<p>It was saddening but not surprising at all when the Delhi Police told the court that it found nothing hateful in the speeches made at a Hindu Yuva Vahini event in Delhi in December 2021. The definition of hate speech and act for the Delhi Police seems to depend on who is the person or group behind it. The affidavit submitted by the Delhi Police, as reported by Live Law, shows that the police has analysed the speech, looked at the words constituting the speech and concluded that there is no word in it to suggest that it was directed against any community, or against Muslims to be precise.</p>.<p>After a deep inquiry and evaluation of the contents of the video, the police did not find any substance in the videos as per the allegations levelled by the complainants. Hence, after inquiry and after evaluation of the incriminating video clip, it was concluded that the speech did not disclose any hate words at all as alleged.</p>.<p>It further said that "none of the words which were spoken during the events in any manner whatsoever overtly or expressly described Indian Muslims as usurpers of territory, and as predators of land, livelihood and of Hindu women and nothing was said which could create an environment of paranoia amongst any religion".</p>.<p>The police found nothing in the speech which could be treated as a call for genocide of Muslims. In fact, the police found that those who were at the congregation were there not against any community but with a motive to "save the ethics of their community."</p>.<p>The police condemned the petitioners who wanted action and had come before the court for being "intolerant" to other views. It wants people to respect the right to free speech.</p>.<p>Qurban Ali, a veteran journalist and Anjana Prakash, former Justice at the Patna High Court, went to the Supreme Court after a Dharma Sansad at Haridwar, where calls for mass elimination of Muslims were made, and another event at Delhi where calls to take up arms and be ready to kill and be killed to make India a Hindu Rashtra were given.</p>.<p>The Delhi Police does not find the exhortation to take up arms and be ready to kill hateful towards any particular community. Does the call fall under the category of dangerous speech or violent speech or not? The Delhi Police is sympathetic to the congregation of the Hindu Yuva Vahini and says that the petitioners have selectively used passages from the speeches to misconstrue their intent and thereby mislead the court.</p>.<p>It is true that in the exhortation of taking up arms and being ready to kill, there is no mention of the target's identity. But when you ask me to take up arms and be prepared to kill, I have to kill someone. Who could that be?</p>.<p>Let us stay with this line of reasoning. "Desh ke gaddaron ko, goli maro salon ko.” Is this an outburst of nationalistic emotions? Is it directed towards any community? There is no mention of any group or community. All that it does is exhort people to shoot the traitors? Why should Muslims think that it is against them? The Delhi Police would ask.</p>.<p>Similarly, when a leader asks you to identify the opponents of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) by the colour of their clothes, he is not mentioning any particular community. How can it be treated as a speech creating hate for any community? Or another leader says that infiltrators are termites turning the country hollow. He never names any community. Can you call it a hateful statement?</p>.<p>The Delhi Police is sticking to words. It refuses to take the context of the words uttered into account. When the words are more specific, like the speeches made at Haridwar where the killing of Muslims was explicitly mentioned, the police take the view that they cannot take the speeches seriously as they did not result in any immediate violence against Muslims. That explained the reluctance of the police to register any criminal case against the speakers and the organisers.</p>.<p>The petitioners are before the court requesting it to direct the state authorities not to permit events where such speeches are made. But the Delhi Police wants them to be tolerant of the views of those who want to kill for creating a Hindu Rashtra out of India.</p>.<p>As said, the police refuse to go beyond the words. But the same Delhi Police does not want to believe the words of Harsh Mander in which he invokes love and compassion and asks people to fight non-violently to safeguard constitutional values. It says the words do not matter here. They are merely a façade, which he used to hide his real intent, which was to instigate people to commit violence.</p>.<p>Similarly, the Delhi Police imposed the dreaded Unlawful (Activities) Prevention Act (UAPA) on Umar Khalid in 2020. To justify the move, it cited his speech at Amaravati in Maharashtra and interpreted it to claim that his words hid his real intent, which was to provoke violence.</p>.<p>In all these instances, the police used edited clips of the speeches and concluded that they were violent and dangerous speeches. In the case of the Hindu Yuva Vahini event, it lambasts the petitioners for selectively using portions of the speeches.</p>.<p>Clearly, the Delhi Police is not following a principled method. It refused to file an FIR against Kapil Mishra, who had made open threats against the anti-CAA protestors in the presence of the police. It says the BJP leader was not making any provocative statement. He was merely having a discussion with the police about the inconvenience arising out of the road blockade.</p>.<p>It is evident that it is not the words or content. It is actually the identity of the people which matters for the police. The call to butcher Muslims does not disturb the police. How does one understand the ways of the Delhi Police? One way is to see how recently it allowed those who lynched a caretaker of a farmhouse in Dwarka to leave in its presence. The media reported, "A police FIR filed in connection with the lynching of a 40-year-old caretaker of a Dwarka farmhouse, over suspicion of cow slaughter, suggests that police personnel had reached the spot when a group of 10-15 men were assaulting him and that the accused managed to leave without giving police their names."</p>.<p>Read the FIR done by the police itself to see how indulgent the police is towards the murders. They are called Gau Rakshak by the police respectfully: "Ct Ravinder… reached Main Jhatikra Road where a group of 15-20 men from Delhi 'Gau Rakshak Dal' were present. Towards the right side of the main gate, we found the heads of two-three cows and other remains."</p>.<p>Further, "There were eight cows and two calves at the spot. These were taken to a safe gaushala. After this, the members of 'Gau Rakshak Dal' left without giving their names…"</p>.<p>It explains why the police is surprised by the allegation of hate while investigating the speech given at the Hindu Yuva Vahini event and pained that the petitioners cannot tolerate the call to take up arms to kill.</p>.<p>This is no place to dwell on how a speech act becomes hateful and violent. The context is crucial, as also the history of the speaker. Not that the police do not know that. But it chooses to be the coercive arm of the ruling party, which is busy converting India into a Hindu Rashtra.</p>.<p><em>(The writer teaches at Delhi University)</em></p>.<p><em><strong>Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.</strong></em></p>.<p><strong>Watch the latest DH Videos here:</strong></p>
<p>It was saddening but not surprising at all when the Delhi Police told the court that it found nothing hateful in the speeches made at a Hindu Yuva Vahini event in Delhi in December 2021. The definition of hate speech and act for the Delhi Police seems to depend on who is the person or group behind it. The affidavit submitted by the Delhi Police, as reported by Live Law, shows that the police has analysed the speech, looked at the words constituting the speech and concluded that there is no word in it to suggest that it was directed against any community, or against Muslims to be precise.</p>.<p>After a deep inquiry and evaluation of the contents of the video, the police did not find any substance in the videos as per the allegations levelled by the complainants. Hence, after inquiry and after evaluation of the incriminating video clip, it was concluded that the speech did not disclose any hate words at all as alleged.</p>.<p>It further said that "none of the words which were spoken during the events in any manner whatsoever overtly or expressly described Indian Muslims as usurpers of territory, and as predators of land, livelihood and of Hindu women and nothing was said which could create an environment of paranoia amongst any religion".</p>.<p>The police found nothing in the speech which could be treated as a call for genocide of Muslims. In fact, the police found that those who were at the congregation were there not against any community but with a motive to "save the ethics of their community."</p>.<p>The police condemned the petitioners who wanted action and had come before the court for being "intolerant" to other views. It wants people to respect the right to free speech.</p>.<p>Qurban Ali, a veteran journalist and Anjana Prakash, former Justice at the Patna High Court, went to the Supreme Court after a Dharma Sansad at Haridwar, where calls for mass elimination of Muslims were made, and another event at Delhi where calls to take up arms and be ready to kill and be killed to make India a Hindu Rashtra were given.</p>.<p>The Delhi Police does not find the exhortation to take up arms and be ready to kill hateful towards any particular community. Does the call fall under the category of dangerous speech or violent speech or not? The Delhi Police is sympathetic to the congregation of the Hindu Yuva Vahini and says that the petitioners have selectively used passages from the speeches to misconstrue their intent and thereby mislead the court.</p>.<p>It is true that in the exhortation of taking up arms and being ready to kill, there is no mention of the target's identity. But when you ask me to take up arms and be prepared to kill, I have to kill someone. Who could that be?</p>.<p>Let us stay with this line of reasoning. "Desh ke gaddaron ko, goli maro salon ko.” Is this an outburst of nationalistic emotions? Is it directed towards any community? There is no mention of any group or community. All that it does is exhort people to shoot the traitors? Why should Muslims think that it is against them? The Delhi Police would ask.</p>.<p>Similarly, when a leader asks you to identify the opponents of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) by the colour of their clothes, he is not mentioning any particular community. How can it be treated as a speech creating hate for any community? Or another leader says that infiltrators are termites turning the country hollow. He never names any community. Can you call it a hateful statement?</p>.<p>The Delhi Police is sticking to words. It refuses to take the context of the words uttered into account. When the words are more specific, like the speeches made at Haridwar where the killing of Muslims was explicitly mentioned, the police take the view that they cannot take the speeches seriously as they did not result in any immediate violence against Muslims. That explained the reluctance of the police to register any criminal case against the speakers and the organisers.</p>.<p>The petitioners are before the court requesting it to direct the state authorities not to permit events where such speeches are made. But the Delhi Police wants them to be tolerant of the views of those who want to kill for creating a Hindu Rashtra out of India.</p>.<p>As said, the police refuse to go beyond the words. But the same Delhi Police does not want to believe the words of Harsh Mander in which he invokes love and compassion and asks people to fight non-violently to safeguard constitutional values. It says the words do not matter here. They are merely a façade, which he used to hide his real intent, which was to instigate people to commit violence.</p>.<p>Similarly, the Delhi Police imposed the dreaded Unlawful (Activities) Prevention Act (UAPA) on Umar Khalid in 2020. To justify the move, it cited his speech at Amaravati in Maharashtra and interpreted it to claim that his words hid his real intent, which was to provoke violence.</p>.<p>In all these instances, the police used edited clips of the speeches and concluded that they were violent and dangerous speeches. In the case of the Hindu Yuva Vahini event, it lambasts the petitioners for selectively using portions of the speeches.</p>.<p>Clearly, the Delhi Police is not following a principled method. It refused to file an FIR against Kapil Mishra, who had made open threats against the anti-CAA protestors in the presence of the police. It says the BJP leader was not making any provocative statement. He was merely having a discussion with the police about the inconvenience arising out of the road blockade.</p>.<p>It is evident that it is not the words or content. It is actually the identity of the people which matters for the police. The call to butcher Muslims does not disturb the police. How does one understand the ways of the Delhi Police? One way is to see how recently it allowed those who lynched a caretaker of a farmhouse in Dwarka to leave in its presence. The media reported, "A police FIR filed in connection with the lynching of a 40-year-old caretaker of a Dwarka farmhouse, over suspicion of cow slaughter, suggests that police personnel had reached the spot when a group of 10-15 men were assaulting him and that the accused managed to leave without giving police their names."</p>.<p>Read the FIR done by the police itself to see how indulgent the police is towards the murders. They are called Gau Rakshak by the police respectfully: "Ct Ravinder… reached Main Jhatikra Road where a group of 15-20 men from Delhi 'Gau Rakshak Dal' were present. Towards the right side of the main gate, we found the heads of two-three cows and other remains."</p>.<p>Further, "There were eight cows and two calves at the spot. These were taken to a safe gaushala. After this, the members of 'Gau Rakshak Dal' left without giving their names…"</p>.<p>It explains why the police is surprised by the allegation of hate while investigating the speech given at the Hindu Yuva Vahini event and pained that the petitioners cannot tolerate the call to take up arms to kill.</p>.<p>This is no place to dwell on how a speech act becomes hateful and violent. The context is crucial, as also the history of the speaker. Not that the police do not know that. But it chooses to be the coercive arm of the ruling party, which is busy converting India into a Hindu Rashtra.</p>.<p><em>(The writer teaches at Delhi University)</em></p>.<p><em><strong>Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.</strong></em></p>.<p><strong>Watch the latest DH Videos here:</strong></p>