With 88% of the hate speech events in 2025 taking place in states and territories ruled by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) or in coalition with its allies, the direct correlation between hate speech and BJP-rule is evident.
Credit: Reuters Photo
The latest report by the Washington DC-based Center for the Study of Organized Hate and India Hate Lab shows a marked upswing in hate speech events in India.
The Report 2025 — Hate Speech Events in India shows that 1,318 documented and verified hate speech events took place across India in 2025 — a 13% increase over 2024 and a 97% increase over 2023.
With 88% of the hate speech events in 2025 taking place in states and territories ruled by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) or in coalition with its allies, the direct correlation between hate speech and BJP-rule is evident. In these regions, hate speech shows a 25% increase over 2024, while it declined by 34% in Opposition-ruled states.
Political leaders, especially BJP ministers, were the key drivers of hate speech. The top-most prolific purveyor of hate speech in 2025 was BJP’s Uttarakhand Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami, with Union Home Minister Amit Shah and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath among the top 10 hate speech drivers in 2025.Others, beyond the top 10, include Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma.
The number of groups that organised hate speech events in 2025 exceeded 160, with the top two positions going to the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and its youth wing, the Bajrang Dal, both affiliates of the BJP.
Minorities were described as ‘termites’, ‘parasites’, ‘insects’, ‘pigs’, ‘mad dogs’, ‘snakelings’, ‘green snakes’, and ‘bloodthirsty zombies’. Nearly 50% of the hate speeches referred to false accusations of conspiracy against the minorities, accusing them of ‘love jihad’, ‘land jihad’, ‘thook (spit) jihad’, ‘drug jihad’, and ‘vote jihad’. Calls for violence increased by nearly 20% over 2024, and for social and economic boycott of minorities by 8%.
Maharashtra topped states in the highest number of hate speech events. Nearly 40% of them involved calls for violence against minorities, the highest proportion recorded for any state. Maharashtra minister Nitesh Rane was among the top five individuals giving dangerous public speeches, and issuing calls for violence.
The curious case of Dhami as the biggest purveyor of hate speech is particularly instructive. He was involved in 71 cases of hate speech in 2025. Although he is the chief minister of a small state, he seems to be leveraging Uttarakhand’s sacred geography and the location of sites important for Hindu pilgrimage (Chaar Dham yatra, Haridwar, and Rishikesh).
Dhami has made Uttarakhand Hindutva’s laboratory by institutionalising ideological policing (Operation Kaalnemi) to crack down on ‘fake saints’ and religious conversions, tightening the anti-conversion law through surveillance and enforcement, and diluting the autonomy of minority educational institutions by abolishing the Uttarakhand Madrasa Board. He has made Uttarakhand something like the BJP’s flag-bearer state by implementing the Uniform Civil Code, and has initiated shifts in educational policy whereby concepts like ‘love jihad’ and other ideological issues are embedded into school curricula.
It has paid him dividends both electorally and in political longevity. Dhami’s example shows that even if a political leader’s governance deliverables are missing, hate speech can not only keep him in power but also elevate his national stature. Unsurprisingly, Dhami was a star campaigner for the BJP in the Delhi and Bihar elections.
The most important takeaway from the report is that hate speech is no longer a fringe phenomenon in India — it has been mainstreamed and politically incentivised by the party in power. That it has been institutionalised and internalised by top bureaucrats in the government is evident in the National Security Adviser urging youth leaders in the country “revenge-as-a-positive-emotion” to strengthen national security.
The India Hate Lab report comes at a time when the Supreme Court has announced that it intends to close the hearing in most petitions against hate speech pending before it since 2021. Wary, perhaps, of judicial overreach into executive functions, it has shifted responsibility for acting on hate speech events to the state governments, police, and the lower courts.
Institutional checks in India are in any case far too weak to restrain the perpetrators. Unlike other countries (which suffered historical trauma or have strong human rights frameworks like Germany, France, Canada, Australia, and South Africa, for example), India does not have a single, clear, and comprehensive hate speech law. Laws about hate speech are spread over several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Representation of People Act, and the Information Technology Act. Without a clear definition of hate speech, it is difficult to have judicial consistency in dealing with hate speech events.
The language of legal provisions is vague such as ‘promoting enmity’ or ‘outraging religious feelings’, which can be interpreted in many ways, and allows for arbitrary enforcement. These provisions can be used to curb even free speech and legitimate criticism. As witnessed of late, in the name of preventing hate speech, standup comics (Kunal Kamra, Munawar Faruqui, Vir Das, and Agrima Joshua) and cartoonists (Aseem Trivedi) have faced threats, social backlash, and legal action.
Meanwhile, those spewing hate regularly from political, religious, and online platforms tend to go scot-free. In this context, Karnataka government’s initiative to bring India’s first state-level legislation to tackle hate speech specifically deserves to be applauded. The Karnataka Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention) Bill, 2025, is a standalone legislation. Quite unlike fragmented laws at the national level, it adopts a comprehensive and codified approach by defining hate speech, and is both preventive and punitive in its approach. It specifies punishments for dissemination, publication, and promotion of hate speech, provides mandatory compensation to victims, and ties enforcement to constitutional values like dignity and equality.
The success of Karnataka’s hate speech law will depend on how effectively, transparently, and without bias it is enforced. It could potentially become a model to be emulated at the national level.
However, as long as the Hindu-majoritarian BJP rules at the Centre, this is unlikely to happen. Communal rhetoric and hate speech seem necessary for the ruling BJP, because the party feels the need to combine the Hindu nationalist and development narratives. One taps into cultural anxieties and communal sentiments to energise its core voters, while the other brings mainstream respectability.
The politics of hate has and will continue to undermine the stability and credibility that a rising power like India needs.
Bharat Bhushan is a New Delhi-based journalist.