The war of words between the right wing and Left liberals is raging, but the one point that the two sides can agree on is the need to do away with criminal defamation laws. While it is reasonable to expect the Supreme Court to constitute a constitutional Bench to hear the petition for decrimininalising defamation laws, we should seek that our parliamentarians, many of whom themselves are facing such cases, propose changing this legislation.

Speaking on the panel “Age of anger: the polarisation in public discourse”, Subramnian Swamy, BJP MP, held the Constitution as the point of integration between conflicting ideologies. Today, society was divided into the Hindutva crowd, which did not want to talk to the Left, and a Left-leaning elite, which did not want to hear anything about Hindutva. “But both these crowds have to accept the Constitution,” he said.

Communal polarisation

In her opening remarks, Malini Parthasarathy, Co-chairperson of The Hindu Group, illustrated the contours of this debate. “In India, the political forces on the right of our spectrum have been unable to develop a proper world view that does not draw upon bigotry or prejudice. They are unable to gain traction in the political field without a reliance on communal polarisation and the invoking of a majoritarian cultural identity,” she said.

“At the same time, the consensus on a centrist approach to democracy also has collapsed. I would argue that our centrist and Left forces are similarly trapped in old ideological clichés, and internal battles over obscure formulations.”

However, the anger in our public discourse is not merely ideological. There is also a significant class divide. “I see an arrogance in the English-speaking, secular class. In fact, there is no bigger divide than the one between those who think and speak in English and those who do that in the vernacular,” Gurcharan Das, author and commentator, said. It is but inevitable that people who did not speak English felt a sense that the upper classes had robbed them of the benefits of development.

That technology, especially social media, has helped create a platform where uncensored hate can be vocalised is beyond doubt. But it is likely that in India, what we have on our hands is not really the age of anger, but the age of grievance. “Our sentiments are hurt too easily. And technology takes it around. In digital India, it is so easy for someone in remote Jharkhand to take offence at something that is published in Mumbai and file a case,” Abhinav Chandrachud, lawyer, said.

The recent controversy over the “wink” in a clip from a Malayalam film that went viral, which led to a case being filed in Hyderabad, is a perfect example of this. The law makes a distinction between advocacy and incitement of hate. Dr. Swamy held steadfast to the notion that there was no limitation on the former and that as long as the Constitution was held as a base, there was enough room to resolve any conflicts. But these distinctions, as well as these nuances, were lost in the daily outrage, especially on social media. Dr. Parthasarathy asked, “How do you ensure free speech doesn’t deteriorate to hate speech?” To this, no one had an answer.