Fairness, not new laws, needed to penalize Haridwar speech makers

Against the backdrop of inflammatory remarks made by several sages in Haridwar against Muslims, a demand is growing tough action against those who make such speeches. The sages’ statements are unblemished; in fact what they and others said was disgraceful and shocking. Calls were made to kill Muslims. The controversial pontiff, Yati Narsinghanand, favored a “war against Muslims”; he wanted “Hindus to take up weapons” to ensure a “Muslim didn’t become the Prime Minister in 2029.”

Then there was Prabodhanand Giri, who is shown telling the gathering in a video: “Like Myanmar, our police, our politicians, our Army and every Hindu must pick up weapons and conduct a Safayi Abhiyan [ethnic cleansing]. There is no other option left.”

In another video, Pooja Shakun Pandey, or Sadhvi Annapurna, was haranguing the Hindus to fight Muslims: “If you want to finish them off, then kill them… We need 100 soldiers who can kill 20 lakh of them to win this.” She went on to repeat her views to a new channel: “The Constitution of India is wrong. Indians should pray to Nathuram Godse. I am not afraid of the police.”

Such statements smirch the nation and poison public debate, but should they be banned or banished? And should those air such venomous views be penalized? Many public figures answer in the affirmative.

Anand Sharma, chairperson of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs and deputy leader of the Congress in Rajya Sabha, has urged Home Minister Amit Shah to consider taking legislative action to check hate speech. Specifically, Sharma wants amendments in the Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Congress leader has also asked Shah to sensitize the chief secretaries and police chiefs of states to curtail such speeches.

“Hate speech is being used as a tool to promote enmity and disharmony among between different groups on grounds of religion, caste, ethnicity, etc. In my opinion, if left unchecked, this will severely undermine the rule of law and threaten the fundamental right of life, liberty and dignity of our citizens,” Sharma said in his letter to the Home Minister.

Former Supreme Court judge Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman recently proposed Proposing that parliament should amend laws to prescribe a minimum punishment in the case of hate speeches: “If we really want to strengthen rule of law as contained in our constitution, I would suggest strongly that parliament amend these laws to provide minimum sentences, so that it creates deterrence for others who make hate speech.”

Other eminent persons have also favored tough action against the people who incited violence against Muslims.

The problem, however, is not the lack of laws; there are legal provisions, like Section 295 A of the Indian Penal Code, which can penalize such speeches. The problem is that such provisions are used, rather abused, to silence critical filmmakers, comedians, etc., but those making inflammatory statements mostly walk free.

The need of the hour is fairness in the application of penal provisions, not new laws.