DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

LUCKNOW
2012-13

FINAL DRAFT
ON

TITLE OF PROJECT: HATE SPEECHES AND

COMMUNAL VIOLENCE

Submitted To:
Dr. Alka Singh
Asst Professor(ENGLISH)

Submitted By:
Kunal Kumar
ROLL NO-70
1st SEMESTER

INTRODUCTION:Michel Rosenfeld defines hate speech as speech designed to promote hatred on the basis of
race, religion, ethnicity or national origin. As he notes, the issue of hate speech poses vexing
and complex problems for contemporary constitutional rights to freedom of expression. 1 In the
Indian context, the contemporary meaning of the term hate speech is inextricable from its
origins (as a form of legal action) in colonial attempts to assume the role of the rational and
neutral arbiter of supposedly endemic and inevitable religious conflicts. 2 Given this historical
context, hate speech has primarily been understood in India as referring to speech intended to
promote

hatred or violence between Indias religious communities. Macaulay, in his

commentary upon the Indian Penal Code, explicitly endorsed this interpretation of hate speech
under Indian law, observing that the principle underlying Chapter XV (prohibiting offences
relating to religion and caste) is that every man should be suffered to profess his own religion,
and no man should be suffered to insult the religion of another.3
Constitutional aspects of hate speech in India;
Legal provisions prohibiting or restricting hate speech in India;
Hate speech in media;
Impact of Hate Speech
Various leaders indulge in hate speech

1 Michel Rosenfeld, Hate Speech in Constitutional Jurisprudence: A Comparative Analysis

(2002-2003) 24 CARDOZO LAW REVIEW 1523, 1523.

2 Asad Ali Ahmed, Specters of Macaulay: Blasphemy, the Indian Penal Code, and Pakistans Postcolonial
Predicament in Raminder Kaur and William Mazzarella (eds), CENSORSHIP IN
SOUTH ASIA: CULTURAL REGULATION FROM SEDITION TO SEDUCTION, Indiana University
Press, 2009, 173.

3 Thomas Macaulay, INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1838, 2002 reprinting, 101.

HATE SPEECH:-

Hate speech is speech said to promote dislike or hatred of a group or groups, particularly those of
a certain race or sexual orientation.
Broadly speaking , hate speech could be defined in two ways. Firstly, by a set of pre-conceived
notions about what constitutes hate speech, example calling a Black person a Nigger. The second
way, is to define hate speech from how people have reacted to it. So, something is hate speech if
it has provoked a rational group of people in to reactions which are bizarre and irrational.
The first definition is more tenable, after all why should you call a Black person be called a
Nigger?But it does present a few problems. Firstly, it is not fair, e.g a Black guy can call a White
person a SCAB and get away with it, because the US constitution (specifically the 14th
amendment) protects only minority groups. Secondly, it promotes a sense of community
identification. If I call a Black guy Nigger or if he call me a dirty Indian, why should people who
belong to our respective groups only by the quirk of chance take offense? I think the World
would be better off if we thought more as individuals rather than groups. No?
Unfortunately, the world is increasingly defining hate speech as how a narrow group of people
react to it. The best example would be the controversy surrounding the publication of the
infamous Danish cartoons. Now, anyone who has seen those cartoons would readily concede that
while they are in bad taste, apart from being singularly unfunny, but they certainly do not
constitute hate speech. But millions, who have never seen those cartoons and never will have
protested and scores have been killed. Why? Perhaps, because they understand that violence is
the easiest way to air their perceived grievances. Of course, the loudest to protest were the
Iranians who seem to use the term Zionist conspiracy almost as an endearment. It is a
dangerous trend which we see increasingly in this world, where anything which is mildly
offensive, or does not appeal to pre-set ideas of a section of population is branded as hate speech.
Whether it is the Islamo-fascists who demand death against Rushdie or the Shiv Sena loonies
who took to the streets just because Laine hinted that Shivaji had a relationship with his mother. I

am not a historian, and I am unable to vouch for the historical veracity of such a belief, but is that
a reason to burn Bhandarkar institute? In fact, even the truth is not a defense. Deepa Mehtas
Water met violent protests because it depicted how Hindus treated the widows. Not even the
protesters denied that what the movie was trying to say was wrong, still it somehow was hurting
Hindu sentiments. Of course, the spineless and gutless government is too eager to crawl when
asked to bend.PahIf your sentiments are hurt by truth, then you better discard them.

Philosophically, is hate bad by itself? After all hatred of hate speech is hatred too, an
acknowledgment that hate is just another human emotion like love, perhaps not so desirable but
nevertheless unavoidable. Anyways, whats better? When people talk with their mouths or fight
with their fists? I suspect hate speech does help people let out some of the steam. And frankly,
freedom of speech is such a precious ideal, that ordinarily nothing should be curtail it.

So, do I support unfettered freedom for hate speech. Well, Anyone saying all Indians are dirty
is fine but if the same person says all Indians are dirty and hence should be killed.thats
where I draw my line.

COMMUNALISM:Seldom have socially important words become more confused and divested of their historic
meaning than they are at present. Two centuries ago, it is often forgotten, "democracy" was
deprecated by monarchists and republicans alike as "mob rule." Today, democracy is hailed as
"representative democracy," an oxymoron that refers to little more than a republican oligarchy of
the chosen few who ostensibly speak for the powerless many.
"Communism," for its part, once referred to a cooperative society that would be based morally on
mutual respect and on an economy in which each contributed to the social labor fund according
to his or her ability and received the means of life according to his or her needs. Today,
"communism" is associated with the Stalinist gulag and wholly rejected as totalitarian. Its cousin,
"socialism" -- which once denoted a politically free society based on various forms of

collectivism and equitable material returns for labor -- is currently interchangeable with a
somewhat humanistic bourgeois liberalism.

During the 1980s and 1990s, as the entire social and political spectrum has shifted ideologically
to the right, "anarchism" itself has not been immune to redefinition. In the Anglo-American
sphere, anarchism is being divested of its social ideal by an emphasis on personal autonomy, an
emphasis that is draining it of its historic vitality. A Stirnerite individualism -- marked by an
advocacy of lifestyle changes, the cultivation of behavioral idiosyncrasies and even an embrace
of outright mysticism -- has become increasingly prominent. This personalistic "lifestyle
anarchism" is steadily eroding the socialistic core of anarchist concepts of freedom.

Constitutional and International Aspects of Hate Speech

Article 19(1)(a) guarantees the right of all citizens to freedom of speech and expression. This
right, however, is not expressed in absolute terms (as in the American Constitution). Rather, it is
subject to article 19(2), which allows the State to make laws imposing reasonable restrictions
upon freedom of speech and expression in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of
India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency
or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. It is
under the ground of public order that India has prohibited and penalized hate speech.
The Supreme Court have justified the restrictions on free speech imposed by article 19(2) on
utilitarian grounds: some restrictions on freedom may be necessary so that others may also enjoy
their liberties. As noted by Sastri J in A. K. Gopalan (1950):
Man, as a rational being, desires to do many things, but in civil society his desires have to be
controlled, regulated and reconciled with the exercise of similar desires by other individuals
Liberty has, therefore, to be limited in order to be effectively possessed.4

4 A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27, 69

The Bombay High Court noted the limited extent to

which courts may read down statutory provisions which, on their face, confer very broad power
upon the legislature to restrict hate speech: It may be good policy to balance the width of a
power by the width of a remedy afforded to prevent the abuse of that power. But that is for the
Legislature to consider. A Court called upon to construe the nature and content of a remedy is
bound by the language of the Section which prescribes the remedy.What is sound policy may not
be safeguard to the true construction of a section5
The Court rejected the petitioners contention that section 99A of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (under which copies of his book were confiscated) is violative of the freedoms of
speech, property and profession. To this end, the Court (in declaring the use of national, rather
than regional or sectional, restrictions, to be non-arbitrary) placed significant weight upon thenrecent Indian history: Promotion of hatred between different classes of citizens, as for example,
Hindus and Muslims or deliberate, malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of
any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs are not purely local problems. Recent
history shows that these tendencies constitute a serious danger to the very way of life to which
we are pledged under the Constitution.6 It is significant that, even in Gopal Vinayak Godse, the
judiciary adopted a very broad view of what may amount to hate speech. There are, however,
limits to the Indian judiciarys broad interpretation of hate speech. Article 19(1)(a) must be read
in light of other constitutional provisions, such as article 25 (freedom of conscience and free
profession, practice and propagation of religion). This demand for holistic interpretation was
highlighted in Chandmal Chopra v State of West Bengal and ors 1988 Cri. L. J 739 (Calcutta
High Court), in which an attempt to ban the Quran (on the grounds that it incited violence,
disturbed public tranquility, promoted feelings of enmity, hatred and ill-will between different
religious communities and insulted the religion or religious beliefs of other communities in
India) was rejected based upon, among other reasons, the Courts duty to protect religious
freedom: Any attempt to impugn [the] Koran in the manner as has been sought to be done
5 Gopal Vinayak Godse v Union of India and ors (AIR 1971 Bom 56) (Gopal Vinayak
Godse).
6 Gopal Vinayak Godse, at [43].

would infringe the right to freedom of religion including the right to profess, practice and
propagate religion.7The Courts duty to respect religious feelings similarly led it to deny its
capacity to decide such a case: Such adjudication of the religion [of Islam] itself is not
permissible. Similarly, the Courts cannot and will not adjudicate on theories of philosophy or of
science or scientific principles. Under article 51 of the Indian Constitution (a Directive Principle,
requiring that the state foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings
of organised peoples with one another),

Statutory Provisions and Hate Speech:Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code criminalises the promotion of enmity between different
groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language etc, or doing acts
prejudicial to maintenance of harmony. The section prohibits, inter alia:
the promotion of disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different
communities through words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations
or otherwise (section 153A(1)(a));
acts which are prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between communities, or which
distur[b] or [are] likely to disturb the public tranquility (section 153A(1)(b)).
The broad scope of section 153A is further buttressed by section 153B, which prohibits
imputations and assertions prejudicial to national-integration. The section criminalises the use
of words either spoken or written, signs, or by visible representations or otherwise which,inter
alia:
impute to any class of persons (by reason of their membership of a particular community) an
inability to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India or uphold the sovereignty
and integrity of India (section 153B(1)(a));

7 Chandmal Chopra v State of West Bengal and ors (1988 Cri. L. J 739) at [35] (Chandmal
Chopra).

 assert, counsel, advise, propagate or publish that any class of persons, by reason of their
membership in any community, shall be denied or deprived of their rights as citizens of India
(section 153B(1)(b));
assert, counsel, advice, plead or appeal concerning the obligations possessed by any class of
persons (by reason of their membership in any community), where such assertion, counsel, plea
or appeal causes or is likely to cause disharmony or feelings of enmity or hatred or ill-will
between each member (section 153B(1)(c)).

Hate speech in media:In January, 2009, the National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC), a not for profit organization
with a mission to improve the image of American Latinos as portrayed by the media, unveiled a
three prong strategy to address the issue of hate speech in media. 1) NHMC filed a petition for
inquiry into hate speech with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The petition
urges the Commission to examine the extent and effects of hate speech in media, including the
likely link between hate speech and hate crimes, and to explore non-regulatory ways in which to
counteract its negative impacts. 2) NHMC asked the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA) to update its 1993 report The Role of Telecommunications
in Hate Crimes; 3) NHMC collaborated with the UCLA/Chicano Research Study Center
(CRSC) to produce groundbreaking research on the subject. Hate Speech on Commercial Radio,
Preliminary Report on a Pilot Study was also released in January, 2009.
Hate Speech on Commercial Radio categorized hate speech in four different areas.
False facts
Flawed argumentation
Divisive language
Dehumanizing metaphors
In May 2010, NHMC filed comments in the FCCs proceeding on the Future of Media and
Information Needs of Communities in the Digital Age.Joined by 32 national and regional

organizations from throughout the country, the comments ask the FCC to examine hate speech in
media. In its comments, NHMC reinforces the need for the FCC to act on NHMCs petition for
inquiry on hate speech in media filed in January 2009.

Hate speech influences:Hate speech is dangerous because words have power and can influence others to act. The
assassinations of abortion providers in the US prove that words do not have to incite violence
explicitly to cause violence. Hate speech promotes division and intolerance; it harms and
marginalizes the vulnerable groups it targets. Free speech is exercised largely by the privileged at
the expense of the unprivileged who do not have a level ground on which to respond. Having no
hate speech laws is unjust as if peoples dignity and human rights should be up for debate in
the public square and may the best argument win. While laws are only one tool among many to
fight hate speech, they should at least be used against the most egregious cases. Courts and
tribunals are capable of objectively weighing evidence and applying criteria to ensure that
legitimate free speech or merely offensive speech are not captured. - in many ways a speech like
this one of the two worst kinds (the worst kind of hate speech coming from authorities whether
legal, religious or political because of the influence and devastating influence they have as well
as the huge statement it makes about GBLT people not being part of society). Of course there is
worse out there but we expect worse from the hate groups, the Family Research Council and
Christian Voice and NOM and the Traditional values Coalition and the rest of them. Hate groups
gonna hate. Given the broad interpretation of hate speech which many organisations use in their
work, it is important that attempts to combat the problem keep in mind this balance, and pay
attention to the need for different approaches, depending on the context of the utterances, the
intended aim or motivation, the profile of the individuals or groups which have been targeted,
and the likely consequences. A recent article by Sergei Smirnov of the Russian Human Right
Network61 illustrates the dangers in assuming that legislation designed to protect the most

vulnerable may not come to be used by the most powerful to protect either financial interests or
political reputation. He lists a number of cases where politicians or companies have successfully
used legislation to remove sites or comments which they regarded as detrimental to their
interests.Nevertheless, and despite the dangers, it is clear that the worst expressions of hate are
not only very hurtful, but also potentially dangerous, and therefore almost certainly require some
supervision and control. Speech is a powerful weapon which can be used to marginalise,
intimidate anddemean still further those who have already been rendered vulnerable by society.
The ease and global reach of the internet, and the dangers in allowing free reign to all forms of
expression not just for individuals and groups but for society as a whole at times necessitate
restriction of free speech. Control of the more extreme forms of hate speech are not carried out
despite human rights,but in the name of human rights.

Impact of Hate Speech:Hate speeches can cause massacres

Why? Because like the holocaust, 9/11, and many other crimes are caused by hate speech. There
is a 99.9 percent chance that hate speeches can cause all this, because it brainwashes people. For
example: Osoma bin ladin teaches his people bad things by hate speech. In fact, it caused 9/11.
So banning public hate speeches can save millions of lives
Hate speech does sometimes lead to crimes and violent actions because speech can sometimes
incite violence. Thus, that person can become involved in a violent fight or confrontation.
Incidentally, if someone is racist or hateful enough to say something aloud, there's nothing
stopping them from engaging in violent activity. It may not be in every case that hate speech will
lead to crimes, but generally speaking it can and sometimes does.
Hate Speech Encourages Violence
Hate speech not only encourages hate on a personal level, but can justify ACTIONS of hate
against and individual or group of persons. I personally experienced this in my childhood; a
relative was always talking bad about a particular ethnic group. When I was about 7 years old,
we had a family of that ethnicity as neighbors. She was about a year younger than I. She said

something I didn't like, and I poked that little girl in the arm with some scissors we were playing
with!! I didn't see that I had done anything wrong because I thought she 'deserved' it, after all,
according to my relative, they weren't nice people so it's ok to hurt them. I will never forget that
little girl's face, it has haunted me all my life. Is hate speech a precursor to crime and violence?
When you use hate speech, you believe what you are saying to that group of people. There is
sure to come a time when you are confronted with a member of that group, and your rage comes
to a boil. Your hatred that has built up from saying hateful things will overflow, and you will
become violent. There is always going to be that tipping point, where your words become
actions.
Inciting and persuading people to act on it
Even with free speech, people should still be careful of their speech. One's speech may not
physically injure whomever it's addressing, however people who hear the speech that agree with
it may commit violence to the ones being addressed. After all while one might not intend for
their speech to be taken seriously, people who support said speech may act upon it.

Causes society to be more accepting of certain violent behaviors.

When people are exposed to language that appeals to feelings of hatred, fear, or intolerance, it
conveys the message that such feelings towards certain people or behaviors are not only
acceptable, but to be emulated. Sociologists call this a "social construct", the creation of certain
expectations which cause people to act in certain ways to meet those expectations. Hate speech
creates the social construct, and violent behavior is the logical result Hate speech should not be
tolerated. It encourages further violence. Hate speech is used against not only the person it is
directed at, but at all of those around. It is offensive to all exposed to it. Hate speech should be
treated as the threat and as the crime that it is.
Riots from hate Speech :-

1984 Riots :-One of the most reputed actors of the Hindi Film Industry, an individual who is
respected by the masses and is vocal various causes is being accused of instigating the killing of
Sikhs during the 1984 riots. Ms. Jagdish Kaur, a prime witness of the riots is accusing him of
such a heinous crime.
A bit of background information: in 1984, post the assassination of PM Indira Gandhi by her
Sikh bodyguard, Satwant Singh and Beant Singh, there was a mass uprising in Delhi which
resulted in extremely bloody riots with Sikhs being the target.
In an interview with Times of India in 2011, Ms. Jagdish Kaur stated that her family was not a
part of the political uprising in any manner. However, as Sikhs were being targeted, she watched
her innocent husband and sons being killed by a mob of people who invaded her house in West
Delhi on November 1, 1984. Her three brothers were burned alive. She is accusing Mr. Bachchan
as she recollects watching the relay on Doordarshan at the time following the death of Indira
Gandhi, Mr. Bachchan angrily stating, "Khoon ka badla hum khoon se lenge!", which was a live
telecast.
After the tragic incident, a U.S. based Sikh human rights group lodged a formal complaint in
Australia against Mr. Bachchan for participating in provoking the riots. This is was done in
Australia instead of India or the United States as Australia's Criminal Code 1995 declares that
Australian courts have jurisdiction in other nations whenever there is a case of human rights
violation and crimes against humanity.
Ms. Kaur painfully states that any mention of Amitabh Bachchan or even his work reminds her
of the horrific riots of 1984.

Hate Speech for Vote Bank:National Highway 58, heading north-east from Delhi, roughly divides Muzaffarnagar, Uttar
Pradesh, into two geographical and ironical halves-the Muslim colonies are on the left and the
Hindus on the right. On September 10, the town's bustling streets, which often smell of ripe
sugarcane being transported on spluttering tractors, are as silent as a grave. The only people on
the road are from the Uttar Pradesh Police, the state's Provincial Armed Constabulary, CRPF, and
the Indian Army. Three days ago, these streets had been filled with screaming mobs brandishing

every kind of weapon imaginable-guns, knives, machetes, lathis, and sticks wrapped with barbed
wire. For them, this was a holy war. Their intention was to wound, maim and kill. The death toll
in Muzaffarnagar district has touched 40 in Hindu-Muslim violence reminiscent of the Gujarat
riots a decade ago, and the 1992 Babri Masjid agitation. Hospitals are brimming with more
wounded than they can handle. Police stations have turned into refugee camps. And politicians
from BJP, Congress, Rashtriya Lok Dal (RLD) and Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) have been
booked for making hate speeches and sending inflammatory text messages as the ruling
Samajwadi Party (SP) has chosen to blame everyone but itself.Muzaffarnagar, where the politics
of division has reached a flashpoint, is a blood-stained warning that body counts are immaterial
in the hunger for power. The real danger is that this tragedy may be the harbinger of an even
darker gloom.

Various leaders indulge in hate speech

Praveen Togadia leader of Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) making a hate speech in the Nanded
district of the state last week. alleged that hate speech cases lodged against him in Andhra
Pradesh and Maharashtra were an attempt by vote-greedy political people to engage him in
legal tangles.
There are concerted political efforts to fix me in malicious cases and, thereby, distract the nation
from the core issue construction of a Ram temple at Ayodhya, Mr. Togadia said in a statement.
Akbaruddin Owaisi spoke in Hyderabad, referring to the police force of Andhra Pradesh using
the derogatory phrase "army of impotent people".He then incited the audience by challenging the
Chief Minister to remove the police and then see who has more power. He further added that
they (Hindus or the police force) do not have the courage to fight Muslims. Owaisi claimed in
another speech that "lakhs (hundreds of thousands) of Muslims were killed after Indian
independence.
Suddenly a speech delivered by Akberuddin Owaisi is in sharp public focus. This is not the first
hate speech delivered in India nor will it be the last. What define this speech are the obnoxious
levels of rhetoric against a community coupled with its propagation through the social and
electronic media.

Leaders from different religious, caste, regional, linguistic and ethnic communities in India are
known for their hate speeches. But most got away with whatever vitriol they spewed before the
era of electronic and social media due to lack of clinching evidence. Even if some speech was
made, it would reach people more as a report and not directly and hence did not evoke strong
responses as compared to present times where it could be viewed, reposted and reviewed by
hundreds of thousands with outmost ease as it goes viral. Because of this direct access to content
by potentially limitless viewers, its ability to hurt (and to be manipulated by vested interests),
becomes manifold. Further, the audio visual format makes the content undeniable and exposes
any subsequent statements of misreporting or misquote as false.

Impacts All Communities

Though a hate speech is generally taken to hurt the sentiments of one particular community /
group, it also impacts the other community in multiple ways. First, the right thinking people of
the other community- and most people in any community so far are fortunately right thinkingare also dismayed and feel the hurt to varying degrees. Second, it gives a bad image to the
community. Individuals also feel tainted for no fault of their but can do little except feel
defensive and find themselves exposed to counter profiling, taunts and even physical violence.
Fourth, with each hate speech, more and more neutrals and liberals of the other community
tend to become partisan leading to greater polarization.

But this is precisely the aim of

communal politicians- maximum polarization for electoral gains.

Finally, in the case of the speech of Akber Owaisi, it also goes against the very basic precepts of
Islam that exhorts its followers not to say anything against any other religion. In the Quran it is
clearly written Revile not ye those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest they out of spite
Revile Allah in their ignorance (Quran: 6-108) and an entire Sura (Chapter) devoted to the
theme that is as follows I worship not that which you worship, Nor will you worship that which
I worship, to you be your way and to me mine (Quran: 109- 2,3 & 6)
Tolerating Hate Politics: Reasons and Consequences

The prime reason for continuation of hate speeches, communal conflicts and riots is lack of
political will of the government of the day to take appropriate action. This could be due to fear of
a backlash or political expediency as the government may be dependent on or in coalition with
the communal forces or in most cases afraid of losing the vote of the community against whose
member(s) some action is warranted. Most actions in India against communal elements have
been on the directions of courts and not because of the initiatives of the governments.
In fact, despite court directions, the investigation and prosecution (that is under the control of
governments) is diluted to enable the accused to go free. Hence the rate of convictions in
communal offences is abysmally low and emboldens communal forces to continue their
nefarious activities brazenly for electoral gains. People have even become Chief Ministers
through hate speeches and riots adding to the attraction of communal politics.
But every act of hate speech or conflict that goes unpunished further divides society and
encourages violence and promotes politics of hate where development issues take a back seat and
leaders get elected not because of their service to people but manipulation of community
sentiments. The youth on both sides are the worst affected as they get swayed and engage in
violence that affects both their character and careers.
Strong but Impartial Action Accepted by People
Past experiences show that there are negligible protests from a few fringe elements whenever
governments have taken firm action. Examples are of the arrest of Pravin Togadia by the
Rajasthan Government; disfranchisement of Bal Thackeray by the Bombay High Court that was
upheld by the Supreme Court of India; and most significant, the arrest of L.K. Advani by Lalu
Prased Yadav during the Rath Yatra of mid 80s that made Lalu Prased a hero and propelled him
on to the National scene.
Communities do react negatively but only when they perceive inaction or discrimination or
selective persecution. Minority and marginalised communities are particularly sensitive in these
matters. When no action is taken when it is warranted or when action is taken against one person
or group and not others or equal action is not taken, the community protests the discrimination
even when it may disapprove of the acts of its own members against whom action is being taken.
In fact, inaction or selective action or discriminatory action on the part of government

antagonises even the normal or indifferent people and communalises them to eventually add to
the numbers of fanatics.

So if governments fail to take appropriate action to nip in the bud hate speeches and riots that
lead to polarisation, it will communalise more and more people to eventually start giving
electoral dividends. With the prospects of electoral dividends, hate speeches and riots will
increase to strengthen communal politics. But communal politics just play on sentiments of
people and have little to offer in terms of development and empowerment and so when politics
becomes communal, common people of all communities, majority or minority, come to suffer in
multiple ways.

Sentiments Vs Human Life

Sentiments are very important but far more important are human lives- each and every human
life. Whenever hate speeches are delivered, there is public outcry and demand for severe action.
But when people die in communal violence, most of them become statistic and there is hardly
any feeling of personal hurt, public revulsion or sustained demand for punishment of the guilty.
Are sentiments more important and precious than human lives? Or is it because most people who
die in riots are either the poor or minorities or marginalised?
(Mazher Hussain is Executive Director of COVA, a national network working on issues of
communal harmony in India and peace in South Asia.)
Note: This article has been sent to a media house for publication. Please do not reproduce
without permission from the author.
Vinay Katiyar was the chief coordinator of Bajrang dal and leader of BJP at the time of Babri
demolition he is the main person who attract youth towards the temple movement .He is famous
for his unique speaking skills which attract the attention of not only domestic media but also
international media

Raj Thackeray Maharashtra Navnirman Sena chief Raj on Monday came under all round fire
for threatening to throw out Biharis from Maharashtra even as a case was filed against him in
Nalanda for his hate speech A complaint was registered against the MNS chief in Nalanda
district court by a social activist under several sections of the IPC.

CONCLUSION
The communal problem is one that has been plaguing Modern Indian polity since its very
inception The only reason that our society is still vulnerable to communal forces is because of
the lack of secularization of civil society. The more independent our civil lives become of
religious influences, the lesser will be the communal strife. An important observation, is that the
people are themselves independent of any communal tendencies, and almost all instances of
communal violence have been politically motivated. The people of India have been time and
again subjected to political propaganda that is communal in nature, and the only real solution to
this problem can be derived from the collective will of the people. The people of India desire
communal harmony, it seems the only thing standing in the way is the politics surrounding
communalism. People can only be swayed by communal forces for so long, many still hope that
Hindu-Muslim unity is not a lost cause. Religion is not bad but fundamentalism for religion is
bad. Religions were made to organise the human being and motivate them towards the good path.
Religion should be used in progressive manner. Religion is made to develop morality,
behaviour ,spirituality, self confidence within a human being. No religion is made for fight, the
inner spirit of each religion is that people should live peacefully. Religion is the only thing which
unite our country from north to south and from west to east there is no other similarity in India
which exist throughout the country we have different types of culture different languages
different food habits except our religion so we have to use this religion as a binding source and
not as the dividing force we shall have to protect the rights of the minorities and provide them a
safe and fearless society where they have to the equal opportunities to grow develop and
compete with the majority.
This is the time when we have to realize the real spirit of Indian culture which is sarve bhavantu
sukhina, sarve santu niramaya ,sarve bhadrani pashyantu ma kashchid dukh bhad bhavet when
we follow this spirit of the Indian culture than only we are able to make a good society where
peoples from all religion feel themselves secure.