Dr.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY

Rough Draft on :- Hate Speech And

Communal Violence

SUBMITTED BY:

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF:

SPARSH YADAV

Dr. ALKA SINGH

ROLL NO: 146

ENGLISH TEACHER

SECTION B

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA

B.A. LLB (Hons.), SEMESTER I

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

.ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I would like to express my gratitude towards all those whose help and constant
support the project would not have reached its current facet. I would take advantage of this
situation to thank my parents and my guardians without whose constant support and
guidance, I really owe it a lot to them.
However, foremost I would like to thank Dr. Alka Singh, my english teacher for his kind
guidance and for quenching my queries on many doubts and technicalities which I came up
during the making of this project; this project would not have seen the light of the day
without his constant direction and guidance.
I would also like to thank all of my friends and seniors who aided me along the way. I must
also extend my gratitude to the library and library personnel who provided me with research
material and good books to work upon.

Table of contents
TOPICS

PAGE NUMBER

INTRODUCTION------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4
CONCEPTUALIZING HATE
SPEECH------------------------------------------------------5
INDIAN CONSTIUTION AND HATE
SPEECH---------------------------------------5
FREEDOM OF SPEECH, HATE SPEECH AND JUDICIAL TRENDS-----7
INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON HATE
SPEECH---------------------------9
MEANING OF COMMUNAL
VIOLENCE-----------------------------------------------11
CHARACTERISTICS OF COMMUNAL
VIOLENCE-------------------------------11
REASONS FOR COMMUNAL
VIOLENCE------------------------------------------------12
PROBLEMS FACED BY
PEOPLE----------------------------------------------------------------15
SOLUTIONS-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------17
CONCLUSION---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------22
BIBLIOGRAPHY---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------23

INTRODUCTION
Hate Speech is a speech intended to degrade a person or a group of person based on
their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity,
disability, language ability, ideology, social class, occupation, appearance (height, weight,
hair colour. etc.), mental capacity, and any other distinction that might be considered by some
a liability. The speech ordinarily involves lies, deceptions, misdirection, logical fallacies out
of context citations or quotes, cherry picking, denial, conspiracy theories and derogatory
terminology. It may involve true facts, but they are generally perverted to such an extent that
the conclusion it derives is very different from what the facts are meant to show.
Hate speech lies in a complex nexus with freedom of expression, individual, group
and minority rights, as well as concepts of dignity, liberty and equality. Its definition is often
contested. In national and international legislation, hate speech refers to expressions that
advocate incitement to harm (particularly, discrimination, hostility or violence) based upon
the targets being identified with a certain social or demographic group. It may include, but is
not limited to, speech that advocates, threatens, or encourages violent acts. For some,
however, the concept extends also to expressions that foster a climate of prejudice and
intolerance on the assumption that this may fuel targeted discrimination, hostility and violent
attacks. In common parlance, however, definitions of hate speech tend to be broader,
sometimes even extending to encompass words that are insulting those in power, or
derogatory of individuals who are particularly visible. Especially at critical times, such as
during elections, the concept of hate speech may be prone to manipulation: accusations of
fomenting hate speech may be traded among political opponents or used by those in power to
curb dissent and criticism.
Communal violence - or violence between groups which define themselves by their
differences from each other is one of the foremost human rights problems today. But the
violence of the past 20 years differs from that of previous decades. What are called
communal riots in India started during the emergence of mass politics in the 1920s and have
persisted after the Independence. These riots are essentially an urban phenomenon and have
been largely concentrated in specific sites within certain cities and towns, resulting in
considerable number of deaths, mostly of the poor, and loss of property. It is a matter of
concern that sociologists in India have largely ignored this persistent social phenomenon, just
as there is very limited research carried out by Indian sociologists on Muslims and other
4

minorities. The shift from early functionalist perspective on village and caste to structuralist
debates on caste and religion did not change the focus of sociology in India from the
consensual model of Hindu India. Dissenting voices were heard later on with the research on
social movements of backward classes and dalits, caste and class violence in the aftermath of
Green Revolution, and feminist concerns with the invisibility of women in sociology in India.

Conceptualizing hate speech

Hate speech is basically a species of hate crimes i.e. a criminal manifestation of
prejudice. They may be distinguished from parallel crimes crimes that are similar in every
manner but for the absence of bias motivation in terms of the mental state of the actor as
well as the nature of the harm caused. A parallel crime may be motivated by any number of
factors whereas bias crimes are motivated by a specific, personal and groupbased reason; the
victims real or perceived membership in a particular group.
Etymologically, hate speech is designed to promote hatred on the basis of race, religion,
ethnicity, or national origin.1 It is a very effective tool to disseminate the idea of racial and
like superiority, to incite violence, and to reinforce stereotypes. It may be used to get political
support from particular section of society on the basis of language2, caste, community or
religion3. Promoting hatred may have economic motive as well. It is inappropriate to
associate hate speech only with religion. There are other aspects of such speech also.
Though no specific data or survey is available to show the exact nature of effect of these
speeches but a number of incidents during election are sufficient to prove the impact of hate
speeches on various sections of society. Several nations have taken notice of this problem and
have addressed it through legal action4.

Indian constitution and FREEDOM OF speech

It must be recognised that freedom of speech and expression is one of the most valuable
rights guaranteed to a citizens of India by the Constitution and has been jealously guarded by
the courts. Free political discussion is deemed essential for the proper functioning of a
democratic government.

1Michael Rosenfeld, Hate Speech in Constitutional Jurisprudence: A Comparative

Analysis 24 Cardozo L. Rew. 1523 (2003) (Demonstrating International and
domestic reaction to hate speech)
2 Jagdev Singh Sidhanti v. Pratap Singh AIR 1965 SC 183
3 This ground is basically alleged against Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP). See the
alleged speeches of BJP leaders at an election raily in Maharastra as Cited by
supreme court in Manohar Joshi v. Nitin Bhaurao Patil (1996) 1 SCC 169. see also
Ramakant Mayekar v. Smt. Celine DSilva AIR 1996 SC 826 & Prof. Ramchandra
G. Kapse v. Haribansh Ramakbal Singh AIR 1996 SC 817
4 Many states in United States of America have already framed legislations
against Hate Crime, generally called Bias Legislation. European Union also
required framing such law under mandate of European Convention on Human
Right.
6

In Civil liberties and Human Rights David Feldman5, counted certain justifications for and
limits of freedom of expression. Firstly, selfexpression is a significant instrument of freedom
of conscience and selffulfilment. Secondly, freedom of expression enables people to
contribute to debates about social and moral values. The best way to find the best or truest
theory or model of anything is to permit the widest possible range of ideas to circulate.
Thirdly, the freedom of expression allows political discourse which is necessary in any
country which aspires to be democratic. And lastly, it facilitates artistic scholarly endeavours
of all sorts.
In Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v Union of India6, the Supreme Court
delineated four broad social purposes of freedom of speech and expression; Firstly, it helps an
individual to attain self-fulfilment, Secondly it assists in the discovery of truth; thirdly, it
strengthens the capacity of an individual in participating in decisionmaking and lastly, it
provides a mechanism by which it would be possible to establish a reasonable balance
between stability and social change.
The court observed that all members of the society should be able to form their own beliefs
and communicate them freely to others. Freedom of speech and expression should, therefore,
receive a generous support from all those who believe in the participation of people in the
administration.

Restriction on Freedom of Speech

The Constitution has placed restrictions on freedom of speech and expression to protect and
promote orderly society and human values. There are three grounds which have found place
in Article 19 (2) for curbing hate speeches. These are law and order which includes
incitement to the offences, public order and security of state. This clause being inoperative
clause necessarily needs a legislation to criminalise hate speeches.
It is necessary that the law imposing restrictions must be reasonable7 and in deciding the
reasonableness of restrictions the courts should consider the nature of the right alleged to
have been infringed, the underlying purpose of the restrictions imposed, the disproportion of
the imposition and the prevailing conditions including the social values whose needs are
sought to be satisfied by means of the restrictions.

5 Cited in Secretary, Ministry of I. & B. v Cricket Association, Bengal AIR 1995 SC

1236
6 (1985) 1 SCC 641 : AIR 1986 SC 515 cited in Secretary, Ministry of I.& B. v
Cricket Association., Bengal AIR 1995 SC 1236.
7 Article 19(2) of the Constitution
7

In S. Rangarajan case8 court observed freedom of speech is subject to reasonable restriction

in the larger interest of the community and the country set out in Article 19 (2). These
restrictions are intended to strike a proper balance between the liberty guaranteed and the
social interests specified in Article 19(2).9
Thus, there should be a compromise between freedom of expression and social interests. The
court cannot simply balance the two interests as if they are of equal weight.

Restriction on Hate Speech; Clear and Present Danger Test

Every instigating or alarming speech does not come under restriction clause. The restrictions
are legitimate attempts to protect the public, not from the remote possible effects of noxious
ideologies, but from present excesses of direct, active conducts. The issue in every case is
whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a
clear and present danger; that they will bring about substantive evils which the centre or state
Legislatures have a right to prevent; it is a question of proximity and degree.
The question of when the right of free speech becomes wrong by excess is difficult to
determine. For the analysis of the three expressions used in article 19(2) i.e. law and order,
public order and security of state, one has to imagine three concentric circles. Law and order
represents the largest circle within which is the next circle representing public order and the
smallest circle represents the security of the State. All cases of disturbances of public
tranquillity fall in the largest circle but some of them are outside public order for the purpose
of the phrase maintenance of public order, similarly every breach of public order is not
necessarily a case of an act likely to endanger the security of the State10.
Adopting this test it may be stated that state is at the centre and society surrounds it.
Disturbances of society go in a broad spectrum from mere disturbance of the serenity of life
to jeopardy of the State. The acts become graver and graver as we journey from the periphery
of the larger circle towards the centre. In this journey we travel first through public
tranquillity; then through public order and lastly to the security of the State. It is the last two
i.e. public order and security of state which attracts restrictions.
Thus, constitutional guidelines judicial trends make it very clear that any legislative attempt
to curb hate speech must pass this test.
8 S. Rangarajan v P. Jagjivan Ram (1989) 2 SCC 574
9 This is the difference between the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
and Article 19 of our Constitution except the broad principles and purpose of
guarantee. See also; Secretary, Ministry of I.& B. v Cricket Association., Bengal
AIR 1995 SC 1236. For US cases See, Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial
Commission (1914) 236 US 230, Burstyan v Wilson (1951) 343 US 495 and
Schenck v United States (1918) 249 US 47.
10 Ram Manohar Lohia v State of Bihar AIR 1966 SC 740
8

Freedom of speech, hate speech and judicial

trends
Courts in India have history of securing freedom of speech and expression even by going
beyond the doctrinaire sense of permissible limitations given under the constitution itself.
Any restriction imposed by state through legislations have always been scrutinised by court
on the basis of clear and present danger test. There can be no doubt that freedom of speech
and expression includes freedom of propagation of ideas11, but individual has no such right of
propagation of his idea when it is squarely coming in the domain of threat to security of state,
public order or incitement of an offence.
Another important aspect of article 19 (2) is that restriction can be made on freedom of
speech and expression only on the ground mentioned in this clause. Initially security of state
and incitement of offences were such ground. In this category only those offences against
public order which aim at undermining the security of the State or overthrowing it, have been
justified as a ground for restricting freedom of speech. Nothing less than endangering the
foundations of the State or threatening to overthrow it could justify curtailment of the rights
to freedom of speech and expression12.
According to Romesh Thaper case, a line to be drawn in the field of public order or
tranquillity marking off, more or less roughly, the boundary between those serious and
aggravated forms of public disorder which are calculated to endanger the security of the State
and the relatively minor breaches of the peace of a purely local significance and thus treating
the differences in degree as if they were different in kind for this purpose.
Thus, very narrow and stringent limits have been set to permissible legislative abridgement of
the right of free speech and expression and this was doubtless due to the realisation that
freedom of speech and of the press lay at the foundation of all democratic organisations, for
without free political discussion no public education, so essential for the proper functioning
of the processes of popular Government, is possible. A freedom of such amplitude might
involve risks of an abuse.
However this narrow approach was avoided by amendment in the constitution and public
order has been inserted in Article 19 (2) as a separate ground13.

11 Patanjali Sastri J, Romesh Thappar v State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 124, para 6
12 Romesh Thaper v State of Madrass AIR 1950 SC 124; State of Bihar v
Shailbala Devi AIR 1952 SC 329
13 Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951
9

This widening of ground of restriction was explained in Superintendent Central Prison v Ram
Manohar Lohia14. The court observed;
public order and public safety are allied mattersit seems best to analyse the opposite
concepts..respectively labelled as 'public disorder' and public unsafety'. If public safety
is , as we have seen equivalent to 'security of the State', what one may have designated as
public unsafety may be regarded as equivalent to 'insecurity of the State', When we approach
the matter in this way, we find that while 'public disorder' is wide enough to cover a small
riot as an affray and other cases where peace is disturbed by or affects a small group of
persons, 'public unsafety' (or 'insecurity of the State') will usually be connected with serious
internal disorders and such disturbances of public tranquillity it jeopardize the security of the
State. Thus 'public order' may well be paraphrased in the context as public tranquillity and
the words 'public safety' and 'public order' may be read as equivalent to "security of the
State" and "public tranquillity.
Thus the court widened the net of restriction through this interpretation. State may, in interest
of public order prohibit and punish whereby breach of peace is likely to be caused.
Judicial trends relating to Indian penal code have the same traditionalist values as it is
applicable in adversarial system. What is alarming is that court seems much cautious while
dealing with hate crimes. For example as discussed earlier court while acquitting the accused
in Supreme Court observed that;
It appears to us that the raising some slogans only a couple of times by the two lonesome
appellants, which neither evoked any response nor any reaction from anyone in the public
can neither attract the provisions of Section 124A or of Section 153A IPC. Some more overt
act was required to bring home the charge to the two appellants, who are Government
servants. The police officials exhibited lack of maturity and more of sensitivity in arresting
the appellants for raising the slogans which arrest and not the casual raising of one or two
slogans could have created a law and order situation, keeping in view the tense situation
prevailing on the date of assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi, In situations like that, over
sensitiveness sometimes is counterproductive and can result in inviting trouble. Raising of
some lonesome slogans, a couple of times by two individuals, without anything more, did not
constitute any threat to the Government of India as by law established nor could the same
give rise to feelings of enmity or hatred among different communities or religious or other
groups.15
Similarly Supreme Court in Hindutvacases made curious distinction between asking vote on
caste, creed and religion base and making a state Hindu state which is not a religion but a
way of life.16 It is submitted that such an interpretation may be catastrophic to the nascent
democracy where illiterate or semiliterate voters may not be in position to reflect the
14 AIR 1960 SC 633
15 Superintendent Central Prison v Ram Manohar Lohia AIR 1960 SC 633
10

intention, howsoever good that may be, of election candidate. It would be better to save in
entirety the basic values of different sections of society and put an end to every such attempt.

International perspective on hate speech

Any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to
discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.17 That pronouncement of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), counts among the strongest
condemnations of hate speech. It has been in force now for thirty years, alongside other
international norms. It is now represents as a norm of customary law, which would mean that
states would be responsible in international law for banning at least some forms of hate
speech even if they are not parties to the ICCPR or other instruments containing similar
norms.
About 170 nations are parties to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
of Racial Discrimination (ICERD),18 demonstrating the international communitys sweeping
support to the treaty. It is main tool for the international community to combat racial
discrimination. Having universal reach, it is legally binding, and it has selfimplementation
tools. It prohibits hate speech in the form of propaganda that incites racial discrimination19. It
goes beyond the hate speech prohibition in the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR) and mandates for the state parties to criminalize hate speech. The broad
support for the treaty demonstrates the international communitys commitment to the
criminalization of hate speech.
The ICCPR prohibits advocacy of racial and national hatred when it constitutes an incitement
to discrimination.20 About 150 countries are parties to the ICCPR, none of whom object to
Article 20(2), demonstrating the international communitys strong support to the prohibition
of hate speech.

16Manohar Joshi v Nitin Bhaurao Patil (1996) 1 SCC 169

17 Article 20(2) of ICCPR 1966
18 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights,
Ratifications and Reservations, available on http://www.ohchr.org/english/
countries/ratification/2.html visited at date 15/01/08
19 Article 4 of ICERD 1966
20Article 20(2) states: Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that
constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility to violence shall be prohibited
by law. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; adopted Dec. 19,
1966, 6 I.L.M. 368, 999 U.N.T.S. 171. Hereinafter refereed as ICCPR
11

Both the ICERD and the ICCPR prohibit hate speech. The ICERD goes as far as requiring
states to criminalize hate speech. These two treaties demonstrate the international
communitys growing concern with the prevention and prohibition of hate speech.
The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) decided Prosecutor v. Nahimana,
Barayagwiza, & Ngeze, a case that explicitly states that prohibition of hate speech has
become CIL.The ICTR, after examining wellestablished principles of international and
domestic law and international and domestic cases, found that hate speech that expresses
discrimination violates the norm of customary international law prohibiting discrimination.
The ICTRs decision reflects the position of the international community. The United Nations
Security Council created the ICTR, which demonstrates the ICTR is an organ backed by the
international community. This influential international organ has spoken about hate speech
prohibition as a matter of CIL. This is further support that the Hagan Committees holding is
justified by an arising CIL prohibiting hate speech.

12

Meaning OF communal violence

Communal violence is a violent conflict between non-state groups that are organised along a
shared communal identity. This definition deserves some further clarification. Violent conflict
refers to the fact that the parties use lethal violence to gain control over some disputed and
perceived indivisible resource, such as a piece of land or local political power. This follows a
generally accepted conceptualisation of armed conflict. The groups involved are non-state
groups, meaning that neither actor controls the state and armed forces (although state actors
may be involved as an important supporting actor in a communal conflict). Finally, the
groups are organised along a shared communal identity, meaning that they are not formally
organised rebel groups or militias but that the confrontation takes place along the line of
group identities.
Some would equate the concept of communal identity with ethnic or religious
identity, but as conceived here the definition is purposefully left more open, since group
identity can be considered as socially constructed rather than a static phenomenon. Instead,
communal identity is conceptualised as subjective group identification based on, for instance,
a common history, a common culture or common core values. Affirming that identity refers to
ethnic or religious identity would make the term less flexible, and unable to capture other
forms of possible communal identity. For instance, in local conflicts where the dividing line
is between original inhabitants of an area (indigenes) and more recent settlers, as is often
the case in parts of West and Central Africa, this should be seen as a communal conflict since
people very strongly identify themselves (and the other group) along these lines.
Demarcation along such lines often causes sons of the soil conflicts where the indigenes
perceive themselves as the rightful owners of the land. Similarly, in other areas the main
identification may be based on ones livelihood, and conflict may be fought along those lines
(for instance, pitting pastoralists against agriculturalists). Livelihood conflicts often parallel
ethnic lines as for instance pastoralists living together are often from the same ethnic
community. However, this is not always the case. For instance, villagers often identify as
inhabitants of their particular villages no matter if the village is ethnically homo- or
heterogeneous. The bottom line is that what constitutes the basis for a communal identity may
differ across time and space; hence, leaving the definition of this term more open allows for a
broader contextual range.

Characteristics of Communal violence:

Communalism is basically an ideology which evolved through three broad stages in India
(i) Communal Nationalism:
The notion that since a group or a section of people belong to a particular religious
community, their secular interests are the same, i.e., even those matters which have got
nothing to do with religion affect all of them equally.
(ii) Liberal Communalism:
13

The notion that since two religious communities have different religious interests,
they have different interests in the secular sphere also (i.e., in economic, political and cultural
spheres).
(iii) Extreme Communalism:
The notion that not only different religious communities have different interests, but
these interests are also incompatible i.e., two communities cannot co-exist because the
interests of one community come into conflict with those of the other.
Communal conflicts can take many different forms, and in order to understand the
different dynamics of communal conflict, it is useful to analyse their underlying causes and
the issue over which the conflict is fought. Different conflict issues may necessitate different
types of interventions and conflict resolution strategies. A first set of communal conflicts
takes place in connection with local or national elections21. A core reason for this is that
political allegiance in many countries follows ethnic lines and when one groups candidate
loses, this group might seek revenge against the other group. This is often worsened by the
patrimonial systems that characterise most countries where communal conflicts are common.
Such systems include a strong patron-client relationship in which access to power becomes
extremely important. The violence shows multiple and clear political connections. Behind the
different militias are often local politicians who provide them with weapons and shelter and
direct the violence. In addition, to the national political dynamics, a crucial part of these
communal conflicts concern access to land.
Communal conflicts can be an effective way of gaining access to land as the number
of people displaced often is huge, even when the number of deaths is fairly limited. Land is
also often at the heart of communal conflicts that centre on groups main livelihood. One
example is pastoralist conflicts, i.e. herder-farmer conflicts and conflicts between various
pastoralist groups. Pastoralists and their animals move over extensive areas, often under
extremely harsh conditions, and during this movement they often come into conflict with
other communities that are either also on the move or more settled. Such conflicts constitute
one of the oldest forms of organised violence in the history of mankind. The eruption of such
conflicts is compounded by the extreme conditions where access to grazing land or a well is
often a question of survival for both animals and humans. Most often these conflicts are
solved in non-violent manner, and when they do turn violent the violence is often kept at a
low-scale level.
However, sometimes such conflicts cause widespread human suffering. Similarly
related to control over land, but fought along another identity dimension, are conflicts pitting
the original inhabitants of a locality against more recent settlers.

REASONS FOR COMMUNIAL VIOLENCE:

21 For a thorough investigation on this issue in the case of India, see Wilkinson
2004
14

There are a number of causes which are responsible for the prevalence of
communalism. Some of two important causes of communalism are discussed below.
1. Tendency of the Minorities:
The Muslims fail to be intermingled in the national mainstream. Most of them do not
participate in the secular nationalistic politics and insist on maintaining tor separate identity
the elite among the Muslims have failed to generate the appropriate national ethos.
2. Orthodoxy and Obscurantism:
The orthodox members of minorities feel that they have a distinct entity with their
own cultural pattern, personal laws and thought. There are strong elements of conservatism
and fundamentalism among the Muslims. Such feeling has prevented them from accepting
the concept of secularism and religious tolerance.
3. Design of the Leaders:
Communalism has flourished in India because the communalist leaders of both Hindu
and Muslim communities desire to flourish it in the interest of their communities. The
demand for separate electorate and the organization of Muslim league were the practical
manifestations of this line of thought. The British rule which produced the divide and rule
policy, separate electorate on the basis of religion strengthened the basis of communalism in
India Ultimately the partition of the country into India and Pakistan provided further an
antagonistic feeling towards each other.
4. Weak Economic Status:
A majority of Muslims in India has failed to adopt the scientific and technological
education. Due to their educational backwardness, they have not been represented sufficiently
in the public service, industry and trade etc. This causes the feeling of relative deprivation
and such feelings contain the seeds of communalism.
5. Geographical Causes:
The territorial settlement of different religious groups especially Hindus Muslims and
Christians causes in them wide variation in the mode of life, social standards and belief
system. Most of these patterns are contradictory and this may cause communal tension.
6. Historical Causes:
The Muslims, all over the subcontinent, are converts from Hinduism, which was
facilitated due to the caste-hate relations and under the compulsions of Muslim rulers. The
problems of social segregation, illiteracy and poverty that had set apart the low caste people
remain unresolved for them, as the foreign elite that rubbed never shared power with them.
Their work ended with the conversion of the Indians and the converts began by imitating the
masters in thought, speech and dress. It caused their alienation. Gradually, elements of
communalism entered in the Muslim community. The separatist elements in the Muslim
15

community, from the very start of the national resurgence had discouraged others of their
community, from associating themselves with it. As a result Muslim league was formed
which demanded partition of the country.
7. Social Causes:
Cultural similarity is a powerful factor in fostering amicable relations between any
two social groups. But the social institutions, customs and practices of Hindus and Muslims
are so divergent that they think themselves to be two distinct communities.
Cow-Protection and Hinduism
Cow-protection is the dearest possession of the Hindu and heart. It is the one concrete
belief common to all Hindus. No one who does not believe in cow-protection can possibly be
a Hindu. It is a noble belief Cow-worship means to me worship of innocence. It cannot be
imposed upon anyone to carry cow-protection at the point of the sword.
Beef eating
The standing complaint of Hindus against Musalmans is that the latter are beef eaters
and that they purposely sacrifice cows on the Bakri Id day. Hindus may not compel
Musalmans to abstain from meat or even beef eating. Vegetarian Hindus may not compel
other Hindus to abstain from fish, flesh or fowl.
8. Psychological Causes:
Psychological factors play an important role in the development of communalism.
The Hindus think that the Muslims are fanatics and fundamentalists. They also believe that
Muslims are unpatriotic. On the contrary, the Muslims feel that they are being treated as
second rate citizens in India and their religious beliefs and practices are inferior. These
feelings lead to communal ill-feeing.
9. Provocation of Enemy Countries:
Some foreign countries try to destabilize our country by setting one community
against the other through their agents. Pakistan has played a role in fostering communal
feeling among the Muslims of our country. Pakistan has been encouraging and promoting
communal riots by instigating the militant sections of Indian Muslim community. Kashmir
youths are trained by Pakistan to destabilize Indias internal security by spreading communal
venom.
10. Negative Impact of Mass Media:
The messages relating to communal tension or riot in any part of the country spread
through the mass media. This results in further tension and riots between two rival religious
groups. Communalism was rooted in modern economic, political and social institutions
where new identities were emerging in a haphazard manner even as the old, pre-modern

16

identities had not diminished. A clash of this fundamental dichotomy gave rise to a communal
ideology.
11 .Socio-economic reasons:
The professional classes and the bourgeoisie emerged later among the Muslims than
among the Hindus. There was rivalry for jobs, trade and industry between the two
communities. The Muslim bourgeoisie used the lower middle classes of the Muslims against
the Hindu bourgeoisie to further their class interests.
Because of the economic backwardness of India and rampant unemployment, there
was ample scope for the colonial government to use concessions, favours and reservations to
fuel communal and separatist tendencies. Also, modern political consciousness was late in
developing among the Muslims and the dominance of traditional reactionary elements over
the Muslim masses helped a communal outlook to take root.

PROBLEMS
Communal violence creates an environment of tension and havoc in the affected
states. It creates a lot of problems in the affected states. It has many evil effects along with
creating a strong sense of fear. Following are the problems which people of the affected areas
have to face;
1. UNAVAILABILITY OF JOBS TO CHILDREN OF RIOT VICTIMS
Communal Violence affects a lot of people who come under its curb. Many people
lose their lives in communal violence. Unfortunately innocent people have to face the wrath
of communal violence by losing their lives .Active participants as well as inactive
participants become a victim of communal violence.
In some families men are the sole breadwinners of their families. Unfortunately
people get trapped in such violence and lose their lives as a result of this his respective family
loses its breadwinner. Such families lose their economic status.
As a result the entire economies load falls on the children of such families. Various
government policies are framed by the government to provide jobs to such riot victims. But
these policies are not properly executed .As a result of this the children of riot effected
families are left jobless and hopeless.
2. LOSS/DISTRUCTION OF PROPERTY /SEVERAL LIVES OF RIOT
VICTIMS
Communal violence causes a lot of destruction of private property as well as public
property. It takes away the lives of many innocent lives including youth women children
irrespective of the age groups. Lot of fire is lit, stones are thrown and all sorts of other things
are used to destroy houses, shops, factories, industries etc. of people.

17

People are shot dead, lit to fire alive, cut down by sharp swords irrespective of the
gender whether it might be a child, a woman and irrespective of age .Woman young girls are
physically assaulted and harassed.
3. PSYCHOLOGY OF FEAR
Communal violence casts a strong psychology of fear in the minds of people whether
it might be the victims or just viewers of tv channels. Even after the violence is over the fear
still remains in the minds of people. The lost lives the destroyed families do not let people
forget those evil days of evil violence.
Some people undergo a very strong mental trauma which takes many years to forget
and live a normal living. Whereas some people do not come out of such trauma their entire
lives.
Running away for fear of death, leaving ones dear ones, temples mosques or music to
take care of themselves does not let people forget those awful and frightful days of life.
4. DISTRUST AMONGST PEOPLE
Communal violence creates a strong feeling of distrust hatred amongst the two
different religions. People restrain themselves from trusting each other belonging to two
different religions. There is a lot of distrust between one another. Many people of two
different religions do not believe each others honesty. Distrust never comes from welldefined causes. A variety of causes, more felt than realized breeds distrust. Where riots do
take place, they occur because both think communally and because either fears or distrusts
the other, and because neither has the courage or the foresight to forgo the present for the
sake of the future, or the communal interests for the sake of the national. People are scared to
trust one another due to the hatred tension created by communal violence.
5. HAMPERS THE ECONOMIC STATUS OF PEOPLE
Communal violence actually affects the economic markets in the states facing
communal violence .Markets shatter shops are burned industries factories are ruined
destroyed and broken down. Communal riots creates a havoc in the affected areas which give
rise to unnecessary robberies in shops supermarkets .This all affects the economic status of
people. Working citizens stay back home with the fear of getting trapped in those brutal
situations. Children stop from going out to play .to go to schools colleges .Women refrain
themselves from going out to buy household items. This all immensely hampers the
economic status of people as the income levels of such families goes down immensely.
6. COMMUNIALVIOLENCE ACTS AS AN OBSTACLE TO UNITY
Communal violence creates the artificial division between two different religions. In
its presence both Hindus and Muslims conflict with one another .Their interest is greater than
the progress of their country. It acts as an obstacle to the unity between the different religions.
It hampers the unity of people belonging to different religions. People of all gender age
18

restrain themselves from trusting each other which in turn affects the brotherhood and unity
of people including small children.
7. ATMOSPHERE OF HATRED
The evil images of communal violence makes the blood boil, prejudice reigns
supreme; man, whether he labels himself a Hindu, Muslim, Christian or what not, becomes a
beast and acts as such. I would like to observe the laws of the game. One hears so often of
children and old men being butchered, women being outraged.

SOLUTIONS
Communal violence is a dangerous and a frightful phenomenon and a curse for our
society. Not only does a communal violence ends up in loss of lives and property, it divides
and polarizes the society and gives rise to vicious political debates. Following are some
solutions by which this problem of communal violence can be curbed down;
1. True information should be provided by the newspapers
The cause of a communal violence should be seen and understood direct from
the new items in the newspaper. Understanding and reconstructing the chain of event
from political commentators and inquiry commissions will reduce the truth element. The
newspaper report can also be politically motive and biased but the likelihood of
ideology contaminating the truth in a credible way is much less in case of news items as
compared to reports of inquiry commissions and political commentators. One can
always refer to multiple newspapers and reasonably filter out the truth. Second, the news
of communal violence should be studied and analysed at the time of its occurrence itself.
Analysing such an event after lapse of time makes it more difficult to sift facts from
ideologically-motive fiction. Since we, unfortunately, have so many communal riots, the
sample size is not a problem in such a study and we have enough number of instances of
communal riots where such a study can be done. There is poison administered to the
public by some newspapers. Newspapers today have almost replaced the Bible, the
Koran, the Gita and the other religious scriptures. It is wrong but the fact has to be
faced. Such being the case, it is the duty of newspaper men to give nothing but facts to
their readers
2. Change in pattern of education
There should be a total change in syllabus, especially of medieval history and
modern history pertaining to freedom struggled and division of the country in 1947. It is
regrettable that even after 64 years of our freedom our approach to medieval history has
not changed. We still use utterly simplistic versions of medieval history resulting in
controversy of demolition of temples.
There is no mention, even cursorily cursory of our composite culture and efforts
made by Sufi saints, writers, poets and musicians to build bridges between two
communities. Sufis like Baba Farid, Moinuddin Chishti, Miyan Meer, Nizamuddin
19

Awliya, Mirza Jane Janan, Dara Shikoh besides musicians, architects, poets and others
to fuse two cultures together and bring two communities together. Students studying
history have not even heard their names. It would be of immense help to introduce a
supplementary text, or at least a chapter on richness of our composite culture to make
students realize that both the communities and its intellectual and religious leaders were
close to each other and were contributing immensely to enrich our culture religiously,
spiritually and intellectually.
Similarly our textbooks on modern history and freedom struggle are highly
biased against minorities, They hardly highlight the role played by these communities in
freedom struggle. The names like Maulana Mehmoodul Hasan, Maulana Husain Ahmed
Madani, Maulana Ubaidullah Sindhi, Maulana Hifzurrehman etc. are not even
mentioned who, made great sacrifices for freedom of the county and many of whom
were exiled to Malta, Andaman Nicobar etc. They also launched Reshmi Rumal
Conspiracy to spread message of freedom and paid heavily for that. The textbooks give
an impression as if most of the Muslims, with few exceptions were on the side of
Pakistan though the truth is otherwise. A vast majority of Muslims was against partition
and for unity of the country. Even today most of the Muslims are held responsible for
partition and this remains a prominent issue in many communal riots. It will be in the
interest of the country to teach correct version of history of freedom struggle and the
role played by Muslims in freedom struggle.
3. The other point of vital importance is focus on value-education.
Today the entire focus of our education is promoting career rather than character.
In our education system, for lack of values, career has become most important and
character building has been completely marginalized. Also, our education system
produces conforming mind rather than thinking mind. An education system which fails
to produce thinking and critical mind is worth nothing. Our education system produces
only career-oriented mind.
Not only that our education system creates prejudiced mind, prejudiced against
minorities, tribals and dalits. It is anything but healthy mind. Thus by overhauling
education system we will do great service to the cause of our nation. It would respect
rights of poor, weaker sections and would be more inclusive. Today education system is
part of the problem, let us make it part of the solution.
4. Reforming the police system:
Our police are product of the same education system and it also gets influenced
by uncritical stories in media about minorities and other weaker sections of society and
hence has been horribly communalized. We cannot eliminate riots from India or we
cannot handle riots properly without comprehensive police reforms. It is horribly
prejudiced. In riot after riot after riot we hear stories of how police promotes, rather
prevents communal riots.

20

Thus there should be secular orientation from time to time through refresher
courses, apart from secular orientation along with professional graining before joining
the service is highly necessary, such orientation influences police attitude a lot.
5. Enactment of Communal Violence and Targeted Bill.
This law, if passed, will go a long way in curbing communal violence as it fixes
responsibility on concerned officers. This Bill has been drafted very carefully by
responsible secular activists and gave to Sonia Gandhi to get it enacted. Government
convened National Integration Council meeting to test the waters and BJP leaders like
Arun Jaitly and Sushma Swaraj mounted such a severe attack on it that government was
unnerved and since then the Bill is lying in cold storage. It should be immediately
revived, if necessary by some amendments and enacted. Also if it is accompanied by
implementation of fifth Police Commission Report it will greatly help. This Bill also
ensures adequate reparations and compensation in the event of outbreak of violence.
6. Mixed and cosmopolitan living:
With every riot Hindus and Muslims begin to leave mixed areas and get
polarized religion wise. It greatly harms the cause of integration. In such events
communal propaganda and rumours become far more effective. Government should not
register any society unless it has members of all communities in it i.e. Hindus, Muslims,
Christians, Parsis and Sikhs as well as Buddhists and Jains. In our country caste and
religion wise societies are quite common. In Singapore, as per law no society will be
registered until all religious and ethnic communities are included22.
7. Inter-communal weddings:
This not only makes people connected by "blood" but also discover more about
the "other" communities. The practices and customs will have to evolve so that every
community involved can be tolerant of the combined practices. This solution will reduce
the communal violence as the society comes together as time elapses. There will be a
mix of communities and all communities inter-mingle. There are distinct problems with
this solution as well. For one, some communities are more precious about preserving its
populace and the punishment for anyone leaving its community is dire. The practices
cannot be combined easily as aspects of food, celebrations etc. are held with utmost
reverence by some communities while the same aspects are condemned by other
communities. This trend of inter-communal weddings is already underway is bigger
cities and towns but there is still an ocean to swim if this is supposed to happen across
India.
8. Abolishment of communities:
This is very tough given the system of reservation in India and how there is
22 A five point formula for riot free India ,by Dr Asghar Ali Engineer Secular
Perspective
21

special treatment awarded to certain communities. However, if the politicians can stop
exploiting general public for their votes and if general public can get behind the idea of
collective development this ideal can be achieved with the help of judiciary. There are
several difficulties in getting this accomplished. The main one being preferential
treatment of people belonging to communities. I do not think these people are ready to
give up the special treatment given to them even though such treatment is harmful to the
society in the long run. The other difficulty will be the loss of identity. For several
people their community is their identity. This might be based on the work they do
(original concept of caste), place they live (tribes, naxals, city dwellers etc) and other
arbitrary factors which are better if not used to define people.
9. Atheism:
This leads to absolute morality. Atheists cannot point to any external media to
justify their actions. They will have to depend on their conscience and take
responsibility for all their actions. Somehow in India religion leads to communities and
castes even though all three constructs are different and can exist without each other.
Since religion is a very personal belief it is very tough to get this accomplished.
10. Equality of all oneness of man:
Life is but an endless series of experiments. Break through the crust of limitation
and India becomes one family. If all limitations vanish, the whole world becomes one
family, which it really is. Not to cross these bars is to become callous to all fine feelings
which make a man. No religious Divisions If a free India is to live at peace with herself,
religious division must entirely give place to political division based on considerations
other than religious. Even as it is, though unfortunately religious differences loom large,
most parties contain members drawn from various sects.
11. No Privileged Class
No privileges should be given to anyone in the new India. It is the poor and
neglected and down trodden and weak that should be our special care and attention. A
Brahman should not grudge if more money is spent on the uplift of the Harijans. At the
same time, a Brahman may not be done down simply because he is a Brahman. In fact,
the Brahmans are a very small minority. There must be pure and undefiled justice for
everyone in both Pakistan and Hindustan. It is the duty of every citizen to treat the
lowliest on a par with the others23.
12. Status of Muslim minority loyalty to Union (DO) NOT see evil
everywhere.
All Muslims are not bad just as all Hindus are not bad. It is generally the impure
who see impurity in others. It is our duty to see the best and have no fear. We the Sikhs;
the Hindus and the Muslims to forget the past, not to dwell on their sufferings but to
23Gandhi and Communal Problems www.mkgandhi.org Page 57
22

extend the right hand of fellowship to each other and determine to live at peace with
each other. Muslims must be proud to belong to the Indian Union; they must salute the
tri-colour. If they are loyal to their religion, no Hindu can be their enemy. Similarly, the
Hindus and the Sikhs must welcome peace loving Muslims in their midst24. Befriend
Muslims We should forget the past and learn the duty of having friendly feelings
towards all and being inimical to none. The crores of Muslims are not all angles nor are
all the Hindus and the Sikhs. Muslims are a numerous community scattered all over the
world25.

Conclusion
24 Gandhi and Communal Problems www.mkgandhi.org Page 58
25 Gandhi and Communal Problems www.mkgandhi.org Page 60
23

Hate crime and consequential hate speech attacks the victim not only physically but
also at the very core of his or her identity, causing a heightened sense of vulnerability beyond
that normally found in other crime victims. The hatemotivated violence carries with it the
clear message that the target and his group are of marginal value. Here the criminalization of
such acts may be helpful in protecting the value of society. The impact of hate crimes reaches
beyond the harm done to the immediate victim or victims of the criminal behaviour. There is
a more widespread impact on the target community that shares the Group characteristic of
the victim and an even broader based harm to the general society. Members of the target
community do more than sympathizing or even empathizing with the immediate hatecrime
victim and perceive such crime as if it was an attack on them directed by themselves. Finally,
the impact of hatecrimes may spread well beyond the immediate victims and the target
community to the general society. Such crimes violate not only societys general concern for
the security of its members and their property but also the shared value of equality among its
citizens and racial and religious harmony in a multicultural society. In such a situation state
should necessarily take the cognizance of the effect of hate crimes and related hate speeches.
Communal violence has occurred due to the negligence and non-performance of state
machineries which resulted not only in the loss of precious human lives and destruction of
both public and private property and also impeded the economic development process of the
country .What is specifically worrisome is often the frequent allegation that these communal
incidents have enjoyed the support of the state and particularly that the police has supposedly
played not only an active role but also have shown bias in the discharge of its public
responsibility while the cold blooded massacres, heinous acts of rape have been committed
on the members belonging to the minority communities especially Muslims, Christians and
Sikhs in our country.
It will not be out of context to mention that pluralism is strength of our country. This
pluralism is very much reflected in various provisions of the constitution particularly Article
14 and article 25. It is the diversity of culture which makes this country a distinct place on the
Earth. Hate speeches are generally used for pseudodomination or some time an attempt to
overshadow the others religion and culture. Any such act or attempt must be criminalized to
protect the strength of this great Indian civilization. It is well established that no fundamental
right is absolute including 19(1) (a). Freedom of speech and expression cannot be interpreted
to include any such speeches, consequences of which can be mass scale violence and hatred
in the society. It is with all respect submitted that constitution itself makes restriction on hate
speech and any interpretation which defiles these values will be the negation of freedom of
others.

24

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA by JN PANDEY

WWW. WIKIPEDIA.COM
WWW.LEGALPUNDIT.COM
WWW.INDIAKANOON.COM
WWW.ARTICLE19.ORG
WWW.CARM.ORG
WWW. JMI.AC.IN
Article STRIKING A BALANCE Hate Speech, Freedom of Expression and Nondiscrimination Edited by Sandira Coliver Contributing Editors Kevin BQyle and
Frances D'Souza
9) Article HATE CRIME: POLITICOLEGAL DIMENSION OF HATE SPEECH by
Girjesh Shukla
10) Shylashri Shankars Scaling Justice, Indias Supreme court, Anti-Terror Laws, and
Social Rights Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
11) Girja Kumars Censorship in India Har-Anand Publications Pvt Ltd
12) Durga Das Basus Shorter Constitution of India 14th Edition Vol. 1
13) Ronojoy Sens Aricles of faith-religion, Secularism and the Indian Supreme Court
Oxford University press, New Delhi,First Published 2010
14) Paul R. Brasss Forms of Collective violence-Riots, Pogroms and Genocide in
Modern India Ist Edition
15) http://www.vidyaonline.org/dl/JPNaik_01.pdf
16) http://www.aiccindia.org/news/school_textbooks_in_uttar_pradesh_promote_hindu_b
ias
17)
Police Accountability in India by G. P. Joshi at
www.hrsolidarity.net/mainfile.php/2005vol15no05/2448/

25