Music has a complex relationship with social discord in India. While there is a long tradition of music bridging diversity and spreading harmony, the opposite has been true for at least two centuries. In this conversation, I speak with Supreme Court advocate Shahrukh Alam about the legal aspects of hate music: how the law addresses it in principle and practice, its legal and constitutional remedies, or the lack thereof, in India.
Alam is a prominent public intellectual specialising in criminal law, personal law and constitutional matters. She writes and appears regularly in popular media on issues of public concern, aiming to make legal discourse accessible to ordinary people. As a practitioner, she engages with cases involving hate speech. She also writes on literature and cultural issues. Her extensive and sustained engagement with the legal and cultural spheres provides critical insights into the domains of hate speech, hate music and their associated legal and policing discourses.
This conversation is part of my upcoming podcast series, Musicking Religion, which explores the efficacy of music in countering religious hate in India.
Mukesh: Could you explain how the law approaches the issue of “countering hate?”
Shahrukh: Indian law doesn’t explicitly recognise the term “hate speech.” Hate speech marginalises target groups, pushing them out of social and political spaces, which is discriminatory. However, Indian law doesn’t address discrimination as a core issue – it focuses on maintaining law and order. For example, Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code addresses spreading “disharmony” or being “provocative.” The law’s concern is whether an act will lead to a law-and-order problem, not whether a group or individual is being targeted, excluded or discriminated against.
Indian law assumes that groups are on equal social and political footing. If someone from Group A indulges in hate speech against Group B, the law presumes Group B has the social or political capital to take offence and retaliate. It doesn’t account for existing social or political hierarchies, making it essentially reactive. Its focus is on preventing public disorder, not addressing systemic discrimination.
This story was originally published in thewire.in. Read the full story here.