Arshad Mahmood Awan
Hate speech against Muslims in India has moved beyond isolated incidents. According to a recent report by the India Hate Lab, 2025 saw 1,318 documented hate speech events, averaging four per day, with Muslims as the primary targets in nearly every case. What is especially troubling is that this hostility is increasingly organized, systemic, and politically led, reflecting a shift in the way politics operates in the country.
The distribution of incidents is stark. Almost nine out of ten events occurred in states ruled by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) or its allies, while opposition-ruled states recorded far fewer cases. This contrast underscores a critical point: law and order is the responsibility of state governments, and the data suggests that where the BJP governs, hate is tolerated, if not actively encouraged.
Hate speech is no longer limited to election cycles. Even during a non-election year, anti-Muslim rhetoric remained widespread, signaling that communal hostility has become a tool embedded in everyday governance. Political rallies, religious processions, and public meetings are regularly used to depict Muslims as outsiders, threats, or enemies within, transforming prejudice into a routine feature of public life.
The language used in these speeches is not merely offensive; it is dangerous. Nearly a quarter of recorded incidents contained explicit calls for violence. Other speeches promoted social and economic boycotts, demanded the demolition of mosques and churches, or encouraged citizens to arm themselves. Muslims were frequently described using dehumanizing terms such as “parasites,” “termites,” or “invaders,” stripping entire communities of their humanity and making acts of violence easier to justify.
Senior BJP leaders appear prominently in this ecosystem of hate. Chief ministers, cabinet ministers, and party figures are among the most frequent speakers, using their influence to shape public discourse. They propagate conspiracy theories such as “love jihad,” “population jihad,” and “vote jihad,” which falsely claim that Muslims are plotting to dominate India through marriage, childbirth, or elections. These claims are entirely baseless, yet they serve a political purpose: to convert fear into votes and prejudice into policy.
The BJP has often argued that it cannot control fringe groups. However, the report shows a clear division of labour: allied organizations organize mobilization at the grassroots level, while political leaders set the tone from above. Law enforcement action is rare, and social media platforms amplify these speeches, creating an environment of impunity. The result is a society where hate is not just spoken but normalized, and perpetrators are rarely held accountable.
The consequences are severe. Systematic hate speech erodes India’s constitutional commitment to equality, deepens social divisions, and places millions of Muslims at risk of discrimination and violence. It undermines India’s democratic credentials, particularly at a time when the country faces increasing global scrutiny regarding its adherence to the rule of law. The societal cost extends beyond individual communities, affecting social cohesion, trust in institutions, and political stability.
Hate does not emerge spontaneously. It is spread deliberately, often when political leaders see advantage in maintaining fear and division. By allowing these narratives to persist, the state sends a clear signal that prejudice can flourish without consequence. This organized approach to communal rhetoric reflects a broader strategy in which politics exploits societal divisions, turning suspicion and fear into a tool for electoral gain.
The pattern is evident: political speeches provide justification for grassroots actors, social media amplifies the rhetoric, and law enforcement largely remains inactive. The cycle reinforces itself, creating a self-perpetuating ecosystem of hatred. The report emphasizes that this strategy has become embedded in governance rather than being an episodic tactic, indicating a shift in India’s political culture where communal hostility is normalized as part of administrative and electoral practice.
Experts warn that unchecked hate speech can escalate into widespread violence and social unrest, particularly when inflammatory rhetoric is legitimized by political authority. Beyond immediate security risks, the impact is long-term: marginalized communities are systematically excluded from opportunities, targeted economically and socially, and forced into a defensive posture, which erodes public trust in institutions meant to protect them.
Internationally, this trend has implications for India’s standing as a democratic state. Reports of organized hate, impunity, and state tolerance of discriminatory rhetoric have drawn criticism from human rights organizations, foreign governments, and global media. India’s reputation as a pluralistic democracy is at risk, and continued neglect could affect diplomatic relations, foreign investment, and cooperation on global governance issues.
The challenge is not limited to speech alone. It extends into policy, policing, and public discourse. When leaders publicly promote conspiracy theories and demonize communities, it creates a permissive environment in which ordinary citizens may feel justified in acting on prejudice. Social cohesion suffers, public trust diminishes, and the social fabric that underpins democracy begins to fray.
Addressing this issue requires bold political leadership. Authorities must choose whether to enforce laws equitably, hold perpetrators accountable, and promote inclusive governance, or continue on a path that prioritizes political gain over societal harmony. Failure to act risks entrenching communal divisions and normalizing hostility, potentially making it an enduring feature of governance.
The India Hate Lab report is a stark reminder that hate speech has consequences beyond words. It destabilizes society, imperils vulnerable communities, and threatens democratic principles. Preventing its spread requires coordinated action across government, law enforcement, and civil society. Without intervention, the normalization of such rhetoric will further erode the principles of equality, justice, and social cohesion that India’s constitution guarantees.
In conclusion, organized hate speech against Muslims in India is systematic, politically led, and deeply troubling. The concentration of incidents in BJP-ruled states, the consistent targeting of Muslim communities, and the public prominence of senior leaders in promoting dehumanizing narratives all point to a deliberate strategy of communalization. If left unaddressed, it will continue to undermine constitutional values, deepen societal divisions, and put millions at risk. India’s leadership faces a critical choice: curb hate and uphold equality, or allow prejudice and fear to define its political culture. The nation’s democratic credibility, both at home and abroad, hangs in the balance.
