Across States and at the Centre, lawmaking has been reduced to brute arithmetic: If you have the numbers, you ram the Bill through. Debate is optional. Deliberation is dispensable.

Karnataka’s Hate Speech Bill fits neatly into this disturbing pattern. The Bill was passed amid BJP protests demanding a detailed discussion.

But this is not a morality play of a virtuous Opposition versus an authoritarian regime. It is a story of collective political irresponsibility.

The Opposition, the BJP, opposed the Bill largely for the sake of opposing it. The ruling party forced it through because it could. Both sides are performing roles they have perfected over decades: One heckles, the other steamrolls.

What we should be worried about is what did not happen.

The Opposition did not rebut the Bill clause by clause. There were no serious press conferences by the BJP explaining to citizens why the Bill is dangerous, which provisions threaten free speech, how it could be misused or what could be amended to make this Bill effective.

There was no attempt by the BJP to educate citizens. Just noise. Why? Could it be…

…because they know that one day they will be back in power and they will use the same law to suffocate and silence journalists, writers, cartoonists and inconvenient critics?

Also, there seems to be an attempt at appeasement even in this Bill. The Home Minister defended the law by arguing that hate crimes need precise definitions to protect “specific communities.”

That raises the central question: Is this law about curbing hate or managing vote banks?

If the Government is sincere about the purpose of this Bill, then it has to ask itself: Where are the safeguards? Where are the deterrents against communities or individuals who will weaponise this law to harass, intimidate or blackmail? Where are the penalties for false or malicious complaints?

Most alarmingly, the Government has announced punishments without even clearly defining the crime.

The definition of hate speech includes any expression intended to cause “injury, disharmony, enmity, hatred or ill-will” against a person or community.

These are not legal standards. They are emotional states. What constitutes “enmity”? How is “disharmony” measured? Who decides what qualifies as “ill-will”?

Would a political cartoon of a leader amount to hate against his community? If a journalist critiques a welfare scheme as fiscally irresponsible, does that create “ill-will”? If a historian challenges a dominant narrative, is that “disharmony”?

The Bill also seems to suggest that a clear link between speech and violence is not required. Worse, the law grants sweeping preventive powers.

Police can act if they believe a person “may” commit an offence. These offences are cognisable and non-bailable.

The Bill further prescribes imprisonment from one to seven years for hate speech. Severe punishment without legal clarity is not a strength. It is an invitation to abuse.

Arrest without warrant for speech-related offences is an extraordinary power in any democracy. Combined with vague definitions, it becomes a tool for selective enforcement.

The law must draw a bright line between lawful criticism and criminal conduct. Ambiguity does not merely confuse; it does something worse: It empowers the most easily offended and the most politically connected.

This Bill, in its present form, will definitely clog our court system because today anything can offend anyone and that “feeling” can be weaponised with this Bill, as there are no consequences. Hasn’t our judiciary buried itself deep enough in frivolous lawsuits?

Should India have a strong hate speech law? Absolutely.

We live in a hyper-polarised age where every phone is a megaphone and hate spreads faster than reason. Vulnerable communities deserve protection and public discourse needs guardrails. But…

…a law meant to civilise speech cannot be passed in an uncivilised manner.

Rushing legislation, refusing debate, drafting vague provisions and trusting future Governments to behave benevolently is not governance. It is negligence.

If stopping hate speech and protecting democracy is the goal, then first the process must itself be democratic. Otherwise, today’s solution will become tomorrow’s weapon.

Laws are remembered not by the intentions of those who draft them, but by how they are abused by those who inherit them. And this law absolutely will be abused.

This Hate Speech Bill, in its present form, is the wrong pill to cure us of hate. It must be amended. Otherwise, it will be like what author Rohinton Mistry said about Indian laws: “Laws in India are passed like urine; it ends up in the gutter.”

P.S. – Note 1: There is one big question: Where are the liberal free-speech warriors now, when a law says criticism can become a non-bailable offence?

Guess when their dictator passes a law, it’s for the good of democracy. When someone else’s dictator passes a law, it’s the death of democracy and their leaders go around the globe claiming so. 

Note 2: Indian politics operates like a closed caste system. Politicians do not jail their own.

BJP came to power at the Centre in 2014, harping about UPA corruption. It’s been 12 years. Has any Congress leader gone to prison? NO.

Congress in Karnataka came to power, harping about BJP’s corruption with the famous “PayCM” slogan. It’s been over 2.5 years. Has any BJP leader gone to jail? NO.

So, this Bill will be used by politicians to target anyone who targets the political class or should we say “political caste” — the most powerful caste in Karnataka, the true upper caste today.

e-mail: [email protected]