Former Miss India gives hate speech at Kumbh
In a viral video, former Miss India can be heard making controversial remarks against Muslims at the Maha Kumbh in Prayagraj. She referred to Muslims as “Babar ki aulad” and claimed that a “pinch of vermilion” safeguards Hindu women from “halala, triple talaq, and Love Jihad.” Her statements have sparked outrage on social media, with many accusing her of spreading hate speech. Several activists and political leaders have called for legal action against her inflammatory remarks. Authorities are yet to respond to the controversy, but the video continues to gain traction, fueling a heated debate.
In yet another instance of hate speech in the country, former Miss India Ishika Taneja sparked a massive controversy after delivering a deeply inflammatory and provocative speech explicitly targeting the Indian Muslim community.
Taneja peddled this hate-filled narrative while speaking at a religious gathering attended by several prominent Hindu religious priests during the ongoing Maha Kumbh in Uttar Pradesh’s Prayagraj. She used derogatory descriptions that perpetuated untrue stereotypes about Indian Muslims, fueling communal divisions and public outrage.
Inflammatory Remarks Go Viral
A video of Taneja’s speech surfaced on social media, drawing widespread criticism. In the clip, she can be heard referring to Muslims as “Babur ki aulad” (children of Mughal emperor Babur) and claiming that a “pinch of vermilion” could protect Hindu
“Yeh Babur ki aulade kya jaane sindoor ki kimat kya hai, yeh love jihad, halala, aur triple talaq jaise cheezon se bachata hai,” she declared, implying that Hindu traditions safeguard women from what she falsely portrayed as oppressive Islamic practices.
Her statement was met with applause from the audience, which included prominent Hindu religious leaders and BJP MP and former actress Hema Malini. The enthusiastic response highlights the alarming normalization of anti-Muslim sentiments in public spaces and raises concerns about the growing communal divide in the country.
Understanding the Dangerous Narratives
Taneja’s speech not only spread communal hatred but also reinforced harmful stereotypes about Indian Muslims. The term “love jihad” is a conspiracy theory propagated by right-wing groups, alleging that Muslim men intentionally lure Hindu women into relationships to convert them to Islam. Despite the lack of credible evidence supporting this theory, it continues to be used as a political tool to instill fear and hostility among communities.
Similarly, “halala” is often misrepresented by right-wing factions to malign Islamic practices. In reality, the Islamic concept of halala, which is a provision related to divorce and remarriage, has been misinterpreted and weaponized by communal forces to stigmatize Muslims.
Legal Implications and Supreme Court Guidelines
Soon after Taneja’s hate speech came to light, several social activists and legal experts demanded immediate action by law enforcement authorities. They urged authorities to take suo moto cognizance of the incident, citing the Supreme Court’s strict guidelines on hate speech.
In October 2020, the Supreme Court directed the governments of Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, and Uttarakhand to take strong action against hate speech, ensuring that criminal cases are registered against perpetrators without waiting for a formal complaint. The apex court emphasized that any delay in administrative action on this “very serious issue” would amount to contempt of court.
Despite these legal safeguards, hate speeches continue to occur with increasing frequency, raising questions about the effectiveness of enforcement mechanisms.
Political and Social Reactions
The backlash against Taneja’s remarks has been swift, with opposition leaders, social activists, and concerned citizens condemning her statements. Many have criticized the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) for fostering an environment where hate speech is tolerated and even encouraged.
Senior Congress leader Priyanka Gandhi Vadra condemned the remarks, stating, “Such divisive and hateful rhetoric is detrimental to the fabric of our society. It is disappointing that such statements are made publicly and met with applause instead of condemnation.”
The All India Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen (AIMIM) leader Asaduddin Owaisi also lashed out at Taneja’s comments, saying, “This is not just hate speech; it is an open call to divide the nation. The government must take strict action against her.”
Human rights organizations have also weighed in, demanding legal consequences for Taneja’s speech. The government must demonstrate that such rhetoric has no place in India,” said a spokesperson from Amnesty International India.
The Broader Impact of Hate Speech
Hate speech has far-reaching consequences, often leading to communal violence, social disharmony, and alienation of minority communities. In recent years, India has witnessed a surge in hate crimes, many of which have been directly linked to incendiary speeches made by influential figures.
The rise of social media has further amplified the spread of such rhetoric, making it easier for hate speech to reach a wider audience. While platforms like Twitter (now X), Facebook, and Instagram claim to have policies against hate speech, enforcement remains inconsistent, allowing divisive narratives to flourish.
Experts warn that if left unchecked, such hate speeches could result in a further breakdown of communal harmony and embolden extremist elements within society.
Urgent Need for Stricter Enforcement
While India has laws in place to curb hate speech, enforcement has been selective and often influenced by political considerations. The Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections 153A (promoting enmity between different groups) and 295A (outraging religious sentiments) provide legal avenues to address hate speech, yet convictions remain rare.
Legal experts argue that stronger implementation of these laws, along with swift and impartial action against offenders, is essential to curb the rise of hate speech in the country. Additionally, there have been calls for stricter monitoring of public speeches by political and religious figures to prevent the incitement of communal violence.
Conclusion
Ishika Taneja’s hate speech at the Maha Kumbh is a stark reminder of the increasing communal polarization in India. Her remarks, which openly vilified an entire religious community, are not only dangerous but also a violation of constitutional principles.
As India prepares for upcoming elections, it is imperative that political leaders, law enforcement agencies, and the judiciary take a firm stand against hate speech. The failure to do so will only embolden divisive forces and threaten the country’s secular fabric.
For now, the onus is on the authorities to act decisively, ensuring that individuals who engage in hate speech are held accountable. Whether action will be taken against Taneja remains to be seen, but the incident has once again highlighted the urgent need to address the growing menace of communal rhetoric in India.