Hate Speech has always been a controversial sub-categorisation of religiously motivated hate crimes due to the lack of a universally accepted definition for hate speech. The UN Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech defines hate speech broadly as “any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor.”
A Hate Crime essentially has two important ingredients – an underlying offence which has been committed coupled with a bias. A hate crime is supposed to have taken place when the perpetrator intentionally targets an individual or a property owing to his/her bias against a certain characteristic of that individual or his/her hatred towards that characteristic.
While these characteristics could be many, for example, race, colour, regional identity, sexual orientation etc, for this category under the Hinduphobia Tracker, we would focus on one specific characteristic – religious identity (specifically, Hindu religious identity).
While this category of hate crime for the purpose of the Hinduphobia Tracker would focus only on the religious identity as a characteristic (specifically, Hindu religious identity), the working definition of ‘hate crime’ does not limit speech being categorized as hate speech to only illegal speech, but also encompasses legal speech, if it propagates hate, prejudice, stigmatization, dehumanization etc on the basis of the victim’s Hindu religious identity.
According to the UN Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech, forms of hate speech can include scapegoating, stereotyping, stigmatization and the use of derogatory language. It is often employed in the promulgation of conspiracy theories, disinformation and denial and distortion of historical events such as genocide. States are required to prohibit most severe forms of hate speech that constitute incitement to violence, hostility or discrimination, or incitement to genocide or other violations of international law in line with Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights says, “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law”.
Hinduphobic hate speech can therefore be defined as any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour that attacks or uses pejorative, discriminatory or violent language with reference to Hindus, Hinduism, elements of the religious identity of Hindus as individuals or as a religious, ethnic group, stemming from bias, prejudice and/or religious and/or cultural animosity leading to dehumanization, stigmatization, scapegoating, stereotyping, calls to violence and in many cases, violence. Hate speech against Hindus often includes the denial and/or mocking of historical and/or ongoing persecution, subversion of scriptures, promotion of and/or call for direct/indirect violence, support for targeted and directed violence, calls for the eradication of sections of Hindus using ideological euphemisms, glorification of perpetrators of religiously targeted hate crimes against Hindus, dog-whistling against Hindus – individuals or groups of Hindus, doxxing based on religious identity and/or opinions, caricaturing groups and/or sects of Hindus to legitimize their stigmatization/dehumanization/large scare violence, mocking and/or denigrating symbols and/or representatives of faith, fake news targeted against Hindus with the aim to stigmatise Hindus, misrepresentation/fake news to paint Hindus as the perpetrators/aggressors based on bias and/or prejudice and more.
An important ingredient of hate speech against Hindus is the analysis of ‘context’. Several times, certain speech (written, spoken or depicted) may not appear as hate speech, however, when seen in context, it manifests in one of the various kinds of hate speech targeted against Hindus.
For example, right after the beheading of tailor Kanhaiya Lal from Udaipur, which was a classic religiously motivated hate crime against a Hindu based on his religious identity characteristic, let us assume that a radical Islamist takes to social media to say, “I am moving to Udaipur”. Analysed in isolation, the statement “I am moving to Udaipur” is not hate speech, least of all, directed at a religious group (Hindus). However, when seen in the context of the Udaipur beheading by Muslim extremists, it becomes evident that the individual saying this is expressing support for the crime in a celebratory tone. Essentially, when seen in context, the individual is expressing approval of the act of beheading the Hindu tailor owing to his own religious animosity towards Hindus, which is why he could want to relocate to a city where the crime happened. In several instances, speech which may not appear as hate speech clearly becomes a manifestation of religious animosity towards Hindus when seen in the context it was made.
Such hate speech against Hindus has been divided into the following primary, secondary and tertiary categories:
1. Mocking/denigrating Hindu leaders
2. Anti Hindu subversion and prejudice
a) Anti-Hindu Fake News or Downplaying
b) Mislabelling/Misrepresentation of perpetrator’s religion as Hindu
3. Denial or mocking of genocide/large-scale persecution
4. Doxxing and harassment of Hindu for religious reasons
5. Subversion of scriptures
6. Call for genocide/violence against specific sects of Hindus
7. Anti-Hindu slurs, mocking faith
8. Violent threats
Why and how it is a hate crime
Hate speech in short can be 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. Hate speech targeted directly at Hindus, as defined above under the various sub-categories, manifests in the dehumanisation and stigmatisation of Hindus. It also often leads to direct violence against Hindus specifically for their religious identity. One example of hate speech leading to direct violence is the conspiracy theory of ‘Bhagwa Love Trap’. A conspiracy theory that Hindu men were “trapping” Muslim girls started on innocuous WhatsApp and Telegram groups. Eventually, it made it to more public social media platforms. Eventually, radical Muslims started doxxing Muslim women who were seen with Hindu men and Hindu women who were seen with Muslim women. It led to several direct assaults and attacks against Hindu men based on unfounded theories and religiously motivated animosity towards Hindus. Dehumanisation has a larger impact other than microaggressions and small-scale violence. In many cases, it legitimises the religiously motivated violence against Hindus because of the dehumanisation and stigmatisation which is a product of regular hate speech against the religious group.
There is ample evidence and research that point towards how hate speech translates into real-life consequences for groups against whom hate speech is directed. Rutgers University’s researchers released a historic study that tracked the rise of Hinduphobia and anti-Hindu hatred on social media and other messaging platforms.
The report found that Hinduphobic tropes on social media involve genocidal memes and coded language patterns advanced by white supremacists and Islamists along with Iranian trolls accusing Hindus of perpetrating a genocide against minorities in India.
Researchers also discovered that Hinduphobic code words and memes reached record highs and warned that this could spill into real-world violence against the community. John Farmer, the former Attorney General of New Jersey as well as a co-author, along with former Congressman and Miller Center Research Fellow Denver Riggleman also shared that the Hindu community, along with law enforcement, must unite to counter hate messaging before it leads to real-world violence, as has been observed by such incidents involving the Jewish community in the United States.
NCRI’s previous research had observed that when the intensity of social media hate speech reaches a “fever pitch,” it can translate to violence against people in real life (as seen in past antisemitic, anti-Asian attacks).
In the 2022 Leicester violence against Hindus, for example, hate speech and anti-Hindu misinformation aimed at dog-whistling against the Hindu community directly caused religiously motivated violence against Hindus by Islamists. For example, there was misinformation spread by Islamists about Hindus desecrating a Quran, which inspired violence in Leicester, in part, however, no Quran had been desecrated. A 21-year-old Muslim man, Adam Yusuf, who was arrested for possessing a weapon in Leicester attested that he was influenced by social media hate speech and was at the protest with a weapon to target Hindus because of the rhetoric and fake news on social media.
It is, therefore, evident that Hinduphobic hate speech has manifested in real-life violence against Hindus based on their religious identity, which is why hate speech is categorised as a religiously motivated hate crime against Hindus.
Sub-categories and why it’s a hate crime
Mocking/denigrating Hindu leaders
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. Religious leaders are often seen as representatives of the community, especially, the community’s religious faith and beliefs. Mocking or denigrating a religious leader specifically owing to his religious identity and/or the religious rituals he observes can be considered hate speech because the motivating factor of the speech is animosity and/or dislike for what he represents – the religious beliefs and faith of the community. It is important to note that mere insulting words against an individual do not constitute hate speech. It is entirely possible that insulting words are used for an individual, however, the specific speech is not the result of religious hate and/or animosity towards the professed faith of the religious leader, but the individual himself. For the speech to be considered hate speech, the speech itself or the motivating factor behind the speech has to be religious in nature. Such speech which denigrates Hindu religious leaders specifically owing to animosity towards the faith they profess and the community faith they represent will be treated as hate speech under this category.
Call for genocide/violence against specific sects of Hindus
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. Often, animosity against a specific panth/sampradaya/group of Hindus or a specific ideology they hold manifests itself into hate speech and calls for genocide/violence against that specific section of Hindus. For example, it has often been seen that those who hold animosity against the Hindu faith use specific sects/sampradaya/pant of Hindus as a proxy to express hate against Hindus as a whole. It has been seen that the word ‘Hindutva’ has been used to call for violence against those who say they believe in ‘Hindutva’. It is observed that ‘Hindutva’ is only used as a proxy to call for violence against Hindus as a whole, as seen in the Dismantling Global Hindutva conference where speakers admitted that ‘Hindutva’ cannot be eradicated till ‘Hinduism’ is eradicated. The eradication of an entire faith, in turn, is a genocidal call against the entire community that practices that faith. Further, it is also observed that violence against a specific section of Hindus is made, justifying these calls by weaving exaggerated tales of historical injustices. Often, those who hold animosity towards Hindus and their faith attempt to make their animosity more palatable by justifying their hate for a specific section, claiming that they are against that particular section because of their faith in the broader community and the religion they process. Such calls for violence against specific sections of Hindus, as mentioned, is a proxy for their animosity against the entire community and the faith they profess, and therefore, would be considered hate speech under this category.
Anti-Hindu subversion and/or prejudice
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 and other public commentators play 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 dehumanize 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 the 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.
Denial or mocking of historical genocide/large scale persecution
Denial or mocking of historical genocide refers to the act of denying or minimizing the historical fact of the ethnic cleansing and/or genocide and/or historical religious persecution of Hindus. This often involves denying the scale, mechanisms, religious intent, or even the occurrence of the ethnic cleansing and/or genocide and/or historical religious persecution of Hindus. Hate speech of this kind involves the dissemination of falsehoods that deny or distort established historical facts or mock the suffering of Hindus by saying that they deserved the persecution, motivated by Hinduphobia. Denying such atrocities is not only about the denial of historical facts or rewriting/revising history, but it also delegitimises the religiously motivated persecution of Hindus, the religious hate/motivation/animosity that led to the persecution, and dehumanises Hindus as a religious group. Such denial of historical ethnic cleansing and/or genocide and/or historical religious persecution of Hindus not only denies the suffering but also paves the way for future/present atrocities and hate speech, inciting prejudice and violence against Hindus. It also provides a justification for violence by delinking religious animosity from historical religiously motivated crimes committed against Hindus. Since such denial and/or mocking of historical genocide/ethnic cleansing/atrocities motivated by religious animosity leads to present and future ramifications of creating more hate speech, violence, dehumanisation and delegitimization, it would be considered a hate speech under this category.
Doxxing and harassment of Hindu for religious reasons
Doxxing is the act of making available publicly personal, identifiable information of an individual with the intention of compromising their safety, security and privacy. When doxing is done with religious animosity forming the basis of the intention, it often involves severe consequences like loss of employment, physical harm, physical threat, harassment and/or discrimination for the victim’s religious beliefs. Such doxxing also involves projecting the religious beliefs, affiliations, and rituals of the victim, specifically a Hindu, in a manner that can lead to loss of employment, physical harm, physical threat, harassment and/or discrimination. Apart from doxxing, harassment would also include misrepresentation of an individual’s views and religious beliefs that would invite abuse, loss of employment, physical harm, physical threat, harassment and/or discrimination owing to religious hate and animosity. There have been several such instances where religious animosity by one section has led to the doxxing and harassment of Hindus. For example, when a Hindu who worked in the UAE commented on the historical persecution of Hindus at the hands of Muslim invaders, his information was leaked online leading to loss of employment, physical harm, physical threat, harassment and/or discrimination. In another case, a Hindu man’s information was leaked online, leading to violent attacks, after he responded with an emoji to a post about Tipu Sultan, the Islamic tyrant who persecuted Hindus. Such cases are born out of intrinsic religious animosity towards Hindus and therefore, would be considered religiously motivated hate speech.
Subversion of scriptures
Misquoting religious scriptures of Hindus has particularly devastating consequences. Misquoting scriptures of Hindus is often done to justify or promote hatred, discrimination, or violence against specific individuals or groups of Hindus. Religious scriptures are often nuanced and those who harbour religious animosity towards Hindus often misquote or misrepresent the scripture to legitimise their animosity and hate towards the faith and its adherents. Religious scriptures have often been misquoted to present stereotypical lies about Hinduism being “oppressive” and therefore, legitimising the violence against Hindus by extremist and supremacist ideologies. Any such misquoting of scriptures to justify hate, violence and discrimination against Hindus owing to religious animosity is hate speech and is categorised as such.
Anti-Hindu slurs, mocking faith
Anti-Hindu slurs and the deliberate mocking of the Hindu faith owing to religious animosity involve the usage of derogatory terms, stereotypes, or offensive references to religious practices, symbols, or figures. One of the common anti-Hindu slurs used against Hindus is “cow-worshipper” and “cow piss drinker”. The intention of using this term is to demean and mock Hindus as a group and their religious beliefs since Hindus consider the cow holy. Additionally, some symbols and the slurs attached to them have a historical context that exacerbates the insult, hate, stereotyping, dehumanisation and oppression against Hindus. Cow worship has been used for centuries to denigrate Hindus, insult their faith and oppress Hindus specifically as a religious group. There has been overwhelming documentation about how cow slaughter has been used to persecute Hindus with cow meat being thrown in temples and places of worship. There has also been overwhelming documentation where cow meat (beef) has been force-fed to Hindus to either forcefully convert them to Islam or denigrate their faith. Apart from cow worship, the Swastika – which holds deep religious significance for the Hindus – has also been misinterpreted and distorted to use as a slur against Hindus. Similarly, the worship of the Shivling has been used by supremacist ideologies and religions to denigrate Hindus owing to religious animosity. Such slurs and denigration stem out of inherent animosity and hate towards Hindus and their faith, therefore, it is categorised as hate speech targeted at Hindus specifically owing to their religious identity.
Violent threats
Violent threats, explicit, implicit or implied, are the most dangerous form of hate speech since it goes beyond discriminatory and prejudicial language to express the intent of causing harm to an individual or a group of people based on their religious identity and faith. There could be several different kinds of threats that are issued to Hindus based on religious animosity. An explicit threat would mean the direct threat of violence towards an individual Hindu, a group of Hindus or Hindus at large. Physical violence, death threats, threats of destruction of property belonging to Hindus, and threats of genocide would mean explicit threats against Hindus for their religious identity. Implicit threats may not be a direct threat but implied through the use of symbols of actions – for example – in the Nupur Sharma case, other than explicit threats, there were also implicit threats when Islamists took to the streets to burn and beat her effigies. It implies that they want to do the same to Nupur Sharma – thereby is considered an implicit threat. Violent threats can be delivered in person, through letters, phone calls, graffiti, or increasingly through social media and other online platforms. It would be important to understand that a threat – explicit or implicit, online or offline – to an individual who happens to be a Hindu does not qualify as a religiously motivated threat. Such a threat, while vile and dangerous, could be owing to non-religious reasons and/or personal animosity. To qualify as a religiously motivated threat, it would need to exhibit an indication that the individual is being targeted for religious reasons and/or owing to his/her religious identity as a Hindu.
Parameters applied
- The speech could be written, spoken, depicted or implied
- The speech should be directed, either explicitly or implicitly against the Hindu community, a particular sect of Hindus and/or Hinduism itself.
- The speech must be driven by religious animosity towards Hindus and/or a section of Hindus
- The speech could be veiled behind euphemisms or ideological epithets – that would not exclude the speech from being religiously targeted against the Hindu community.
- If a speech born out of religious animosity appears innocuous, it must be viewed in historical and/or current context to discern whether a speech is hate speech or not
- Criticism of one sect of Hindus towards another sect of Hindus is not included in this database unless the speech is born out of religious animosity and prejudice against the entire faith itself.
- Offensive speech which is not religiously motivated is not added to the database.
- Attacks on individuals owing to reasons other than religious animosity and/or prejudice are not included in the database.
- The database would include legal and illegal speech as long as it targets an individual/group of Hindus/Hindus/Hinduism on religious lines.
Laws in India against Hate Speech
Section 196 of BNS – Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony (the provision includes electronic communication).
Section 197 – Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration (the provision includes electronic communication).
Section 298 – Deliberate and malicious intended to outrage religious feelings of any class, by insulting its religion or religious belief.
Section 302 – Uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person
