Coping with hate speech doesn't need to mean silence. Lawful channels can be deployed, such as filing complaints or building watchdog groups
Any person capable of angering you becomes your master. --Epictetus, ancient Greek Stoic philosopher (c. 50–135 CE), born a slave (ITALICS )
It's a sad state of affairs. One bigot makes a bizarre statement, and all our attention shifts there. We forget the hundred and one pressing issues facing us, we ignore the roti-kapdaa-aur-makaan (or pão-lugott-ani-ghor) concerns that we need to focus on. We even forget the wider agenda of how to make our faith and our thinking more 21st century-oriented, rather than rushing forward headlong into the 16th century.
So what's wrong with our beliefs, that anyone saying something bizarre can rake up a knee-jerk action in a minute? Do we have so little understanding of our own history, that an incoherently motivated misreading of the past can trigger us all off by the thousands? All it takes is a one-minute video, thoughtlessly made viral, and shared ten thousand times to rake up outrage.
In our troubled times, we urgently need to find ways to manage external provocation. We can find inspiration online. Buddhist philosophy or the Anecdotes of Wisdom reminds us, "Do not get upset with people or situations, both are powerless without your reaction." British philosopher Alan Watts supposedly argued: "When you are no longer enslaved by anger, your actions become far more effective."
Understanding 'why' is important too. Why do people do this in our times, with so much regularity? What does it say about our era, and our politics? And what can be done to face the same, offensive though it might seem?
It's an emotional trap that is being set for you. So refuse to fall into it. Stay grounded. Fact check before reacting. Don't impulsively share their hate via the online world, through platforms like WhatsApp, Facebook or X (Twitter). Instead, discuss the issue calmly with people you trust.
Coping with such hate doesn't need to mean silence. Lawful channels can be deployed, such as filing complaints or building up watchdog groups. Community-level responses matter as well, and these can counter attempts to divide. The goal is to push back firmly but proportionately. Defend pluralism but don't mirror the provocation.
It’s rarely just “random anger”. Provocative or hateful speech about religion has been called an attempt at using psychological levers. Social identity theory tells us that people derive self-worth from belonging to a group. So emphasising “us vs them” sharpens loyalty and makes supporters feel morally justified. Closely tied to that is scapegoating. Frustrations (economic stress, political failures) get blamed onto a visible “other”.
Also, outrage spreads faster than the good news. Online platforms reward content that is emotionally charged. Politicians (including 25-year-old relatively obscure wannabee politicos) know that statements designed to shock will travel widely and dominate the conversation.
Hate-speech can desensitise us. Needless to say, it helps in vote consolidation. Once polarisation rises, more actors feel compelled to match the tone to avoid appearing weak, which can normalise harsher speech over time.
Hate speech in India has deep roots, showing up when religion, caste and politics intersect. This goes back to the late 19th and early 20th centuries too, times when the print medium grew. Episodes like the Partition of Bengal saw a spurt.
British colonial authorities responded with restrictive laws such as Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code and Sec 295 (introduced in 1927 after communal tensions around publications that were offensive). By the 1940s, events leading to the Partition of India showed how lethal rhetoric could be, and lead to communal violence.
After Independence, India attempted to balance civil liberties with public order. The Constitution guarantees freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a), but permits “reasonable restrictions” (public order, morality, expanded by the First Amendment to the Constitution of India). In theory, the Election Commission of India's Model Code of Conduct prohibits appeals to religion for votes. More recent controls have included digital regulation under the Information Technology Act, 2000.
In Goa under Portuguese rule (pre-1961), the dynamics of religiously charged speech were shaped less by mass electoral politics and more by the realities of colonial rule. Earlier, a challenge to religion was subsumed under heresy or blasphemy. Tight press controls were a reality.
Inter-religious hostility rarely took the form of open, competitive rhetoric. Printing grew in the early 20th century--in Konkani, Marathi and Portuguese, but this was still under surveillance. So, explicit communal mobilisation through speech, as seen in British India, was comparatively muted.
After 1961, the framework changed to one of constitutional free speech with legal limits. Goa grew a reputation for relative communal harmony, though there were divides at election time. Sometimes, communalism spread through conflict over language. Large-scale hate speech has historically been less entrenched than in some other regions, though the situation in the rest of the country has affected Goa too.
With the rise of electoral competition, identity politics and later the spread of television and social media, off-and-on controversies have surfaced.
Under the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the earlier IPC provisions on hate speech have been largely retained in substance but renumbered rather than fundamentally reformed: Section 153A IPC (promoting enmity between groups) now appears as Section 196 BNS, and Section 295A IPC (outraging religious feelings) as Section 299 BNS, with their core language and intent—penalising speech that incites inter-group hostility or deliberately insults religion—remaining broadly intact, experts say.
At a broader level, the BNS does not introduce a clear, standalone definition of “hate speech”, continuing India’s earlier approach of regulating it through a cluster of specific offences tied to public order, religion, and social harmony, rather than a unified doctrine. The wide and sometimes vague scope means the authorities can take action when they wish, or turn a blind eye at other times. It might be better to ignore with the contempt deserved such deliberate provocations.
