Hate speech: Need for a social solution

Recently, the Supreme Court minced no words in expressing its concerns over the issue of hate speech in the country. A division bench of Justices K M Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy underlined the constitutional fabric of fraternity, which requires social cohesion.

There is no scholarly consensus on a definition of hate speech. Nevertheless, it is understood as derogatory speech against a group on the grounds of race, religion, caste, language, etc. In the Indian context, hate speech assumes significance given the diverse socio-cultural landscape of the country. Hate speech often manifests in terms of either protection of one’s own religion or protection of minority religion from the majority. In the garb of these ‘grievances’, calls are given to inflict violence on another religious group. This is no different for castes. There is a constant state of flux whereby the people of different castes call for violence against depressed and oppressed castes.

The self-proclaimed leaders of these groups reap the most dividends (political or otherwise) while even the members of the oppressor group are at times disadvantaged. The oppressed group at best gets sympathy from others, and at worst it may suffer police persecution or other violent actions. Hate speech may also assume the form of regionalism, whereby ‘outsiders’ are demonised and targeted. Thus, hate speech can occur along multiple dimensions in the Indian context.

The Indian reality is that of the existence of group identities lacking, or having imperfect, social cohesion among different groups. Individuals as well as groups are at loss. What is needed is the forging of a common identity whereby the tensions among groups are either resolved or amicably discussed so that hate speech is drastically brought under control.

There are a web of laws to deal with different forms of hate speech, without explicitly saying that hate speech is what the law aims to curb or even using the term ‘hate speech’. Sections 153A, 153B, 295A, 298, 505(1), 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) make it a punishable offence to promote ‘disharmony, enmity, hatred or ill-will’ or ‘insults’ to religion, culture, ethnicity, language, caste. etc. Similar provisions exist in the Information Technology Act, Representation of People Act, and several other legislations. These laws aim at protecting a group rather than an individual. Most recently, the Law Commission proposed several amendments to the IPC to explicitly cover hate speech, but the same has not materialised into law so far.

Despite there being a complex web of laws to proscribe a multitude of hate speech, the ineffectiveness of these laws is not hidden from anybody. It is imperative that the causes for such failure are analysed.

The law here is attempting to solve a social problem through a legal system. In the Indian context, an imperfect legal system has failed so far. This is not to say that the legal system elsewhere in the world is perfect, rather that the peculiarities in India are unique. While social problems are on the rise, the legal system has failed to keep pace with them. There is an ever-increasing backlog of cases, with some 47 million cases pending, about 75% of them in the district courts where hate speech cases primarily go. Justice dispensation is very slow and arduous, so much so that the process itself, at times, is described as punishment.

In such a scenario, we should think about a social solution to a social problem. There is a need for greater fraternity in the country. This fraternity should not be limited just to the members of one group but should be among members of one group with members of another group and also between groups. All groups based on religion, caste, language, race, region etc., should come together and develop more empathy for others. This would increase the social cohesion in the country and lead us to the path of greater self-realisation and progress of both the individual and the nation.

Way Forward

While Ambedkar’s trinity of liberty, equality and fraternity is much talked about in recent times, the ‘fraternity’ part has not gained equal attention as the other aspects. It is important that a proper society be built for a better realisation of other rights. For this, we need to realise fraternity more than ever. At the same time, changes in the legal structure are also needed so that pendency in courts is reduced and the pace of justice delivery is quickened to the advantage of the common citizenry. There is thus a need to approach the issue from the perspectives of both law and social engineering.

(The writer is an advocate in the Allahabad High Court)