In a recent televised debate, BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma made a remark that crossed a line, causing widespread embarrassment and condemnation. Her suspension for alleged derogatory comments against Prophet Mohammad has sparked debates not only about the limits of free speech but also about the consequences of hate speech in a diverse society.

The aftermath of Sharma’s remark revealed a disturbing reality: the potential for incitement to violence based on inflammatory speech. While Sharma’s suspension may be viewed as a victory for civility, the violent reactions it provoked underscore the urgent need for responsible discourse and the consequences of hate speech in our society.

It’s hard to say if there is more hate in the world today or not. My instinct is no. The hate that we see today is certainly nothing new. But there are some new factors that impact the spread of this hate. First, social media makes it relatively simple to see speech produced in communities outside of one’s own. Different communities have divergent opinions about what kind of speech is considered “acceptable.”

In today’s interconnected world, social media plays a pivotal role in amplifying speech and shaping public opinion. What may be deemed acceptable speech within one community can quickly escalate into a contentious issue when broadcast to a wider audience with different cultural norms. The digital age has blurred the lines between private expression and public discourse, making it imperative to navigate the complexities of free speech and hate speech responsibly.

The concepts of hate speech and free speech are often debated in the context of freedom of expression. While both are protected under the principles of free speech, they represent different aspects of the spectrum.

Free speech, a cornerstone of democratic societies, guarantees individuals the right to express their opinions without censorship. However, hate speech, characterized by its intent to incite violence or discrimination against individuals or groups based on their identity, poses a threat to social cohesion and individual dignity.

Hate speech is in itself a denial of the values of tolerance, inclusion, diversity and the very essence of the human rights norms and principles. Religious belief is sometimes the source of putative cases of hate speech, and sometimes its target.

The distinction between free speech and hate speech lies in their consequences. While free speech fosters diverse viewpoints and intellectual growth, hate speech perpetuates discrimination, hostility, and division. It dehumanizes and marginalizes its targets, creating an environment of fear and intimidation.

Hate speech goes beyond the boundaries of respectful and constructive dialogue. It often aims to dehumanize and marginalize certain individuals or groups, perpetuating discrimination, hostility, and even violence. Such speech can have severe negative impacts on the targeted individuals or communities, fostering an environment of fear, intimidation, and social division.

“Addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech. It means keeping hate speech from escalating into something more dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence, which is prohibited under international law.”

United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, May 2019

It is essential to recognize that free speech is not absolute and must be balanced with considerations of harm and abuse. Limitations, such as defamation and incitement to violence, aim to protect individuals and uphold societal values of tolerance and inclusion.

On the presumption that hate speech is harmful — both particularly harmful for the members of targeted groups, and also generally harmful to democracy — the natural question that follows is: what should we do about it?

Addressing hate speech requires a multi-faceted approach, including self-regulation, content moderation, and awareness campaigns. Public and private institutions, as well as the media and internet industry, play a crucial role in promoting responsible speech and combating misinformation.

Counter-speech, defined as direct responses to hateful rhetoric, serves as a powerful tool in challenging misconceptions and promoting dialogue. By confronting hate speech at every turn, we can prevent violence, promote social stability, and uphold democratic values.

Sectarianism, bigotry, and their horrible descendant, fanaticism, have long possessed this beautiful earth. They have filled the earth with violence, drenched it often and often with human blood, destroyed civilization, and sent whole nations to despair. Had it not been for these horrible demons, human society would be far more advanced than it is now… If the Parliament of Religions has shown anything to the world it is this: It has proved to the world that holiness, purity and charity are not the exclusive possessions of any church in the world, and that every system has produced men and women of the most exalted character. In the face of this evidence, if some people still dream of the exclusive survival of their own religion and the destruction of the others, I pity them from the bottom of my heart, and point out to them that upon the banner of every religion will soon be written, in spite of resistance: “Help and not Fight”, “Assimilation and not Destruction”; “Harmony and Peace and not Dissension.”

Swami Vivekananda, Chicago, 1893

Hate speech is a menace to democratic values, social stability and peace. As a matter of principle, hate speech must be confronted at every turn and be tackled to prevent armed conflict, crimes and terrorism, end violence against women and other serious violations of human rights, and promote peaceful, inclusive and just societies.

Promoting an environment that upholds both free speech and limits on hate speech requires careful consideration. Balancing these concepts involves respecting individual rights, fostering inclusivity, and addressing the potential harm caused by hate speech, while also avoiding undue censorship that might stifle legitimate discourse and dissent.

satyaṁ brūyāt priyaṁ brūyān na brūyāt satyam apriyam
priyaṁ cha nānṛitaṁ brūyād eṣha dharmaḥ sanātanaḥ

Manu Smṛiti 4.138

In English: Speak the truth in such a way that it is pleasing to others. Do not speak the truth in a manner injurious to others. Never speak untruth, though it may be pleasant. This is the sanātana-dharma.

Marking an important milestone in the fight against hate speech, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on “promoting inter-religious and intercultural dialogue and tolerance in countering hate speech”. The resolution proclaims 18 June as the International Day for Countering Hate Speech, which will be marked for the first time in 2022.

The recent controversy surrounding Nupur Sharma’s remarks highlights the delicate balance between free speech and hate speech in a diverse society. While the suspension may signal a victory for civility, it also serves as a stark reminder of the consequences of irresponsible speech. Upholding the principles of tolerance, inclusion, and respect for human dignity is essential in safeguarding our democratic values and fostering a more just and peaceful society.