Amit Shah to Azam Khan: No one thinks twice about hate speech

Exchanging barbs is fair game in any election campaign. But in this current election things look like they have gotten a lot worse.

First there was Imran Masood, the Congress candidate in Uttar Pradesh’s Saharanpur constituency, who threatened to cut BJP Prime Ministerial candidate Narendra Modi into pieces. While the Congress claimed the video was made while he was still not in the party, Masood still found himself behind bars until he was released on bail a few days later. It should be noted that none of this has impacted his candidacy.

In Maharashtra, MNS chief Raj Thackeray, who has a strong track record when it comes to inciting his audiences with speeches, urged farmers in Maharashtra “to kill those who inflict suffering on them”.  He also told them not to vote for the Congress-NCP alliance for their failure to tackle the problems of farmers.

In Uttar Pradesh, Amit Shah told members of the Jat community affected by the Muzaffarnagar riots that this election was about badla and protecting izzat. The leader who is in charge of the BJP’s campaign in the state is presently facing two FIRs, but has the party backing him and claims that the footage of him is doctored.

And then he has his counterpart in the form of Samajwadi Party’s Azam  Khan who has claimed that Amit Shah is a mahagoonda and the BJP’s prime ministerial candidate is a _darinda (_a demon).  He also claimed that the victory during the Kargil conflict was due to Muslim soldiers, something which the Election Commission is now examining.

Leaders using vitriolic or strong speeches to whip up their audiences isn’t unique to India and during elections it reaches a fever pitch with even the faces of the two national parties raking muck at each other in a bid to consolidate their vote base.

Firstpost had noted earlier that a lot of the current hate speeches revolve around the candidature of BJP’s Narendra Modi. It has obviously been a factor in an election that has the principal opposition party’s campaign riding on his personality and achievements.

However, it doesn’t help that we don’t really have a mechanism to deal with the phenomenon of hate speech, barring the prosecution under law.

The Supreme Court has asked the Law Commission to look into clearly defining what constitutes hate speech and what action could be taken against political leaders for indulging in them. The court has, however, refused to put a blanket ban on such speeches saying it would affect the constitutional provision for freedom of speech in the country.

Writing in the Hoot , Geeta Seshu had pointed out that the path to bringing those who make hate speeches to book is particularly slow in most cases and rarely yields a result that would be deemed fair. It doesn’t help that sanction for prosecution often comes from the state government which is not always bound by a model code of conduct.

Barring Masood, none of those acccused of making speeches to incite their audiences are  even running for the current election. The worst case scenario for any of them is an FIR and arrest, which would be still be a bailable offence. This would at most dent their campaigning schedules but will not really affect the party’s performance in any way. Imprisonment, if it should take place, will only be after prosecution which almost everyone knows won’t happen within the space of an election campaign.

Until there is a provision that penalises a party or a candidate for inciting violence, hatred or polarising votes, don’t expect any dilution of the vitriol. The premise that it might polarise voters enough to take them to victory is reason enough for many candidates to resort to it. Unfortunately, this decision lies in the hand of the legislature.