TMC accuses Suvendu Adhikari of ‘naked hate speech’ in his remarks against Bangladesh

The accusation by West Bengal's ruling Trinamool Congress (TMC) against BJP leader Suvendu Adhikari for alleged "naked hate speech" targeting Bangladesh, coupled with the absence of legal action under provisions like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), brings to the forefront critical aspects of India's political discourse, legal framework, and international relations.

**Background Context:**

West Bengal has a history of intense political rivalry between the TMC and the BJP, especially since the BJP's emergence as a significant opposition force in the state. This rivalry often manifests in sharp exchanges and accusations, particularly during election cycles or periods of heightened political tension. Furthermore, hate speech, defined broadly as any communication that disparages a person or group on the basis of some characteristic (like religion, ethnicity, nationality), has been a recurring concern in Indian politics. The legal landscape for hate speech in India is complex, navigating the delicate balance between freedom of speech and the need to maintain public order and social harmony. India's relationship with Bangladesh, while generally cordial, has its own sensitivities, particularly concerning issues like illegal immigration, border management, and trade.

**What Happened:**

The Trinamool Congress accused Suvendu Adhikari, a prominent BJP leader and Leader of Opposition in the West Bengal Legislative Assembly, of making remarks against Bangladesh that they deemed as "naked hate speech." While the specific content of Adhikari's alleged remarks is not detailed in the prompt, the accusation suggests they were inflammatory and potentially communal in nature, impacting the perception of Bangladesh. The core of TMC's grievance was not just the speech itself, but the perceived inaction by law enforcement agencies. They highlighted that no First Information Report (FIR) was lodged, no arrest made, no prosecution initiated, and crucially, no charges under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) were slapped against Adhikari. This selective application or non-application of laws becomes a significant point of contention.

**Key Stakeholders Involved:**

1. **Trinamool Congress (TMC):** As the ruling party in West Bengal and the accuser, TMC's primary stake is to challenge a political opponent, highlight perceived double standards in law enforcement, and potentially garner political mileage. They are also responsible for maintaining law and order in the state.

2. **Suvendu Adhikari (BJP):** The accused leader. His stake is to defend himself, his party's stance, and to continue his political activities, often within the context of a robust opposition role.

3. **Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP):** Adhikari's party. The BJP aims to counter TMC's allegations, protect its leader, and maintain its political narrative in West Bengal and nationally.

4. **West Bengal Police/State Law Enforcement:** These agencies are responsible for investigating complaints, lodging FIRs, and initiating legal proceedings based on evidence. Their perceived inaction is a central point of TMC's criticism, raising questions about political interference or selective enforcement.

5. **Central Government (Implicitly):** While UAPA is enforced by state police, it is a central act. Debates around its application often involve the central government's stance on internal security and terrorism, though direct involvement in this specific case might be limited unless central agencies are invoked.

**Why This Matters for India:**

This incident is significant for several reasons. Firstly, it reignites the perennial debate on **freedom of speech versus hate speech**. While Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, Article 19(2) allows for reasonable restrictions in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offence. Hate speech often falls under these restrictions, particularly sections 153A (promoting enmity between different groups), 295A (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings), and 505 (statements conducing to public mischief) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Secondly, the mention of **UAPA** is critical. Enacted in 1967, and significantly amended in 2004, 2008, 2012, and 2019, the UAPA is primarily intended to deal with terrorist and unlawful activities. Its application, or non-application, in cases of alleged hate speech against a foreign nation raises questions about its scope and potential for misuse or selective use. Critics often argue that UAPA's stringent provisions, including extended detention periods without charge and difficult bail conditions, can be used to stifle dissent or target political opponents. The TMC's accusation implies a double standard in its application.

Thirdly, the incident touches upon **federalism and centre-state relations**. The state police, under the state government, are primarily responsible for law and order. Accusations of selective enforcement highlight tensions between state political leadership and the administration of justice. Furthermore, inflammatory remarks against a neighboring country like Bangladesh can potentially strain **India's foreign relations**. India and Bangladesh share deep historical, cultural, and economic ties, and political rhetoric must be mindful of these sensitivities.

**Historical Context:**

The debate around hate speech and its regulation has a long history in India, with numerous court judgments attempting to define its boundaries. Landmark cases like *Shreya Singhal v. Union of India* (2015) have refined the understanding of free speech and its restrictions. The UAPA itself has been a subject of continuous debate regarding its impact on civil liberties. Politically motivated accusations of hate speech and selective legal action are not new, often seen during electoral campaigns or periods of heightened political polarization.

**Future Implications:**

This incident could lead to continued political sparring between TMC and BJP in West Bengal. Depending on public and media pressure, law enforcement might be compelled to clarify their stance or take action, or the issue might fade without legal consequence. More broadly, it will likely fuel the ongoing national discourse on the definition and prosecution of hate speech, the impartiality of law enforcement, and the need for clear guidelines on the application of stringent laws like UAPA. It also serves as a reminder of the delicate balance required in political rhetoric, especially when it involves international relations.

**Related Constitutional Articles, Acts, or Policies:**

* **Article 19(1)(a):** Guarantees freedom of speech and expression.

* **Article 19(2):** Lays down reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech, including in the interests of friendly relations with foreign states and public order.

* **Indian Penal Code (IPC):**

* **Section 153A:** Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.

* **Section 295A:** Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.

* **Section 505:** Statements conducing to public mischief.

* **Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967:** Deals with unlawful associations and activities, including those related to terrorism, and has stringent provisions for investigation and prosecution.

* **Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC):** Governs the procedures for FIR, arrest, investigation, and prosecution of criminal offenses.

This incident underscores the complex interplay of constitutional rights, criminal law, political dynamics, and international diplomacy in India.