Tag: hate speech india

Govt Must Say ‘Enough Is Enough’ and Put a Stop to Recurring Incidents of Hate Speech

It is time for the executive arm of the government as well as the political governance structures to display sagacity and shout out that enough is enough and put a stop to recurring incidents of hate speech.

An abridged version of Justice Madan B. Lokur and Shruti Narayan’s chapter in the anthology Religion, Hateful Expression and Violence is published here with the permission of the Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher (TOAEP).

In Jafar Imam Naqvi v. Election Commission of India, the issue of political hate speech re-entered the discourse of the Supreme Court during the 2014 parliamentary elections. In this case, the petitioner sought, inter alia, that the Election Commission should be directed to derecognize political parties resorting to “illegal” activities, referring to speeches stoking religious tensions. The Supreme Court’s judgment ignored the specific plea made by the petitioner, and instead mainly focused on reasons why it should not enter the legislative field and issue “guidelines”. Despite the clear danger that hate speech presents, the Court essentially abandoned the issue as one that should only be dealt with post facto, stating that: 

The matter of handling hate speeches could be a matter of adjudication in an appropriate legal forum and may also have some impact in an election dispute raised under the Representation of People Act, 1951. Therefore, to entertain a petition as a public interest litigation and to give directions would be inappropriate.

The Court unfortunately missed an opportunity to lay down the limits of hate speech which gets aggravated during electioneering.

The Supreme Court’s most recent judgment considering the issue of hate speech is Amish Devgan v. Union of India (‘Amish Devgan’). Devgan, a television journalist, faced criminal charges under various provisions of the IPC. The charges were filed after he referred to a saint in Islám as an “invader, terrorist and robber who had come to India to convert its population to Islam”, during a TV programme hosted by him. The Court refused to quash the criminal cases, which is an affirmation of the adequacy of existing criminal law to recognize hate speech, even if made accidentally or in error, as was claimed by Devgan. In its rather lengthy judgment, the Court embarked on a comprehensive review of Indian and foreign decisions on hate speech while referring to some helpful academic articles.

The Court referred to the guaranteed right to equality in Article 14 of the Constitution and its various facets, including the right to dignity. The Indian Constitution prescribes not just rights but also duties, including the duty of citizens to promote harmony and fraternity, which the Court noted must transcend “religious […] diversities”. The Court distinguished between dignity which can be protected by criminalizing hate speech and a broader or more individualistic concept of dignity, which is protected by defamation law. In the former context, the Court held dignity as meaning “a person’s basic entitlement as a member of a society in good standing, his status as a social equal, and as bearer of human rights and constitutional entitlements”. The Court accorded dignity great importance, as being linked to the “unity and integrity of the nation” and held that divisiveness and alienation affects not only the dignity of the target group but also the pluralism and diversity of the country. 

The Supreme Court of India. Credit: The Wire

The Supreme Court of India. Photo: The Wire

In discussing various subjective factors necessitating evaluation for deciding whether speech is punishable as hate speech, the Court referred to academic articles on the subject, including an essay titled ‘Defining Hate Speech’ which deals with hate speech in various jurisdictions. The Supreme Court broadly accepted that the content of a speech must be coupled with the intent of the speaker to incite or cause harm. The Court also referred to an article which outlined the three elements of hate speech – content, intent, and harm or impact. The problem, in the authors’ opinion, is the unsatisfactory manner in which the Court dealt with the harm or impact that hate speech might have.

On the content aspect, the Court accepted an earlier view that “the effect of the words must be judged from the standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous men, and not those of weak and vacillating minds, nor of those who scent danger in every hostile point of view”. On the intent aspect, the Court accepted the view that: 

The intent-based element of ‘hate speech’ requires the speaker’s message to intend only to promote hatred, violence or resentment against a particular class or group without communicating any legitimate message. This requires subjective intent on the part of the speaker to target the group or person associated with the class/group.

The Supreme Court also cited various definitions not previously considered by it or by the Law Commission. One of the definitions views hate speech as a racial insult intended to demean a group, while another explains it as expression intended to “vilify, humiliate or incite hatred” against a target. 

The Court also affirmed that the freedom of speech may not be arbitrarily restrained by hate speech laws. The Court opined that there is a ‘good faith’ defence available where a speaker displays prudence and caution with his or her expression or content; and that there is also a ‘legitimate purpose’ defence available where the speech has some clear purpose other than just spreading hatred or intent. This is a corollary to the definition of hate speech in Black’s Law Dictionary, which views hate speech as speech with no redeeming purpose other than spreading hatred. The Court held that the “legitimate purpose” defence is particularly applicable in cases of any publication having a genuine public interest purpose.

Hate Speech and Fair Criticism of Government 

In Amish Devgan, the Court sought to clarify the law on restraining free speech by holding that speech which threatens the security of the State is not the same as speech prohibited by other provisions of the IPC. Even within the context of speech relating to government and public administration, the Court reaffirmed that the right to “favour or criticise” government policies is within the right to free speech, and such “political speech” does not constitute hate speech. 

In the present context, this is an important distinction which needs to be understood by the police. The misuse of these provisions of law to target people making political comments is illustrated in the case of Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya. This case was decided by the Supreme Court on 25 March, 2021, just over three months after the passage of the judgment in Amish Devgan. Mukhim is a journalist in the north-eastern State of Meghalaya, where conflicts sometimes occur between tribal and non-tribal communities. In July 2020, Mukhim wrote a Facebook post criticizing the “apathy” of the State government functionaries in not taking any action in relation to an incident where certain persons attacked non-tribals. She was charged in a criminal case accusing her of promoting enmity between groups on grounds of religion and race as well as promoting hatred or ill-will. 

The Supreme Court quashed the criminal case against Mukhim. In its judgment, it held that the Facebook post was an attempt to “highlight the discrimination against non-tribals in the State of Meghalaya” and in fact “pleads for equality of non-tribals in the State of Meghalaya”. There was no discernible intent to promote hatred of any community. The Court went on to note that within India’s multi-cultural society, where citizens enjoy the right to free movement within the country, there is potential for conflict which cannot be ignored. The Court held that: 

The fervent plea made by the Appellant for protection of non-tribals living in the State of Meghalaya and for their equality cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be categorized as hate speech. It was a call for justice – for action according to law, which every citizen has a right to expect and articulate. Disapprobation of governmental inaction cannot be branded as an attempt to promote hatred between different communities.

Shillong Times editor Patricia Mukhim. Photo: Facebook

Does the Impact of Hate Speech Need to Be ‘Violent’?

The Supreme Court in Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan had already held that the impact of hate speech may include a non-violent psychological impact. This was reiterated by the Law Commission. However, in Amish Devgan, the Court noted that speech which goes beyond political criticism and “defames, stigmatizes and insults the targeted group provoking violence or psychosocial hatred” is not protected free speech. The Court elaborated that speech reflecting “hate which tends to vilify, humiliate and incite hatred or violence against the target group upon identity of the group” can be punished. In doing so, the Court appears to be veering towards the view that hate speech must extend to incitement to violence, if not violence itself. It was observed that in the absence of actual violence or public disorder “something more than words, in the form of ‘clear and present danger’ or ‘imminent lawless action’, either by the maker or by others at the maker’s instigation is required”.

The ‘clear and present danger’ and the ‘imminent lawless action’ tests are two distinct tests in US constitutional law, but have been equated by the Indian Supreme Court. These expressions are employed in the context of public disorder or violence and not simply in the context of promoting feelings of hatred. This equation of the two distinct tests by the Indian Supreme Court has made it simple for the Court to decline any answer to the question as to whether, for example, economic boycott of a particular community falls within the meaning of ‘clear and present danger’ or ‘imminent lawless action’ in the context of public disorder. The Supreme Court did not elaborate on how the ‘clear and present danger’ and the ‘imminent lawless action’ tests may be applied to evaluate whether a given speech would promote feelings of hatred against a particular community without extending to physical harm. The Court merely accepted an earlier view that to criminalize speech, it is necessary to establish a proximate nexus with clear and present danger or imminent lawless action and public disorder or violence. The Court appears to recognize this problem but does not provide any satisfactory conclusion, holding: 

Having interpreted the relevant provisions, we are conscious of the fact that we have given primacy to the precept of ‘interest of public order’ and by relying upon ‘imminent lawless action’ principle, not given due weightage to the long-term impact of ‘hate’ speech as a propaganda on both the targeted and non-targeted groups. This is not to undermine the concept of dignity, which is the fundamental foundation on the basis of which the citizens must interact between themselves and with the State. […]. Further, a ‘hate speech’ meeting the criteria of ‘clear and present danger’ or ‘imminent lawless action’ would necessarily have long term negative effect. Lastly, we are dealing with penal or criminal action and, therefore, have to balance the right to express and speak with retaliatory criminal proceedings. We have to also prevent abuse and check misuse. 

In the authors’ opinion, the Supreme Court has taken a step back from its pronouncement in Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan and the recommendation of the Law Commission. Incitement to a non-violent reaction to hate speech is as much an offence as any. For example, an economic boycott of members of a minority community amounts to discriminatory treatment with an intent to humiliate and is, therefore, punishable under the existing legal provisions. Such an action is a direct manifestation of feelings of hate. While the Court in Amish Devgan does not expressly state as much, its silence is likely to be taken as an indication that only incitement to violence or a likelihood of violence will matter for prosecution under the law. Such an interpretation would go against the hate speech jurisprudence somewhat ambiguously elucidated in the decision in Amish Devgan itself. To avoid any doubt as to understanding speech as hate speech, it may be preferable to introduce specific provisions making hate speech an offence as proposed by the Law Commission in its Report regardless of the harm or impact on society or a community or an individual.

The Supreme Court in Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan pointed out that the existing legal provisions could be used to prosecute and punish hate speech when it occurred. In Amish Devgan, the Court refused to quash the criminal case against the journalist accused of making a hate speech. It appears that the judiciary approved the use of existing law to prosecute hate speech. However, upon examining some major contemporary incidents of divisive and hateful speech, it appears that the police are not always proactive in investigating, let alone prosecuting, such incidents.

Contemporary incidents of hate speech, its weaponization

Constitutionally guaranteed free speech in India is at a crossroads. It must be appreciated that hate speech can never be protected, whether it is direct or inferential, whether it is verbal or non-verbal. Therefore, a clear definition of hate speech is necessary. While it is true that it may eventually be difficult to have a precise definition of hate speech, a beginning is necessary. Time, it is said, is a great healer and the gradual passage of time can also bring about a balance in the definition that may be needed for a clearer understanding of the distinction between free speech and hate speech. 

The Supreme Court of India has accepted the content, intent and impact or harm as a working module for defining hate speech. This must be carried forward, although the authors believe that the ‘impact or harm’ factor as understood by the Supreme Court is narrow. Hate speech need not result in violence or a possibility of violence. Hate speech can disturb the mental equilibrium of any person who is targeted and this can manifest itself in psychosocial problems and trauma. These are not visible manifestations of the impact or harm caused by hate speech but are nevertheless quite real and must be recognized. 

In this context, it would be worth exploring the possibility of introducing the theory of absolute liability to criminalize hate speech. The Supreme Court has observed that hate speech has no redeeming or legitimate purpose other than hatred towards a particular group (or an individual). If that be so, with the introduction of absolute liability, the likelihood of possibility of harm or an adverse impact on a group or a person loses its relevance. As long as the content test and the intent test are met, it might be possible to successfully prosecute the maker of hate speech.

Hate speech in India is resulting in polarization and divisiveness. In the absence of any clear understanding on what constitutes hate speech, the police are virtually having a free hand on whom to prosecute and to let off. This also puts the courts in a quandary, especially in matters relating to the grant of discretionary bail. Unless hate speech is checked immediately, its impact will be long-term and dangerous to society and perhaps the country itself. It is time for the executive arm of the government as well as the political governance structures to display sagacity and shout out that enough is enough and put a stop to recurring incidents of hate speech, both verbal as well as non-verbal. 

The judiciary too should be alive to the consequence of hate speech not being punished suitably and in time. It is often said that ‘delay defeats justice’. But what is more problematic with delay in punishing hate speech is not that justice is denied, but that freedoms in a free society get compromised or corroded to the detriment of targeted individuals, groups or communities. The Supreme Court appears to have taken notice of the urgency of policing hate speech. In a petition seeking redress against the proliferation of hate speech, the Court in October 2022 directed three state police forces to take immediate action to register cases against any incidents of hate speech in their jurisdictions, “even if no complaint is forthcoming”. The Court extended its order to all states in April 2023. It remains to be seen, however, whether state authorities use this order to prosecute genuine cases of hate speech. 

No democracy can afford to have sections of society lose these freedoms and allow hate to take over. Therefore, the time is ripe for India to introspect and take the lead – and the time starts now.

‘Hate Speech Has Become Fashion’: Gurugram Court Denies Bail to Jamia Shooter

In a strongly worded order, the court said that people who disturb peace and harmony are ‘more dangerous’ than the COVID-19 pandemic and are the biggest impediment to nation building.

New Delhi: A Gurugram court has rejected the bail application of the Jamia shooter, who was arrested by the Haryana police recently after he gave a provocative speech at a mahapanchayat in Pataudi.

Judicial magistrate Mohammed Sageer, in a strongly worded order, said that giving hate speeches has become a ‘fashion’ and that those encouraging sectarian violence are doing more damage to the country than the COVID-19 pandemic.

The young man from Jewar, who was a minor when he shot a crowd of Jamia Millia students who were protesting against the Citizenship Amendment Act in early 2020, was arrested on July 12 after a complaint was filed against his speech at the mahapanchayat.

In the order, the judicial magistrate said that hate speeches go beyond causing distress to individual group members.

“It can have a societal impact. Hate speech lays the groundwork for later, broad attacks on vulnerable [sections] that can range from discrimination, to ostracism, segregation, deportation, violence and, in the most extreme cases, to genocide,” the order records.

Rejecting the argument of the petitioner’s counsel that the man is young and innocent, magistrate Sageer said, “The accused before the court is not a simple innocent young boy knowing nothing rather he is showing that what he has done in past, has now become capable to execute his hatred without any fear and also that he can move the mass[es] to [be] involve[d] in his hatred.”

The court referred to the fact that as per information given by the investigating officer, and admitted to by the counsels for the petitioner, this is the same person who had brandished an illegal weapon and opened fire at students of Jamia.

Though an FIR was registered at the New Friends Colony police station in Delhi at the time, he was a minor at the time. “The concession given by the courts of law due to his minority has not been taken in good sense by this accused. Rather it seems that he has taken the concession in wrong perspective that he can do anything, even to destroy the very fundamental feature of the constitution which we called ‘secularism’ by his hate speech,” the magistrate said.

“He has posed a real threat by his act that he will do whatever he wishes, what will the forces responsible for maintaining law, order and peace would do? He also posed a question to the state and to the courts of law whether it has power to uphold the Rule of Law?” the order says.

Every citizen has a right to express his thoughts but not in a which targets a particular community and while promoting enmity, the order said, noting that during his speech, the accused “can be seen instigating the mob for doing unlawful acts… instigating abduction of girls of a particular community and their forceful conversion”.

“He seems to be very proud of his antecedents. He even instigated to kill persons of a particular community and change slogans in this regard. Slogans and languages used by him, are clearly offensive and aimed to outrage the religious feelings of one particular group and promoting enmity between different groups/ religious community,” the magistrate said.

“Such activities cannot be tolerated in any civilised society. Hate speech based on religion or caste has become fashion nowadays. The police also seems to be helpless of dealing with such incidents. These kinds of activities are actually disturbing the secular fabric of our country and killing the spirit of the Constitution of India,” it says, adding that anyone who is a threat to the peace of the society and particularly to religious harmony cannot be allowed to roam freely.

“Such kind of people are actually disturbing the secular character of our nation and are the biggest impediment [to] nation building … the common man is under constant threat of violence in the name of religion, caste etc,” the order says.

The incident cannot be seen only as a young man’s religious intolerance because it has “far more serious and … dangerous hidden consequences”. If the accused is granted bail, the very existence of communal harmony may be disturbed and a wrong message will be sent that hate speeches are acceptable in society.

“The faith of common man has to be restored that the state is having [a] secular character and not in support of such kind of persons, promoting hatred and enmity in the name of religion, caste etc. It is the time to give a strong message to such anti-social elements who distribute hatred based on religion etc by way of hate speech that the Rule of Law still prevails,” the magistrate said.

Restraining the accused behind bars will send a strong message that India is an inclusive society where people of all faiths will flourish and have mutual respect. The court will also ensure that the rule of law reigns supreme, the order says.

“Our Constitution even gives protection to non citizens of India, then its the duty of the state as well as the judiciary to ensure that citizens of India of any religion or faith or caste should not feel unprotected and that such hate mongers cannot walk freely without any fear,” it says.

People like the accused are more dangerous that the COVID-19 pandemic, since the latter takes the “life of any person without seeing the religion or caste”. If any communal violence takes after hate speeches like the one the accused gave, then lots of “innocent lives will be lost only on the basis of religion and without any negligence on the part of such innocent people”.

The court was also wary of the fact that if released on bail, the accused may not indulge in unconstitutional and illegal activities once again, but could also impede the investigation by threatening the complainant and other witnesses.

“At this juncture, rights of the accused of his personal liberty cannot be preferred against the right of the society in peaceful communal harmony and balance lies in favour of the later,” the magistrate said.

The counsels for the petitioner argued that at the same mahapanchayat, several other persons had also given, hate speeches, but only the petitioner has been made an accused and was arrested “as he is outsider and has no political connection”. The counsel also argued that other orators, “who are powerful persons”, gave inflammatory speeches but no action has been taken against them. This shows the biased attitude of the Haryana police against his client, the counsel argued.

While the counsel did not name any persons, it was perhaps a reference to BJP spokesperson Suraj Pal Amu, who incited residents of Pataudi against Muslims.

Magistrate Sageer said that the court was informed that police has received a complaint only against the present accused and later if evidence is found during the investigation against other persons, they would also be arrested as per law.

Kaushik Raj and Alishan Jafri, in a piece for The Wire, had reported recently that the Jamia shooter’s social media posts contain a host of hate speeches that he has made at public events. Since he was let off on bail after shooting at CAA protestors last year, he has given at least three communal speeches which incite violence against Muslims. There also posts which suggest that the shooter and his ‘group’ may have shot and/or injured several people as part of vigilante violence under the garb of ‘cow protection’.

Jamia shooter bail denied by The Wire on Scribd

Facebook’s Uneven Enforcement of Hate Speech Rules in India Highlighted in New Study

A research report by advocacy group Equality Labs has concluded that the social networking giant has done little to effectively moderate speech that violates the company’s own guidelines.

New Delhi: Facebook failed to permanently delete hundreds of posts that targeted caste and religious minorities in India even after they were reported to the social networking giant, a new research report by a South Asian American human rights organisation has claimed.

Equality Labs, an advocacy group that focuses on technology and human rights, studied the process these posts go through after being reported over a period of four months in 2018.

A team of 20 international researchers – that included Dalits, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, and others – systematically recorded 1,000 Facebook posts that they found to be in violation of the platform’s community standards.

Also read: On Social Media, Hate Speech Is Ok – Reporting It May Cost You

Their findings? Over 40% of all the posts that were removed – after they reported them – were restored after a period of 90 days on average. An overwhelming majority of the posts that were restored were Islamophobic in nature.

The research group selected posts that they deemed to be characteristic of ‘Tier-1’ hate speech, which constitutes grounds for immediate removal from the platform.

Facebook defines Tier 1 hate speech as :

“Attacks, which target a person or group of people who share one of the above-listed characteristics or immigration status (including all subsets except those described as having carried out violent crimes or sexual offences), where attack is defined as any violent speech or support in written or visual form.

Dehumanising speech such as reference or comparison to: Insects, Animals that are culturally perceived as intellectually or physically inferior, Filth, bacteria, disease and faeces, Sexual predator, Subhumanity, Violent and sexual criminals, Other criminals (including but not limited to “thieves”, “bank robbers” or saying that “all [protected characteristic or quasi-protected characteristic] are ‘criminals'”)

Mocking the concept, events or victims of hate crimes, even if no real person is depicted in an image

Designated dehumanising comparisons in both written and visual form”

Despite the clearly mentioned guidelines, this is one example of a post that was initially removed but later restore:

Translation: Those illegitimate children whose mothers took their salwars off after seeing swords in the hands of Mughals today proudly claim to be Muslim: Do you agree with Yogiji’s statement?)

“All community standards violations identified were reported to Facebook using the user reporting mechanisms and Facebook’s response systematically tracked. Through this approach, we created a data set of over 1000 violating Facebook posts, spanning 4 key Indian languages,” one of the researchers told The Wire.

The report states that of all the hate speech posts reported, astonishingly, over 90% continue to exist on the platform and these posts advocate violence, use slurs and are characteristic of the Tier 1 hate speech standards mentioned above.

Also read: Amid Growing Online Hate, India Must Reconsider Immunities to Facebook, Twitter

“By tracking Facebook’s response to our violation reports, we were also able to gain significant insights into Facebook’s moderation performance. Our review of a 1000+ moderation decisions suggests that there are significant issues with the moderation process as it affects India and makes Indian caste, religious, gender, and queer minorities as well as civil society activists and journalists extremely vulnerable on these platforms,” the researcher added.

Not enough languages

Another problem that the report – which is titled ‘Facebook India, Towards the Tipping Point of Violence’ – brings out is that the platform’s hate speech guidelines are not translated into local languages commonly used in India, even though the organisation had engaged with Facebook on the issue of localisation on earlier instances.

At present, the Facebook pages that lay out community standards for Indian languages often present just the headings in a regional language while the rest of the text is in English.

The report slams Facebook for its failure to protect users: “How can Facebook guarantee the safety of all of its users if the basic community standards are not available for all to read?….Safety cannot be an afterthought — it must be central to the production workflow”.

Castiesm is another area that the study examines. According to the report, the rate of removal for reported posts was the lowest in the casteism category.

Here’s an instance of a group that continues to exist on Facebook despite being reported repeatedly:

An example of content that targets a specific caste on Facebook. Credit: Equality Labs

An example of content that targets a specific caste on Facebook. Credit: Equality Labs

Misogyny and posts that promote online violence against women continue to plague the platform, as do transphobic and homophobic posts. There are also posts targeting Christian minorities in India, the report notes.

‘This report is a snap shot of our advocacy that was meant to uncover what is going on with their (Facebook’s) content moderation. The report  is a beginning of a necessary conversation to allow more Indians more insight into how Facebook works, how so much hate speech has become normalised, and the categories of hate speech that are now commonplace. There is so much of this content in many of our languages that it was not hard to find it is omnipresent. Our study was analysing Facebook’s response. Our secondary goal was to provide the content analysis,” said Thenmozhi Soundararajan, executive director of Equality labs.

Also read: Why Facebook Is Losing the War on Hate Speech in Myanmar

“This data set also provides a unique window into the type of problematic content that circulates on Facebook during the pre-election period in India, and the type of rhetoric and attacks that Indian minorities have become normalised against,” she added.

In a separate response to The Wire, Equality Labs said that although their research is only a small window into the larger problem of moderation, the findings raise critical concerns which they believe would warrant a thorough audit of the company’s moderation process in the country.

“This audit team must have clear competencies in caste, religious, and gender/queer minorities and include members of Indian minorities in its composition,” the organisation noted.

Mariya Salim is a researcher and women’s rights activist.

Karnataka Journalist Arrested for Hate Speech Against Prophet Mohammed, Tipu Sultan

Santosh Thammaiah, the editor of right-leaning magazine ‘Aseema’, has been accused of saying, “It was because of the Prophet’s ideologies that Tipu Sultan carried out terrorist acts”.

New Delhi: After allegedly making several inflammatory comments Prophet Mohammed and Tipu Sultan last week, in the run up to the Karnataka state government’s celebrations of Tipu Jayanti, journalist Santosh Thammaiah has been arrested and booked under Section 295A (deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings or any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs) of the Indian Penal Code.

The editor of right-leaning magazine Aseema, Thammaiah, according to the complaint filed against him, had said: “It was because of the Prophet’s ideologies that Tipu Sultan carried out terrorist acts.”

Thammaiah made the comments at an event organised by Hindutva group Pragnya Kaveri titled ‘Tipu Karaala Mukha Anaavarana’ (the exposure of Tipu’s dark side).

The complaint was filed by a resident of Siddapura, Askar KV on November 6. “Such speech can lead to unrest and disrupt the peace in Kodagu as Santosh Thammaiah has insulted the Prophet in his speech,” Askar’s complaint states.

Also read: Odisha Police Arrest Commentator for Satirical Video on Konark Monument

According to The News Minute, “Such speech can lead to unrest and disrupt the peace in Kodagu as Santosh Thammaiah has insulted the Prophet in his speech,” Askar’s complaint states.

Askar’s complaint alleges that Thammaiah’s speech was aimed at creating unrest between the minority community of Muslims from Kerala, who are residing in Kodagu, and the Hindus in the region. Askar also filed a complaint against an RSS man from Mysuru, Santosh Hosalli, alleging that Hosalli, too, made inflammatory statements against the Muslim community residing in Kodagu.”

The police has said that permission was never granted for the event to take place. “They did not have police permission to organise the event. Yet they went ahead and held the programme. The complaint was filed on November 6 and we told the complainant that we can arrest Santosh after Tipu Jayanti celebrations, as there was a possibility that some clashes may have erupted,” the Gonikoppa police told The News Minute.

Taking umbrage to Thammaiah’s words, on November 11, several Muslim organisations protested outside the Gonikoppa police station, demanding that Thammaiah be arrested.

Within hours of his arrest at midnight on Monday, a social media campaign began to snowball as politicians and others took to Twitter and Facebook to defend the right-wing journalist.

In an article, the right-leaning Swarajya magazine, while saying that “Tipu is nothing but a tyrant in Kodagu and the Kodavas accuse him of defeating them by using fraudulent means” added that “the big question now being raised is if free speech exists at all in Karnataka, which is ruled by the Janata Dal (Secular)-Congress alliance”.

Chikkamagaluru MLA CT Ravi tweeted: “Santosh Thammaiah who spoke about the brutalities against Hindus by Tyrant Tippu Sultan has been arrested by the Communal Government in Karnataka. Bhagavan & Pseudo Intellectuals like him who have consistently abused Hindu Gods are roaming free”.

Senior BJP leader B.L. Santhosh said in a tweet, “Santhosh Thimmaiah, a writer with nationalist leaning arrested by coward Karnataka police for speaking against Tipu Jayanthi. We will fight tooth and nail against this cowardice act.”

BJP MLA from Mahadevapura, Aravind Limbavali also tweeted in support of Santosh and hit out at the government for its “appeasement politics”.


Another hashtag making the rounds is #TipuGhostStillInAction.

Migrant Labour Exodus Shines a Light on the Dark Side of Modi’s ‘Gujarat Model’

Those leading the campaign against the migrants are largely local, unemployed youth that the ‘Gujarat Model’ has failed, who now vilify ‘outsiders’ for having snatched away jobs.

The much touted ‘Gujarat Model’ of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Bharatiya Janata Party stands stripped bare once again. The migrant labour in the state fleeing in the face of a violent campaign is a grim reminder of the failure of Modi’s ‘Gujarat Model’ on both the social and the economic front.

Even though the state government is attempting to bring the situation back to the normal, the cat is out of the bag for now. Most of the labourers who have fled hail from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. The irony here is that many of the same migrants fleeing today had rushed home ahead of the 2014 Lok Sabha to campaign for Modi and the BJP, acting as salespersons of the very same ‘Gujarat Model’ that has let them down.

The trigger that led to the present exodus was the arrest of a migrant labourer from Bihar for the rape of a 14-month-old girl near Himmatnagar in Sabarkantha district. The incident was followed by a hate campaign against ‘par prantiya’ (outsiders) that is aimed at forcing them to go back home.

Over the last four days, thousands are said to have fled the state, mainly from North Gujarat – by trains, buses and any other mode of transport that they could find or afford. A few who have not fled but are afraid to return home are currently lodged in a camp set up by the volunteers of Uttar Bharatiya Vikas Parishad in Vastral. A majority of the incidents against the migrants have been reported from Sabarkantha, Patan, Mehsana, Gandhinagar and Aravalli districts.

Also read: After Minor’s Rape, 342 Arrested as Migrants Flee Violent Backlash in Gujarat

Virendra Singh Rajput, a volunteer at the camp, who is from Bhadohi in Uttar Pradesh, told this reporter: “We are trying our best to quell the rumours that are doing the rounds. More than five dozen people at the camp are being provided both boarding and lodging facilities. We are working with the administration to instil confidence among migrants.”

The police have increased their vigil near the industrial areas where the migrants are employed and also at the settlements where they live. Gujarat’s Director General of Police Shivanand Jha on Sunday reportedly said that 342 arrests have been made in 42 cases that have been registered.

Over the last four days, thousands are said to have fled the state. Credit: Twitter

However, his claim that a large number of people have left for the ensuing festival season for Navratri, Diwali and Chhath doesn’t quite stand the scrutiny of the present circumstances. Hailing from Bihar himself, he must be aware that the labour force from north India, which is dependant on the money gained from its livelihood, leaves for home barely a few days before Diwali and Chhath, for which there is still a month to go. If this was solely the reason, why exactly have the police been compelled to register so many cases and arrest so many people?

The illusion of development 

Gujarat has reported its fair share of rapes in recent times, but this time the rape of the minor triggered an outburst of a phenomenon that has been building for years.

For years, Narendra Modi and BJP national president Amit Shah have been attempting to sell the idea of the ‘Gujarat Model’ to all of India. But in its own state, the adverse effects are clear to see – those leading the campaign against the migrants are largely local, unemployed youth that the ‘Gujarat Model’ has failed to provide opportunities to earn dignified livelihoods. Instead of directing their anger towards the government for its failure in preventing such an economic failure, the anger has been diverted towards migrants who are being vilified for taking away jobs that the locals “should be getting”.

This also points to the failure of the administration to ensure that the private enterprises that have been set up with the incentives from the government adhere to the norm of recruiting a specified percentage of local work force.

This aspect was highlighted by Congress MLA Alpesh Thakor recently when he spoke of how the government has turned a blind eye to the rule on employing 80% locals in the factories. Since then, there has been a social media campaign that has accused the MLA of inciting violence. He has categorically denied this charge and has put up a video of his media briefing on Facebook, where he says, “There was palpable anger against the incident of rape for a couple of days. Beyond that there is politics being done in my name. There is an attempt to spoil the atmosphere across Gujarat.”

According to social scientist and author Achyut Yagnik, “This is clearly the result of the failure of the economic policy of the government. It has failed to address the jobless youth. Even for the powerful Other Backward Castes (OBC) like the Thakors of which Alpesh is a leader there has been large scale joblessness.”

Paresh, a playwright and a keen social observer who lives in North Gujarat, explains the phenomenon: “When the illusion of development under the ‘Gujarat Model’ was being sold, even the small landholder sold off his land only to end up as a labourer down the line as he did not know how to utilise the money he got from the sale. With the North Indian workforce ready to work as farm labour even in the remote interiors and the perception among the middle and upper middle class that the labourers from outside are good workers, the locals have stood at the other end. With no jobs coming their way, it is their pent up anger that has found an outburst in the form of this campaign against the outsiders.”

Politics of hate

Apart from the economic failure of the ‘Gujarat Model’, the recent developments have also stemmed from the politics of hate that has been promoted in the state for the last three decades, particularly by Hindutva organisations, including the BJP. It is this politics of hate that has returned to haunt Gujarat time and again in the form of targeting minority religions, Dalits and now migrants.

“It is the politics of hate that is coming back in new shape. The fomenting of such politics began from early 1980s when an agitation for reservation was successfully converted into a communal conflict by 1985. Thereafter, between 1986-87 and 1990-92 there was a communal strife emerging from the Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Mosque issue. Thereafter, it was the 2002 riots,” explains Yagnik.

The 2002 riots were preceded by anti-Christian violence in tribal areas of South Gujarat in 1998. The hate campaign continued and over the last two years it has been visible in the large number of instances of atrocities against Dalits, of which the public flogging of Dalits in Una was the epitome. Now it has come to a campaign against ‘outsiders’.

A file photo of the Una flogging incident. Credit: Twitter/Vijay Sinh Parmar

In fact, in Gujarat it has become a common understanding that in order to divert attention from the failures of the ruling party, all that is needed is the creation of a new enemy.

“If one studies history, it is evident that Gujarat has seen large-scale immigration over the last 2,000 years and all of them have assimilated in the society here. The Parsis and Sindhis are the biggest examples. But over the last several years, there has been a change in the attitude of the Gujarati middle class,” Yagnik said.

Also read: Two Years Later, Una Flogging Incident Victims Attacked Again

Clearly on the defensive, those sympathetic to the ruling dispensation – both at the Centre and in the state – have launched social media campaigns to claim that the whole issue of migrant labour fleeing is yet another attempt by the ‘paid media’ and the Left to defame Gujarat and Modi. This is a tried and tested weapon in Gujarat – when real issues are highlighted, they eventually get termed as something against ‘Gujarati Asmita’ or pride.

The dark side of the ‘Gujarat Model’ is clear to see – Gujarat stands afflicted by farm distress, joblessness and the politics of hate. This ought to be fair warning enough to those who still go on touting its many benefits blindly before the 2019 Lok Sabha polls, before which such tensions are more than likely to double.

Rajeev Khanna has been a reporter for the last 23 years with special interest in Punjab, Haryana and Gujarat politics, and has worked in print, radio, TV and online media.