West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee asks Hindus to restrict celebrating their festivals in "Muslim areas"
West Bengal, India 
29 March, 2023
Case Summary
On March 30, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee cited the occasion of Ram Navami to indicate that Hindus create violence in the so-called “Muslim areas” during Ram Navami processions and attack the community. She supported the Muslim community and asked Hindus to be ‘peaceful’. She also asked the Hindus to avoid going to “Muslim areas” because it is the month of Ramzan. CM Banerjee further stated that the state of West Bengal would take action against Hindus if they were found creating violence. West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee cited the occasion of Ram Navami to indicate that Hindus create violence in the so-called “Muslim areas” during Ram Navami processions and attack the community. She extended her support to the Muslim community and asked Hindus to be ‘peaceful’. "I want to request those who are taking out the Ram Navami procession, please do but do it peacefully. Kindly avoid Muslim areas as Ramzan is going on. Celebrate peacefully but don’t try to create violence. Don’t get provoked,” she said.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
In several cases, it is seen that the administration/state disallows a religious procession owing to prejudicial orders and concerns, targeted specifically against the Hindu community. Such restriction/prohibition would be considered documented as a hate crime because the orders are often a result of pressure by groups that harbour animosity towards Hinduism and Hindus. Often, the restriction by the authorities is driven by bias, hostility, or prejudice against the specific community being stopped from holding a religious procession, by pressure groups that harbour animosity towards Hindus, intrinsic to their faith. Since the religious procession is inherent to the faith of the Hindus, such prejudicial restriction is considered a curtailing of the fundamental rights of the Hindu community. In several cases, for example, the authorities ban a Hindu religious procession due to pressure from groups opposed to the religion. In other instances, the prohibition is selectively enforced against one religious group (Hindus) while others are allowed to proceed. There are still other cases where the authorities preemptively restrict a religious process by Hindus because those who hold animosity towards Hindus may get “provoked” leading to them being violent, thereby assuaging the sentiments of those who hold animosity towards Hindus by curtailing the religious rights of Hindus. Such acts and orders are prejudiced, indicating discriminatory motives owing to the capitulation to groups that harbour animosity towards Hindus and therefore, would be categorized as a religiously motivated hate crime since the original pressure leading to the order itself is a result of hatred/bias/prejudice/religious hate against Hindus. In this case, the West Bengal CM was seen openly batting for the Muslim community. She discouraged Hindus from taking out religious procession during one of their most revered festival Ram Navami from 'Muslim areas'. Despite there being numerous examples of Islamists orchestrating violence during Hindu festivals in not only West Bengal but throughout the country, Mamata Banerjee insinuated that violence occurs when Hindus take out Ram Navami processions through ‘Muslim areas.’ This statement coming from the chief minister of the state was a clear infringement on the constitutional rights to freedom of assembly and expression, which are fundamental in India. The move was also seen as politically and religiously biased, given the West Bengal government's history of opposing Hindus and their religious activities in the state. In fact, from Hindus being arrested for chanting Jai Shri Ram slogans, to denying permissions for Hindu religious processions to her stoic silence whenever Hindus get attacked by Islamists in the state, there are several shreds of evidence to show that the Mamata Government in West Bengal has, in the past, passed umpteen prejudicial orders to clamp down on the religious rights of Hindus. It can be argued that this is only a political statement by Mamata Banerjee and therefore, should not be added to the 'restriction/ban on Hindu practices' primary category, since it is not an official order. However, such statements by the Chief Minister of a State has a chilling effect on the rights of Hindus. When the CM says that Hindus must not cross "Muslim areas" since it creates violence, the chilling effect is seen in how the state deals with Muslim mobs which attack Hindus when they conduct their religious processions. These statements are a precursor to how the state would deal with cases where Hindus are attacked by Muslim mobs during their religious processions. When the CM makes such statements, even without an official order, it acts as a restrictions and deterrent for Hindus practicising their religious rights, since it emboldens Islamist mobs. Such prejudicial orders are indicative of the prejudice against the religious beliefs of the Hindus and for this reason, this case has been added to the hate tracker. The other primary category this case is being added to is hate speech against Hindus, under the sub-category 'anti-Hindu subversion and prejudice'. The tertiary category is 'misreprenting perpetrator's religion as Hindu'. Hate speech is defined as any speech, gesture, conduct, writing, or display that is prejudicial against a specific individual and/or group of people, which is leading to or may lead to violence, prejudicial action or hate against that individual and/or group. Media plays a specific and overarching reach in perpetuating prejudicial attitudes towards a community owing to unfair, untrue coverage and/or misrepresentation/misinterpretation, selective coverage and/or omission of facts of/pertaining to issues affecting a specific religious group. This type of bias can dehumanise the victim group, making it easier for others to justify harmful actions against them, which aligns with the objectives of hate speech laws aimed at preventing such harm. It is often observed that the media takes a prejudicial stand against the Hindu community driven by their need to shield the aggressor community which happens to be a numeric minority, however, is the one perpetrating violence against Hindus. For example, the media is often quick to contextualise religiously motivated crimes against Hindus, omit or misrepresent facts that point towards religiously motivated hate crimes, justify and/or downplay religiously motivated hate crimes or simply present fake news to stereotype Hindus. Such media bias leads to the denial of persecution and is often used to dehumanise Hindus, leading to justification for violence against them. For example, the media covered several fake allegations of Hindus targeting Muslims and forcing them to chant Jai Shree Ram. Most of these cases were proved false and fabricated after police investigation. These fake news reports were subsequently never retracted or clarified. Such fake news led to the justification of violence and dehumanisation of Hindus based on the argument that since Hindus targeted Muslims and forced them to chant Jai Shree Ram, the dehumanisation of Hindus and violence against them was par for the course and merely a retaliation. Such media bias leads to prejudicial portrayal of Hindus and offers a justification for violence against them and therefore, is considered hate speech under this category. In this case, while it is the Muslim mobs that attack Hindu processions when they pass through areas where they are numerically stronger, Mamata Banerjee misrepresented the perpetrator religion, by claiming that it is the Hindus who attack the Muslims. This has a dehumanising effect on Hindus, where even when they are attacked, they are branded as aggressors and their persecution is delegitimised. This case is therefore being added to this category as well.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
State and Establishment
Perpetrators Range
N/A
Perpetrators Gender
female
Sources 
