Hate speeches decline in 2025, but remain potent tool for divisive politics: CSSS report

By A Representative 

A new report from the Centre for Study of Society and Secularism (CSSS) reveals a 47% drop in documented hate speeches targeting religious minorities in India last year, yet warns that the phenomenon persists as a deliberate strategy to fuel Islamophobia and majoritarian narratives. Authored by Irfan Engineer, Neha Dabhade, and Diya Padalkar, the study – titled Hate Speeches in 2025: A Weapon to Legitimize Divisive Narratives – analyzed reports from five major Mumbai-based newspapers and found 65 instances of hate speech, down from 122 in 2024.

"While our monitoring data indicates a decline or relatively low incidence of recorded hate speeches, it would be analytically unsound to interpret this as evidence that hate speech is no longer a serious concern in India," the authors write in the report. They attribute the lower figures not to a genuine reduction, but to methodological constraints, including reliance on print media alone. Broader monitoring efforts, such as those by India Hate Lab, documented over 1,300 in-person hate speech events in 2025, highlighting potential underreporting.

The report defines hate speech per the UN's framework as “any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are.” In India, it references sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) – including 196 (promoting enmity between groups), 299 (outraging religious feelings), and 302 (wounding religious sentiments) – which carry penalties of up to three years' imprisonment.

A stark finding is the dominance of state actors in perpetuating hate: 53 of the 65 instances (81%) were delivered by Union ministers, state ministers, governors, and elected representatives. Non-state actors accounted for just 12 cases. "The reiteration of such narratives by actors in power not only legitimizes prejudice but also embeds discriminatory rhetoric within mainstream political discourse," Engineer, Dabhade, and Padalkar observe, emphasizing how these speeches dehumanize Muslims through tropes like "ghuspetiya" (infiltrators) and unsubstantiated claims of demographic conspiracies.

Leading the list was Maharashtra's Minister for Fisheries and Port Development, Nitesh Rane, with 10 instances, followed by Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath (6), and Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma and Union Home Minister Amit Shah (5 each). Prime Minister Narendra Modi was cited for three speeches. Of the total, 61 targeted Muslims, with only four against Hindus.

Geographically, BJP-ruled or coalition states bore the brunt: 83% of incidents (54 out of 65) occurred in such regions. Maharashtra topped the list with 17 cases, followed by Uttar Pradesh (13), Assam (10), and Bihar (9). "Most of the hate speeches specifically directed against Muslims were reported in BJP-ruled states," the authors note, with Maharashtra (16), Uttar Pradesh (13), Assam (9), Bihar (8), and Delhi (4) seeing the highest concentrations.

The report's most alarming revelation is the near-total lack of accountability. "A salient observation based on the data is that little or next to no action has been taken against individuals making hate speeches targeting Muslims or Christians," state Engineer, Dabhade, and Padalkar. Out of 65 anti-Muslim speeches, state action was initiated in only 11 cases – and even then, often without meaningful follow-through.

CSSS categorizes state responses into three types. First, speeches critical of BJP policies or Hindu icons are swiftly labeled hate speech and prosecuted, despite not meeting legal thresholds. Examples include a Bihar JDU MLA's academic comments on Aurangzeb (no action taken despite BJP demands) and a Maharashtra man's WhatsApp post on Shivaji Maharaj (FIR under BNS Sections 299, 356(2), and 352).

Second, the bulk of documented speeches – inciting enmity against Muslims via terms like "love jihad," "land jihad," or calls for economic boycotts – faced zero repercussions. High-profile examples include Yogi Adityanath likening mosque surveys to "surgery on a wound" (Uttar Pradesh), Nitesh Rane urging Hindus to boycott uncertified Muslim mutton shops and demanding a ban on Tablighi Jamaat's Ijtema as a "terrorist organization," and Himanta Biswa Sarma warning of a "hidden conspiracy" by Bangladeshi migrants to make Assamese a minority.

Third, all four speeches targeting Hindus (e.g., vulgar remarks on Hindu symbols by Tamil Nadu's K. Ponmudy or Baba Ramdev's "sharbat jihad" comment) led to FIRs, court interventions, or apologies. In one case, Madhya Pradesh Tribal Affairs Minister Kanwar Vijay Shah's derogatory remark against a Muslim officer prompted Supreme Court oversight and an SIT probe.

The authors critique this disparity as evidence of systemic bias: "These speeches reproduce and reinforce long-standing Islamophobic tropes... framing Muslims as a monolithic and perpetual threat to Hindus and, by extension, to the Indian nation-state."

Engineer, Dabhade, and Padalkar caution against complacency, noting that hate speech's real toll – eroding social cohesion and justifying exclusion – transcends raw numbers. They highlight how narratives vilifying Mughal history or alleging Muslim disloyalty erase India's pluralistic heritage and rationalize surveillance.

The report urges stricter enforcement of BNS provisions and expanded monitoring beyond print media to capture social media and vernacular sources. "The apparent reduction must be understood in light of the specific methodological framework adopted by CSSS," they conclude, calling for civil society and media to amplify underrepresented voices.

CSSS, a Mumbai-based think tank, has tracked hate speech annually since 2014.