Dr. Vinod Chandrashekhar Dixit:
Hate speech has emerged as a disturbing trend in India, threatening the country’s social fabric and its constitutional commitment to secularism. Inflammatory rhetoric—often rooted in communal, racial, or ideological prejudice—has the power to incite violence, deepen social divisions, and erode national unity.
The scale of the problem is alarming. According to reports, India witnessed 1,165 hate-speech incidents in 2024, a 74 per cent increase over 2023. Religious minorities—particularly Muslims and Christians—have been among the most frequent targets. Several of these incidents have reportedly involved members or affiliates of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), including senior political leaders.
Globally, hate speech is also on the rise, with similar consequences: the undermining of social cohesion and tolerance, and the infliction of psychological, emotional, and sometimes physical harm on those targeted. Debates surrounding its regulation remain fiercely contested, often framed around the tension between freedom of expression and social responsibility. While awareness of free speech has expanded worldwide, hate crimes have simultaneously increased—raising troubling questions about how liberty is interpreted and exercised.
Freedom of speech and expression is a cornerstone of democracy, but when speech is weaponised to violate the rights of others—particularly when it incites atrocity crimes or acts of terrorism—it cannot be met with silence that borders on indifference. The 267th Report of the Law Commission of India defines hate speech as incitement to hatred against groups identified by race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and similar attributes. It includes aggressive expressions, calls to violence, true threats, libel or slander, and speech that fosters a hostile environment.
Hate speech is not merely offensive language; it is often calculated to provoke real-world harm—ranging from intimidation and bullying to large-scale violence and genocide. In a civil society, individuals are expected to act rationally, yet expression must be moderated and balanced with the rights and dignity of others.
India’s encounter with hate speech is not new. In 1990, inflammatory broadcasts from certain mosques in Kashmir reportedly whipped up hostility against Hindus, contributing to their exodus from the Valley. Today, in a radically transformed media ecosystem, politicians and influencers understand that provocative remarks made in one region can instantly reverberate nationwide, sometimes yielding immediate political dividends.
Although India lacks a single, codified legal definition of hate speech, various laws restrict speech that threatens public order or communal harmony. Sections 153A and 153B of the Indian Penal Code penalise acts that promote enmity between groups, while Section 295A addresses deliberate or malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings.
In 2017, the Law Commission recommended inserting new provisions into the IPC specifically to criminalise hate speech—recognising the limitations of existing statutes. Yet for a country as vast and diverse as India, drawing the line between legitimate free expression and unlawful hatred remains extraordinarily complex.
At the root of much hateful rhetoric lie entrenched stereotypes—beliefs that certain groups are inferior or less deserving of rights. Once normalised, such thinking corrodes democratic culture and legitimises exclusion.
The consequences of unchecked hate speech are profound. Breaking the cycle of hostility demands more than punitive laws alone. It requires legal reform, sustained social awareness, responsible political discourse, ethical media practices, and collective civic action. Only through such a multidimensional effort can India hope to preserve its pluralistic ethos and ensure that speech becomes a tool for dialogue rather than division.
