We are a religious society. In modern times where scientific temper must rule our day to day life, our attachment to our saints has not diminished. We still believe in their prowess and power of miracles to save us in difficult times and usher in all goodies on us. We find solace in attending churches, temples and mosques. Holy places provide comfort and peace to our lives and soul. Traditions past and present cement our faith and belief. The myths around our Gods make our religions very fascinating. The myths may be irrational and the stories around the legends are so powerful that we refuse to see the rational side. Reasonability stops at the door of our faith and beliefs. Religion, faith, belief and tradition make a strange cocktail of emotions. Tinkering with that toxicity sometimes bring in dangerous consequences.
Last week was a ‘week of fallen speech’. India slipped down on the freedom of press index to a all-time low. India’s falling indices has stopped being newsworthy. As the Supreme Court, seized with a matter of hate speech against the minorities, called for immediate preventive and collective measures against spewing of venom and hostility; Raj Thackeray’s recklessly demanded removal of loudspeakers from all mosques by May 3. It was clearly an attempt to secure a place under the sun. Failing to make any significant headway electorally and instead of enjoying his place in oblivion, he decided to take a political mileage at a time when the line between politics and religion was blurring out. But the aghadi government decided to take him head on. The police filed an FIR for delivering provocative speeches and calling upon people to recite ‘Hanuman Chalisa’ outside the mosques if loudspeakers are not removed.
In Goa the bellicose claim of Subhash Velingkar that ‘the patron saint of Goa’ St Francis Xavier could not be referred to as ‘Goemcho Saib’ and that the title ought to go to Lord Parshuram who as legend goes went to create this State by throwing an arrow in the sea. ‘Goemcho saib’ is not any title given by the government or a status conferred by the state or Church for any demand for its withdrawal. There is a belief that Goa is safe under ‘Goemcho saib’. Why such a high voltage demand from a former RSS chief? He was only in search of political and social relevance. Raising an aggressive pitch by well calculated design in the backdrop of CM’s assertion to come down heavily on religious conversions at a time when there is no whiff of any such conversions. Velingkar’s plan fitted into the CM’s project of building temples destroyed by Portuguese, a polarising idea in tune with the national roadmap for 2024.
Raj Thackeray is, of course entitled to demand the loud speakers be removed over noise pollution. But a call for chanting Hanuman Chalisa outside the mosques is a deliberate attempt to hurt sentiments and leading to feeling of disgust amongst the Muslim communities. That could disrupt public order leading to riots. Violence brings in a ring of halo to such leaders.
Hatred may not always lead to riots but can lead to political exclusion in case of minorities. Hate speech has always been used to exclude communities from normal democratic process by targeting them and by seeking to push them out of the democratic process
Supreme Court said “Hate speech is an effort to marginalise individuals based on their membership in a group. …. hatred, hate speech seeks to delegitimise group members in the eyes of the majority, reducing their social standing and acceptance within society”. The 267th report of the Law Commission of India defined hate speech as ‘an incitement to hatred particularly against the group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation religious belief etc.
Rable-rousers from minority community or other marginalised sections may be offensive but they lack the ability to cause a major impact due to sheer numbers. A dominant group’s hate speech against the vulnerable section cannot be on the same pedestal. The Supreme Court has accepted ‘the impact of hate speech depends on the person who has uttered the words’ (Amisha Devgan vs. UOI). State silence when hate speech is directed towards a minority community is more dangerous. Sheer numbers provide a protective umbrella for the majority community. What happens when the vulnerable and marginalised sections face hate is demonstrated when the economic and social boycott of the Jews finally led to the holocaust. ‘What one eats’ or ‘ what one wears’ or ‘whom one loves’ have led to lynchings of minority community in the last half decade (looks like an inquisition in force in modern times!).
Constitution ‘freedom of conscience & belief’ and ‘right of speech and expression’. The line between speech and hate speech may be thin. Offending sensibilities through satire and jokes may have to be tolerated as part of expression but the ‘intention’ of incitement to violence and hatred is what has to be dealt with a heavy hand. Former civil servants implored the PM to speak out against ‘frenzy of hate filled destruction’. But law works depending on which side you are on. In Maharashtra the police dealt with the Rana couple with an unwarranted sledge hammer of sedition. In Goa the silence of the ruling establishment is deafening. Police look through a biased political prism pushing the citizens to the courts. The citizens are expected to depend on the courts to draw the Lakshman Rekha every time.
(The writer is a practising advocate, senior faculty in law and a political thinker).
