Context: Recently, the Vice-President of India spoke out against hate speech, saying it goes against the country’s culture, Constitution and ethos.
Key Views

• He saying it goes against the country’s culture, Constitution and ethos, and that “every person has the right to practise and preach his or her faith”.
• Addressing an event marking the 150th death anniversary of Saint Kuriakose Elias Chavara in Kottayam, Kerala.
• Hate speech and writings are against (the country’s) culture, heritage, tradition and Constitutional rights and ethos. 
• Every person has the right to practise and preach his or her faith in the country. 
• Practise your religion but don’t abuse and indulge in hate speech and writings,’’ he said, expressing his “disapproval of attempts to ridicule other religions and create dissensions in society”.
• Saying Saint Chavara, the 19th century Catholic priest, philosopher and social reformer, “has taught us that peaceful human relationships are sacred and more important than anything else.
• Today, we need a Chavara in every community — a towering individual with a vision to unite all sections of society socially and culturally, and take the country forward.
• He urged other states to take a cue from Kerala in the fields of education, social justice and women’s empowerment as outlined in the pioneering initiatives of Saint Chavara and social reformer Narayana Guru. 
• Their path-breaking work proves that every state can be transformed into an engine of growth and progress and that this can be achieved through the social and educational empowerment of women and youth belonging to poorer sections of society.

About Hate Speech

• There is no international legal definition of hate speech, and the characterization of what is ‘hateful’ is controversial and disputed. 
• The term hate speech is understood as any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor.

Reasons for Hate Speech

• Hate speech occurs to undermine social equality as it reaffirms historical marginalization and oppression.
• It is enacted to cause psychological and physical harm to its victims as it incites violence.
• It is used of provoke individuals or society to commit acts of terrorism, genocides, ethnic cleansing etc.
• It is a tool to create panic through rumour mongering against targeted people. For example, Northeast exodus.

Provisions regarding Hate Speech

• Section 153A IPC penalises ‘promotion of enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony’.  
• Section 153B IPC penalises ‘imputations, assertions prejudicial to national-integration’.  
• Section 295A IPC penalises ‘deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs’.  
• Section 298 IPC penalises ‘uttering, words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person’.  
• Section 505 IPC penalises publication or circulation of any statement, rumour or report causing public mischief and enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes.
• Part VII of the Representation of People Act, 1951 classifies hate speech as an offence committed during elections into two categories: corrupt practices and electoral offences. The relevant provisions regarding hate speech in the RPA are Sections 8, 8A, 123(3), 123(3A) and 125. 
• In the realm of the hate speech debate, the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) assumes significance as Item 1 (General Conduct) of the MCC prohibits parties and candidates from making any appeals to caste or communal feelings for securing votes.

Challenges

• Difficult to Interpret: The word ‘hate speech’ is a tricky term, merely criticising someone is not hate speech. 
• Curtailing Dissent: The dissent and criticism of the elected government’s policy, when deceptive or even false, could be ethically wrong, but it should not necessarily invite penal action.
• Defining intent: If someone discusses and speaks about controversial and sensitive topics relating to religion, caste, creed, etc. The question is primarily one of intent and purpose which is hard to define. 

Various Committees and their Views
T.K. Viswanathan Committee

• It submitted a report recommending stricter laws to curb online hate speech and use of cyberspace to spread hatred and incitement.
• It proposed inserting Sections 153 C (b) and Section 505 A in the IPC for incitement to commit an offence on grounds of religion, race, caste or community, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, place of birth, residence, language, disability or tribe. It proposed punishment by up to two years along with a Rs 5,000 fine.

Bezbaruah committee

• It was constituted by the Centre in 2014 in the wake of a series of racial attacks on persons belonging to the northeast.
• It had proposed to insert two stricter anti-racial discrimination provisions in the IPC. 
• The proposed amendment section 153C IPC (promoting or attempting to promote acts prejudicial to human dignity) would be punishable by five years and fine or both; 
• Section 509 A IPC (word, gesture or act intended to insult members of a particular race) would be punishable by three years or fine or both.

Road Ahead

• We need people with a vision to unite all sections of society socially and culturally, and take the country forward.
• For India, the whole world is one family as encapsulated in its timeless ideal, ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’. It is with this spirit that we should move forward together.
• The government should also bring comprehensive amendments to criminal laws to prevent hate speech and expression.

By: Shubham Tiwari