The assertion of the Supreme Court Bench headed by Chief Justice of India UU Lalit October 10 that a petitioner may be right in saying the country’s atmosphere is being vitiated by hate campaigns speaks volumes for the abuse of religions by a section of politicians to capture power and control the country’s resources. The Bench not only decided to go into the matter in depth with concrete examples of such cases, but also suggested to the petitioner if she needed the court’s help in collecting data and submitting them before it for proper adjudication of such a serious matter. In fact, the Supreme Court had only last month asked the Centre to explain its silence on hate speech and spoke of the need for stricter regulation.
The petitioner raised the issue of governmental inaction over hate speeches and expressed the fear that hate-mongering is being resorted to in order to “win the majority Hindoo votes, grab power at all costs, commit genocide and make India a Hindoo Rashtra before 2024 elections.” Crimes are already being committed to further that objective, the petitioner pleaded.
The CJI, however, rightly ruled that the plea was rather vague, lacking specifics or detailed information. The court has no tangible evidence on hand of such crimes. Though any court of law needs concrete evidence to act on, it is for all to see how polarisation politics has become a canker of the body politic. The court’s observation that the petitioner may have “every justifiable ground to say that this needs to be curbed” is, indeed, a sad commentary on the pathetic state of affairs prevailing in the country.
Petitioner Harpreet Mansukhani told the Bench that “hate speech has been turned into a profitable business.” As proof of her contention she mentioned that she had evidence to show how a political party had funded a Hindi film on Kashmir to widen the communal divide for electoral gain.
At the outset, the Bench observed that in incidents of hate speech, normal proceedings under criminal law will have to be initiated on a case-to-case basis. “We have to see who is involved and who is not,” the CJI said. The petitioner regretted that it was too late to stop incidents of hate campaigns and pleaded for directions from the court to tackle the menace. The Bench responded with due concern and made clear its intent to handle the issue with all the seriousness it deserves. It asked for some immediate instances and the petitioner said she would file an affidavit detailing specific instances. The court will hear the PIL November 1.
As if to prove the point, BJP MP from Delhi Parvesh Verma, known for giving incendiary speeches targeting the minority population, spoke at a congregation in Delhi organised by, among others, a unit of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad October 9, of “total boycott of these people.” He did not name the community to be boycotted, but no one is in doubt about his target since the meeting was held to protest against the killing of a Hindoo in Sunder Nagar in connection with which six men, all Moslems, were arrested. He followed it up with his loaded threat that “if these people point a finger at our temples, madrasas and mosques will not be spared.” His provocative remarks against the anti-CAA protesters at Shaheen Bagh in January, 2020 had drawn the ire of even the EC.
Days before Verma’s hate speech, 10 Moslems were flogged in public in Gujarat by a policeman in plain clothes. He was helped by his colleagues, a police van standing by, and the crowd was seen cheering. A police inquiry into the incident has been ordered. But not much can be expected from such routine exercise as the policemen got a pat on their back from no less than Gujarat’s minister of state for home.
The rot has set in because both, Hindoos and Moslems, are seemingly playing active roles in complicating matters and building mistrust that is rapidly transforming into deep seated hatred.