‘Hate Speech Law will Boomerang on Progressives; Congress Compromising with Hindutva Forces’: Shivasundar

The passage of the Karnataka Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention) Bill, 2025, on December 18 has triggered a fierce debate on the balance between curbing communal hatred and preserving civil liberties. While the state government maintains the law is a necessary shield against vitriol, civil rights activists argue it is a sword that will be turned against dissenters.

In this interview with The Wire, senior journalist and activist Shivasundar dissects the Bill’s procedural flaws, the political contradictions of the Congress government, and the historical futility of using state power to fight social fascism.

Edited excerpt follows:

The Bill was passed on December 18 while the opposition was protesting in the Well. How do you view the manner of its passage?

It is a knee-jerk reaction by the Karnataka government. They argue that society, and the Congress party specifically, have been victims of hate speech and false propaganda. While that may be true, the manner in which the speaker bulldozed objections to pass the Bill is as bad as the methods the BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party] employs in parliament. Civil society has raised serious objections, and I share them. There are no safeguards, no checks and balances.

It will boomerang. In fact, C.T. Ravi, a BJP MLC, explicitly stated in the Council that if his party comes to power, it will be used against the current government. He said, "I will put you behind bars." That is the crux of the danger.

One of the primary concerns is the definition of "hate speech" versus "hate crime." Where do you see the ambiguity?

The distinction between the two is not clearly defined. Ravi raised a pertinent point during the debate: he noted that many religious books define who is a 'Kafir' (infidel). He asked, "If we quote that, will it become hate speech?" His implication was that Islamic texts themselves are full of hate. However, the home minister’s [G. Parameshwara's] reply was very vague; Parameshwara said the law would include printed books.

This means there cannot be a rational critique of any religious text. This danger is not confined to Islam. Any progressive critique of Hindutva holy books, including the Manusmriti, could be targeted. Even Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who publicly burnt the Manusmriti on December 27, 1927 – an event Dalit groups in Karnataka celebrate annually – would have been accused of a hate crime under this law. Even Basavanna (the 12th-century social reformer) would not be spared, as many vachanas actually accuse Brahminism of making people "rowdies". This law essentially criminalises the propagation of such historical critiques.

Also read: Explained | What Karnataka's Hate Speech Bill Says About Power and Dissent

The Bill seems to criminalise "thought" and "communication" without requiring an overt criminal act. Is this a departure from established legal norms?

Criminalising thought is part of the DNA of the Congress as well; remember, the UAPA was strengthened by the UPA [United Progressive Alliance] government. The BJP may be more ferocious and ideological, but the Congress is on the same track. They had also prepared a 'Misinformation Bill', which luckily was not presented in the Karnataka assembly. One of its clauses suggested that any propaganda against government policies could be classified as misinformation. This shows their mindset.

Regarding the current Bill, you cannot criminalise a thought or the expression of an idea unless it results in a crime punishable under the CrPC [now BNSS]. The only safeguard here is that "malicious intention" must be proved. But proving intention in a court of law is a Herculean task.

Some argue this law focuses on "polite speech" while ignoring material violence like social boycotts. Is that a fair assessment?

To be fair, the Karnataka government has passed a separate Bill making social boycott a crime, which was passed unanimously. That covers some ground regarding the material safety of the marginalised. However, the core issue remains: under this new Hate Speech Bill, you will be arrested and presented before a First Class Judicial Magistrate – not a local magistrate – and there is no provision for anticipatory bail. It is draconian.

Is this Bill a follow-up to Karnataka minister Priyank Kharge’s earlier demand to ban RSS activities? Can a police FIR solve what is essentially a civilisational problem?

Law is not the solution; it will only exacerbate the situation. While Priyank Kharge, being an enlightened Dalit, has some genuine ideological reservations about the RSS, the Congress party as a whole does not.

Take the example of home minister G. Parameshwara. After coming to power in 2023, he invited the Pejawar Mutt seer – a benefactor of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad – to his residence and performed padapooja (worship of feet). When the seer asked him not to ban the Bajrang Dal, Parameshwara assured him there was no such intention.

Consider the case of Kalladka Prabhakar Bhat, the RSS leader in the coastal region. For 20 years, his speeches have allegedly been hate speech, and multiple FIRs exist. Yet, even under this Congress government, public prosecutors assured the court he would not be arrested, and he was granted anticipatory bail. The state let him free despite existing laws being sufficient to act.

Furthermore, we saw the chief minister, deputy chief minister, and home minister visit Dharmasthala for a photo session with the seer accused of crimes there. Deputy chief minister D.K. Shivakumar even assured the Dharmadhikari that "hundreds of D.K. Shivakumars will support him." When the KPCC [Karnataka Preadesh Congress Committee] president recites the RSS prayer Namaste Sada Vatsale in the assembly, and the government protects these figures, you cannot expect this law to be used against the Sangh Parivar.

Clause 5 targets unregistered organisations. Since the RSS is technically unregistered, is this a strategic trap set by the Congress?

It is not a trap. If the intent was to book the RSS, it could have been done without this law. Any association is already liable for prosecution if it indulges in criminal activities. Clause 5 is superfluous for that purpose.

Instead, this will be used against progressive civil society organisations, most of which are unregistered. These are the groups critiquing Brahminism and capitalism.

The Congress lacks the ideological will to trap the RSS. In 2023, after coming to power, the speaker organised a three-day workshop for new MLAs and invited RSS-affiliated figures like Sri Sri Ravishankar and Dharmasthala Hegde to deliver ashirvachana [blessings]. This is their politics.

Clause 6 grants officers takedown powers for digital content without magistrate oversight. How is this different from the tools of censorship the Congress criticised the Union government for?

There is no distinction. The Congress is a centrist party with a tendency towards authoritarianism. We must remember that the basis for the NRC and NPR lies in the amendments made to visa rules in 2009 by the UPA government.

They have not repealed the draconian Cow Slaughter Bill or the Anti-Conversion Bill passed by the previous BJP government, even after two and a half years in power. There is a consonance in the ideological thrust regarding state power. They may object to the BJP's aggression, but not the authoritarian tools themselves.

Scholars like Sumanta Banerjee have argued that since the Sangh Parivar does not believe in democracy, they should not be entitled to democratic protections. Do you agree with this view in the context of this law?

I agree with K. Balagopal’s rebuttal to that argument. Balagopal argued that "democratic tolerance" cannot be divisible. He warned that if we allow the state the discretion to decide who is a ‘fascist’ and deny them liberties, it is not the Sangh Parivar that will suffer, but the radical and democratic forces. He maintained that strengthening state authority to fight fundamentalism is suicidal because the state apparatus – the police and judiciary – is often sympathetic to the majoritarian cause.

We are in the age of fascism, and there is no liberal democratic space left. Empowering the State today means empowering a hegemonic, neoliberal, Hindu-majoritarian state. The elites and society have been "Hindutva-ised," not just "Hindu-ised".

History shows that bans do not work. The RSS was banned in 1948, but Sardar Patel was instrumental in lifting it. It was banned in 1977; Balasaheb Deoras wrote three apology letters, but the organisation was not punished in a big way. In 1992, the ban was lifted quickly. Meanwhile, Naxalites and Communists were killed.

If you create these laws assuming we have a liberal state that will apply them fairly, you are mistaken. The powerful will secure bail in seconds, while activists like Umar Khalid will languish in jail under the same provisions.

The Bill empowers a deputy superintendent of police (DSP) to take preventive action. Is this a sufficient check?

It is no check at all. If military generals and SPs are communalised, how can a DSP be better? We are empowering a police force that largely shares the majoritarian worldview. There is no accountability to the people, and the courts are becoming increasingly difficult to access for the common dissenter. It is a total fascism that has actually come to rule.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.