Vicious, Hurtful, Foolish : Communal “Hate” Politics Is Passé

Posted on January 6, 2013 in Politics at Play

By Charumati Haran:

“When men are pure, laws are useless; when men are corrupt, laws are broken.” — Benjamin Disraeli

India has often been called the land of diversity. Nevertheless, if there is one thing that has retained its influence in India, it is religion. So it is inevitable that religion would have links with politics. Religion both unites and divides this country and we have a painful reminder of that from the tragedies caused during the Partition. Parties, based on religion claim to be safeguarding the interests of their community. However, this is a dangerous territory. With the idea of ‘vote banks’, some politicians start treating communities as their personal inheritance or fief. They disregard the fact that their job is to represent living, breathing human beings. They callously cash in on their problems and selfishly move ahead in their career. Communal politics and incitement in particular were outlawed for a reason: They cause social unrest and are against democracy

Akbaruddin Owaisi

All of the above is a backdrop to the recent case of Akbaruddin Owaisi. He is an MLA from Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen(MIM — All India council of the Union of Muslims) who allegedly made hate speeches against Hindus in the Adilabad district in December. These include threats to kill Salman Rushdie and Taslima Nasreen. He has been booked in at least six such cases since 2005, but has escaped punishment till date. This time, cases were filed against him weeks later after the Congress government faced widespread criticism for being soft on him.

Consider another case. In 2010, a non-bailable case was registered against Varun Gandhi on the directive of the Election Commission for his controversial speech at an election rally in Pilibhit, U.P. He spent almost 3 weeks in prison for the alleged anti-Muslim hate speeches. There were strong reactions throughout the political sphere. The BJP also disassociated itself from his remarks.

Why such a striking contrast? Why was the abuse of freedom of speech dealt with so differently? There are several reasons in my opinion. The first set relates to political and systemic factors and the second relates to the younger generation.

While it is true that MIM is not a supporter of the UPA, Varun Gandhi was simply a bigger enemy. As he is a member of the Gandhi family, any strategist would love to highlight his faults and show him as completely different from the Congress Gandhi family. Whenever politics becomes a power-play of personalities, it is to the interest of competitors to discredit each other. Approaches have been different in the cases of Praveen Togadia and Bal Thackeray. As long as punishments are given through the political prism, true justice is absent.

The other point that should be considered is that the Election Commission is an autonomous body and not under the government. While state and administrative machinery can be influenced by governments, they cannot influence the EC that easily. While many argue that EC has let many incidents slide without punishment, they could hardly be expected to ignore a high-profile case like that of Varun Gandhi.

The second set of reasons relates to the younger generation. The modern generation even follows their religion on their smart phones — prayers, darshans, scriptures etc. are all available to them through the intervention of apps! Is such a modern generation likely to be impressed by Communal Rhetoric? They have not grown up with the burden of communal prejudices and have a much more detached impression of past incidents. Yet, they have grown up on tales of how the politicians are self-serving and play on communal sentiments. Many have grown disgusted with attention-seeking, regressive politicians. It has shown its strength in RTIs, peaceful protests and on the social media. Interaction between communities has increased so much that most of us would have friends from other religions. The ‘Aam janta’ is protesting on secular issues such as inflation, loss of jobs, environmental pollution and corruption.

Consider the following tweets that followed the Owaisi speech: From @FarOutAkhtar (Farhan Akhtar) “How can 2 girls be arrested in less than 24 hrs for a harmless FB post but Owaisi roams free after his blatantly communal rant?” Another one by @soniandtv was “Dont understand why the government has not asked Youtube to withdraw Owaisi speech ? Surely, this is what the IT act should be used for, not cartoons.”

In such a scenario, it can easily be understood why the media and political furore over Akbaruddin Owaisi’s speech was so much lesser: People simply do not care; they had more important things to think about. There has been no communal violence reported from Andhra Pradesh, despite his inflammatory statements. The media and political class are more focused on the Delhi gangrape case, which cuts across communities. Why give importance to the statements of a habitual hate-monger? That he deserves punishment is certain. Whether he gets it from the government or at the hands of future voters remains to be seen.

Youth Ki Awaaz is an award winning, India's largest online and mobile platform for young people to express themselves on issues of critical importance. This article has been written by a Youth Ki Awaaz Journalist/Contributor. You can submit a contribution too. Click here to write for Youth Ki Awaaz, or submit a photo or video.

Submit Your Story


You must be logged in to comment.

If you sign up with Google, Twitter or Facebook, we’ll automatically import your bio which you will be able to edit/change after logging in. Also, we’ll never post to Twitter or Facebook without your permission. We take privacy very seriously. For more info, please see Terms.

Karmanye Thadani

Hey, I would like to point out that the real difference lies in the pseudo-secular mentality of the UPA and most of our media and intelligentsia. They are hell-bent on trying to see Hindu radicalism as being similar in its basic essence to Muslim or Christian radicalism elsewhere, which is not the case. Hindu radicalism, as much as it is certainly unjustified, is not about an intrinsic intolerance of other faiths rooted in misinterpreted theology but a socio-cultural movement that has emerged as a backlash against the self-‘otherization’ by some Muslims, and more recently, acts of terrorism by some of those elements, and forced or incentivized conversions by some Christians. Muslims are not an ultra-tiny minority in India, making Muslim communalism, whether in the ballot box or in the form of riots or terrorism (remember the Kashmiri Hindus?) an irrelevant consideration. I am the first one to express my displeasure at painting all Muslims with the same brush (I appreciated your comment on the first article of my series on anti-Muslim prejudices), but that doesn’t mean I subscribe to the other extreme of holding only Hindus responsible for the communal problem in independent India. You might find this article of mine interesting –

    Charumati Haran

    In a debate on the response to communlal hate speeches, a direct opinion on the existing religious radicalism is quite natural; so I appreciate your point. Personally, I haven’t deeply studied the specifics of religious radicalization so I can’t comment on which one is based in “intrinsic intolerance…rooted in misrepresented theology” or on the history of whether one “emerged as a backlash…Christians” . I won’t comment on that. But I do agree that forced conversions and acts of terrorism by any community is as evil.

    I don’t quite understand your opinion that Muslim communal ism is an irrelevant consideration. True that Muslims are not an ultra-tiny minority in India, but when has that ever stopped politicians from trying to polarise an issue and consolidate their vote banks? Perhaps one can argue is less now than it has been before i.e. large majority of the population is the youth and they are not willing to paint all members of a community with the same brush. Like I said in my comment on your article, my impression is that no religion is predisposed to violence. I also said that the media is often guilty of misrepresentation. So certainly no community can be held responsible for the crimes of just some of its members. No reason why only Hindus should be held responsible for the communal problems in India.

    All in all, thank you for the thought provoking comment! Yes, I’ve read this article you’ve linked to before and I found it to be an interesting read :)

Similar Posts


Submit your story