Combating hate propaganda
The Election Commission has been active in tackling hate speech by politicians,
but how does one deal with hate propaganda, asks GEETA SESHU
The Election Commission’s decision to ban the rallies of both BJP leader Amit Shah as well as Samajwadi Party’s Azam Khan was a proactive step to curb the pernicious use of hate speech in campaigning for the 16thgeneral elections.
But barely a few days later, it lifted the ban on Amit Shah after the latter gave an undertaking that he would be careful. Khan, who apparently showed no ‘remorse’, is now planning to challenge the ban.
One hopes, of course, that the EC will closely monitor Shah’s rallies in the last phases of the election, as it is clear he was the other face of the BJP’s ‘development and change’ plank in this very divisive election. Hate speech aside, the campaigning has been marked by a range of scurrilous comments, speeches and personal attacks from leaders of all parties.
Now, as the fight gets keener, threats to voters have also been issued. Maharashtra’s Deputy Chief Minister and NCP leader Ajit Pawar was captured on a cellphone threatening voters that he would cut off their water supply if they didn’t cast their vote for Supriya Sule, his cousin and daughter of Sharad Pawar ! No stranger to threatening language, Ajit Pawar was boycotted by local media a couple of years ago for threatening to stifle the media.
He wasn’t the only one. Uttar Pradesh Samajwadi Party leader Mulayam Singh Yadav has also been served with a show cause notice by the EC for allegedly threatening government schoolteachers in Bulandshahr to vote for his party or lose their jobs! National Conference leader Farooq Abdullah and Congress worker Vinod Mishra are others cited in a very useful report compiling these threats.
While these threats illustrate both the desperation and the arrogance of politicians, they definitely violate the election code of conduct. However, not all of these threats are ‘hate’ speech. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states that "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.”
Numerous laws in India prohibit different forms of hate speech and Supreme Court lawyer Rajeev Dhawan (arguing against the proposed amendments to the Indecent Representation of Women Act, 1986), outlined a range of hate speech laws in India “….anti-national (Section 124A, Indian Penal Code (IPC)), anti-communal, racial, linguistic, ethnic and descent related (Section 153A), anti-sovereignty (Section 153B), anti-outraging religious feelings (Section 295A), anti-pornography (Section 292), anti-Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SC and ST Act 1989 and Protection of Human Rights Act 1976), and anti-harm to children (Young Persons Harmful Publications Act 1956) hate speech”.
Alongside, the media’s role in reporting hate speech cannot be overstated. Today, journalists are aided by electronic devices to record and provide irrefutable evidence of speech that politicians invariably deny later. But, as the acquittal of BJP leader Varun Gandhi in the two Pilibhit hate speech cases of 2009 reveal, video recordings were of no use as 51 witnesses turned hostile.
Clearly, more laws are not the answer, but stringent investigation of cases, witness protection programs and quick and effective justice delivery will help mitigate the harms of hate speech.
While the media needs to report assiduously on hate speeches of politicians during election campaigns, what do we do about hate propaganda – the vast amount of insidious and potentially incendiary sms on mobiles and posts on social media networks that this election has spewed forth? One way is to delete them, refuse to forward them and add to the hateful noise. Another would be the more challenging route of actually confronting the messengers and countering their messages.
The Supreme Court has asked the Law Commission to frame guidelines on hate speech and it is an important and timely exercise. We do need much more discussion on the existing laws as well as a better understanding of how hate speech harms freedom of expression in society. And how we, as citizens, respond to it.