<p>It took international outrage and diplomatic action by some countries for the BJP leadership to realise the limits of hate speech directed against its usual targets. The suspension of one of the party’s spokespersons, Nupur Sharma, and the expulsion of another, Naveen Kumar Jindal, for their derogatory comments on Prophet Mohammad show it has to mind the red lines on public conduct, toleration and comments on other religions. It is clear that the action would not have been taken but for the protests from countries that are considered close to India. Three countries — Qatar, Kuwait and Iran — summoned Indian envoys and expressed their displeasure over the remarks. The Organisation of Islamic Countries criticised the remarks. In some countries, including Saudi Arabia, there was a movement to boycott Indian goods. Qatar’s action was especially notable because it happened when Vice President Venkaiah Naidu was on a visit there and so amounted to a diplomatic setback for India. </p>.<p>Even when the objectionable comments sparked protests and violence in Kanpur, the party was unmoved. Criticism and denigration of minority communities, especially Islam, has been considered a badge of honour by many BJP and Hindutva leaders. They have competed with each other in making hate speeches. Such an atmosphere emboldened many to make irresponsible statements without thinking of the consequences for the nation. All that is said and done is for an effect, too – to assert the dominance of the majority community and the subordination of the minorities. </p>.<p>Those who criticised the denigration of other religions and called for tolerance and sanity have been dubbed and insulted as ‘sickular libtards’ and other dishonourable epithets. There is also selective evocation of the right to free speech and citing of cases like the Charlie Hebdo incident to defend the maligning of other religions. Denigration of other religions and hate speeches is wrong and unacceptable in any form from any person. The government’s response to international censure leaves much to be desired. It has described the OIC’s comments as “unwarranted and motivated”. In distancing itself from the BJP spokespersons’ comments and claiming that the party has already taken “strong action”, the government has only underlined its own dubious position on such matters. It had not condemned the spokespersons’ comments before it drew attention outside the country. Its position would actually encourage the offenders. Criticism of those who point fingers at us and whataboutery are wrong and will not help. The government must ensure that minorities are treated well in the country.</p>
<p>It took international outrage and diplomatic action by some countries for the BJP leadership to realise the limits of hate speech directed against its usual targets. The suspension of one of the party’s spokespersons, Nupur Sharma, and the expulsion of another, Naveen Kumar Jindal, for their derogatory comments on Prophet Mohammad show it has to mind the red lines on public conduct, toleration and comments on other religions. It is clear that the action would not have been taken but for the protests from countries that are considered close to India. Three countries — Qatar, Kuwait and Iran — summoned Indian envoys and expressed their displeasure over the remarks. The Organisation of Islamic Countries criticised the remarks. In some countries, including Saudi Arabia, there was a movement to boycott Indian goods. Qatar’s action was especially notable because it happened when Vice President Venkaiah Naidu was on a visit there and so amounted to a diplomatic setback for India. </p>.<p>Even when the objectionable comments sparked protests and violence in Kanpur, the party was unmoved. Criticism and denigration of minority communities, especially Islam, has been considered a badge of honour by many BJP and Hindutva leaders. They have competed with each other in making hate speeches. Such an atmosphere emboldened many to make irresponsible statements without thinking of the consequences for the nation. All that is said and done is for an effect, too – to assert the dominance of the majority community and the subordination of the minorities. </p>.<p>Those who criticised the denigration of other religions and called for tolerance and sanity have been dubbed and insulted as ‘sickular libtards’ and other dishonourable epithets. There is also selective evocation of the right to free speech and citing of cases like the Charlie Hebdo incident to defend the maligning of other religions. Denigration of other religions and hate speeches is wrong and unacceptable in any form from any person. The government’s response to international censure leaves much to be desired. It has described the OIC’s comments as “unwarranted and motivated”. In distancing itself from the BJP spokespersons’ comments and claiming that the party has already taken “strong action”, the government has only underlined its own dubious position on such matters. It had not condemned the spokespersons’ comments before it drew attention outside the country. Its position would actually encourage the offenders. Criticism of those who point fingers at us and whataboutery are wrong and will not help. The government must ensure that minorities are treated well in the country.</p>
