Most hate speeches by BJP lawmakers: ADR study
New Delhi, April 25: The BJP has the largest number of lawmakers in the country with declared cases of hate speech against them, as per an Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR) study released on Wednesday.
Of the total of 58 current MPs and MLAs with declared cases of hate speech against themselves, 27 are from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), said the ADR report.
The study was carried out by ADR and National Election Watch (NEW) by analysing the self-sworn affidavits of all sitting MPs and MLAs, which were submitted prior to the last election they contested.
"Analysis reveals that many of our current MPs and MLAs, who are designated lawmakers have actually declared cases related to 'Hate Speech' against themselves," it said.
Though hate speech is not defined in any law in India, the term is used to mean expression which is abusive, intimidating or which incites violence, hatred or discrimination based on race, religion, region, language, caste, sexual orientation or personal convictions, it said.
"(As many as) 15 sitting Lok Sabha MPs have declared cases related to hate speech against themselves ... (of these) 10 sitting Lok Sabha MPs with declared cases related to hate speech are from the BJP," the report said.
And, among the 43 sitting MLAs with declared cases of hate speech, 17 are from the BJP, it said.
"By giving tickets to candidates who are charged with cases related to hate speech, political parties have been in a way abetting circumstances that lead to events such as communal riots and violence between different groups of people," ADR said.
The other five MPs with declared cases of hate speech are one each from All India United Democratic Front, Telangana Rashtra Samithi, PMK, the AIMIM and the Shiv Sena.
The offenders among the MPs include two political party leaders, Asaduddin Owaisi (AIMIM) and Badruddin Ajmal (AIUDF), and Union Minister Uma Bharti of the BJP.
State-wise, Uttar Pradesh accounts for 15 MPs/MLAs with declared cases of hate speech, Telangana 13, Karnataka and Maharashtra five each, Bihar four and Andhra Pradesh three, along with nine other states with two or one cases each.
"Internet is an important tool for disseminating information and opinions however, it also serves as a platform for disseminating unlawful speech. Political parties have been misusing the medium for unlawful statements," said the report.
ADR has supported some of the recommendations of the Law Commission Report including amending the model code of conduct to prohibit any kind of hate speech by a candidate or his agent to improve the prospect of the candidate or to hurt the rival candidate's chances.
It also suggested amendments to the Indian Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code by adding new provisions on 'Prohibiting incitement to hatred'. ADR recommended that unlawful statements on online platforms should be monitored and if the person found guilty, they should be penalised.
"ADR believes that strict action must be taken against the candidates giving hate speech prior and during the elections, and against the elected legislators even after the elections, if found guilty of indulging in 'Hate Speech'," the report said.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Waqf board claims ownership of 53 historic monuments in Karnataka
Hubballi: The Karnataka Waqf Board has claimed ownership of 53 historical monuments across the state, including notable sites like Gol Gumbaz, Ibrahim Rauza, and Bara Kaman in Vijayapura. In 2005, the Waqf Board declared 43 of these sites in Vijayapura, once the capital of the Adil Shahi dynasty, as Waqf properties. However, these sites have since faced encroachments and unauthorised modifications.
According to records obtained through an RTI, the Waqf Board designated these 43 sites as Waqf properties using Record of Rights (ROR) documents, though the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) is the recognised custodian of these protected sites. “While ASI is the holder of the land/monument, the encumbrance is the Waqf authority. This has been done without consulting ASI,” says the RTI response from the Union government.
This declaration was made by Mohammad Mohsin, who held dual roles as Vijayapura’s Deputy Commissioner and Waqf Board Chairman at the time.
“I don’t remember how many monuments were declared as Waqf properties. But whatever I have done is according to the government gazette notification issued by the Revenue Department and authentic documentary evidence produced by the parties,” said Mohsin.
Many of these monuments, designated as nationally significant heritage sites since 1914, are officially under ASI’s care as per the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act (1958). ASI asserts that "once an ASI property, it is always an ASI property," meaning their ownership is non-transferable. However, sources report that several of these sites have been defaced, unscientifically renovated, or altered with elements like air conditioners, fluorescent lighting, and even commercial and residential structures, impacting their historical integrity and tourism appeal.
“Monuments are the living examples of our history. Monuments can be renovated/conserved in the prescribed manner only by ASI. However, the 43 monuments in Vijayapura are being defaced and are being repaired with plaster and cement. Fans, air conditioners, fluorescent lights and toilets are being added to the monuments. Shopkeepers have taken over certain properties. This is adversely impacting the flow of tourists to these monuments,” said an officer who did not wish to be named.
Since 2007, the Ministry of Culture has repeatedly requested the state authorities to clear encroachments on these sites. Despite a joint survey in 2012, ASI officials report that neither the Waqf Board nor the Vijayapura Deputy Commissioner’s office has provided adequate documentation to substantiate Waqf’s ownership claim. ASI officials, under directives to avoid commenting on the issue publicly, maintain that their ownership under the AMASR Act remains unchangeable.
