Hate speech Archives - Lokmarg

The ‘M’ Factor And Malefactor

By Amit Sengupta 2nd June 2024

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
– Fredrich Nietzsche

A certain obscure proposal is as obscure as the word coined: ‘Moditation’. That it should be added in the English language dictionary, surely, will not make the language richer. It’s like putting the man’s picture on a magazine cover, again and again. As editors, we compulsively avoided doing this.

The obsession with the camera, on many occasions, was witnessed when he visited a plethora of Hindu Gods. So much so, the Gods were often effectively sidelined. This is as much a reflection of an insecure childhood regression, as it is a repetitive act of crass, obsessive narcissism, to hide the deeper flaws in a man’s character.

And the flaws are not simply human flaws – some of them are soaked in the deliberate and documented enactment of collective nightmares of ordinary citizens of India, especially Muslims, in the blood and gore of genocides, as in Gujarat, 2002, and multiple mob-lynching; in the stoic silences of the our brilliant scholars, including opposition politicians, rotting in jails for years; in the everyday injustice which has stalked this unhappy land since the cursed summer of May 2014.

This M word has come to play, after all the other Ms used in this campaign by Mr M, including ‘Mujra’. Why ‘M for Monster’ was missing, would remain a mystery. ‘Mujra’ in Urdu and Hindi means salutations – paying one’s respect. It is also a metaphor for dancing girls of yore, who would dance on renditions from the finest Indian classical dances, with a feudal audience in rapt attention, who, were, often, the patrons of these forms of performing arts. Like the glorious and great life and times of Gandhi, a global icon since the freedom movement, which he has so predictably missed, of course, in Mr M’s ‘Entire Political Science’, even this word would have only a perverse meaning.

Like a fellow journalist cryptically commented on Saturday: “Perhaps he knows he has sinned, and sinned so much with not an iota of shame or introspection. That is why, this melodrama of one-day meditation with an army of cameras and security persons surrounding him. You just cannot eliminate your own past, can you? And where have you heard of meditation in front of so many cameras, situated on strategic angles, eyes-open-wide-shut? It’s morbid. Vivekananda would be turning in his secular grave!”

Many journos, for instance, are wondering: did he continue the so called meditation even in the thick of the tidal night, under flashlights and the cameras clicking continuously? Did he not eat and drink, or go to the washroom? Did he not think for once that his vote margin might be drastically reduced in Varanasi this time? Did he, or did he not, check, if the exit polls were ‘managed’ so that he can draw legitimacy in his final foray into power, till he joins the other Ms of his own making – the Margdarshaks – sidelined and dumped into the garbage can of BJP’s own dubious history?

Vivekananda famously said that you don’t have to do temple-hopping – you can find your God while playing in the football field! He said in one of his discourses: “…Then we shall understand that we ourselves are groping in darkness, and are leading others to grope in the same darkness, then we shall cease from sectarianism, quarrel, arid fight. Ask a man who wants to start a sectarian fight, ‘Have you seen God? Have you seen the Atman? If you have not, (then) what right have you to preach His name – you, walking in darkness, trying to lead me into the same darkness – the blind leading the blind, and both falling into the ditch’?”

If he wanted to turn the tide in the last phase of elections in Bengal on June 1, actually, he might lose all the nine seats going for polls on that day. Besides, the BJP might lose big in all the 13 seats in Punjab, and much of Himachal, UP and Bihar. In Varanasi, if he manages a victory with a reduced margin – that itself would signal the final collapse of his biological mythology.

Apart from the Ms, Muslim-bashing, and mythical buffaloes, he and his Man-Fridays did not raise one productive issue stalking the soul of India — farmers, MSP, students, science, health, inflation, mass employment, gender justice, women’s empowerment, the tens of thousands dead during the pandemic when they simply disappeared from the final data, including the dead floating and rotting on the sacred waters of a filthy Ganga. Did he actually clean up the Ganga, as promised, or was it only a fake promise in that fake stretch in the fake touristy terrain of Varanasi, where so many temples were destroyed?

In Varanasi, the city of genius shehnai player, Bismillah Khan, smoking a bidi, as humble as ever, who would play for Goddess Saraswati on the ghats, another counter-narrative is at play. Women have disliked his crude reference of ‘Mujra’. They also hated the public degradation of what is a private and sacred space for Hindu women in India – the ‘Mangalsutra’.

ALSO READ: Different Shades of India’s Electoral Canvas

It’s like how women in Bengal hated it unanimously when he so infamously ridiculed their woman chief minister in a rally: “Didi O Didi!” This thoughtless public speech boomeranged. Mahua Moitra instantly came on TV saying that this is exactly how street-side loafers behave in the towns of Bengal. Indeed, even women in BJP-backed households hated it, and voted against him.

Besides, two other crucial issues have become a bone of contention in Varanasi. One, all the fancy cash-rich projects here have gone to Gujarati contractors. Two, while they were mesmerized in the beginning by the grandiosity of it all, the destruction of many ‘prachin’ Hindu temples in their deeply religious space has gone down badly for the people here. Even the Hindu Mahasabha, for some inexplicable reason, seems to have gone against him. This is bad news for Mr M.

So, no real issues, for the PM. Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge summed it up: “Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke about ‘mandir-masjid’ and other ‘divisive issues’ 421 times, referred to himself in the third person 758 times, referred to the Congress 232 times, and mentioned the INDIA bloc 573 times, but did not refer to the issue of unemployment and inflation even once in his election speeches in the past 15 days.”

A pained, former prime minister, Manmohan Singh, penned a letter to Punjab, before the final polls on January 1, in which he said that the current PM has indulged in the “most vicious form of hate speeches that are purely divisive in nature”. He said: “I have been keenly following the political discourse during this election campaign. Modiji has indulged in the most vicious form of hate speeches, which are purely divisive in nature. Modiji is the first prime minister to lower the dignity of public discourse, and thereby the gravity of the office of the prime minister.”

In contrast, none of the INDIA bloc leaders, even in their vehement criticism of the BJP, ever used a foul word, attacked any caste or community, or made personal remarks. They only raised crucial issues close to the heart of our suffering people, the deprived, marginalized, oppressed. They gave voice to the voiceless. They promised real, doable promises. They never said that they will make India a superpower, a trillion dollar economy, bring back black money from abroad, and will deposit Rs 15 lakh in every bank account. They also said that June 4 will mark the end of Mr M’s regime.

That would be the beginning of the end for a man drunk with power – who saw nothing but his own, artificially glorified, photo-shopped, self-image soaked in the eternal catharsis of narcissism. As Vivekananda said, and he never claimed himself to be prophet: … “You, walking in darkness, trying to lead me into the same darkness — the blind leading the blind, and both falling into the ditch.”

For more details visit us: https://lokmarg.com/

‘Modi Doesn’t Do Hindu-Musalmaan; He Asks For Equal Participation’

By LokMarg 21st May 2024

Nisar Ahmed, a youth voter from Gorakhpur, says Modi’s speeches are given a communal twist to provoke a particular set of voters. His views:

Much hue and cry has been created about the election addresses made by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, calling them as ‘hate speech’ against Muslims. Modi ji himself clarified that the day he does Hindu-Musalmaan he will not be fit for a public office. If you seek my opinion, I did not find anything which is, by any stretch of imagination, an attempt to instigate or demean any particular community.

Modi has been talking about the ‘ghuspaithiyas’ (infiltrators) and Citizenship Amendment Act. How can this be construed as talking about Muslims? Right from the beginning it has been BJP’s stand that we have to guard our demography from illegal migrants. Modi has only been reiterating this fact. To add communal angle into this only reflects a guilty conscience.

I find nothing wrong if the BJP government is firm on this issue as being an informed Muslim, I think that these infiltrators (Bangladeshis, Rohingyas etc) are eating up on the resources meant for us (Muslims). It is only for the political gains of a few political parties and the so called ‘Dharm Gurus’ and ‘Messiahs’ that the Muslims are fed with venom against a stand which is in favour of our country and community.

ALSO READ: ‘BJP Tacit Support To Revanna Exposes Their Misogyny’

For the past ten years since the BJP formed its government at the Centre, a propaganda is being spread that Muslims are in danger under anti-minority Modi government. This has reduced our community into a vote bank. We are told to vote with only one purpose – to defeat BJP – and not about local issues, development or price rise.

If Modi boasts of his decision about Triple Talaq, Article 370 etc., I do not think there is anything wrong in it. Are we not witnessing a different and a developing Kashmir ever since? I know many women of my community enjoying a peaceful and dignified life just because their husbands cannot resort to the threat of Triple Talaq. Modi always calls upon fellow Indians to come forward, join hands and participate in nation building. I have never heard him discriminating and saying that, for example, ‘all Indians except Muslims come together’.

You will be surprised if you go through the list of beneficiaries of government schemes in my district. A good number of Muslims are now living in houses built under the PM Awas Yojana and a majority of those enjoying the loan scheme for street vendors are Muslims! It’s as simple as that – We had been for long and till now are being considered only apt for ‘Dari Bichana Kursi Lagana’ for our netas despite voting blindfolded for them. But if we vote for someone and get benefits in addition, why shouldn’t we? I can take you along many localities in my district where not only youths but an ample size of our population has similar views and are voting for BJP for a reason – equal participation and equal share.

As told to Rajat Rai

For more details visit us: https://lokmarg.com/

‘The Censured TV Hosts Have Only Peddled Lies, Promoted Hatred’

By LokMarg 25th September 2023

Pankaj Srivastava, the founder-editor of independent portal Media Vigil, says Opposition parties have rightly decided not to join a violent discourse run by select TV hosts. His views:

The first issue is that the Congress and the party-led coalition INDIA has not boycotted anyone. They have only proposed non-cooperation with certain ‘journalists’. There is no doubt that these anchors top the list of those who are continuously rake up communal polarization, especially since May 2014. The manner in which they have pandered to the RSS and Sangh Parivar, and manufactured a communal narrative, is a brazen violation of the basic tenets of media ethics. And they openly flaunt their biased stance as TV anchors and influencers.

Routinely, they would call the priests of various religions, and make them clash unnecessarily with spokespersons of political parties. The way they run the tickers and slug, and the inflammatory headlines they showcase, their intention is to inflame vile passions. That is the reason the Opposition parties have decided not to join this violent discourse.

The Congress has stated that if they change their ways, and become non-partisan, the party can consider joining their shows. Surely, even in our freedom movement, non-cooperation was a major non-violent weapon against the British.

Those who are criticizing this non-cooperation with certain anchors with a long record of fake news, hate propaganda and inflammatory discourse, they have earlier been silent on their rabble-rousing. The Supreme Court has declared the use of language by certain channels as hate speech. It is now trying to make new guidelines.

This only proves that the entire editorial structure, its ethics, news-sense and objectivity, seems to have collapsed. The Congress has not blocked the freedom of expression of any journalist. Nor has it gheraoed any TV channel. It has not held protest marches against them. It has not demanded that their license be suspended. It has only stated that it will not be part of any such hate politics. Is this a crime?

Those journalists who are now cribbing about this non-cooperation, should ponder if this poison being spread on a daily basis, constitutes freedom of expression. If they had used their influence and experience, to curb this degeneration, then journalism would not have been reduced to such a brazen farce.

I believe that fake news or propaganda is not created in abstract. There is a design and aim behind it. History tells us how Adolf Hitler used the media to spread hatred against the Jews. Rumours were spread. Hitler was turned into a demi-god. This repetation of history is not a coincidence. This is integral to a planned political campaign. It is well-known that the RSS and BJP are inspired by Hitler and the Nazis.

The BJP is the first party which created a formal IT cell which ran a relentless campaign to denigrate the Opposition parties, the minorities, and peaceful dissenters, including students. A popular Rahul Gandhi was targetted — non-stop. So much so, even Nehru was not spared!

Who can forget that the pandemic was blamed on a programme held by the Tablighi Jamaat? It was transparent that the Modi regime had no interest in stopping fake news. Instead, they seem to be profiting by it. This is part of their politics. The fact is that a big section of the media, especially TV in Delhi, is largely in the control of this government in the Centre. Hence, fake narrative cannot stop on its own.

ALSO READ: ‘Democracy Is Under Strain Under BJP Rule’

Meanwhile, certain independent journalists are using the social media to bring news and opinion which has credibility. They are trying to bring our everyday reality into mainstream media. Indeed, they seem to be becoming effective and popular. That is a sign of hope.

Social Scientist Noam Chomsky, in his seminal book (with Edward S Hermann), ‘Manufacturing Consent’, has pointed at this phenomena. All news channels are run by corporates. During the movement led by Anna Hazare, these channels were used to damage the reputation of the ruling Congress and UPA government. The Gujarat Model and Modi was glorified and posed as a great alternative. That is the reason that the same media, which had accused Modi for the Gujarat genocide of 2002, changed its tune after 2011-12.

Modi had promised to secure the economic interests of this corporate conglomerates. All kinds of myths were manufactured about the Gujarat model though the social indicators of Dalits, adivasis and minorities were really bad in Gujarat. The report card of the two tenures of this government shows that there is massive unemployment and inflation in the country. Thus, to distract the people, inconsequential things are turned into mega events with the loyalist media trumpeting it all.

The narrator has done a long stint on several television channels and print media groups. He has been the chief of bureau of Star News in Uttar Pradesh and has worked in Delhi with Network 18 and Swaraj Express as an editor and anchor

As told to Amit Sengupta

Draw The Line on Freedom of Expression & Hate Speech

By Asad Mirza 22nd September 2023

Recent incidents of burning copies of the Holy Quran in Sweden and Denmark by the far right elements has forced the two Scandinavian countries, besides several others to introspect their stand on the freedom of expression and hate speeches and crimes.

Reportedly the Swedish government is concerned about national security following several incidents involving the burning of the Holy Quran that have provoked demonstrations and outrage from Muslim-majority countries.

On 25^th August, Denmark’s government said it would “criminalise” desecration of religious objects and moved a bill banning the burning of scriptures.

Denmark and Sweden are among the most secular and liberal countries in the world, and have long allowed trenchant public criticism of religions. Politicians across Denmark ‘s political spectrum said an outright ban would compromise citizens’ constitutionally inscribed right to freedom of expression as new laws could stop or at least restrict them.

While freedom of expression is a fundamental human right in liberal democracies, the right to express one’s opinion can become complex when expressing one’s views clashes with the religious and cultural beliefs of others and when this rhetoric veers into hate speech.

In many European countries, lawmakers and others are asking whether these religious book burnings should be seen as exercises of free expression or more as incitement based on religion. A few countries are already introducing new legislation to curb hate speech against religious communities, as per a report by Armin Langer, for The Conversation.

But here we also have to acknowledge the fact that such tendencies grew in Scandinavian countries, which have a far better societal edifice. This suffered cracks when a large number of migrants from various, mostly Muslim Arab and Asian countries, to these developed nations began. As a result of their old customary and religious belief and with little help from the government’s side, these migrant communities were not able to assimilate themselves properly into the mainstream of these countries and were seen as more of a problem, rather than an asset.

As per census figures the migrants in Sweden constitute about 1.8 to 4.4% of the population, in numbers these transform to 250,000 to 400,000 in a country of 9 million people. On the other hand, 5% of Denmark’s population consists of migrants or descendants of migrants.

Historically, since medieval times, because of the dominant role of Christianity in political and cultural life, blasphemy against Christian beliefs in European countries was severely punished.

Even now various European countries retain blasphemy laws, though the laws may not prevent present-day acts like dishonouring of religious texts.

Russia, introduced a federal law in 2013 criminalising public insults of religious beliefs. The German Penal Code of 1969 has forbidden the public slander of religions and worldviews.

Both, Austria and Switzerland have laws in this regard. In 2011, a person in Vienna was fined for calling the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) a paedophile. This case later went up to the European Court of Human Rights, which supported the Viennese court’s decision. The court said that the person wasn’t trying to have a useful discussion but instead just wanted to show that Prophet Muhammad shouldn’t be respected.

Spain, also takes a strong stance against religious disrespect. Its penal code makes it a crime to publicly belittle religious beliefs, practices or ceremonies in a way that could hurt the feelings of followers of other religions.

Italy, punishes acts deemed to be disrespectful to religions. Its penal code has been used to punish actions that insult Christianity. For example, in 2017 authorities charged an artist for depicting Jesus with an erect penis.

Even in the U.S., there’s an on going debate about the boundaries of free speech. The First Amendment of the Constitution allows free speech, which some can interpret as the right to burn holy books.

If we analyse closely, based on our interpretation of societal mores and democratic principles, these acts of hatred against one particular religious community seems to be a part of a broader agenda of targeting Muslims by far-right groups across Europe and elsewhere, too.

Lawmakers, social scientists, academicians, politicians all are intent on getting a plausible definition of defining whether these acts of book burnings should be seen as exercises of free expression or more as an incitement based on religion.

On the other hand in India, a country which has seen a steady increase in cases of hate crimes and hate speeches over the past few years, the real intervention has come from the judiciary, not the political class.

In reality, if we really want to put an end to such fissiparous tendencies then we’ll have to change our focus. The cases of burning copies of the Holy Quran or religious books of other religions or the increasing rise in Islamophobia across the world, could be resolved with the help of the political class but we need to adopt a more humane and social approach to resolve the anti-religious acts through finalising a more clearer definition of free speech, hate speech and hate crimes. Only this would help in dealing with them in a more proactive manner rather than a reactive manner, as is evident by the Danish decision to review laws relating to free speech in Denmark.

A few countries are introducing new legislation to curb hate speech against religious communities. For example, in 2006 England got rid of the blasphemy law and introduced The Racial and Religious Hatred Act, which makes it an offense to stir up religious hatred. After repealing its blasphemy law in 2020, Ireland has been discussing the introduction of a hate speech law, which will criminalise any communication or behaviour that is likely to incite violence or hatred.

Sweden passed a hate speech law in 1970 protecting racial, ethnic, religious and sexual minorities. Swedish authorities pointed to this legislation when they took action against a Quran-burning incident that occurred in front of a mosque in June 2023.

(The writer is a Delhi-based senior political and international affairs commentator)

SC Directs States, UTs To Take Suo Moto Action Against Hate Speech Irrespective Of Religion

By LokMarg 28th April 2023

The Supreme Court on Friday directed all states and union territories to ensure that as and when any hate speech is made, they shall take suo moto action for registration of FIR even without any complaints.

A bench of Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna made it clear that such action shall be taken irrespective of the religion of the persons who made the speech, so that the secular character of Bharat as envisaged by the Preamble is preserved.
The bench said that any hesitation to take action on hate speech would be viewed as contempt of court.

“Respondents shall ensure that immediately, as and when any speech or any action takes place which attracts offences such as Section 153A, 153B, 295A and 506 of IPC etc, without any complaint being filed, suo motu action be taken to register cases and proceed against the offenders in accordance with law,” the bench stated in its order.

It further added, “We further make it clear that such action be taken irrespective of the religion of the maker of the speech, so that the secular character of Bharat as envisaged by the Preamble is preserved.”

The apex court was hearing a batch of pleas seeking direction to curb hate speeches.

It has now posted the cases for hearing on May 12.

The bench now extended its October 21, 2022 order, which was applicable to the Delhi, Uttarakhand, and Uttar Pradesh governments, to all the States and Union Territories.

During the hearing, the bench made it clear that in its previous order it did not direct that action should be taken against any particular community but action should be taken irrespective of the religion.

As one of the petitioners said that hate speech is a pan-India issue, Justice Joseph said, “When you say pan-India issues, I don’t know if you have hate speech problem in North-East, at least not that I know. So we don’t know if it is pan-India or it is in some areas for special reasons. We only had public good in mind when we passed the order for suo motu action against hate speech. That it should not go out of hand.”

The bench opined that hate speech is an offence “affecting the fabric of the nation”.

As counsels pointed out instances of hate speech in West Bengal and Bihar, Justice Joseph said, “We want to say something. Both of us (judges in the bench) are apolitical. We don’t care about party A or party B. We are only on Constitution.”

“Don’t bring politics. If attempt is to bring in politics, we won’t be a party to this… we have said, irrespective of religion, action should be taken,” the bench added. (ANI)

Toxic Environs (No, It Is Not About Pollution)

By Mahendra Ved 4th November 2022

Rishi Sunak, a foreign-born prime minister of another country, has been ‘appropriated’ by Indians because of his family’s undeniable roots. He has their attention though not necessarily affection as, arguably, he has given them a sense of ‘achievement’. That it is Britain with which India has had bitter-sweet relations helps, also thumbing the nose at Winston Churchill who had foreseen a grim future for India and Indians. The problematic part is if Sunak does not ‘favour’ India, he will become Brutus.

However, something Churchill did not say sticks. Sunak is hailed as the “first Hindu”, although some from the diaspora in the Caribbean and Indian Ocean region preceded him. He is welcome as a “Saraswat Brahmin” by those who grudgingly overlook his holding platefuls of beef produced by his electors, in the same hands that worship Hindu deities.

These are but a few contradictions Indians live with. They resent being reminded that they rejected an Italian-born widow to be an Indian prime minister in spite of being the president of a party that had elected British-born presidents before.

The Sunak euphoria seems many times more than that experienced two years ago and has since vanished, about United States vice president Kamala Harris. Any suggestion that this could be because Kamala is also African and a Black is bound to be rebuffed.

Harris prides herself on her connection to her Indian mother, personally and culturally, but not politically. She represents the US, after all, just as Nicki Haley did as a Donald Trump administration officer. Haley did not mince words in telling India what the Americans expected. So, beware, Sunak.

Indians are getting smarter. Their adulation is not absolute. A Preeti Patel or a Suella Bowerman, despite their Indian connections, has not won their approval because they oppose Indian ‘over-stayers’ in Britain.

All this is neither about diaspora nor about differing affections of Indians who appropriate or abhor them. It is about how conflicting sentiments have played, and are playing in public discourse where aggression and intolerance have come to rule. Sunak’s election and the day earlier, the cricket match that India won over Pakistan, are only the latest occasions.

ALSO READ: Tiranga Nationalism In The Light Of Islam & Hobbs

The two events that added spark to the Diwali celebrations last month generated a parody – yes, a parody — of how they were supposedly viewed by some known critics of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his party.

It would take a genius, even of the argumentative Indian to connect the two events to the usual suspects: writer-activist Arundhati Roy, TV anchors Nidhi Razdan, Rajdeep Sardesai, Barkha Dutt, Ravish Kumar et al; Congressman Shashi Tharoor, Rahul Gandhi’s advisor Sam Pitroda, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and Modi-baiter journalist Rana Ayub. The common thread linking them and many more, with quotations attributed to them, was that these ‘anti-nationals’ had ignored, tweaked, condemned or belittled the two historic ‘achievements’.

Views, even on imaginary things and events are fine. I may be wasting your time and mine on this parody. But many actually believed the alleged statements to be true and aggressively condemned them. I was a target of many ‘friends’, some long-time acquaintances, who insisted that I also condemn them. My plea that they were merely a figment of some professional troll’s fertile imagination made them turn their guns at me.

Not a new trend, this has been around for some years. Many on social media have become aggressive, howsoever docile they may be in their real lives, practising and preaching non-violence.

The war of “Forwards” in the media often takes Mahabharata-like proportions with the Pandava-Kaurava binary. The battle lines (minus Krishna, though) are neatly drawn.

They go well beyond political issues. Even ‘magic’ cures and preventions during the Covid-19 pandemic (although some may be genuine) were bandied about as medical Gospel that you dare not question. A convenient three-word caution, “sent as received” means none takes responsibility. The level of conformity with the unknown, untested and unverified is complete.

Forget the less privileged, it is worrying when even the educated middle-class exercises no discretion and turns blind believers. That they seek to impose their beliefs on others makes it worse. The irony is that those aggressively propagating their viewpoint, even ‘forwards’, want everyone else to stay objective and neutral.

One hears of families being divided on issues that do not necessarily affect them in their daily lives. It jeopardizes harmony and relationships. The time when people disagreed and moved on is over in this era of ‘un-friending’ and ‘blocking’.

Going beyond being argumentative, we have become my-views-or-none. We have stopped rationalizing. We have stopped being accommodative. And this could come with abuse – damn the civility that supposedly comes with education.

Numerous reports indicate how word spread through social media apps has led to sectarian and political violence. Since it is an individual act of participating in collective information/ misinformation, generated without physical participation, the authority is helpless and is often late in responding.

The Supreme Court recently condemned hate speech. Possibly, it was using an all-inclusive but neutral term to cover all forms of hatred. It could not be unaware of this daily occurrence that heightens during elections – and India is in election mode all the time.

Save a few newspaper editorials, did anyone in the government(s), or in any political party, endorse the court’s observations and warn their employees and cadres? It was mainly the political class. Now even some bureaucrats have also begun to get controversial. Just how many ministers, MPs, MLAs and other elected representatives have been brought to book for hate speech?

Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal wants photos of Lakshmi to be printed on one side of the currency notes, the other side retaining that of Mahatma Gandhi. He may be wanting to ‘trap’ the Modi Government and outperform the Hindutva political plank. But he must be naïve not to know that many people, particularly young whose peers have themselves gone hateful and wayward, want Gandhi to be removed altogether. Basics are being questioned. That points to the level of hatred.

Is it any surprise that this aggression, individual or collective, fed on social media, but also by mainstream media through TRP-driven television channels and websites, has numbed the public mind into accepting the most unjust when it is staring in their faces?

People who thronged the streets ten years ago to protest the rape of Nirbhaya have not thought it fit to protest the release of 11 persons tried and convicted for raping a woman and then killing her family members. A provision in law has been conveniently invoked by the Gujarat Government and endorsed – and since defended before the Supreme Court by the Union government. They were freed for “good behaviour”, garlanded at the jail gate and were feted in public.

Symbolic of the toxicity prevailing in our body politic, this carries an inherent warning. The release of the 11 came on August 15, the much-celebrated country’s 75^th Independence Day. Does one need to say more?

The writer can be reached at mahendraved07@gmail.com

Kanye Fans Make Crowd-Funding Page To Make Him Billionaire Again

By LokMarg 31st October 2022

After big companies like Adidas, Balenciaga and Gap cut ties with Kanye West, Page Six quoted a Forbes report stating that he had lost his billionaire status.

However, in what could be termed an astonishing twist, his fans have taken a pledge to make him a billionaire again!
Kanye’s fans have made a crowd-fund page online to make him a billionaire again. They are trying to raise a total of 1 billion dollars. So far, no donation has been made.

After Adidas cut ties with Kanye and his Yeezy collection, Kanye West lost his billionaire status. Adidas issued a statement last week in response to West’s anti-Semitic remarks, saying, “Adidas does not tolerate antisemitism and any other sort of hate speech.”

“Ye’s recent comments and actions have been unacceptable, hateful and dangerous, and they violate the company’s values of diversity and inclusion, mutual respect and fairness,” the company added.

Page Six quoted a Forbes report according to which West’s worth is USD 400 million now after the Adidas partnership was terminated. The Yeezy deal accounted for USD 1.5 billion of his net worth.

This development came just days after Balenciaga cut ties with the rapper. Post that, while speaking to TMZ Kanye said, “I ain’t losing no money… The day I was taken off the Balenciaga site was one of the most freeing days.”

He said that people are merely cutting ties with him to “mute him. He mentioned that people are doing so to simply “score points,” according to Page Six.

He further added that it’s not easy to cancel him – “We here, baby, we ain’t going nowhere.”

He defended his anti-Semitic commend and told TMZ, “I want to talk about the Jewish comment, it’s actually proven the exact point that I made.”

Kanye West recently hired Johnny Depp’s lawyer Camille Vasquez to handle his business matters, however, Camille refused to work with him because he did not retract his anti-Semitic statement. (ANI)

SC Asks Govts To Act Against Hate Speeches Or Face Contempt

By LokMarg 21st October 2022

The Supreme Court on Friday, while expressing concern over the hate speeches in the country, observed “where have we reached in the name of religion” and ordered suo moto action against offenders without looking into religion.

A bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy said that hate speeches are “disturbing”, especially for a country that is democratic and religion-neutral.

“Where have we reached? What have we reduced religion to? It is tragic. And we speak of scientific temper,” observed the bench.

The bench also issued notices to Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand Police and asked them to file a report on what action has been taken against such offences within their jurisdiction.

It further ordered that State governments and police authorities should take suo motu action in cases of hate speeches without waiting for the registration of a formal complaint. The apex court said authorities to take action against offenders without looking at their religion of them.

Failure in taking action would attract contempt of court against the erring officials, it added.

It expressed shock at some of the statements and hates speeches made against minority communities during recent religious congregations.

The top court in its order said, “The Respondents (Delhi, UP and Uttarakhand police) will issue directions to their subordinates in this regard without looking at the religion of the accused so that the secular nature of India is preserved.”

The apex court was hearing a plea seeking its urgent intervention to stop the alleged growing menace of targeting and terrorising the Muslim Community in India.

The petition filed by petitioner Shaheen Abdullah, a journalist working with the Maktoob media, sought direction to the Centre and the State governments to initiate an independent, credible and impartial investigation into the incidents of hate crimes and hate speeches.

It further sought directions to initiate appropriate action under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and other relevant penal laws against the speakers and organisations engaging in such hate crimes.

The plea said news and media platforms that conduct programmes openly demonise the Muslim community.

“Public speeches openly call for genocide of Muslims or speeches calling for economic and social boycott of Muslims. Open participation by members of the ruling political party in delivering hate speeches targeting Muslims,” it added.

“Despite the fact that this Court has been cognisant of the genocidal speeches and hate crimes against Muslims made at several events and several orders have been passed by this Court directing the authorities concerned to take appropriate action, the circumstances of the country only seem to be worsening with the growing radicalisation of the Hindu community and the propagation of widespread hate against Muslims that also culminates into the physical abuse of Muslims by radical elements,” the plea stated. (ANI)

Hate Speech: SC Asks Why Govt Is A Mute Spectator

By LokMarg 21st September 2022

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked why the government was remaining a mute spectator to hate speech and also pulled up mainstream TV news channels for holding debates that often give space for hate speech.

A bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy said the role of anchor in the TV channel debate is “very important” and “critical” and observed that it’s their duty to ensure that guests invited to the show don’t indulge in hate speech.

The bench also said that TV channels which often give space to hate speech escape without any sanctions.

“Role of the anchor is very important. These speeches are on mainstream media or social media that is unregulated. Mainstream TV channels still hold sway. The role of the anchor is critical. The moment you see somebody going into hate speech, it is the duty of anchor to immediately see that he doesn’t allow that person,” said Justice Joseph.

The apex court was hearing a batch of pleas seeking direction for steps against hate speech incidents.

The bench further said that hate speech benefits politicians the most and TV news channels give platforms for hate speech.

Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde appearing for one of the petitioners in the case also agreed with the bench and said, “Channels and politicians feed on such speech. Channels get money. They keep ten people in debates.”

“You should be communicating what others are saying not what you want to say. Pillars of democracy are supposed to be independent and not take orders from anyone,” the bench said.

The bench said, “If sanctions are effected this will go… Any anchor will have his own views, but what is wrong is when you have people of different views and you are not allowing them to express those views… in doing that you are bringing hate and your TRP is going up.”

The bench further observed that freedom of the press is important and ours is not as free as the US but we should know where to draw a line.

Citing an instance, Justice Joseph said that one news channel was fined heavily in the United Kingdom.

“We don’t have that here. They (news channels) are not being dealt with firmly. They can be taken off air, fined, if such sanction comes….” Justice Joseph opined.

Hegde told the bench that on Tuesday, US President Joe Biden said that we cannot give hate oxygen.

To this, Justice Joseph responded, “Not one bit. We cannot give hate any air.”

The top court further added that nowadays nobody reads because of the paucity of time, but visual media has a power that has been recognised by this court in censorship cases.

During the hearing, the bench asked why the Central government was remaining a “mute spectator” on the hate speech issue.

“What’s the problem? Why government of India not taking a stand? Why is the government remaining a mute spectator?” asked the bench from Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj.

Government should not take an adversarial stand on this but assist the court, Justice Joseph said.

Nataraj, representing the Centre, told the bench that 14 states have filed their responses. The apex court asked the Centre to also file a response collating the State government’s inputs.

In July this year, the top court had directed the Centre to prepare a detailed chart outlining States’ compliance with the general directions issued by it in the judgments relating to curbing hate speech. (ANI)

Coloured People Are Still Considered A White Man’s Burden

By LokMarg 7th September 2022

Ramsharan Joshi, a journalist, academic and author currently based in Boston (US), says objective use of social media can help discourage racial crimes in the West

Indians have been on the receiving end of hate speech in the US recently. One Indian was viciously abused at a Fremont restaurant, and a group of Indian women in Plano, Texas, went through a similar, terrible experience. It follows a ritualistic pattern faced by Afro-Americans, Blacks, Hispanics and other non-White communities in the US, and also in many parts of the West.

Indeed, it reminds me of my first experience in the Anglo-Saxon world about four decades back. During my maiden encounter with the most highly developed metropolitan city of London in 1983, I, along with Swami Agnivesh, acclaimed liberator of bonded labour, and Swami Indravesh, then a Lok Sabha MP, were passing through a London street. We were suddenly attacked violently – some street kids belonging to the White community attacked us for no reason. They jeered at us with a certain ugly enthusiasm and spat on the three of us. Abuses were showered on us. We had to literally run away from the spot. Seeing us in such a panic, some people of Indian origin rushed and rescued us from further attacks and humiliation. We were told by the locals that this is a routine occurrence.

Returning to the present day’s scenario of September, 2022, a powerful and wealthy aspirant for the apex post of prime ministership of Britain, Rishi Sunak, betrayed his orthodoxy and rigid conservatism in a developed nation like the United Kingdom, by publically worshiping the cow. By performing ‘gau puja’ — what message was he trying to convey to the White people, or the Indians who are now settled in that country, the NRIs? So, where do you draw the line between orthodoxy, modernity racism, and pluralist democracy in the developed and super high-tech world of corporate capitalism? I have been trying to find the answers since July1983, when, as a journalist, I first travelled through Europe and America.

Racial Attacks on Indian In West — ***Joshi (inset) feels the racial undercurrents are very strong in western nations***

Sitting in a town in ‘New England’ (Boston area) right now, an interesting event is knocking at my mind. My first encounter with the world of Americans dates back to September 1985. I had gone there as a member of the media team accompanying the then prime minister, Rajiv Gandhi. Journalists were housed in a hotel managed by the Tata Group. I noticed a young man of mixed coloured origin, just about 25, was distributing leaflets cautiously to the media persons, not very far from the UN Headquarters. The leaflets advocated racial purity, ultra-nationalism, uni-culturalism, etc. After reading the leaflet, when I questioned his antecedents he slipped out of the media center.

During several visits to this part of the world, I noticed and felt the undercurrents of strong racial discrimination prevalent in the society. Of course, there is no official admission of discrimination based on race, colour and blood, but the dormant reality erupted in the form of the brutal assault on a breathless George Floyd and his consequent death at the hands of White policeman. Certainly, racism seems to have intensified post-Donald Trump in America, despite Barack Obama being elected twice. Despite the massive Black Lives Matter movement.