Himanta Biswa Sarma video is hate speech, Delete is no answer

Context & The Gist

The article addresses the controversial video uploaded by the Assam BJP, featuring Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma seemingly firing at individuals wearing skull caps, captioned “point blank shot.” This incident follows Sarma’s public call to target “Miyas” (Bengali-speaking Muslims). The editorial argues that this constitutes hate speech, violating constitutional principles of equality and fraternity, and criticizes the BJP’s initial response of simply deleting the video as insufficient. It highlights a concerning pattern of polarization tactics employed by the ruling party in Assam, particularly in the lead-up to elections.

The core issue is the potential for abuse of power and the normalization of hate speech by a Chief Minister, and the responsibility of the ruling party to uphold constitutional values and prevent the erosion of democratic norms.

Key Arguments & Nuances

• Hate Speech & Constitutional Violation: The video is explicitly labeled as hate speech, directly contravening the constitutional promise of equality, dignity, and fraternity.
• Political Context: The timing of the video, during an election year and following divisive rhetoric, suggests a deliberate strategy of polarization to consolidate votes.
• Failure of Enforcement: Despite a Supreme Court directive for suo motu FIRs in hate speech cases, enforcement remains weak, raising questions about the independence of law enforcement agencies.
• Party Responsibility: The BJP’s inaction beyond deleting the video is criticized, emphasizing the party’s responsibility to address the issue and hold those responsible accountable.
• Legitimate Concerns vs. Polarization: The article acknowledges legitimate concerns about illegal immigration but cautions against using them to justify divisive politics and demonize communities.

UPSC Syllabus Relevance

• Polity: Constitutional provisions related to freedom of speech (Article 19), equality (Article 14), and secularism.
• Governance: Issues of law enforcement, accountability of public officials, and the role of the Election Commission.
• Social Issues: Communal polarization, hate speech, and the challenges of maintaining social harmony in a diverse society.

Prelims Data Bank

• Article 19(1)(a): Guarantees freedom of speech and expression.
• Article 14: Guarantees equality before the law.
• Supreme Court Directive (October 2022): Police authorities must register FIRs suo motu in hate speech cases without waiting for formal complaints.
• Form 7: Used for objecting to names in the electoral roll, potentially used for targeted exclusion (as highlighted in related articles).
• Hate Speech: Not explicitly defined under Indian law, but generally refers to expression that incites violence or hatred against a group.

Mains Critical Analysis

The incident raises several critical issues concerning governance and constitutional principles. The use of inflammatory rhetoric and imagery by a Chief Minister, and the subsequent inadequate response from the ruling party, demonstrates a dangerous trend of normalizing hate speech for political gain.

Challenges

• Erosion of Constitutional Values: The incident directly undermines the constitutional principles of equality, fraternity, and secularism.
• Weak Enforcement Mechanisms: The lack of effective enforcement of the Supreme Court’s directive on hate speech highlights systemic weaknesses in the legal and administrative framework.
• Polarization & Social Harmony: The deliberate attempt to polarize communities threatens social harmony and can lead to violence and discrimination.
• Accountability of Public Officials: The reluctance of law enforcement agencies to act against powerful political figures raises concerns about their independence and accountability.

Opportunities

• Strengthening Legal Framework: The need for a clear legal definition of hate speech and robust mechanisms for its prevention and punishment.
• Promoting Ethical Political Discourse: Encouraging political parties to adopt a code of conduct that prohibits hate speech and promotes responsible campaigning.
• Enhancing Civic Education: Raising awareness among citizens about their constitutional rights and the importance of social harmony.
• Strengthening Institutions: Ensuring the independence and effectiveness of institutions like the Election Commission and law enforcement agencies.

Value Addition

• S. Rangarajan Committee (2005): Recommended the inclusion of “reasonable restrictions” on freedom of speech and expression to maintain public order, decency, and morality.
• Law Commission Report (2017): Proposed specific provisions to address hate speech, including enhanced penalties and mechanisms for prevention.
• Bilkis Bano Case: Demonstrates the importance of upholding the rule of law and protecting vulnerable communities from violence and discrimination.

Context & Linkages

This past article directly connects to the current issue by highlighting Sarma’s established pattern of divisive rhetoric and his attempts to manipulate electoral processes through targeted exclusion. It demonstrates that the recent video is not an isolated incident but part of a broader strategy of polarization.

The surge in hate crimes against migrants, as detailed in this article, provides a broader context for understanding the dangers of inflammatory rhetoric and the potential for violence when communities are demonized. It underscores the need for strong legal and administrative measures to protect vulnerable groups.

The Way Forward

• Immediate Action: The BJP leadership must publicly condemn the video and initiate a thorough investigation, holding those responsible accountable.
• Strengthen Legal Framework: Enact a clear and comprehensive law defining hate speech and providing for swift and effective punishment.
• Empower Law Enforcement: Ensure the independence and capacity of law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute hate speech cases without fear or favor.
• Promote Inclusive Governance: Implement policies that promote social harmony and inclusivity, addressing the legitimate concerns of all communities.
• Civic Education: Invest in civic education programs that promote constitutional values and responsible citizenship.