A Gandhian Approach to counter Hate Speech

The Secretary General of the United Nations, Antonio Guteras launching the UN Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech expressed concern at the ‘disturbing groundswell of xenophobia, racism and intolerance’. The Plan of Action was launched on June 18, 2019. Mr Guteras said, “Hate speech is a menace to democratic values, social stability and peace. As a matter of principle, the United Nations must confront hate speech at every turn. Silence can signal indifference to bigotry and intolerance, even as a situation escalates and the vulnerable become victims.”

The UN Secretary General pointed out, “Hateful and destructive views are amplified exponentially through digital technology and extremists are gathering online, radicalizing new recruits. He urged everyone to treat hate speech “like any other malicious act: by condemning it unconditionally; refusing to amplify it; countering it with the truth; and encouraging the perpetrators to change their behavior”.

According to the Strategy and Plan of Action of the United Nations, hate speech constitutes the following, “Any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor. This is often rooted in, and generates intolerance and hatred and, in certain contexts, can be demeaning and divisive.”

The UN Plan of Action entails a two-fold objective. This includes: a) enhancing UN efforts to address root causes and drivers of hate speech; b) enabling effective UN responses to the impact of hate speech on societies. Amongst the strategies spelt out in the document, the UN talks on the need to ‘adopt a common understanding of the root causes and drivers of hate speech in order to take relevant action to best address and/or mitigate its impact.’

For fostering peaceful, inclusive and just societies to address the root causes and drivers of hate speech, the UN Strategy and Plan of Action underscores ‘the need to raise awareness about respect for human rights, non-discrimination, tolerance and understanding of other cultures and religions, as well as gender equality, including in the digital world.’ It also stresses on the need to ‘promote intercultural, interfaith and intrareligious dialogue and mutual understanding.’

While noting that hate speech was a challenge from which no country is immune, Adama Dieng, UN Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide at the launch of the Strategy, stressed on how the strategy considers “alternative, positive and counter-narratives” to be the “answer to hate speech”.

The concerns of the United Nations on the harms inflicted on humanity by hate speech have been echoed globally by different Governments, institutions, civil societies and peace practitioners from time to time. For instance, Ikeda (2017) talking on the dangers of hate speech says, “Xenophobia and hate speech divide the world into the binary of us and them, which are made to correspond to good and evil.”

Similarly, Gelber and McNamara (2016) discusses three defining characteristics of hate speech. They point out, “First, it is ‘directed against a specified or easily identifiable individual or … a group of individuals based on an arbitrary and normatively irrelevant feature’. Second, ‘hate speech stigmatizes the target group by implicitly or explicitly ascribing to it qualities widely regarded as highly undesirable’. Third, the target group is viewed as an undesirable presence and a legitimate object of hostility.”

Bojarska (2019) cites several scholars to discuss the harm hate speech causes at different levels. She notes that it has potential of disturbing social peace in that exposure to hate speech shapes attitudes and influences actual behaviours, including serious hate crimes such as genocide. She observes, “Online hate may constitute a fertile ground for even more hate, in that it provides a model, a permission, a “social proof” of “appropriate” attitudes and behaviours, desensitizes the public to verbal violence and increases prejudice, rewarding its followers with social acceptation while punishing and silencing voices of objection. Above all, hate speech poses a threat to physical safety and psychological well-being of targeted group members.”

Hate speech in fact is not merely words, it is a type of violence that has the potential to not only gravely hurt individuals but entire communities. It can lead to marginalization, harassment, discrimination and criminal violence. One of the greatest harms hate speech can do is to demonization of different groups and communities. Such groups are called by specific names which is dehumanizing. Stanton notes, “Classification and symbolization are fundamental operations in all cultures. They become steps of genocide only when combined with dehumanization. Denial of the humanity of others is the step that permits killing with impunity. The universal human abhorrence of murder of members of one’s own group is overcome by treating the victims as less than human. In incitements to genocide the target groups are called disgusting animal names — Nazi propaganda called Jews “rats” or “vermin”; Rwandan Hutu hate radio referred to Tutsis as “cockroaches.” The targeted group is often likened to a “disease”, “microbes”, “infections” or a “cancer” in the body politic.”

In the backdrop of the serious harm hate speech can to do the very fabric of humanity, it would be pertinent to explore the strategies to counter it. Incessant efforts are needed from citizens across the world to support the efforts of international bodies like the United Nations, governments and civil societies to encourage alternate narratives and a new sense of solidarity amongst people at large. As we are celebrating the 150th birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi, the world has much to learn and imbibe from the philosophy of the Mahatma to counter the damage being done by hate speech. This paper would critically look at the Gandhian approach in the context of the strategies and plan of action elaborated by the United Nations.

The Gandhian Approach to Counter Hate Speech

On the kind of social anchoring available to resist the forces of xenophobia and hate speech that deepen the divisions within society, Ikeda (2017) argues, “I believe the answer is to be found in strong connections between people, the kind of friendship that brings into view the concrete image of another in our hearts.” He quotes the British Historian, Arnold J Toynbee with whom he had a dialogue, “In my experience the solvent of traditional prejudice has been personal acquaintance. When one becomes personally acquainted with a fellow human being, of whatever religion, nationality, or race, one cannot fail to recognize that he is human like oneself.”

Ikeda takes us to the realm of connections between people irrespective of religion, nationality or race and the importance of soul to soul communication. When we have soul to soul communication than it is imperative that we identify other people as a human like ourselves, this is the key to counter the menace of xenophobia and hate speech, he points out.

As noted above, the United Nations Strategy and Plan of Action stresses on the need to ‘promote intercultural, interfaith and intrareligious dialogue and mutual understanding.’ For this to become a reality from a fundamental level, the Gandhian pillars of nonviolence should become the foundation of our interactions and dialogues. Arun Gandhi (2017) elaborates his grandfather’s five pillars of nonviolence. These includes: respect, understanding, acceptance, appreciation and compassion. These pillars of nonviolence are catalysts for healthy intercultural, interfaith, intrareligious dialogue. The importance of nonviolence in dialogue has been aptly pointed out by Ramana Murti (1968), “The way of violence works as a monologue. But the nature of nonviolence is a dialogue.”

The importance of dialogue between different faith, culture and religion has been explained by Ikeda (2016). He notes:

The power to move people at the deepest level is not found in formulaic assertions or dogma, but in words that issue from a person’s experience and carry the weight of that lived reality. Exchanges conducted in such language can mine the rich veins of our common humanity, bringing back to the surface glistening spiritual riches that will illuminate human society. …It is indeed in the encounter between people whose paths in life have differed that our eyes are opened to vistas that would not otherwise have been visible. It is in the resonance of people encountering each other in the fullness of their humanity that the melodies of a new creative energy unfold….This is the true significance of dialogue: It can serve as a treasure house of possibilities, a dynamo for the creation of history…Sharing time and space together in dialogue. . . The friendship and trust nurtured through the committed pursuit of this process can form the basis for a solidarity of ordinary citizens working to resolve global issues and bring into being a peaceful world.

Gandhi’s Satyagraha is an important tool with those involved in nonviolent engagement to counter hate speech. Explaining the Gandhian framework, Weber points out, “Satyagraha is a dialogue, therefore, listening to the other, treating them as a reasonable equal is essential. This is an extremely consideration ,,,to ensure that the resolution of any dispute leaves all the parties satisfied with the outcome…Satyagraha is based on the aim of seeking the truth in any given situation and employs only nonviolent means to arrive at this goal, the probability of productive resolution are greatly enhanced.”

As we delve on the strategies to counter hate speech, it would be pertinent to examine how Gandhi looks at the inevitability of hatred. Gandhi (1946) argues that those who advocate counter hatred for hatred are grossly mistaken as the result would be ‘deeper hatred and counter hatred, and vengeance let loose on both sides’. In this context, he further says, “I suggested in 1920 the use of nonviolence and its inevitable twin companion truth, for canalizing hatred into the proper channel. The hater hates not for the sake of hatred but because he wants to drive away from his country the hated being or beings…We have discovered through our progress that in the application of non-violence we have been able to reach the mass mind far more quickly and far more extensively than ever before.” (Harijan, 24–2–1946)

Here Gandhi delves on the dangers of matching hatred with counter hatred and the power of nonviolence. In the context of individuals or groups who are at the centre of spreading hate speech to create conditions of conflicts and intolerance, if it is matched by counter hatred, the result would be disastrous. As we work to develop strategies and plan of action, nonviolent action has to be the fulcrum to counter hate speech worldwide.

Also, in the Gandhia praxis, the challenge is to ensure that individuals who are involved in hate speech are not hated. Hate speech has to be challenged and the individual who was involved in the act should be berated. Nanda (2002) points out, “The truth is that in Gandhi’s philosophy of satyagraha, the enemy was not regarded as an eternal enemy, but a potential friend. It was the duty of the satyagrahis to reason with the adversary, to try to dispel his prejudices, to disarm his suspicions, to appeal to his dormant sense of humanism and justice, and eventually to try to prick his conscience by inviting suffering at his hands.”

An important Gandhian dimension to counter hate speech is to disseminate truth and facts. If people get swayed by falsehood and negative rhetoric, it has to be challenged by truthfulness. Gandhi (1926) says, “The way to peace is the way of truth. Truthfulness is even more important than peacefulness. Indeed, lying is the mother of violence. The truth of a few will count; the untruth of millions will vanish even like chaff before whiff of wind.” Those challenging hate speech even though they may be small in number need to be perseverant with their facts and truthful information.

In this context, Parekh (1997) notes, “The satyagrahi sought a dialogue with his opponent. He did not confront the later with a dogmatic insistence on the justice of his demands. He knew he could be partial and biased, invited his opponent to join him in cooperatively searching for the ‘truth’ or the most just course of action concerning the matter of dispute.” Parekh further points out, “When the dialogue was denied or reduced to an insincere exercise in public relations, the Satyagrahi took a principled stand on what he sincerely believed to be his just demands…his opponent saw him as an enemy or a troublemaker. He refused to reciprocate, and saw him instead as a fellow human being whose temporarily eclipsed sense of humanity it was his duty to restore…The moment his opponent showed willingness to talk in a spirit of genuine goodwill, he suspended the struggle and gave reason a chance to work in a more hospitable climate.”

Another important lesson nonviolent activists involved in countering hate speech can learn from Gandhi is his power of persuasive communication. When a peacebuilder focuses on promoting facts and information which are truthful and devoid of hate, the next challenge is how to package this message. Gandhian persuasive communication is a strategy that can be used to effectively reach out to the masses- both offline and online. For instance, Chakravarty (1995) notes, “The importance that was attached to the written word by Gandhiji and other national leaders reflected their urge to reach out their message to as wide a section of the people as possible. The means to convey that were often primitive, but no medium available at that time was left out. From traditional interpersonal means-including the travelling bards- the bauls of Bengal, for instance- to the educated student going out on literacy-cum-swadeshi missions- the composing of patriotic songs and setting up of choirs in villages, mohallas and bustees, to the immortal ‘magic lantern’- no video at the time- nothing was left out. It was a gigantic operation, sustained through the ups and downs of the freedom struggle, and later on followed by handwritten posters and graffiti.”

In this hypertechnological age, nonviolent activists will have to use multiple media platforms and take leaf from Gandhian persuasive communication in handling hate speech. His writings and speeches are lessons on how to counter hatred. For instance, the editors of the Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi point out: The writings and speeches show remarkable self-restraint ad moderation, strict conformity to truth and a desire to do full justice to the viewpoint of the opponent-characteristics which remained with him through life.”

Conclusion

While there are myriad initiatives worldwide to counter the menace of hate speech, the Gandhian strategies needs to be integrated in these initiatives in right earnest. The role of right education in addressing and building resilience against hate speech is critical and here Gandhian nonviolent education can play a pivotal role. More and more individuals who have faith in the powerful tool of nonviolent action need to act to counter hatred. Gandhi had pointed out, “Nonviolence is not a cloistered virtue, confined only to the Rishi and the cave-dwellers. It is capable of being practiced by the millions..because it is the law of our species.”

Finally, those taking up the principles of nonviolence in their fight against hate speech need to have remarkable passion and belief in its power. Gandhi had so rightly pointed out, “The truly non-violent action is not possible unless it springs from a heart belief that he whom you fear and regard as robber . . . and you are one.”

References

Bojarska, Katarzyna (2019). The Dynamics of Hate Speech and Counter Speech in the Social Media: Summary of Scientific Research; Centre for Internet and Human Rights.

Chakravarty, Nikhil (1995). Mahatma Gandhi: The Great Communicator; Gandhi Marg, 1995.

Gelber K & McNamara, L. J. (2016). Evidencing the harms of hate speech (2016); 22 (3) Social Identities; 324–341.

Gandhi, Arun (2017). The Gift of Anger; Penguin Random House.

Ikeda, Daisaku (2017). The Global Solidarity of Youth: Ushering In a New Era of Hope; Peace Proposal 2017; Soka Gakai International.

Ikeda, Daisaku (2016). Universal Respect for Human Dignity: The Great Path to Peace; Peace Proposal 2016; Soka Gakai International.

Murti, Ramana V V (1968 ). Buber’s Dialogue and Gandhi’s Satyagraha;

Nanda, B R ( 2002 ). In Search of Gandhi; Oxford University Press.

Parekh, Bhikhu (1997). Gandhi: A Very Short Introduction; Oxford University Press.

Stanton, Gregory (1998). “The Eight Stages of Genocide,” first Working Paper (GS 01) of the Yale Program in Genocide Studies, 1998. Available at: http://www.genocidewatch.org/8stages1996.htm.