The government may cancel the FCRA certificate if the entity violates any provision of the law or under other specified circumstances.  These include violating terms and conditions of the certificate or renewal, not engaging in any reasonable activity in its chosen field for two consecutive years, or if the government thinks it is necessary in public interest.

On the face of it, this amendment does not even seem to be aligned with the rule of law. It means the government can arbitrarily decide (without any system of accountability to fair practice) to take over the assets of an organisation which has no recourse to challenge this. Giving the growing state enabled resentment against minority religious groups and the increasing violence towards those criticising the government, this amendment looks very much like a targeted attack.

Christians who constitute 2.5% of India’s population in India receive 15% of the foreign contributions coming into the country and are major contributors to humanitarian and charitable work. It is well known that Christian institutions have provided much sought after educational and health facilities not just in cities, but have also met crucial gaps in these services in areas that are inaccessible, remote or rural. Bringing in amendments that affect these core functions will affect the poorest communities that have no other options available either for health care or education. The government facilities should have performed these roles but their outputs are abysmal. Ironically, if an entity has received foreign funds for the initial setup and then continued activities using domestic funds, it becomes liable under these new amendments to be taken over by the designated authority, which can transfer it to a ministry, a state department or sell it.

The government would surely keep track of the number of children in Christian educational institutions, or the number of patients receiving subsided care in Christian hospitals. It is astonishing that this seems to be of no consequence and seems to be more by design than chance. Cutting away lifelines of education and healthcare can produce irreparable damage, but these affected communities, invariable from the traditionally marginalised Dalit and Adivasi groups, have absolutely no say in decisions that adversely affect their lives.

A government that truly values democratic principles would understand that many of its own gaps in terms of social justice, equality and democracy are plugged by the charitable and missionary organisations. It is an enormous investment to build infrastructure, create the necessary human resources while ensuring the best standard of care. How will handing over these vital facilities to an ‘authority’ ensure the same quality? Dismantling these facilities through vindictive laws and policies is easier than building up these same institutions that have contributed to the well-being of thousands. Many of these institutions can get badly affected by the planned amendments of the Government and never fully recover. Children who are forced to dropout for want of other options will forever have to give up their dreams of even a barely decent future. Without offering a comparable or better alternative, is it justified for the government to bring in such anti-people laws?

Another important contribution of these charitable institutions and organisations is to create confident individuals who are able to demand their rights and entitlements from the government rather than being passive recipients of services that are often  undignified, inadequate and unsatisfactory. Women, adolescent, Dalit/Adivasi (tribal) grounds, communities in urban deprived areas etc. have benefited from numerous interventions including self help groups.  It is evident that the government is threatened by dissent, collective bargaining, people’s collectives, unions etc. The notion of freebie is often disconnected from being a right and rather projected as the benevolence of a political leader. It is a dependency rather than an empowerment or rights based model. It keeps people as beneficiaries to be controlled rather than tax paying citizens who are vocal about their rights.  While opening the door to the market and privatisation even for crucial social welfare policies, the space for discussion on distributive justice is narrowing and even penalised.

We need to introspect on where we are heading as a nation. The narrative that Christian institutions receive foreign funds to convert, especially poor Indians, does not have any basis. This can be ascertained by the thousands of ‘right wing’ supporters who have benefited from Christian institutions while retaining their majoritarian religion. The students’ protests have showed us that there is growing concern about the quality of education that young people in India are able to access. Does the country need laws targeting charitable institutions, particularly at a time when government schools and hospitals are being dismantled at an alarming rate?

Under these draconian amendments, it is the organisations that are critical of the government, engage with rights based work and minority groups that are being actively targeted and systematically eliminated. India is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders. Any restriction to individual freedom is only legitimate if it is not overbroad, and is strictly necessary for national security, public safety, public order, public health o protection of rights and freedoms of others. In 2016, three United Nations Special Rapporteurs jointly urged the Indian government to repeal the FCRA, warning that it was being used to silence organizations whose priorities did not align with those of the government.

There are concerns that the amendments will be passed in the Parliament on the 12^th of August. This is inspite of multiple submissions challenging it by Christian leaders. There is no doubt that this Amendment will be selectively applied to the Christian community much like the Freedom of religion Act. The targeting of Christian educational and healthcare institutions will be a big blow to the most vulnerable communities – people living in urban deprived areas, indigenous communities, senior citizens, children with special needs, abandoned and single women, devadasi women being rehabilitated from generations of sexual exploitation, migrant workers, people with stigmatising diseases like leprosy, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS etc. Why do these communities have no say in whether an institution or organisation ‘deserves’ to have the FCRA or not? With the sword of FCRA hanging over their heads, the base of work may shift to more ‘safe’ areas in cities and with more privileged communities which defeats the very core of the Church’s mission.

There is absolutely no requirement for the FRCA Amendments as currently being envisaged and the government should desist from using state power to criminalise and harass legitimate works of charity and nation building. The government should instead seriously examine the dismantling of government schools and healthcare infrastructure. That is a more pressing need. Those who have, and who continue to benefit from the selfless work of Christian institutions need to raise their voices and no longer just be silent observers.

(The author is national secretary, Jesuit Commission for Ecology and Justice, New Delhi)

Related:

Centre cancels FCRA licence of Sonam Wangchuk’s NGO, cites violations including study on ‘sovereignty’

FCRA amendments could discourage NGO activities: SC

FCRA licenses cancelled: What happens now to the social work and institutions run by these NGOs?

The post FCRA amendments: A deliberate attack on the poor of India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This shift is exhilarating and energising for those who have long felt some quiet desperation that things may not change. The easy camaraderie across class, caste, gender, sexual orientation, language, geography, physical ability had people observing, struck in awe.  What many of us articulated from podiums, through media and books is now being demonstrated in the streets. This is not to say that all that ground work is irrelevant. It probably provided a backdrop for the scale of the current movement. The fact that the Union and state governments have been forced onto the back foot is impressive. This is especially because these same bodies, along with their supporting structures – the governors, judiciary, media and bureaucrats have been largely tone deaf. Their disproportionate abuse of power had the chilling effect of silencing many voices – individuals who had too much to lose when the full strength of the state power was turned upon them.

The honourable chief Justice of India would probably for the first time have felt that words have consequences. When one thinks about the number of people in power who have used inflammatory casteist, sexist and anti-minority language without any fear of consequences, one feels that this is exactly the kind of movement that the country needed – irreverential, inordinately humorous and witty and refusing to back down. In spite of the unacceptable level of violence against the students, their spirits shone through and that is what makes this movement exactly what the country needed.

The movement was sparked by allegations of irregularities in the NEET-UG 2024 examination, which led students across the country to demand transparency, accountability, and reforms in the examination process. The controversy eventually reached the Supreme Court, which heard multiple petitions challenging the conduct of the examination while directing investigations into allegations of malpractice. The Union Government subsequently entrusted the investigation into the paper leak allegations to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), underscoring the seriousness of the controversy.

Students demonstrated across numerous states, with protests organised both on university campuses and in major cities, amplified through social media and supported by parents, teachers, and sections of civil society.

Perhaps the movement’s greatest lesson was its clarity of purpose. The students remained overwhelmingly non-violent despite facing lathi charges, water cannons, tear gas, and allegations of sexual assault. Their discipline became one of the movement’s greatest strengths. They refused to be distracted by peripheral issues, remaining focused on a limited set of clear and achievable demands.

No popular movement is beyond criticism, and this one is no exception. Every mass mobilisation carries risks: co-option by political interests, internal divisions, misinformation, or the influence of powerful corporate and political actors. Those dangers must always be recognised. Yet one of this movement’s greatest strengths was that it drew support from many quarters without becoming the project of any single political party. That independence gave it both legitimacy and resilience.

The movement also built upon earlier struggles. The farmers’ protests demonstrated that sustained, peaceful resistance could withstand enormous political pressure. That legacy provided confidence to a new generation of protesters and reminded those in power that coercion does not always produce submission. Each successful act of peaceful resistance strengthens democratic culture and encourages others to participate in public life. Six months before that, youth and women across generations, all hailing from India’s largest minority group had stunned us with their peaceful sit-ins and protests challenging the anti-constitutional amendments to Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 and the impending National Register of Citizens (NRC). Analyses and reports of both these historic mobilisations may be read, here, here, here and here.

There are some lessons from this movement that needs to be recognised.

The students continued to remain largely non-violent in spite of lathi charges, water cannons, tear gas, and sexual assaults. Their equanimity is commendable.

They had select demands and they stuck to these doggedly. There was no back and forth negotiating and nit picking. The focus on doable demands which were completely rational to anyone was important. Rather than one insensitive minister being replaced by possibly another, the movement created accountability mechanisms that have long been forgotten in the country irrespective of the party in power. This movement for accountability will raise the bar not only the current government but also the Opposition and anyone considering a political career. That, in itself, is a huge victory for the country. The message is that serious violations will face consequences.

The farmers, to their credit, had paved the way and their presence, along with other movements, lent an air of impenetrability to the movement. It said that violence against the students would bring more, not less resistance. The memory of the farmers protests would still linger in the memory of the current political dispensation and each movement that they fail to disrupt with their usual cheap tactics is like disciplining a recalcitrant child.

This movement gives enormous sense of hope to the apparently depressed civil society organisations.

One is that there is always a need for a vibrant civil society who hold power. Depending on the nature of autocracy of the government, the losses and struggles are more, but in the absence of that struggle, there is zero hope.

A senior doctor told me at the peak of government flexing its strong arm against citizens, that some of us have to hold the fort. Now those few people – the small media houses, the YouTubers, the pockets of resistance will have the army of youth asking questions. It is good lesson when one is feeling hopeless about the way forward.

We need to consider this as a very positive and hopeful beginning. The context will not be drastically changed by the resignation of education minister. There are many more systemic changes needed in our democratic country. But the underlying message is change is possible!

As Dr. BR Ambedkar said “Political democracy cannot last unless there lies at the base of it social democracy.”

The author is Secretary, Social Justice and Ecology Secretariat, New Delhi.

Related:

The Supreme Court’s Uneasy Middle Path on Protest Policing

The Republic Speaks Back: How Student Power Reminded Authority of Its Limits

The Revolution has begun….!

The post When students demonstrated what democracy stands for appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Ironically, it is when voices are most suppressed that they must rise the loudest. Individuals and communities facing relentless and chronic targeting and oppression, can go through fatigue – a fatigue that comes out of being hurt or shocked by every day incidents of targeting or meanness, feelings of being abandoned by all that one used to trust – one’s friends, neighbours, colleagues, relatives, elected representatives, leaders and such– like a disease that does not get better, but only hurts you in more ways and more places, and spaces. True nationalism demands of those communities that are NOT the target of these systemic oppressions and discriminations, take up the onus of pushing back against the system.

Nationalism is not about being on the side of obvious discrimination and oppression and waiting eagerly for one’s share of the pie. When livelihoods are lost, homes are destroyed, people are killed, their religious spaces are vandalised, those who clap and jeer on the side-lines, convince themselves that they are the true ‘nationalists’ and that all that is being done in their names is for some larger good. Such people are, in fact, nothing more than cruel and complicit accomplices.

Citizens as scrupulous watchdogs

It is up to us as individuals and communities to decide whether the Constitution of our country is a living document that we uphold, however inconvenient or nothing more than a piece of paper. There should be a very narrow gap between what the Constitution says, and what each of us practice as individuals and communities. Certain aspects or lines even about the Constitution can become tools to rationalise one or the other morally wrong act, but we cannot use that to do away with the spirit of our Constitution which is undeniably fraternity, justice and equality. When the pillars of democracy are crumbling before our very eyes, we become the crucial pillar that upholds the value and morality of all these other pillars. If enough people criticise the media for their wilful polarisation, if we refused to elect people who were abusive and violent liars, if we refused to accept judgements that were patently flawed, we hold all these institutions to account. The more we push for their accountability, the stronger all these structures will be. Instead, if we allow crimes and mistakes only because the perpetrators belong to our own caste, religion or region, we do a great disservice to the country and are the real ‘anti-nationals’. Unfortunately, the mainstream media, instead of uplifting the concerns and voices of citizens, is ideologically biased in favour of power.

As with the Right to Food Act (2013), the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA), the Right to Information (RTI) Act, and several other government decisions, it was the relentless persistence of civil society that made these changes see the light of day. Attempts are constantly underway to undermine these Acts and make them toothless, therefore vigilance has to be continuous. One cannot sit back and say that victory was achieved and that it is time to relax. As citizens, we need to be constantly watchful and vigilant.

Citizens must distance themselves from political parties

Civil society may choose to support one political party or the other for election promises that they hope will be beneficial. However, this does not mean that civil society should become uncritical allies or ardent supporters or one or the other party. That would be disastrous, making us nothing more than party workers. We need to hold parties accountable, and for that, we need to be informed, concerned and moral. Political parties have the capacities to co-opt leaders, influencers and civil society movements.

The role of the civil society is to be firm, with the agenda of welfare or development, faithful to the rule of law and not act according to convenience or political gains. It cannot adopt a selective approach when it comes to demanding accountability from the government, irrespective of the party in power. No party should be given scope for compromise or dereliction of Constitutional responsibilities. This is a very serious and delicate distinction that every responsible citizen and civil society organisations must make today.

The credibility of civil society organisation and clarity of the objectives and ideology matters. Everything cannot be tolerated in the name of choosing the lesser evil all the time. The ‘lesser evil’ should also be made equally accountable. Hence the message from the civil society should be consistent and not opportunistic. Rule of law, Constitutional values and due process should be our base rather than becoming victims or allies of opportunistic political games, partisan politics, selective application, and reducing everything to the matter of convenience or personal gain. There are individuals who join parties in the hope of bringing about social change, but can become silenced by party ideology.

Shifting loyalties from political parties to the Constitution.

The duty of the citizen is to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, and to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities; to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women. Sadly it is the government that is violating these very duties.

When India achieved independence from foreign rule, the people became the sovereign masters of the country. It was “we, the people of India” who gave unto themselves a constitution and provided in its space for the legislative, executive and judicial systems to function. As much as the Constitution is the creation of the people, the basic constitutional values embodied in the Preamble, the fundamental rights and The Directive Principles of State Policy represent citizenship values. The role of the citizens is not to be seen as mere taxpayers but as active participants evolving policies and plans and in monitoring performance of the government. Citizen governance is meant to translate the concept of sovereignty of the people into a reality. The government is seen as an equal partner with the citizens.

The 73rd and the 74th amendments to the Constitution of India are meant to bring in place citizen governance in the rural and urban areas through the involvement of the citizens in the vital areas of governance, economic development and welfare. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure civic engagement towards effective, efficient, transparent and accountable government.

The concept of Citizen Governance Democracies is weak without citizen governance. Citizen governance is value based and thus must be construed within civil society organisations and leaders should examine their own political context and vision for change. Unless the government is open to listen to the citizen groups and involve them in the governance process no tangible benefits will flow to the society from citizen governance. The three elements of the governance model are citizen engagement, performance measurement and government policy and implementation.

Citizen engagement refers to the involvement of citizens, using the term “citizens” in the broadest sense to include individuals, groups, non-profit organisations and even business corporate citizens. Citizen engagement in a community is best when it is broad, inclusive and representative of citizens.

Citizens as spokespersons for the vulnerable

The gaze of the citizen should be clearly focused on the welfare of ALL individuals, more so the most vulnerable and distributive social justice being central. A citizen is someone who has a legal right to participate in the affairs of the state. A citizen who does not meet these responsibilities of holding the state accountable, becomes part of the problem and socially disruptive.

Instead of caste, religion, region, class etc. defining our allegiances, can we rather place it on the Constitution or a sense of justice and morality? Can we look at actions of the government or our communities through these lenses rather than through hatred and othering? Creating ‘others’ helps to break down the cohesiveness of a community. Someone we went to school with, who was from our neighbourhood, who participated with us in activities, is suddenly viewed with suspicion as someone who can steal our women or our homes, our jobs, our rights. Whether this is true or not, our imagination accepts it because we are bombarded every day with messages of hatred and ‘othering’. If all of us break into cliques and silos, fighting with everyone else, the ones who gain are those in power, the elected representatives, the so-called religious leaders, the business community. For those who keep fighting, there are losses on multiple fronts, some more than the others and some more tangible than others.

Active citizenship is when we work to ensure a better life for all in our community, leaving no one behind. As we saw with Covid-19, irrespective of whatever fancy apartments we lived in, if there are pockets of overcrowding then the entire area is at risk of spread of disease. The solution then is not to forcibly evacuate communities, as we often do in our ‘smart cities’, but to ensure affordable housing to all that also makes sound public health sense. Further citizenship should be based on pluralism, respect for dignity and rule of law.

If we are okay with some of our citizens being beaten, bullied, harassed and discriminated against, it will not be long before these behaviours seep into our own lives too. The principles of non-discrimination are of value only when we uphold it for all citizens. This principle itself cannot be discriminatory.

Pushing individuals and communities to a state of having lesser rights, lesser participation and lesser dignity cannot be the way forward for India, but unless we are wary and watchful, this is exactly where we seem to be heading. When people have lesser access to justice, or livelihood or resources, freedom of expression, or economic development, it pulls the country’s entire indicators down. We cannot climb up as a society or country, unless we all climb up.

For instance, if the government wants to reduce spending on social security schemes that benefit the poor of the country, they can start spreading the narrative that some people are lazy and don’t want to work, that ‘freebies’ go to people who are well off and not really poor, that the well-off are being denied resources that should rightfully belong to them. Because of this narrative, an influential section of the population may turn against these schemes. They start believing that any government which does away with these schemes is an assertive government. In fact the people deprived may be those who are disadvantaged because of their caste, gender, physical ability, age, region, occupation, livelihood etc. When we support cutting down these schemes based on what we see on WhatsApp or political speeches, we do a disservice to our own fellow citizens. Further we teach our young people also these false narratives. Rather than astutely question political rhetoric, we become their biggest supporters.

Conclusion and way forward

Our role as citizens is not limited to elections alone. If our fellow citizens chose to protest about one or the other issue, we should stop seeing this as an act of disobedience or wilfulness. Protests help overcome inequalities, ensure safety of public spaces, protect the vulnerable, demand accountability. Even if we do not agree with the reason, we have to unflinchingly support people’s right to protest, just as we should oppose political bullies who prevent people from exercising their voting rights.

Indian citizens really need to take a call about whether we want to at the lowest rung of participation as citizens where we are more likely to respond to misinformation, whipping up sentiments and manipulation than being at the highest rung as rational, informed, moral citizens.

The government of India says that its citizens are one of the dominant pillars of the country. However, this same government is constantly attacking all the pillars that hold the democracy of the country.  Further the government says that the state or country should provide its citizens with fundamental civil rights such as personal rights, religious rights, social rights, moral rights, economic rights, and political rights, etc. A right is a liberty that is protected by the state, such as the right to free speech and religion. Ironically, it is this same government that is hammering away at these very same rights every day. Let us not become mute spectators but active and observant and questioning citizens.

(The author is the Director of St. Joseph’s College of Law, Bengaluru)

[1] Company manufacturing excavators and diggers.

Related:

Diverse Nation Needs Diverse Battles to Save it, Say Civil Society Activists

Citizens, civil society hold the ruling party, BJP to account: #ReportCard Karnataka

The post The unwavering gaze of the observant citizen: India’s need of the hour appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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.” Provisions in law criminalise speeches, writings, actions, signs and representations that foment violence and spread disharmony between communities and groups.

Violation of Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) – Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony or activities that disrupt public peace or teach people how to use violence against any group, can invoke imprisonment and a fine. For general offenses, the maximum imprisonment is three years. For offenses that occur in a place of worship or during a religious ceremony, the maximum imprisonment is five years.

Under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) –Section 153a, 153b, 153c and 505 were expected to address hate speech but were already inadequate. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 which replaces the Indian Penal code has been criticised for making prosecution of hate speech even more difficult. The BNS ignores the 267^th Law Commission report and a slew of Supreme Court judgements asking for a nuanced effective understanding of and penal provisions against hate speech.

At times there is a confusion between free speech and hate speech. Free speech is extremely important and needs to be protected in societies that value human rights. The Camden Principles on freedom of expression and equality explore the fine balance between these two. Limitations on free speech can also be used by those in power to suppress the voices of minorities. Draconian laws such as the UAPA have been slapped on several vocal critics of the government. This is sheer abuse of power.

Offensive speech that poses a risk or threat to others has to be taken seriously if it incites discrimination, hostility or violence towards a person or group defined by their race, religion, ethnicity or other factors. It occurs through a process of ‘othering’. Hate speech has been known to incite, enable or instigate hate crimes which can be defined as overt acts of violence against persons or property (vandalism); arson; violation or deprivation of civil rights; certain “true threats; or acts of intimidation, assault or murder; or conspiracy to commit these crimes. It is a criminal offense motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity, including skin colour and national origin. It is more than offensive speech or conduct and its victims can include institutions, religious organizations and government entities as well as individuals. The seriousness of hate speech has been mentioned by the UN Secretary-General, António Guterres as a precursor to atrocity crimes.

Hate speech has become the norm in election campaigns

The political leaders who indulge hate speeches are hardly prosecuted and punished. The impunity that protects perpetrators of hate speech within a democratic system is alarming. Should hate speech, openly calling for violence, vandalism, ethnic cleansing, taking up of arms etc. and directed against specific individuals and communities, especially as part of election campaigns be allowed unchecked? These hate speeches are not even infrequent and within private spaces but blaring on loudspeakers and on social media. Anonymous handles on social media congregate in huge numbers to attack, vilify and abuse individuals and communities.

Sadly, with the escalation of identity politics geared towards the elections, hate speech reaps rich dividends. We have reached a point where there is a need for a perpetual enemy to bring us together. The Muslim community in India has borne the brunt of this, although other minorities have not been exempt. This hate speech is becoming entrenched and normalised and becoming part of school and institutional behaviours and regular social media posts and WhatsApp forwards. These hate filled and discriminatory messages are accepted at face value without any kind of commitment to the truth. Illogical, irrational, baseless fake news are peddled putting communities at risk of losing lives, livelihoods and dignity. Media, the supposed 4th pillar, is in cahoots with this, with shocking conflict of interest and unabashed allegiance to the current party in power.

There have been a series of hate speeches leading up to elections particularly by the current regime.

In January 2023, a religious conclave in Haridwar saw calls for organised violence against Muslims similar to the Myanmar kind of ‘cleansing campaign’ and that any resistance by the government would be faced with ‘revolt’.

The targeting has been relentless. Muslim businesses have been targeted, there have been open calls for economic boycotts and even those engaged in trade have been viciously and horrifically attacked, lynchings of suspected cattle traders or even of consuming/transporting beef have been attacked by maniacal mobs. Vocal Muslim women on social media have been put up ‘on sale’, mosques have been vandalised and demolished. Internet is rife with the blatant anti-minority hatred that has been completely unchecked (and even to some extent enabled) by the government in power. False accusations have been thrown around without any commitment to the truth or fraternity. When called out, rhetoric and falsehoods are the norm.

Human Rights watch analysed the Prime Minister’s speech after the announcement of the Moral Code of Conduct (which forbids appealing to communal feelings for securing votes) in ……….and found Islamophobic remarks in 110 campaign speeches. “If elected to power at the Centre, Congress would distribute people’s property, land and gold among Muslims,” Mr. Modi said during his address at a Lok Sabha elections campaign meeting in Rajasthan’s Banswara district on April 21, 2024. This kind of language, as opposed to the language of non-discrimination and inclusivity, is most unbecoming of an elected representative of the State.

According to the HRW report, taking hate speech to the realm of hate crime, the BJP government has demolished Muslims’ homes, businesses, and places of worship “without due process” and “carried out other unlawful practices”, all of which have continued since the election.

A report by the NGO Common Cause has documented that half the police they surveyed had anti-Muslim bias making them less likely to intervene in the event of crimes against Muslims. There are several records of impunity being offered for crimes against this community, by courts and other government bodies. Ironically, laws are being passed to further vilify and target these same communities.

It is shameful to see  extrajudicial punishments being meted out to innocent Muslims, in the inhumane method of “bulldozer justice.” Since 2022 several homes have been destroyed by the authorities meant to protect citizens with flimsy reasons that no court of law would sustain. It is common knowledge that those who participated in protests or raised their voices against the government in power have been targeted by this state sponsored violence and hate crimes. The Supreme Court has stated that retaliatory demolitions are not acceptable, but even that does not seem to be a suitable deterrent, which must again concern all law abiding citizens of the country.

In May, two BJP officials made profane comments about Prophet Mohammed, leading to deadly protests across India and condemnation from Muslim-majority countries. The BJP suspended the officials but these responses are too infrequent and slow and after much damage has been done.

The US Commission on International Religious freedom has classified India as a country of particular concern and urged the US government to place sanctions on Indian officials responsible for abuse. This is indeed a shame on the country’s vibrant democratic image that has been respected across the world. It would require a lot of concerted effort to undo this damage caused to our country’s reputation.

The significant enemy concept plays well in Indian politics. It is a deviation from the real politics of governance. The policies of development should be the primary issue of the campaign agenda. Unfortunately we do not witness any such debates having serious and substantial matters in the debate. The loud spoken sensational statements in public make the news.

There are no adequate laws to deal with hate speech. The legal process will take such a long time and the consequences even if there is punishment will come only after the damage is done and the election is also over. Hence the damage control is not done at all.

The loss of argumentative Indian is an irreparable loss for the Indian system. We need to argue out things on the basis of reason, logic and scientific temper. But in reality it is religion, caste and personal history of individuals. Hence the deviation is very easy in such a context.

In the process of we and they narrative the hate speeches appeal to the minds of the masses. A deep sense of deprivation and insecurity is made part of the conversation and that can be fatal. The political campaign’s goal is very clear. It is not interested in convincing people on substantial arguments but in dividing people in the name of religion and caste.

A twisted history is part of such rhetoric in political speeches. Some historical figures are suddenly demonised and a few new historical figures are created overnight to suit the narrative that is being built up for the election run.

No doubt it is part of the larger system. It is a consequence of identity bargaining in the political sphere. Divide and rule has become the order of the day in our democratic electoral politics.

Solutions and the way forward

What are the possible solutions to these low level political gimmicks in the country that are putting our own fellow citizens at risk to their lives, property, mental health and religious freedom? The Election Commission, which has a crucial role to enable free and fair elections, has to ensure that campaigns are also above board and following basic ethical principles of non-discrimination. Selective and slow response beats the purpose of the Election Commission itself. Taking these hate speeches to court is a long drawn process and justice is often delayed endlessly. We need to explore the possibility of fast track courts during the elections specifically geared to hate speeches and hate crimes.

The voting population, including the future populations need to be educated on the right way of conducting election campaigns and the need to hold violators accountable. Those perpetuating these hate speeches only do so because they see political benefit to it. If this benefit is withdrawn by an informed and articulate voter base, it will not be able to unleash the unrestrained damage that it is currently able to.

Rajya Sabha Member Manoj Kumar Jha (RJD) has called for a law to regulate hate speech and improve information disclosure about paid content. He has called out news channels for deliberately broadcasting TRP-centric news without or contrary to officially known facts. Importantly he also suggested that such legislation be introduced with stakeholders to find a balance between censorship of harmful content and freedom of speech and expression. He also made a case for including internet education in the school curriculum to impart basic knowledge and also sensitise children about the responsible use of the internet and the risks of hate speech and abuse.

He submitted a Bill in the Rajya Sabha on 9^th December 2022 against hate crimes and hate speech directed to a person based on religion, race, caste or community, sex, gender, sexual orientation, place of birth residence, language, disability, tribe etc. and that it should be non-cognizable and non-bailable. Any person:— (a) who intentionally publishes, propagates or advocates anything or communicates to one or more persons in a manner that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention to harm or incite harm or promote or propagate hatred, based on one or more of the following grounds: (i) religion, (ii) race, (iii) caste or community, (iv) sex, (v) gender, (vi) sexual orientation, (vii) place of birth, This includes intentionally distributing or making available electronic material which constitutes hate speech and advocate hatred that constitutes incitement to cause harm.

Hate speech, particularly as an election tool, and directed across the minorities, specifically the Muslim community is rampant across the country, and only growing worse. The consequences are severe and in contrast to the democratic fibre of the country. There is a need for urgent steps to be put in place to keep the government in check. All bodies with power to intervene – whether it is the Election commission, the judiciary, the police, civil society and even the voters need to take a stance that hate speech will not be tolerated. Let us stop normalising and enabling hate speech. This, as we know from history, is only a few steps away from hate crimes, ethnic cleansing and genocide. Let us act with the urgency that the issue deserves.

The author is the Director of St. Joseph’s Law College Bengaluru. His social media handles are @JeraldSJCL Twitter/ @Jeralddsouzasj Instagram. The author is also part of a Campaign against Hate Speech.

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabrangindia.

The post Hate speech – a convenient tool in election campaigns appeared first on SabrangIndia.