Opinion Crossing the line

The real harm in hate speech is the threat to the dignity and inclusion of vulnerable groups

March 31, 2014 12:05 AM IST First published on: Mar 31, 2014 at 12:05 AM IST

The real harm in hate speech is the threat to the dignity and inclusion of vulnerable groups

This election campaign has been more openly bitter and polarised than others. The Congress candidate from Saharanpur, Imran Masood, has been arrested for his words in an eight-month-old video where he threatens to chop Narendra Modi into pieces.

Whatever the impact of his words on voters, they do not belong in a civil or responsible discourse. Congress vice president Rahul Gandhi condemned his language and spoke of a “politics of love”, but has made no move to replace Masood. The Congress must realise that no matter how this matter is legally resolved, it sends out a certain political signal by its acceptance of a vocabulary of violence.

But why is it that hate speech becomes an issue only during an election campaign, and carries no consequences at other times? Is all hate speech equally unacceptable in the eyes of the law? Around the world, hate speech has been held to be condemnable only when there is a power differential, when words are not mere words, but carry the capacity to psychologically undermine those less powerful.

The harm in hate speech, legal scholars have argued, is not that it is offensive, but that it reinforces historical exclusion or prejudice. Speech crosses the line when it involves the defamation of vulnerable individuals by means of defamation of group characteristics. Varun Gandhi’s conscious decision to inflame the Hindu majority during his campaign, or Narendra Modi’s own speeches in 2002, carry a different charge from the swagger of a minority leader trying to convey fearlessness to his constituency, even when they are all motivated by electoral gain.

Upper-caste verbal incitement or casteist epithets intended to cow their targets demand a different legal response from intemperate talk from marginalised communities. This is not to say that one language is more acceptable than another, but that context should matter when legal punishment is meted out. And words of hate are best countered with other words, except in very rare situations.

The Constitution places reasonable restrictions on free speech, and sections in the penal code and CrPC forbid words that promote ill-will between religious, linguistic, regional, or caste groups, but there is little practical clarity in any of these statutes.

The Supreme Court recently refused to order the Election Commission to restrict hate speech, saying that 128 crore people could have 128 crore views, and that “all shades of opinion” should be made available to a mature, discriminating public.

It has also asked the law commission to consider tightening the use of such provisions, which have been used too often to curb dissent, even scholarship and humour.

To begin with, it should make a distinction between words that are merely hateful and words that wield a threat to the dignity and selfhood of those at a social disadvantage, in a diverse and unequal nation like India.