section 5B says that a film shall not be certified for public exhibition if, in the opinion of the authority competent to grant the certificate, the film or any part of it is against the interest of the security, sovereignty and integrity of the state, friendly relation with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, or involves defamation or contempt of court or is probably going to incite the commission of any offence.

Section 7 talks about the penalties for contraventions of this part.

HIV/AIDs Act and hate speech

The Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017 (HIV/AIDs Act) is aimed for the welfare of people suffering from AIDS/HIV by prohibiting behavioural discrimination along with social stigma towards them. Section 4 of this act specifically aims for such protection. Sex Workers have been the most affected group by this disease and have been facing discrimination and hatred in Indian society. Moreover, recently LGBTQ community has also been facing the similar violence and discrimination in our country. Hence to protect the welfare of such communities and people suffering from AIDS/HIV this act has been drafted.

Hate speech does not have a specific definition that can demarcate ‘hateful’ from ‘not hateful’, hence it has been a debatable topic in our constitution with regards to the extent of freedom of speech and expression. In the context of this article, the term hate speech is understood as any kind of communication in speech, writing or conduct, that strike or uses defamatory or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or another identity factor.

Hate speech constitutes a criminal charge under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, which is the offence of promoting communal disharmony or feelings of hatred between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities. To provide the procedural aspect, CrPC has completed all the aspect in relation to establishing all the procedure for the criminalised offences.

Hate speech has affected freedom of speech and expression widely in recent times. Hate speeches give rise to social unrest and public disturbance. This recent addition of LGBT community indeed forces us to think that we certainly cannot limit the extent of Freedom of speech and expression and also gives a future perspective to broaden our thinking towards a more liberal viewpoint.

Politicians have been prohibited for corrupt electoral practices under RPA, 1951. Strict laws are necessary to prevent hate speech and its propagation in future.

The problem of hate speech has also risen on social media platforms as the spreading of misinformation amongst online platforms is common these days. Social networking apps like WhatsApp, Facebook, Twitter, have become the most ordinary tool for spreading hate speech. Trolls on social media have also become another great worry for social networking sites. Trolling is posting an inflammatory or offensive comment on social media which is aimed to defame an individual.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/joinchat/J_0YrBa4IBSHdpuTfQO_sA

Follow us on  Instagram  and subscribe to our  YouTube  channel for more amazing legal content.

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

Hate speech in india : an analysis in light of section 153a and 295a of ipc, firoz iqbal khan vs union of india : analysis of the concept of hate speech and sudarshan tv’s claim of ‘#upsc jihaad’, prevention of hate speech in the light of international human rights, leave a reply cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

How to Become an Insolvency Professional: Enter the Glamorous World of Corporate Restructuring, Management and Deal-Making

Register now

Thank you for registering with us, you made the right choice.

Congratulations! You have successfully registered for the webinar. See you there.

• DOI: 10.55041/ijsrem27369
• Corpus ID: 266153421

THE DICHOTOMY OF OPINION, SPEECH AND THE HATE

• Shivam Gupta , Suhani Kukreja
• Published in INTERANTIONAL JOURNAL OF… 1 November 2023
• Sociology, Art

Related Papers

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

• Classroom Programme
• Interview Guidance
• Online Programme
• Drishti Store
• My Bookmarks
• My Progress
• Change Password
• From The Editor's Desk
• How To Use The New Website
• Help Centre

Achievers Corner

• Topper's Interview
• About Civil Services
• UPSC Prelims Syllabus
• GS Prelims Strategy
• Prelims Analysis
• GS Paper-I (Year Wise)
• GS Paper-I (Subject Wise)
• CSAT Strategy
• Previous Years Papers
• Practice Quiz
• Weekly Revision MCQs
• 60 Steps To Prelims
• Prelims Refresher Programme 2020

Mains & Interview

• Mains GS Syllabus
• Mains GS Strategy
• Mains Answer Writing Practice
• Essay Strategy
• Fodder For Essay
• Model Essays
• Drishti Essay Competition
• Ethics Strategy
• Ethics Case Studies
• Ethics Discussion
• Ethics Previous Years Q&As
• Papers By Years
• Papers By Subject
• Be MAINS Ready
• Awake Mains Examination 2020
• Interview Strategy
• Interview Guidance Programme

Current Affairs

• Daily News & Editorial
• Daily CA MCQs
• Sansad TV Discussions
• Monthly CA Consolidation
• Monthly Editorial Consolidation
• Monthly MCQ Consolidation

Drishti Specials

• To The Point
• Important Institutions
• Learning Through Maps
• PRS Capsule
• Summary Of Reports
• Gist Of Economic Survey

Study Material

• NCERT Books
• NIOS Study Material
• IGNOU Study Material
• Yojana & Kurukshetra
• Chhatisgarh
• Uttar Pradesh
• Madhya Pradesh

Test Series

• UPSC Prelims Test Series
• UPSC Mains Test Series
• UPPCS Prelims Test Series
• UPPCS Mains Test Series
• BPSC Prelims Test Series
• RAS/RTS Prelims Test Series
• Daily Editorial Analysis
• YouTube PDF Downloads
• Strategy By Toppers
• Ethics - Definition & Concepts
• Mastering Mains Answer Writing
• Places in News
• UPSC Mock Interview
• PCS Mock Interview
• Interview Insights
• Prelims 2019
• Product Promos

• Daily Updates

Make Your Note

Defining Hate Speech

• 26 May 2021
• GS Paper - 2
• Government Policies & Interventions

Why in News

As there is no clear definition of what constitutes a “ Hate Speech ” in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) , the Committee for Reforms in Criminal Laws constituted by the Union Home Ministry to suggest reforms to the British-era IPC, is attempting for the first time to define such speech.

• In general, it refers to words whose intent is to create hatred towards a particular group, that group may be a community, religion or race.This speech may or may not have meaning, but is likely to result in violence.
• The Bureau of Police Research and Development recently published a manual for investigating agencies on cyber harassment cases that defined hate speech as a language that denigrates, insults, threatens or targets an individual based on their identity and other traits (such as sexual orientation or disability or religion etc.).
• In the 267 th Report of the Law Commission of India , hate speech is stated as an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief and the like.
• In order to determine whether a particular instance of speech is a hate speech or not, the context of the speech plays an important role.
• Individuals believe in stereotypes that are ingrained in their minds and these stereotypes lead them to believe that a class or group of persons are inferior to them and as such cannot have the same rights as them.
• The stubbornness to stick to a particular ideology without caring for the right to co-exist peacefully adds further fuel to the fire of hate speech.
• Sections 153A and 153B of the IPC: Punishes acts that cause enmity and hatred between two groups.
• Section 295A of the IPC: Deals with punishing acts which deliberately or with malicious intention outrage the religious feelings of a class of persons.
• Sections 505(1) and 505(2): Make the publication and circulation of content which may cause ill-will or hatred between different groups an offence.
• Section 8 of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951 (RPA) : Prevents a person convicted of the illegal use of the freedom of speech from contesting an election.
• Sections 123(3A) and 125 of the RPA: Bars the promotion of animosity on the grounds of race, religion, community, caste, or language in reference to elections and include it under corrupt electoral practices.
• It proposed inserting Sections 153 C (b) and Section 505 A in the IPC for incitement to commit an offence on grounds of religion, race, caste or community, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, place of birth, residence, language, disability or tribe.
• It proposed punishment of up to two years along with Rs. 5,000 fine.
• It proposed amendment to Section 153 C IPC (promoting or attempting to promote acts prejudicial to human dignity), punishable by five years and fine or both and Section 509 A IPC (word, gesture or act intended to insult member of a particular race), punishable by three years or fine or both.

Way Forward

• For a country like India with a massive population of diverse backgrounds and culture, subjects like hate speech become a complex issue to deal with as it is difficult to differentiate between free and hate speech.
• Several factors are to be considered while restraining speeches like the number of strong opinions, offensive to certain communities, the effect on the values of dignity, liberty, and equality. Certainly, there are laws for such atrocities but a major part of work is still left.
• Therefore giving a proper definition to hate speech would be the first step to deal with the menace and other initiatives such as spreading awareness amongst the public is the need of the hour.

Subscribe to the PwC Newsletter

Join the community, edit social preview.

Add a new code entry for this paper

Remove a code repository from this paper, mark the official implementation from paper authors, add a new evaluation result row.

Remove a task

Add a method, remove a method, edit datasets, exploring the topics, sentiments and hate speech in the spanish information environment.

19 Sep 2024  ·  ALEJANDRO BUITRAGO LOPEZ , Javier Pastor-Galindo , José Antonio Ruipérez-Valiente · Edit social preview

In the digital era, the internet and social media have transformed communication but have also facilitated the spread of hate speech and disinformation, leading to radicalization, polarization, and toxicity. This is especially concerning for media outlets due to their significant role in shaping public discourse. This study examines the topics, sentiments, and hate prevalence in 337,807 response messages (website comments and tweets) to news from five Spanish media outlets (La Vanguardia, ABC, El Pa\'is, El Mundo, and 20 Minutos) in January 2021. These public reactions were originally labeled as distinct types of hate by experts following an original procedure, and they are now classified into three sentiment values (negative, neutral, or positive) and main topics. The BERTopic unsupervised framework was used to extract 81 topics, manually named with the help of Large Language Models (LLMs) and grouped into nine primary categories. Results show social issues (22.22%), expressions and slang (20.35%), and political issues (11.80%) as the most discussed. Content is mainly negative (62.7%) and neutral (28.57%), with low positivity (8.73%). Toxic narratives relate to conversation expressions, gender, feminism, and COVID-19. Despite low levels of hate speech (3.98%), the study confirms high toxicity in online responses to social and political topics.

Code Edit Add Remove Mark official

Tasks edit add remove, datasets edit, results from the paper edit, methods edit add remove.

• Insights IAS Brochure |
• OUR CENTERS Bangalore Delhi Lucknow Mysuru --> Srinagar Dharwad Hyderabad

Call us @ 08069405205

Search Here

• An Introduction to the CSE Exam
• Personality Test
• Annual Calendar by UPSC-2025
• Common Myths about the Exam
• About Insights IAS
• Our Mission, Vision & Values
• Director's Desk
• Meet Our Team
• Our Branches
• Careers at Insights IAS
• Daily Current Affairs+PIB Summary
• Insights into Editorials
• Insta Revision Modules for Prelims
• Current Affairs Quiz
• Static Quiz
• Current Affairs RTM
• Insta-DART(CSAT)
• Insta 75 Days Revision Tests for Prelims 2024
• Secure (Mains Answer writing)
• Secure Synopsis
• Ethics Case Studies
• Insta Ethics
• Weekly Essay Challenge
• Insta Revision Modules-Mains
• Insta 75 Days Revision Tests for Mains
• Secure (Archive)
• Anthropology
• Law Optional
• Kannada Literature
• Public Administration
• English Literature
• Medical Science
• Mathematics
• Commerce & Accountancy
• Monthly Magazine: CURRENT AFFAIRS 30
• Content for Mains Enrichment (CME)
• InstaMaps: Important Places in News
• Weekly CA Magazine
• The PRIME Magazine
• Insta Revision Modules-Prelims
• Insta-DART(CSAT) Quiz
• Insta 75 days Revision Tests for Prelims 2022
• Insights SECURE(Mains Answer Writing)
• Interview Transcripts
• Previous Years' Question Papers-Prelims
• Answer Keys for Prelims PYQs
• Solve Prelims PYQs
• Previous Years' Question Papers-Mains
• UPSC CSE Syllabus
• Toppers from Insights IAS
• Testimonials
• Felicitation
• UPSC Results
• Indian Heritage & Culture
• Ancient Indian History
• Medieval Indian History
• Modern Indian History
• World History
• World Geography
• Indian Geography
• Indian Society
• Social Justice
• International Relations
• Agriculture
• Environment & Ecology
• Disaster Management
• Science & Technology
• Security Issues
• Ethics, Integrity and Aptitude
• Insights IAS Brochure

• Indian Heritage & Culture
• Enivornment & Ecology

Hate Speech

Context: The Supreme Court of India has directed all states to register FIRs (First Information Reports) against hate speech incidents and proceed against the offenders without waiting for someone to lodge a complaint.

About Hate Speech:

• Our Mission, Vision & Values
• Director’s Desk
• Commerce & Accountancy
• Previous Years’ Question Papers-Prelims
• Previous Years’ Question Papers-Mains
• Environment & Ecology
• Science & Technology