1 Sem Eng

Dr. RAM MANOHAR LOHIA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

Rough Draft on :- Hate Speech And Communal Violence

SUBMITTED BY:

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF:

SPARSH YADAV

Dr. ALKA SINGH

ROLL NO: 146

ENGLISH TEACHER

SECTION ‘B’

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA

B.A. LLB (Hons.), SEMESTER I

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

1

.ACKNOWLEDGMENT I would like to express my gratitude towards all those whose help and constant support the project would not have reached its current facet. I would take advantage of this situation to thank my parents and my guardians without whose constant support and guidance, I really owe it a lot to them. However, foremost I would like to thank Dr. Alka Singh, my english teacher for his kind guidance and for quenching my queries on many doubts and technicalities which I came up during the making of this project; this project would not have seen the light of the day without his constant direction and guidance. I would also like to thank all of my friends and seniors who aided me along the way. I must also extend my gratitude to the library and library personnel who provided me with research material and good books to work upon.

2

Table of contents TOPICS

PAGE NUMBER

INTRODUCTION------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4 CONCEPTUALIZING HATE SPEECH------------------------------------------------------5 INDIAN CONSTIUTION AND HATE SPEECH---------------------------------------5 FREEDOM OF SPEECH, HATE SPEECH AND JUDICIAL TRENDS-----7 INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON HATE SPEECH---------------------------9 MEANING OF COMMUNAL VIOLENCE-----------------------------------------------11 CHARACTERISTICS OF COMMUNAL VIOLENCE-------------------------------11 REASONS FOR COMMUNAL VIOLENCE------------------------------------------------12 PROBLEMS FACED BY PEOPLE----------------------------------------------------------------15 SOLUTIONS-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------17 CONCLUSION---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------22 BIBLIOGRAPHY---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------23

3

INTRODUCTION Hate Speech is a speech intended to degrade a person or a group of person based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, ideology, social class, occupation, appearance (height, weight, hair colour. etc.), mental capacity, and any other distinction that might be considered by some a liability. The speech ordinarily involves lies, deceptions, misdirection, logical fallacies out of context citations or quotes, “cherry picking”, denial, conspiracy theories and derogatory terminology. It may involve true facts, but they are generally perverted to such an extent that the conclusion it derives is very different from what the facts are meant to show. Hate speech lies in a complex nexus with freedom of expression, individual, group and minority rights, as well as concepts of dignity, liberty and equality. Its definition is often contested. In national and international legislation, hate speech refers to expressions that advocate incitement to harm (particularly, discrimination, hostility or violence) based upon the target’s being identified with a certain social or demographic group. It may include, but is not limited to, speech that advocates, threatens, or encourages violent acts. For some, however, the concept extends also to expressions that foster a climate of prejudice and intolerance on the assumption that this may fuel targeted discrimination, hostility and violent attacks. In common parlance, however, definitions of hate speech tend to be broader, sometimes even extending to encompass words that are insulting those in power, or derogatory of individuals who are particularly visible. Especially at critical times, such as during elections, the concept of hate speech may be prone to manipulation: accusations of fomenting hate speech may be traded among political opponents or used by those in power to curb dissent and criticism. Communal violence - or violence between groups which define themselves by their differences from each other is one of the foremost human rights problems today. But the violence of the past 20 years differs from that of previous decades. What are called ‘communal riots’ in India started during the emergence of mass politics in the 1920s and have persisted after the Independence. These riots are essentially an urban phenomenon and have been largely concentrated in specific sites within certain cities and towns, resulting in considerable number of deaths, mostly of the poor, and loss of property. It is a matter of concern that sociologists in India have largely ignored this persistent social phenomenon, just as there is very limited research carried out by Indian sociologists on Muslims and other 4

minorities. The shift from early functionalist perspective on village and caste to structuralist debates on caste and religion did not change the focus of sociology in India from the consensual model of Hindu India. Dissenting voices were heard later on with the research on social movements of backward classes and dalits, caste and class violence in the aftermath of Green Revolution, and feminist concerns with the invisibility of women in sociology in India.

5

Conceptualizing hate speech Hate speech is basically a species of hate crimes i.e. a criminal manifestation of prejudice. They may be distinguished from parallel crimes – crimes that are similar in every manner but for the absence of bias motivation – in terms of the mental state of the actor as well as the nature of the harm caused. A parallel crime may be motivated by any number of factors whereas bias crimes are motivated by a specific, personal and group‐based reason; the victim’s real or perceived membership in a particular group. Etymologically, hate speech is “designed to promote hatred on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, or national origin.”1 It is a very effective tool to disseminate the idea of racial and like superiority, to incite violence, and to reinforce stereotypes. It may be used to get political support from particular section of society on the basis of language2, caste, community or religion3. Promoting hatred may have economic motive as well. It is inappropriate to associate hate speech only with religion. There are other aspects of such speech also. Though no specific data or survey is available to show the exact nature of effect of these speeches but a number of incidents during election are sufficient to prove the impact of hate speeches on various sections of society. Several nations have taken notice of this problem and have addressed it through legal action4.

Indian constitution and FREEDOM OF speech It must be recognised that freedom of speech and expression is one of the most valuable rights guaranteed to a citizens of India by the Constitution and has been jealously guarded by the courts. Free political discussion is deemed essential for the proper functioning of a democratic government.

1Michael Rosenfeld, “Hate Speech in Constitutional Jurisprudence: A Comparative Analysis” 24 Cardozo L. Rew. 1523 (2003) (Demonstrating International and domestic reaction to hate speech) 2 Jagdev Singh Sidhanti v. Pratap Singh AIR 1965 SC 183 3 This ground is basically alleged against Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP). See the alleged speeches of BJP leaders at an election raily in Maharastra as Cited by supreme court in Manohar Joshi v. Nitin Bhaurao Patil (1996) 1 SCC 169. see also Ramakant Mayekar v. Smt. Celine DʹSilva AIR 1996 SC 826 & Prof. Ramchandra G. Kapse v. Haribansh Ramakbal Singh AIR 1996 SC 817 4 Many states in United States of America have already framed legislations against Hate Crime, generally called Bias Legislation. European Union also required framing such law under mandate of European Convention on Human Right. 6

In “Civil liberties and Human Rights” David Feldman5, counted certain justifications for and limits of freedom of expression. Firstly, self‐expression is a significant instrument of freedom of conscience and self‐fulfilment. Secondly, freedom of expression enables people to contribute to debates about social and moral values. The best way to find the best or truest theory or model of anything is to permit the widest possible range of ideas to circulate. Thirdly, the freedom of expression allows political discourse which is necessary in any country which aspires to be democratic. And lastly, it facilitates artistic scholarly endeavours of all sorts. In Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v Union of India6, the Supreme Court delineated four broad social purposes of freedom of speech and expression; Firstly, it helps an individual to attain self-fulfilment, Secondly it assists in the discovery of truth; thirdly, it strengthens the capacity of an individual in participating in decision‐making and lastly, it provides a mechanism by which it would be possible to establish a reasonable balance between stability and social change. The court observed that all members of the society should be able to form their own beliefs and communicate them freely to others. Freedom of speech and expression should, therefore, receive a generous support from all those who believe in the participation of people in the administration.

Restriction on Freedom of Speech The Constitution has placed restrictions on freedom of speech and expression to protect and promote orderly society and human values. There are three grounds which have found place in Article 19 (2) for curbing hate speeches. These are law and order which includes incitement to the offences, public order and security of state. This clause being inoperative clause necessarily needs a legislation to criminalise hate speeches. It is necessary that the law imposing restrictions must be reasonable7 and in deciding the reasonableness of restrictions the courts should consider the nature of the right alleged to have been infringed, the underlying purpose of the restrictions imposed, the disproportion of the imposition and the prevailing conditions including the social values whose needs are sought to be satisfied by means of the restrictions.

5 Cited in Secretary, Ministry of I. & B. v Cricket Association, Bengal AIR 1995 SC 1236 6 (1985) 1 SCC 641 : AIR 1986 SC 515 cited in Secretary, Ministry of I.& B. v Cricket Association., Bengal AIR 1995 SC 1236. 7 Article 19(2) of the Constitution 7

In S. Rangarajan case8 court observed “freedom of speech is subject to reasonable restriction in the larger interest of the community and the country set out in Article 19 (2). These restrictions are intended to strike a proper balance between the liberty guaranteed and the social interests specified in Article 19(2).”9 Thus, there should be a compromise between freedom of expression and social interests. The court cannot simply balance the two interests as if they are of equal weight.

Restriction on Hate Speech; Clear and Present Danger Test— Every instigating or alarming speech does not come under restriction clause. The restrictions are legitimate attempts to protect the public, not from the remote possible effects of noxious ideologies, but from present excesses of direct, active conducts. The issue in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger; that they will bring about substantive evils which the centre or state Legislatures have a right to prevent; it is a question of proximity and degree. The question of when the right of free speech becomes wrong by excess is difficult to determine. For the analysis of the three expressions used in article 19(2) i.e. law and order, public order and security of state, one has to imagine three concentric circles. Law and order represents the largest circle within which is the next circle representing public order and the smallest circle represents the security of the State. All cases of disturbances of public tranquillity fall in the largest circle but some of them are outside ʹpublic orderʹ for the purpose of the phrase ʹmaintenance of public orderʹ, similarly every breach of public order is not necessarily a case of an act likely to endanger the security of the State10. Adopting this test it may be stated that state is at the centre and society surrounds it. Disturbances of society go in a broad spectrum from mere disturbance of the serenity of life to jeopardy of the State. The acts become graver and graver as we journey from the periphery of the larger circle towards the centre. In this journey we travel first through public tranquillity; then through public order and lastly to the security of the State. It is the last two i.e. public order and security of state which attracts restrictions. Thus, constitutional guidelines judicial trends make it very clear that any legislative attempt to curb hate speech must pass this test. 8 S. Rangarajan v P. Jagjivan Ram (1989) 2 SCC 574 9 This is the difference between the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article 19 of our Constitution except the broad principles and purpose of guarantee. See also; Secretary, Ministry of I.& B. v Cricket Association., Bengal AIR 1995 SC 1236. For US cases See, Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission (1914) 236 US 230, Burstyan v Wilson (1951) 343 US 495 and Schenck v United States (1918) 249 US 47. 10 Ram Manohar Lohia v State of Bihar AIR 1966 SC 740 8

Freedom of speech, hate speech and judicial trends Courts in India have history of securing freedom of speech and expression even by going beyond the doctrinaire sense of permissible limitations given under the constitution itself. Any restriction imposed by state through legislations have always been scrutinised by court on the basis of ‘clear and present danger’ test. There can be no doubt that freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of propagation of ideas11, but individual has no such right of propagation of his idea when it is squarely coming in the domain of threat to security of state, public order or incitement of an offence. Another important aspect of article 19 (2) is that restriction can be made on freedom of speech and expression only on the ground mentioned in this clause. Initially security of state and incitement of offences were such ground. In this category only those offences against public order which aim at undermining the security of the State or overthrowing it, have been justified as a ground for restricting freedom of speech. Nothing less than endangering the foundations of the State or threatening to overthrow it could justify curtailment of the rights to freedom of speech and expression12. According to Romesh Thaper case, a line to be drawn in the field of public order or tranquillity marking off, more or less roughly, the boundary between those serious and aggravated forms of public disorder which are calculated to endanger the security of the State and the relatively minor breaches of the peace of a purely local significance and thus treating the differences in degree as if they were different in kind for this purpose. Thus, very narrow and stringent limits have been set to permissible legislative abridgement of the right of free speech and expression and this was doubtless due to the realisation that freedom of speech and of the press lay at the foundation of all democratic organisations, for without free political discussion no public education, so essential for the proper functioning of the processes of popular Government, is possible. A freedom of such amplitude might involve risks of an abuse. However this narrow approach was avoided by amendment in the constitution and ‘public order’ has been inserted in Article 19 (2) as a separate ground13.

11 Patanjali Sastri J, Romesh Thappar v State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 124, para 6 12 Romesh Thaper v State of Madrass AIR 1950 SC 124; State of Bihar v Shailbala Devi AIR 1952 SC 329 13 Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 9

This widening of ground of restriction was explained in Superintendent Central Prison v Ram Manohar Lohia14. The court observed; ‘public order’ and ‘public safety’ are allied matters……it seems best to analyse the opposite concepts…..respectively labelled as 'public disorder' and public unsafety'. If ‘public safety’ is , as we have seen equivalent to 'security of the State', what one may have designated as public unsafety may be regarded as equivalent to 'insecurity of the State', When we approach the matter in this way, we find that while 'public disorder' is wide enough to cover a small riot as an affray and other cases where peace is disturbed by or affects a small group of persons, 'public unsafety' (or 'insecurity of the State') will usually be connected with serious internal disorders and such disturbances of public tranquillity it jeopardize the security of the State. Thus 'public order' may well be paraphrased in the context as public tranquillity and the words 'public safety' and 'public order' may be read as equivalent to "security of the State" and "public tranquillity.” Thus the court widened the net of restriction through this interpretation. State may, in interest of public order prohibit and punish whereby breach of peace is likely to be caused. Judicial trends relating to Indian penal code have the same traditionalist values as it is applicable in adversarial system. What is alarming is that court seems much cautious while dealing with hate crimes. For example as discussed earlier court while acquitting the accused in Supreme Court observed that; It appears to us that the raising some slogans only a couple of times by the two lonesome appellants, which neither evoked any response nor any reaction from anyone in the public can neither attract the provisions of Section 124A or of Section 153A IPC. Some more overt act was required to bring home the charge to the two appellants, who are Government servants. The police officials exhibited lack of maturity and more of sensitivity in arresting the appellants for raising the slogans‐ which arrest ‐and not the casual raising of one or two slogans ‐could have created a law and order situation, keeping in view the tense situation prevailing on the date of assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi, In situations like that, over sensitiveness sometimes is counterproductive and can result in inviting trouble. Raising of some lonesome slogans, a couple of times by two individuals, without anything more, did not constitute any threat to the Government of India as by law established nor could the same give rise to feelings of enmity or hatred among different communities or religious or other groups.”15 Similarly Supreme Court in Hindutva‐cases made curious distinction between asking vote on ‘caste, creed and religion base’ and ‘making a state Hindu state’ which is not a religion but a ‘way of life’.16 It is submitted that such an interpretation may be catastrophic to the nascent democracy where illiterate or semi‐literate voters may not be in position to reflect the 14 AIR 1960 SC 633 15 Superintendent Central Prison v Ram Manohar Lohia AIR 1960 SC 633 10

intention, howsoever good that may be, of election candidate. It would be better to save in entirety the basic values of different sections of society and put an end to every such attempt.

International perspective on hate speech ‘Any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.’17 That pronouncement of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), counts among the strongest condemnations of hate speech. It has been in force now for thirty years, alongside other international norms. It is now represents as a norm of customary law, which would mean that states would be responsible in international law for banning at least some forms of hate speech even if they are not parties to the ICCPR or other instruments containing similar norms. About 170 nations are parties to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD),18 demonstrating the international community’s sweeping support to the treaty. It is main tool for the international community to combat racial discrimination. Having universal reach, it is legally binding, and it has self‐implementation tools. It prohibits hate speech in the form of propaganda that incites racial discrimination19. It goes beyond the hate speech prohibition in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and mandates for the state parties to criminalize hate speech. The broad support for the treaty demonstrates the international community’s commitment to the criminalization of hate speech. The ICCPR prohibits advocacy of racial and national hatred when it constitutes an incitement to discrimination.20 About 150 countries are parties to the ICCPR, none of whom object to Article 20(2), demonstrating the international community’s strong support to the prohibition of hate speech.

16Manohar Joshi v Nitin Bhaurao Patil (1996) 1 SCC 169 17 Article 20(2) of ICCPR 1966 18 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ratifications and Reservations, available on http://www.ohchr.org/english/ countries/ratification/2.html visited at date 15/01/08 19 Article 4 of ICERD 1966 20Article 20(2) states: “Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility to violence shall be prohibited by law.” International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; adopted Dec. 19, 1966, 6 I.L.M. 368, 999 U.N.T.S. 171. Hereinafter refereed as ICCPR 11

Both the ICERD and the ICCPR prohibit hate speech. The ICERD goes as far as requiring states to criminalize hate speech. These two treaties demonstrate the international community’s growing concern with the prevention and prohibition of hate speech. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) decided Prosecutor v. Nahimana, Barayagwiza, & Ngeze, a case that explicitly states that prohibition of hate speech has become CIL.The ICTR, after examining well‐established principles of international and domestic law and international and domestic cases, found that “hate speech that expresses discrimination violates the norm of customary international law prohibiting discrimination”. The ICTR’s decision reflects the position of the international community. The United Nations Security Council created the ICTR, which demonstrates the ICTR is an organ backed by the international community. This influential international organ has spoken about hate speech prohibition as a matter of CIL. This is further support that the Hagan Committee’s holding is justified by an arising CIL prohibiting hate speech.

12

Meaning OF communal violence Communal violence is a violent conflict between non-state groups that are organised along a shared communal identity. This definition deserves some further clarification. Violent conflict refers to the fact that the parties use lethal violence to gain control over some disputed and perceived indivisible resource, such as a piece of land or local political power. This follows a generally accepted conceptualisation of armed conflict. The groups involved are non-state groups, meaning that neither actor controls the state and armed forces (although state actors may be involved as an important supporting actor in a communal conflict). Finally, the groups are organised along a shared communal identity, meaning that they are not formally organised rebel groups or militias but that the confrontation takes place along the line of group identities. Some would equate the concept of communal identity with ethnic or religious identity, but as conceived here the definition is purposefully left more open, since group identity can be considered as socially constructed rather than a static phenomenon. Instead, communal identity is conceptualised as subjective group identification based on, for instance, a common history, a common culture or common core values. Affirming that identity refers to ethnic or religious identity would make the term less flexible, and unable to capture other forms of possible communal identity. For instance, in local conflicts where the dividing line is between ‘original’ inhabitants of an area (‘indigenes’) and more recent ‘settlers’, as is often the case in parts of West and Central Africa, this should be seen as a communal conflict since people very strongly identify themselves (and the ‘other’ group) along these lines. Demarcation along such lines often causes ‘sons of the soil’ conflicts where the indigenes perceive themselves as the rightful owners of the land. Similarly, in other areas the main identification may be based on one’s livelihood, and conflict may be fought along those lines (for instance, pitting pastoralists against agriculturalists). Livelihood conflicts often parallel ethnic lines as for instance pastoralists living together are often from the same ethnic community. However, this is not always the case. For instance, villagers often identify as inhabitants of their particular villages no matter if the village is ethnically homo- or heterogeneous. The bottom line is that what constitutes the basis for a communal identity may differ across time and space; hence, leaving the definition of this term more open allows for a broader contextual range.

Characteristics of Communal violence: Communalism is basically an ideology which evolved through three broad stages in India— (i) Communal Nationalism: The notion that since a group or a section of people belong to a particular religious community, their secular interests are the same, i.e., even those matters which have got nothing to do with religion affect all of them equally. (ii) Liberal Communalism: 13

The notion that since two religious communities have different religious interests, they have different interests in the secular sphere also (i.e., in economic, political and cultural spheres). (iii) Extreme Communalism: The notion that not only different religious communities have different interests, but these interests are also incompatible i.e., two communities cannot co-exist because the interests of one community come into conflict with those of the other. Communal conflicts can take many different forms, and in order to understand the different dynamics of communal conflict, it is useful to analyse their underlying causes and the issue over which the conflict is fought. Different conflict issues may necessitate different types of interventions and conflict resolution strategies. A first set of communal conflicts takes place in connection with local or national elections21. A core reason for this is that political allegiance in many countries follows ethnic lines and when one group’s candidate loses, this group might seek revenge against the other group. This is often worsened by the patrimonial systems that characterise most countries where communal conflicts are common. Such systems include a strong patron-client relationship in which access to power becomes extremely important. The violence shows multiple and clear political connections. Behind the different militias are often local politicians who provide them with weapons and shelter and direct the violence. In addition, to the national political dynamics, a crucial part of these communal conflicts concern access to land. Communal conflicts can be an effective way of gaining access to land as the number of people displaced often is huge, even when the number of deaths is fairly limited. Land is also often at the heart of communal conflicts that centre on groups’ main livelihood. One example is pastoralist conflicts, i.e. herder-farmer conflicts and conflicts between various pastoralist groups. Pastoralists and their animals move over extensive areas, often under extremely harsh conditions, and during this movement they often come into conflict with other communities that are either also on the move or more settled. Such conflicts constitute one of the oldest forms of organised violence in the history of mankind. The eruption of such conflicts is compounded by the extreme conditions where access to grazing land or a well is often a question of survival for both animals and humans. Most often these conflicts are solved in non-violent manner, and when they do turn violent the violence is often kept at a low-scale level. However, sometimes such conflicts cause widespread human suffering. Similarly related to control over land, but fought along another identity dimension, are conflicts pitting the ‘original’ inhabitants of a locality against more recent settlers.

REASONS FOR COMMUNIAL VIOLENCE: 21 For a thorough investigation on this issue in the case of India, see Wilkinson 2004 14

There are a number of causes which are responsible for the prevalence of communalism. Some of two important causes of communalism are discussed below. 1. Tendency of the Minorities: The Muslims fail to be intermingled in the national mainstream. Most of them do not participate in the secular nationalistic politics and insist on maintaining tor separate identity the elite among the Muslims have failed to generate the appropriate national ethos. 2. Orthodoxy and Obscurantism: The orthodox members of minorities feel that they have a distinct entity with their own cultural pattern, personal laws and thought. There are strong elements of conservatism and fundamentalism among the Muslims. Such feeling has prevented them from accepting the concept of secularism and religious tolerance. 3. Design of the Leaders: Communalism has flourished in India because the communalist leaders of both Hindu and Muslim communities desire to flourish it in the interest of their communities. The demand for separate electorate and the organization of Muslim league were the practical manifestations of this line of thought. The British rule which produced the divide and rule policy, separate electorate on the basis of religion strengthened the basis of communalism in India Ultimately the partition of the country into India and Pakistan provided further an antagonistic feeling towards each other. 4. Weak Economic Status: A majority of Muslims in India has failed to adopt the scientific and technological education. Due to their educational backwardness, they have not been represented sufficiently in the public service, industry and trade etc. This causes the feeling of relative deprivation and such feelings contain the seeds of communalism. 5. Geographical Causes: The territorial settlement of different religious groups especially Hindus Muslims and Christians causes in them wide variation in the mode of life, social standards and belief system. Most of these patterns are contradictory and this may cause communal tension. 6. Historical Causes: The Muslims, all over the subcontinent, are converts from Hinduism, which was facilitated due to the caste-hate relations and under the compulsions of Muslim rulers. The problems of social segregation, illiteracy and poverty that had set apart the low caste people remain unresolved for them, as the foreign elite that rubbed never shared power with them. Their work ended with the conversion of the Indians and the converts began by imitating the masters in thought, speech and dress. It caused their alienation. Gradually, elements of communalism entered in the Muslim community. The separatist elements in the Muslim 15

community, from the very start of the national resurgence had discouraged others of their community, from associating themselves with it. As a result Muslim league was formed which demanded partition of the country. 7. Social Causes: Cultural similarity is a powerful factor in fostering amicable relations between any two social groups. But the social institutions, customs and practices of Hindus and Muslims are so divergent that they think themselves to be two distinct communities. Cow-Protection and Hinduism Cow-protection is the dearest possession of the Hindu and heart. It is the one concrete belief common to all Hindus. No one who does not believe in cow-protection can possibly be a Hindu. It is a noble belief Cow-worship means to me worship of innocence. It cannot be imposed upon anyone to carry cow-protection at the point of the sword. Beef eating The standing complaint of Hindus against Musalmans is that the latter are beef eaters and that they purposely sacrifice cows on the Bakri Id day. Hindus may not compel Musalmans to abstain from meat or even beef eating. Vegetarian Hindus may not compel other Hindus to abstain from fish, flesh or fowl. 8. Psychological Causes: Psychological factors play an important role in the development of communalism. The Hindus think that the Muslims are fanatics and fundamentalists. They also believe that Muslims are unpatriotic. On the contrary, the Muslims feel that they are being treated as second rate citizens in India and their religious beliefs and practices are inferior. These feelings lead to communal ill-feeing. 9. Provocation of Enemy Countries: Some foreign countries try to destabilize our country by setting one community against the other through their agents. Pakistan has played a role in fostering communal feeling among the Muslims of our country. Pakistan has been encouraging and promoting communal riots by instigating the militant sections of Indian Muslim community. Kashmir youths are trained by Pakistan to destabilize India’s internal security by spreading communal venom. 10. Negative Impact of Mass Media: The messages relating to communal tension or riot in any part of the country spread through the mass media. This results in further tension and riots between two rival religious groups. Communalism was rooted in modern economic, political and social institutions where new identities were emerging in a haphazard manner even as the old, pre-modern

16

identities had not diminished. A clash of this fundamental dichotomy gave rise to a communal ideology. 11 .Socio-economic reasons: The professional classes and the bourgeoisie emerged later among the Muslims than among the Hindus. There was rivalry for jobs, trade and industry between the two communities. The Muslim bourgeoisie used the lower middle classes of the Muslims against the Hindu bourgeoisie to further their class interests. Because of the economic backwardness of India and rampant unemployment, there was ample scope for the colonial government to use concessions, favours and reservations to fuel communal and separatist tendencies. Also, modern political consciousness was late in developing among the Muslims and the dominance of traditional reactionary elements over the Muslim masses helped a communal outlook to take root.

PROBLEMS Communal violence creates an environment of tension and havoc in the affected states. It creates a lot of problems in the affected states. It has many evil effects along with creating a strong sense of fear. Following are the problems which people of the affected areas have to face; 1. UNAVAILABILITY OF JOBS TO CHILDREN OF RIOT VICTIMS Communal Violence affects a lot of people who come under its curb. Many people lose their lives in communal violence. Unfortunately innocent people have to face the wrath of communal violence by losing their lives .Active participants as well as inactive participants become a victim of communal violence. In some families men are the sole breadwinners of their families. Unfortunately people get trapped in such violence and lose their lives as a result of this his respective family loses its breadwinner. Such families lose their economic status. As a result the entire economies load falls on the children of such families. Various government policies are framed by the government to provide jobs to such riot victims. But these policies are not properly executed .As a result of this the children of riot effected families are left jobless and hopeless. 2. LOSS/DISTRUCTION OF PROPERTY /SEVERAL LIVES OF RIOT VICTIMS Communal violence causes a lot of destruction of private property as well as public property. It takes away the lives of many innocent lives including youth women children irrespective of the age groups. Lot of fire is lit, stones are thrown and all sorts of other things are used to destroy houses, shops, factories, industries etc. of people.

17

People are shot dead, lit to fire alive, cut down by sharp swords irrespective of the gender whether it might be a child, a woman and irrespective of age .Woman young girls are physically assaulted and harassed. 3. PSYCHOLOGY OF FEAR Communal violence casts a strong psychology of fear in the minds of people whether it might be the victims or just viewers of tv channels. Even after the violence is over the fear still remains in the minds of people. The lost lives the destroyed families do not let people forget those evil days of evil violence. Some people undergo a very strong mental trauma which takes many years to forget and live a normal living. Whereas some people do not come out of such trauma their entire lives. Running away for fear of death, leaving one’s dear ones, temples mosques or music to take care of themselves does not let people forget those awful and frightful days of life. 4. DISTRUST AMONGST PEOPLE Communal violence creates a strong feeling of distrust hatred amongst the two different religions. People restrain themselves from trusting each other belonging to two different religions. There is a lot of distrust between one another. Many people of two different religions do not believe each other’s honesty. Distrust never comes from welldefined causes. A variety of causes, more felt than realized breeds distrust. Where riots do take place, they occur because both think communally and because either fears or distrusts the other, and because neither has the courage or the foresight to forgo the present for the sake of the future, or the communal interests for the sake of the national. People are scared to trust one another due to the hatred tension created by communal violence. 5. HAMPERS THE ECONOMIC STATUS OF PEOPLE Communal violence actually affects the economic markets in the states facing communal violence .Markets shatter shops are burned industries factories are ruined destroyed and broken down. Communal riots creates a havoc in the affected areas which give rise to unnecessary robberies in shops supermarkets .This all affects the economic status of people. Working citizens stay back home with the fear of getting trapped in those brutal situations. Children stop from going out to play .to go to schools colleges .Women refrain themselves from going out to buy household items. This all immensely hampers the economic status of people as the income levels of such families goes down immensely. 6. COMMUNIALVIOLENCE ACTS AS AN OBSTACLE TO UNITY Communal violence creates the artificial division between two different religions. In its presence both Hindus and Muslims conflict with one another .Their interest is greater than the progress of their country. It acts as an obstacle to the unity between the different religions. It hampers the unity of people belonging to different religions. People of all gender age 18

restrain themselves from trusting each other which in turn affects the brotherhood and unity of people including small children. 7. ATMOSPHERE OF HATRED The evil images of communal violence makes the blood boil, prejudice reigns supreme; man, whether he labels himself a Hindu, Muslim, Christian or what not, becomes a beast and acts as such. I would like to observe the laws of the game. One hears so often of children and old men being butchered, women being outraged.

SOLUTIONS Communal violence is a dangerous and a frightful phenomenon and a curse for our society. Not only does a communal violence ends up in loss of lives and property, it divides and polarizes the society and gives rise to vicious political debates. Following are some solutions by which this problem of communal violence can be curbed down; 1. True information should be provided by the newspapers The cause of a communal violence should be seen and understood direct from the new items in the newspaper. Understanding and reconstructing the chain of event from political commentators and inquiry commissions will reduce the truth element. The newspaper report can also be politically motive and biased but the likelihood of ideology contaminating the truth in a credible way is much less in case of news items as compared to reports of inquiry commissions and political commentators. One can always refer to multiple newspapers and reasonably filter out the truth. Second, the news of communal violence should be studied and analysed at the time of its occurrence itself. Analysing such an event after lapse of time makes it more difficult to sift facts from ideologically-motive fiction. Since we, unfortunately, have so many communal riots, the sample size is not a problem in such a study and we have enough number of instances of communal riots where such a study can be done. There is poison administered to the public by some newspapers. Newspapers today have almost replaced the Bible, the Koran, the Gita and the other religious scriptures. It is wrong but the fact has to be faced. Such being the case, it is the duty of newspaper men to give nothing but facts to their readers 2. Change in pattern of education There should be a total change in syllabus, especially of medieval history and modern history pertaining to freedom struggled and division of the country in 1947. It is regrettable that even after 64 years of our freedom our approach to medieval history has not changed. We still use utterly simplistic versions of medieval history resulting in controversy of demolition of temples. There is no mention, even cursorily cursory of our composite culture and efforts made by Sufi saints, writers, poets and musicians to build bridges between two communities. Sufis like Baba Farid, Moinuddin Chishti, Miyan Meer, Nizamuddin 19

Awliya, Mirza Jane Janan, Dara Shikoh besides musicians, architects, poets and others to fuse two cultures together and bring two communities together. Students studying history have not even heard their names. It would be of immense help to introduce a supplementary text, or at least a chapter on richness of our composite culture to make students realize that both the communities and its intellectual and religious leaders were close to each other and were contributing immensely to enrich our culture religiously, spiritually and intellectually. Similarly our textbooks on modern history and freedom struggle are highly biased against minorities, They hardly highlight the role played by these communities in freedom struggle. The names like Maulana Mehmoodul Hasan, Maulana Husain Ahmed Madani, Maulana Ubaidullah Sindhi, Maulana Hifzurrehman etc. are not even mentioned who, made great sacrifices for freedom of the county and many of whom were exiled to Malta, Andaman Nicobar etc. They also launched Reshmi Rumal Conspiracy to spread message of freedom and paid heavily for that. The textbooks give an impression as if most of the Muslims, with few exceptions were on the side of Pakistan though the truth is otherwise. A vast majority of Muslims was against partition and for unity of the country. Even today most of the Muslims are held responsible for partition and this remains a prominent issue in many communal riots. It will be in the interest of the country to teach correct version of history of freedom struggle and the role played by Muslims in freedom struggle. 3. The other point of vital importance is focus on value-education. Today the entire focus of our education is promoting career rather than character. In our education system, for lack of values, career has become most important and character building has been completely marginalized. Also, our education system produces conforming mind rather than thinking mind. An education system which fails to produce thinking and critical mind is worth nothing. Our education system produces only career-oriented mind. Not only that our education system creates prejudiced mind, prejudiced against minorities, tribals and dalits. It is anything but healthy mind. Thus by overhauling education system we will do great service to the cause of our nation. It would respect rights of poor, weaker sections and would be more inclusive. Today education system is part of the problem, let us make it part of the solution. 4. Reforming the police system: Our police are product of the same education system and it also gets influenced by uncritical stories in media about minorities and other weaker sections of society and hence has been horribly communalized. We cannot eliminate riots from India or we cannot handle riots properly without comprehensive police reforms. It is horribly prejudiced. In riot after riot after riot we hear stories of how police promotes, rather prevents communal riots.

20

Thus there should be secular orientation from time to time through refresher courses, apart from secular orientation along with professional graining before joining the service is highly necessary, such orientation influences police attitude a lot. 5. Enactment of Communal Violence and Targeted Bill. This law, if passed, will go a long way in curbing communal violence as it fixes responsibility on concerned officers. This Bill has been drafted very carefully by responsible secular activists and gave to Sonia Gandhi to get it enacted. Government convened National Integration Council meeting to test the waters and BJP leaders like Arun Jaitly and Sushma Swaraj mounted such a severe attack on it that government was unnerved and since then the Bill is lying in cold storage. It should be immediately revived, if necessary by some amendments and enacted. Also if it is accompanied by implementation of fifth Police Commission Report it will greatly help. This Bill also ensures adequate reparations and compensation in the event of outbreak of violence. 6. Mixed and cosmopolitan living: With every riot Hindus and Muslims begin to leave mixed areas and get polarized religion wise. It greatly harms the cause of integration. In such events communal propaganda and rumours become far more effective. Government should not register any society unless it has members of all communities in it i.e. Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Parsis and Sikhs as well as Buddhists and Jains. In our country caste and religion wise societies are quite common. In Singapore, as per law no society will be registered until all religious and ethnic communities are included22. 7. Inter-communal weddings: This not only makes people connected by "blood" but also discover more about the "other" communities. The practices and customs will have to evolve so that every community involved can be tolerant of the combined practices. This solution will reduce the communal violence as the society comes together as time elapses. There will be a mix of communities and all communities inter-mingle. There are distinct problems with this solution as well. For one, some communities are more precious about preserving its populace and the punishment for anyone leaving its community is dire. The practices cannot be combined easily as aspects of food, celebrations etc. are held with utmost reverence by some communities while the same aspects are condemned by other communities. This trend of inter-communal weddings is already underway is bigger cities and towns but there is still an ocean to swim if this is supposed to happen across India. 8. Abolishment of communities: This is very tough given the system of reservation in India and how there is 22 A five point formula for riot –free India ,by Dr Asghar Ali Engineer Secular Perspective 21

special treatment awarded to certain communities. However, if the politicians can stop exploiting general public for their votes and if general public can get behind the idea of collective development this ideal can be achieved with the help of judiciary. There are several difficulties in getting this accomplished. The main one being preferential treatment of people belonging to communities. I do not think these people are ready to give up the special treatment given to them even though such treatment is harmful to the society in the long run. The other difficulty will be the loss of identity. For several people their community is their identity. This might be based on the work they do (original concept of caste), place they live (tribes, naxals, city dwellers etc) and other arbitrary factors which are better if not used to define people. 9. Atheism: This leads to absolute morality. Atheists cannot point to any external media to justify their actions. They will have to depend on their conscience and take responsibility for all their actions. Somehow in India religion leads to communities and castes even though all three constructs are different and can exist without each other. Since religion is a very personal belief it is very tough to get this accomplished. 10. Equality of all oneness of man: Life is but an endless series of experiments. Break through the crust of limitation and India becomes one family. If all limitations vanish, the whole world becomes one family, which it really is. Not to cross these bars is to become callous to all fine feelings which make a man. No religious Divisions If a free India is to live at peace with herself, religious division must entirely give place to political division based on considerations other than religious. Even as it is, though unfortunately religious differences loom large, most parties contain members drawn from various sects. 11. No Privileged Class No privileges should be given to anyone in the new India. It is the poor and neglected and down trodden and weak that should be our special care and attention. A Brahman should not grudge if more money is spent on the uplift of the Harijans. At the same time, a Brahman may not be done down simply because he is a Brahman. In fact, the Brahmans are a very small minority. There must be pure and undefiled justice for everyone in both Pakistan and Hindustan. It is the duty of every citizen to treat the lowliest on a par with the others23. 12. Status of Muslim minority loyalty to Union (DO) NOT see evil everywhere. All Muslims are not bad just as all Hindus are not bad. It is generally the impure who see impurity in others. It is our duty to see the best and have no fear. We the Sikhs; the Hindus and the Muslims to forget the past, not to dwell on their sufferings but to 23Gandhi and Communal Problems www.mkgandhi.org Page 57 22

extend the right hand of fellowship to each other and determine to live at peace with each other. Muslims must be proud to belong to the Indian Union; they must salute the tri-colour. If they are loyal to their religion, no Hindu can be their enemy. Similarly, the Hindus and the Sikhs must welcome peace loving Muslims in their midst24. Befriend Muslims We should forget the past and learn the duty of having friendly feelings towards all and being inimical to none. The crores of Muslims are not all angles nor are all the Hindus and the Sikhs. Muslims are a numerous community scattered all over the world25.

Conclusion 24 Gandhi and Communal Problems www.mkgandhi.org Page 58 25 Gandhi and Communal Problems www.mkgandhi.org Page 60 23

Hate crime and consequential hate speech attacks the victim not only physically but also at the very core of his or her identity, causing a heightened sense of vulnerability beyond that normally found in other crime victims. The hate‐motivated violence carries with it the clear message that the target and his group are of marginal value. Here the criminalization of such acts may be helpful in protecting the value of society. The impact of hate crimes reaches beyond the harm done to the immediate victim or victims of the criminal behaviour. There is a more widespread impact on the ʺtarget communityʺ that shares the Group characteristic of the victim and an even broader based harm to the general society. Members of the target community do more than sympathizing or even empathizing with the immediate hate‐crime victim and perceive such crime as if it was an attack on them directed by themselves. Finally, the impact of hate‐crimes may spread well beyond the immediate victims and the target community to the general society. Such crimes violate not only society’s general concern for the security of its members and their property but also the shared value of equality among its citizens and racial and religious harmony in a multicultural society. In such a situation state should necessarily take the cognizance of the effect of hate crimes and related hate speeches. Communal violence has occurred due to the negligence and non-performance of state machineries which resulted not only in the loss of precious human lives and destruction of both public and private property and also impeded the economic development process of the country .What is specifically worrisome is often the frequent allegation that these communal incidents have enjoyed the support of the state and particularly that the police has supposedly played not only an active role but also have shown bias in the discharge of its public responsibility while the cold blooded massacres, heinous acts of rape have been committed on the members belonging to the minority communities especially Muslims, Christians and Sikhs in our country. It will not be out of context to mention that pluralism is strength of our country. This pluralism is very much reflected in various provisions of the constitution particularly Article 14 and article 25. It is the diversity of culture which makes this country a distinct place on the Earth. Hate speeches are generally used for pseudo‐domination or some time an attempt to overshadow the other’s religion and culture. Any such act or attempt must be criminalized to protect the strength of this great Indian civilization. It is well established that no fundamental right is absolute including 19(1) (a). Freedom of speech and expression cannot be interpreted to include any such speeches, consequences of which can be mass scale violence and hatred in the society. It is with all respect submitted that constitution itself makes restriction on hate speech and any interpretation which defiles these values will be the negation of freedom of others.

24

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8)

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA by JN PANDEY WWW. WIKIPEDIA.COM WWW.LEGALPUNDIT.COM WWW.INDIAKANOON.COM WWW.ARTICLE19.ORG WWW.CARM.ORG WWW. JMI.AC.IN Article “STRIKING A BALANCE Hate Speech, Freedom of Expression and Nondiscrimination” Edited by Sandira Coliver Contributing Editors Kevin BQyle and Frances D'Souza 9) Article “ HATE CRIME: POLITICO‐LEGAL DIMENSION OF HATE SPEECH” by Girjesh Shukla 10) Shylashri Shankar’s “Scaling Justice, India’s Supreme court, Anti-Terror Laws, and Social Rights” Oxford University Press, New Delhi. 11) Girja Kumar’s “Censorship in India” Har-Anand Publications Pvt Ltd 12) Durga Das Basu’s “Shorter Constitution of India” 14th Edition Vol. 1 13) Ronojoy Sen’s “Aricles of faith-religion, Secularism and the Indian Supreme Court” Oxford University press, New Delhi,First Published 2010 14) Paul R. Brass’s “Forms of Collective violence-Riots, Pogroms and Genocide in Modern India” Ist Edition 15) http://www.vidyaonline.org/dl/JPNaik_01.pdf 16) http://www.aiccindia.org/news/school_textbooks_in_uttar_pradesh_promote_hindu_b ias 17) “Police Accountability in India” by G. P. Joshi at www.hrsolidarity.net/mainfile.php/2005vol15no05/2448/

25