The report, Hate Speeches in 2025: A Weapon to Legitimise Divisive Narratives, released by the Centre for the Study of Society and Secularism, analyses reports from five major Mumbai-based newspapers
NEW DELHI — A 47% drop is seen in documented hate speeches targeting religious minorities in India in 2025, but the phenomenon persists as a deliberate strategy to fuel Islamophobia and majoritarian narratives, a new report has said.
The report, titled Hate Speeches in 2025: A Weapon to Legitimise Divisive Narratives, was released by the Centre for the Study of Society and Secularism (CSSS) this week. It analyses reports from five major Mumbai-based newspapers and found 65 instances of hate speech, down from 122 in 2024.
CSSS is a Mumbai-based think tank. It has tracked hate speech annually since 2014.
The study, authored by Irfan Engineer, Neha Dabhade, and Diya Padalkar, attributes the lower number of hate speeches not to a genuine effort by the authorities, but to methodological constraints, including reliance on print media alone. Broader monitoring efforts, such as those by India Hate Lab, documented over 1,300 in-person hate speech events in 2025, highlighting potential underreporting.
“While our monitoring data indicates a decline or relatively low incidence of recorded hate speeches, it would be analytically unsound to interpret this as evidence that hate speech is no longer a serious concern in India,” the report authors said.
The report defines hate speech per the UN’s framework as “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 based on who they are.” In India, it references sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) – including 196 (promoting enmity between groups), 299 (outraging religious feelings), and 302 (wounding religious sentiments) – which carry penalties of up to three years’ imprisonment.
State Actors
What is worrisome, according to the report, is the dominance of state actors in perpetuating hate: 53 of the 65 instances (81%) were delivered by Union ministers, state ministers, governors, and elected representatives. Non-state actors accounted for just 12 cases. “The reiteration of such narratives by actors in power not only legitimises prejudice but also embeds discriminatory rhetoric within mainstream political discourse,” the authors observe, emphasising how these speeches dehumanise Muslims through tropes like “ghus petiya” (infiltrators) and unsubstantiated claims of demographic conspiracies.
Leading the list of the state actors, the report noted, was Maharashtra’s Minister for Fisheries and Port Development, Nitesh Rane, with 10 instances, followed by Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath (six), and Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma and Union Home Minister Amit Shah (five each). Prime Minister Narendra Modi was cited for three speeches. Of the total, 61 targeted Muslims, with only four against Hindus.
Geographically, states ruled by the Bharatiya Janata Party or its allies bore the brunt: 83% of incidents (54 out of 65) occurred in such regions. Maharashtra topped the list with 17 cases, followed by Uttar Pradesh (13), Assam (10), and Bihar (9). “Most of the hate speeches specifically directed against Muslims were reported in BJP-ruled states,” the authors noted, with Maharashtra (16), Uttar Pradesh (13), Assam (nine), Bihar (eight), and Delhi (four) seeing the highest concentrations.
The report’s most alarming revelation is the near-total lack of accountability. “A salient observation based on the data is that little or next to no action has been taken against individuals making hate speeches targeting Muslims or Christians,” it said. Out of 65 anti-Muslim speeches, state action was initiated in only 11 cases – and even then, often without meaningful follow-through.
The CSSS report categorises state responses into three types. First, speeches critical of BJP policies or Hindu icons are swiftly labelled hate speech and prosecuted, despite not meeting legal thresholds. Examples include a Bihar JDU MLA’s academic comments on Aurangzeb (no action taken despite BJP demands) and a Maharashtra man’s WhatsApp post on Shivaji Maharaj (FIR under BNS Sections 299, 356(2), and 352).
Second, the bulk of documented speeches – inciting enmity against Muslims via terms like “love jihad,” “land jihad,” or calls for economic boycotts – faced zero repercussions. High-profile examples include Adityanath’s likening mosque surveys to “surgery on a wound”, Nitesh Rane urging Hindus to boycott uncertified Muslim mutton shops and demanding a ban on Tablighi Jamaat’s Ijtema,” and Himanta Biswa Sarma warning of a “hidden conspiracy” by Bangladeshi migrants to make Assamese a minority.
Third, all four speeches targeting Hindus (e.g., vulgar remarks on Hindu symbols by Tamil Nadu’s K Ponmudy or Baba Ramdev’s “sharbat jihad” comment) led to FIRs, court interventions, or apologies. In one case, Madhya Pradesh Tribal Affairs Minister Kanwar Vijay Shah’s derogatory remark against a Muslim officer prompted Supreme Court oversight and an SIT probe.
The report urges stricter enforcement of BNS provisions and expanded monitoring beyond print media to capture social media and vernacular sources. “The apparent reduction must be understood in light of the specific methodological framework adopted by CSSS,” they conclude, calling for civil society and media to amplify underrepresented voices.
