Comment

Freedom comes at a price. It means that we can say what others do not like, and who may even detest what we say. Most of us
recoil in horror at the real implication of the freedom of expression.
There are limits to expression of hatred as there are limits of freedom of expression itself. The law marks the outer limits of this freedom. What BJP’s Varun Gandhi seems to have done is crossed the line of the law for which he has been duly censured by the Election Commission. The BJP too is wary about the legal liabilities of the speech, more than anything else.

There is a danger we need to avoid in our eagerness to eliminate and punish those who indulge in hate speech. We should not think that because hate speech is illegal, there is no hatred in the hearts of people. It would seem that it is important, and even crucial, to find out a person’s real thoughts rather than hear his sanitised ones. This is much more so when that person is seeking public office.

There is the curious argument that politicians, including the BJP ones, indulge in communal rhetoric — which is an acceptable and modified form of hate speech — for purely political reasons, and not so because they do believe in what they say. So Varun Gandhi does not hate Muslims but he had to win an election. A BJP leader remarked after Narendra Modi’s 2002 assembly victory that Modi had moved on but it was the media that was harping on his communalist campaign. That is, Modi used communalism as a means to an end, and that he is more interested in developmental issues rather than hate politics. The argument has to go beyond the BJP and Hindu communalism as such. It applies to the anti-upper caste rhetoric that the BSP leaders once indulged in. It was a form of hate speech too. The same applies to what the communists say of capitalists, and what the naxalites say of the communists. Invective and venom are among the primary colours of hate speech as well.
Some who argue against religious hate speech — it is an oxymoron in ideal terms but it is just that in many cases — should find it difficult to defend hate speech against capitalists and upper castes.

The best way out of the contradiction is to accept that hate speech is part of the freedom of speech and we should learn to deal with it.

One of the ways of dealing with it is to see people who express such thoughts and harbour such attitudes should not be trusted with positions of power. So, it is preferable that these people show their true colours rather than hide behind politically correct speeches. It will also show the coarseness of character that is at the heart of the person who speaks that way.

It is to be conceded that people change and evolve. Mayawati is a good example. Her disdain, and that of her mentor Kanshiram, for the upper castes in the early years of BSP politics has given way to respect and accommodation. It seems to be the same in the case of communists like West Bengal chief minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee and his comrades in Kolkata who are willing to sup with the devil — the capitalist. It should not be ruled out that the BJP’s anti-minority hostility could be transformed into a healthy accommodation.

While they hold on to their hateful thoughts, it is necessary to know that they hold them. Many Muslims are wont to say that it is easier to deal with the BJP because their stance towards the community is known, and that it is difficult to deal with a secular Congress that has communal biases because it is overtly inclusive.

Jesus says that the mouth speaketh the abundance of heart. Hate speech mirrors the inner state. Those who argue that hate speech needs to be banned because of the violence that it would unleash are partly justified. But we need a peep into these dark minds. Hate speech gives that access. We are not a society of saints. There will be these dissonant, raucous and ugly voices. We have to hear them in order to shun them.