 So dear friends, today we are discussing the topic against the politics of hate. Now, what is the definition of politics of hate? I think legally, so far according to the United Nations, there's no real definition accepted globally of the politics of hate. But according to the United Nations, in June 2019, and I'll quote from that document, in the wake of what is defined as a global increase in xenophobia, racism, intolerance, violent misogyny, anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim hatred around the world, the United Nations felt it important to produce a document called Strategies Against the Politics of Hate and Hate Speech. So in that, there are some definitions of hate and hate speech which I think are relevant for us to understand today. What they say is, quote unquote, on hate speech, hate politics and their advocacy. Quote, hatred and hostility are seen as intense and irrational emotions of opprobrium. I hope I pronounced that right. Intense and irrational emotions of opprobrium, enmity, and detestation towards the target group. The term advocacy is to be understood is requiring an intention to promote hatred publicly towards the target group. And the term incitement, kisi ko bhakana uska jo paribhasha hai, to statements about national, racial or religious groups which create an imminent risk of discrimination, hostility of violence. And they define hate speech as public speech that expresses hate or group or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex or sexual orientation. So we can understand that the definition of hate politics and hate speech on the UN or international level is a generic term. It's not just a target group. It can be expressed on any topic or any basis. So when we try to understand hate speech in India, it becomes obvious that in India today there are hate politics. Not general hate politics. In our country, what is the form of hate politics and what is its root? That is what we have to understand in a very particular context. And also we know that hate politics is not new to our history. Before independence, post independence, we have seen so many different reflections of hate politics. For example, on the issue of caste. Now caste is not a category which has been included in the UN definitions. But if you look at it in India's context, I think the caste system is one of the biggest institutions which have created the whole structure of hate politics in India through the ages. But when we talk about hate politics in India today, what is the difference between today's hate politics? This is very important to us. And for that, you need to give a political understanding. There is no question of hate love. The question is to understand the language of hate in India, you need to give a political understanding. You can't just describe it in terms of hate for something and love for something. So what is that? So today there are two aspects which we have to look at. One, hate politics in India is not just by this or that group or contradictions and conflicts sometimes violent between this or that group, which we have seen. Today, hate politics in India is practiced by those in power, by the government in power, the RSS BJP venture, the joint venture which is in the central government today. And further, using their parliamentary majority or you can say misusing their parliamentary majority, it is not just the government, but it is the different structures of the state itself which is being suborned towards this goal or towards this vehicle of hate politics. Hate politics is not the goal. Hate politics is the way to meet the goal. So to understand the hate politics, we have to know what is the goal. And that is what the specific political and economic agenda of those in power today to change the very nature of the Republic of India and to convert it into the Hindutva Rashtra as defined by various ideologues of those in power. Now, I deliberately use the word Hindutva Rashtra as opposed to the word Hindutva Rashtra because I believe that Hindutva is the political project to use religious belief among Hindus to manufacture an exclusive national identity based on religion. Now, the man who Modiji is most inspired by, Golbacher, you read his book, in which he says he talks about scavenging and how it's an inspirational thing to do and that book is dedicated to Golbacher. But anyway, to come back to Golbacher, this is his quote, to understand the agenda. Hate politics is not the goal, as I said. What is the goal? In this country, Hindustan, the Hindu race with its Hindu religion, Hindu culture and Hindu language, Sanskrit and its offsprings, Sanskrit as you know, being the language of the Apakas, complete the nation. All those not belonging naturally fall out of the pale of what is national. Now, if this is the understanding of what the goal of Hindutva is, the establishment of a Hindutva Rashtra, well, clearly, this is in direct conflict with the Constitution of India. The preamble of the Constitution of India, which says, we the people of India. It doesn't say, we the Hindus of India. It doesn't say we the people of this or that caste or religion. It says, we the people of India. And this is what riles the RSS the most. Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, which hold all citizens equal before the law and which prohibit discrimination on the basis of caste. So, when you want to complete a goal like this, what is the main obstacle in front of you? I believe that when we try to understand hate politics, what is the obstacle for them? The obstacle is the Constitution. The obstacle is Articles 14 and 15. And the obstacle is the definition of Indian citizenship. So, naturally, to achieve this goal, the edifice of the Constitution, the basic pillars of the Constitution, secularism, democracy, social justice, federalism, unless this edifice of the Constitution is dismantled, how are they going to achieve a change fundamentally in Indian citizenship, which is equal citizenship? How can you achieve a Hindutva Rashtra unless you attack the basic edifice of the Constitution of India? And each one of these is linked to the other. Now you know, for example, that today the word secularism is considered a dirty word by those in power. And this is not my saying so, led by Defense Minister Rajnath Singh, led by the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, who calls himself a yogi, led by many of the others of the BJP. They have very clearly said secularism is a dirty word. It's a word which was included during the time of the emergency, during the time of the authoritarian regime. They have moved petitions in the Supreme Court to remove the word secularism. Last week, Bhartya Janta Party Member of Parliament has moved a private member's bill to remove the word secularism. So their intent is very clear. Their intention is very clear. Attack secularism. Now, remove it from the Constitution. Aribha, you remove it from the Constitution. But the intrinsic nature of India's constitution is secular. As I have just said, Article 14 and 15, the right to practice religion, the right to propagate religion of your choice, these are all fundamental characters. What the Supreme Court has said is the basic structure of the Constitution of India. So when you attack and when you want to remove secularism, it is not just a word which is abusive as far as they are concerned or abused. It is a very concept of secularism, which we all know. Now, can you envisage in India which is democratic without secularism? Look, there are some people who think, if we remove secularism, what's the difference? We have secularism. So if we remain democratic, our democracy will remain if we remove secularism. But this is not the case. What Ambedkar has said, each and every aspect of the Constitution is linked together. So suppose, for example, you give up the word secularism or you give up the concept of secularism, what would it mean in terms of democracy in India? I think that is something that we have to look at. That would mean the introduction of religion and religious text to determine rights. If you remove secularism, if you remove equality, what is going to determine it? What your religion believes, the majority religion will then be the basis for jurisprudence, governance, laws and so on and so forth. And therefore, those who are so deadly opposed to Pakistan, being a theocratic state, want to exactly replicate. Maybe not directly, but at least incrementally, the introduction of religious and religious texts as the basis for the Constitution of India. And you will, of course, remember, when all the world and all the people were supporting the Constitution in India, after the Constitution Assembly, who opposed it? You all know this. The organizer of the RSS, and the lake, which no one has ever disowned, in which it was written, Bhai, it was India that if we want to do it, then we have so many laws, we have the best law giver, Manu, we have Manu Switi, so when Manu Switi is there, then the constitution of India is not the constitution of India. So, from the beginning, what we understand is, the very concept of democracy, as being equal rights of all citizens, has been a nithma to the Bhartya Jan... I mean, not BJP, to the RSS, of which the BJP is a front-off. So, the point that I'm making here is that every aspect of the Constitution is linked. If you remove secularism, you are attacking democracy and democratic rights. Secularism, being a fundamental and basic structure of the Constitution, cannot be tampered with. So, what is the way out for a Bhartya Janta Part who wants the Hindu Rashtra? Pack the judiciary. Pressure the judiciary to accept such petitions which want the removal of the word secularism. Or pressure the judiciary. After all, you have the Supreme Court, which is the apex court of this country, which is supposed to be the ultimate arbiter of justice, as and when the executive fails. Although, of course, parliament should and must be the arbiter of justice, being the representative of the people of India. But legally, in our Constitution, the Supreme Court is the apex body for justice. So, now if there is a barrier in this incremental implementation of a very specific goal of changing the nature of the Indian Republic, all those who constitute barriers to the achievement of this must be subverted. Now, this is not just a question of this or that judge. This is a basic aim as to how to subvert to reach the goal of removal of secularism. You attack democracy and in attacking democracy, you have to attack every single institution in India which represents any part of democratic functioning of the polity. That is the point here. What happened recently? Some gentleman was appointed to the election commission. His name was suggested. He was a bureaucrat in the government. Within 24 hours of his resignation, he was appointed as the election commissioner. The Supreme Court said, what is the process? Show us the files. So, such institutions which are part of our constitutional framework, which ensures some autonomy from the narrow political interests of the executive, are to be subverted and subordinated to the might of the government. What is going to happen to democracy in India? So, you start off by saying, secularism is a dirty word. And in the process of dismantling the whole concept of secularism, you destroy democracy. You destroy institutions. You destroy the very framework on which parliamentary democracy in India stands. What is happening with parliament today? It's not just a question of suspension of opposition MPs. Of course, that is an issue. You raise an issue. It's not heard. You make a noise. Out you go. On every issue of concern to the people of India, there are checks and balances in the parliamentary process. There is an institution called the Standing Committee of different ministries which you all know about. Today, bills are just passed in parliament without any reference to the Standing Committee. So, using your power, you are attacking institutions which form the edifice of the Constitution of India. I have mentioned some of those. And I would specifically like to mention an example of how the judiciary is trying to be subordinate and subordinated. And you all know what happened to Justice Murli Dharan. But I want this on record. I think, I mean, in the history of India, of course, we have seen the emergency and we have seen the way other regimes have also tried to silence judges or to pressure them. That's all been happening. But have you ever heard of a case where a violent riot, communal attacks are going on in the capital of India where hate speeches are made which are directly linked to that violence? Where not a single FIR is filed against leaders making those speeches because they happen to belong to the ruling party of India? And when a judge of the Delhi High Court calls out the police in open court hearing the speeches made and asking them, do you or do not consider this hate speech? He was transferred at midnight. I mean, we all know this. But do we understand the significance of this? Because I think that was really the signal as to how this government towards the implementation of its agenda over Hindutva Rashtra how it deals with those and institutions which it considers barriers. Since 2014 to 2020 10,552 Indians in seven years that is were arrested under UAPA. But among these 10,552 arrests in all these years only 253 have actually been convicted. You can't get bail under UAPA for years. We did an RTI in Jharkhand. We found that almost a thousand very poor people are arrested under UAPA. A large number of them are Adivasis all called Maoists and shoved into jail with no legal redress. So Stan Swamy was one of the people, you know, who was arrested and who died in police custody, in judicial custody or in jail custody. He was one of those who fought against this. But the point is that there is no evidence what has been very clear now that it is totally planted evidence using the notorious Pegasus software and to the computers of those in the Bhima Kodi Gang case that is the so-called primer fascy evidence which has been used to arrest those activists for the last four years, many of them. So all this is the Hindutva way towards its goal and its political goal. These are the aspects of it. And we also know that it means the stifling, the muscling of the press, the media. And we have the dubious distinction of being 150th out of 180 countries in the World Press Freedom Index. And we know how journalists who want to be impartial are bullied, are intimidated, and now media outlets or media houses are taken over by corporates to be silenced. We know all that. And this is all part of this suppression of democracy and democratic rights which have been guaranteed to us by the Constitution of India. So what do we make of all this? Now you can see all this leads to the conclusion that yes, under the BJP RSS India is an authoritarian regime. So this is one aspect I think becomes very clear from the narration of the facts which I have placed before you. But does it end there? No. Because the ideological backbone to this authoritarianism is communal. And today the entire Hindutva project is linked to the creation and manufacture of an overarching Hindutva identity which has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the Hindutva based on hatred of other religions. Now the Home Minister of India, Mr. Amit Shah, I mean whenever I think of Amit Shah I just see a bulldozer frankly. I mean really. I mean whatever he speaks, whatever he says, whatever he represents to me is that bulldozer which is just determined to destroy everything good in its wake. So anyway it's this Mr. Bulldozer Amit Shah who gave an open call recently to historians. You may have seen that Mr. Priyaji in which he says you will have backing of the central government to rewrite our history. Now think of what that means. What does it mean to rewrite our history? That is to teach our children the falsehoods and distortions that our history is a history of Hindu versus Muslim. That the Mughals that they were Muslims who are coming to impose Islam on India to destroy Hinduism rather than conquering armies successful because of local alliances with Hindu feudals and monarchs. For them all Hindu emperors and kings are wonderful even if they burnt their citizens at the stake and all Muslims were evil. The caste system was nothing but a distorted division of labour done by the Muslims that Manusmiti is the greatest law book of all time that cup-punch-iates are benign institutions of social reform. You know the UGC has just issued a circular to all of you, Mr. Priya have you got it? Saying that please include the wonderful role of cup-punch-iates. The institutions which the Supreme Court has said you should prohibit, they want to glorify it and etc. etc. So this is an assault on the heart of India on the shared cultures as also the distinct cultures of multiple social groups pluralism, distinction, diversity not the RSS credo of uniformity. The third aspect of this creation of Hindutva identity is for the RSS one of the most difficult and complicated which is its commitment to varnashram on the one hand and secondly its attempt to build an overarching so-called Hindu unity. So how do you do that? So what is a way that they do it? I mean it's interesting. So this is sought to be achieved by promoting identities of various castes and sub-castes. For example, specific sub-castes among Dalits are identified histories of leaders, cultures etc. are studied and used to promote a distinct identity of the sub-caste and pride in that identity. However, that identity remains within your corners of caste hierarchies. So you're proud of your Balmiki ancestor but you remain proud at the level that you are in the toxic caste system which is India. The commitment to the caste system is seen crudely in the ghar-vapasi movement. Converts who are mostly coercively forced to return to the Hindu fold are inducted with their caste intact at the lowest rung of the hierarchy whether Dalits or Adivasis. The fourth aspect of the building of this overarching Hindutva identity is also that for Hindu believers unlike other religions there is no one god or one holy text such as the Bible or the Quran. So the crafting of an overarching Hindu identity sort of gets diluted by the existence of 30 crore or so Hindu gods and goddesses each of which have their own cultures their local cultures, their local ways of worship and practices. How do you build one Hindu identity when you have so many myriad local practices and cultures of believers in Hinduism? When we talk about hate politics we see the violence against minority communities and I would like to quote from what Bilkis Banu said when she filed her petition in the Supreme Court. She said, the decision to once again stand up and knock on the doors of justice was not easy for me. For a long time after the men who destroyed my entire family in my life were released I was simply numb I was paralyzed with shock and fear. This is not just an individual voice of a single woman. Bilkis Banu cannot be separated from what is happening to a whole community of Indian citizens. Let's not fool ourselves that we can talk about being political against the politics of hate without recognizing and accepting that a substantial population in India does not feel itself safe in this country. And everything which I have said everything that I have related in the architecture of Hindutva how is it implemented? I have said and we believe you cannot de-link things you cannot think that today minority rights or a whole community believes and is under siege without understanding that you yourself are under siege your country is under siege your constitution is under siege the very basis of democracy is under siege your economic rights and social justice is under siege because minority rights are an intrinsic part of this whole edifice of the constitution you knock this out you knock down the entire edifice please we have to remember this and the reason why I want to emphasize this because there is such a large section of liberal opinion in India which believes come on, this is happening with minorities it is not happening it will be a success RSS's Bhagwat has said that even Muslims are our brothers he has said so what is all this what these people are doing who are beating and beating who are openly tying a pillar and beating someone in front of the entire public and people are shouting these are aberrations because Bhagwat Ji has said that even Muslims are citizens they are so stupid what is the reality today my dear friends look at the political economy of it do you know in Karnataka after this whole hijab ban and when Muslims and others protested in large parts of Karnataka where religious festivals have mailas alongside with fairs and shops etc they officially passed a ban against Muslim shopkeepers to open their shops there do you know today of security agencies right here in the capital who are not imploring Muslims because they say their clients will object if a Muslim is a security guard do you know the number of domestic workers today who are forced to change their name because if they go and work in a Hindu household somebody rather if not their director somebody in the building so the political economy and how it impacts the working people that is also a very a very cruel reality of this whole structure of targeting of the Muslim community and communal violence is intrinsic to this agenda it is not the only form but it is intrinsic to it and I just want to say that through the years all this nonsense about who is responsible for the violence forget what we say what do judicial inquiry commissions say through the years I want to put this before you Justice Jagmohan Reddy report in 1969 Ahmedabad violence Justice DP Madan report on the communal violence in Bhivandi, Jalgaon, Mahad in 1970 Justice Joseph report on telecherry violence in 71 the inquiry report into violence in Jamshidpur in 79 the Venugopal report on violence in Kanyakumari in 1982 the Sri Krishna report on Bombay violence in 1993 and of course the Liberhans commission report on Ayodhya and the destruction and the demolition and the raising of the Babri Masjid in each and every one of these cases who have they held responsible these are reports not inquiries and investigation not that nobody else was responsible but who are primarily responsible it is the RSS and Hindutva outfits so violence is in the DNA of this Hindutva agenda and it's violence primarily against the minority communities of India the Muslims of India although of course in many many areas particularly in Adivasi areas we see how the Christians are being attacked we see how churches are being raised to the ground we see how prayer meetings are disrupted in the name of being conversion ceremonies so yes hatred is reflected in the anti minority violence in which the Supreme Court itself has expressed concern in a recent petition which they were hearing in October this year they have mentioned the climate of violence in India they have mentioned the importance of those in power to take strong steps against hate speech and those who give hate speech what did the Assam chief minister say have you ever heard of something more outrageous more objectionable than his remarks vote for Modi to prevent Afthabs being born in every city or living in every city this is the chief minister of a country of a state making a statement like that Afthab is a criminal he has to be arrested he has to be punished he has to pay for his crime against that young woman Sraddha I don't think there is a single citizen in India who would disagree with that but what is happening to women in this country every day 86 women on an average are raped in this country every year over 6,500 women to death for dowry in Assam itself the national family health service states that the highest rate of women reporting domestic violence was in Mr. Assam chief minister state are they all Afthabs today the crime rate conviction rate against women in India of crimes against them including rape 37% of the accused go free there are hardly any convictions under the dowry laws today 35 lakh cases of crimes against women are pending in the lower courts 3 lakh cases of crimes against women are pending in the high court you want to communalize crimes against women are these all Afthabs on the contrary my dear friends if you are not an Afthab you have every hope of going free it's because Bilqis Balu's rapist killers were not Afthab it's because the Hatras Dalip girl who was killed and raped they happened to belong to the same upper caste as the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh that is why every rule in the book was bent to try and exonerate them from that dreadful crime so here is where we aren't hate politics my dear friends where the worst crimes against women or the crimes against Dalits you communalize it you look at the religious identity of the victim you look at the religious identity of the accused and then you decide whether you are going to take up the case or not why and how can India ever accept this so in the implementation of the politics of hate you have completely and utterly shown there are no bhetis for you to bachow with this kind of politics and obviously the vehicle for politics of hate is and always has been hate speech and as we know I mean my petition is pending since January 2020 in fact in response to one of my petitions one of the judges said if they say and make an abuse with a smile that cannot be considered hate speech so now don't be surprised if you see all the Hindutva gentlemen smiling and saying so they are all free so how do we bring all this together all interlinked hate politics is not a goal in itself hate politics is towards a bigger political goal and some of the ways that this is being taken forward is what I have tried to describe today but how do we fight against it and here's the thing I mean the bad news is that politics of hate is a reality but the good news is that it can be defeated it can be defeated it can be defeated electorally it can be defeated politically it can be defeated socially if we talk about hate politics we also have to give equal importance to the alternative visions we have as opposed to the politics of hate within these four pillars which I have described those are not sufficient I mean I'm a communist and I've been introduced as one so I know that the Constitution of India is a constitution which is provided for the growth of huge inequalities and injustices in India and I know that whatever socialist or whatever the inklings of socialism are in the constitution are only in the directive principles which are not justiciable and therefore I have many criticisms about this weak link in the Constitution of India I want the right to work to be a fundamental right I want the fight against inequalities to be fundamental and justiciable in the Constitution of India I want that whatever socialist in the constitution become part of the fundamental rights of the Constitution but today if I stand for the Constitution if I say that the fight for an alternative vision which can go beyond the rights granted by the Constitution but must always defend with the last drop of our thinking our blood the principles and the values of equality of secularism of democracy so develop our own visions I don't think we can fight Hindutva politics by a softer version of Hindutva politics I don't think so I don't think you can give up hardcore secularism how you express it is different but once you agree to a platform which you yourself use religion for political purposes you've lost half the battle can't fight on that toxic ground which the BJP and RSS have prepared in this country you can fight on alternatives on visions and the people will listen and for that we need unity one of Safdar's huge contributions at that time was the way he built a bridge between intellectuals, thinkers, opinion makers artists and what Vishnupriya has described as the people and the people's voices and the people's concerns Safdar was the bridge he believed in that bridge and he worked towards that bridge and I think it is that what Ajaz Ahmed described as a structure of solidarity we need that structure of solidarity and each one of us has a role to play in it cultural artists, performers we have to think of wider platforms in which you can draw in all those who have an important role to play in the resistance to the assault on culture in the name of Hindutva culture how do we fight it how do we bring in historians how do we bring in writers how do we expand this structure of solidarity don't look only to opposition parties for their unity opposition parties, political parties have a responsibility to the citizens of this country to defeat the RSS and BGP in what they are doing to India but we have to be the agents of resistance among the people where we work, where we live our relations with the people and you are doing it Jan Natya Manchin, so many other groups we are doing it let us see how today we can overcome whatever hurdles and barriers we have in our own work to build those wider and stronger structures of solidarity I think solidarity with an alternative vision is what is going to prevent the achievement of the toxic goal and I would say I started off by saying the authoritarian regime I added the corporate factor the pro-corporate factor so the authoritarian pro-corporate regime and most importantly of all the development of an identity based on the hate towards a minority is the communal factor so what we are resisting is a regime which is authoritarian, pro-corporate and communal and that is what we define as the purveyor of the politics of hate using the avenues the toxic words which hurt more sometimes in bullets which humiliate, which bully, which intimidate and we are here all of us together to fight that and as I said the good news is that it can be fought and the good news is they can be defeated so once again I pay my tribute to our dear beloved I thank my comrades in Janam for giving me this opportunity to speak today on this occasion and I thank all of you for having the patience to listen to me thank you very much