India sees huge spike in hate speech in 2024, says report
The report, released on Monday by Washington-based research group India Hate Lab, documented 1,165 such instances last year, adding that politicians like Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah were among the most frequent purveyors of hate speech.
Muslims were targeted the most, with 98.5% of recorded instances of hate speech directed against them.
The report said most of the events where hate speech occurred were held in states governed by Modi's party or larger alliance.
The BBC has sought comment on the India Hate Lab report from several spokespersons at Modi's Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
Over the years, BJP leaders have often been accused of targeting India's minority communities, especially Muslims.
The ruling party has rejected allegations of Islamophobia and hate speech levelled at it by rights groups and opposition leaders.
On Tuesday, its national spokesperson reiterated this stance, telling CNN that the country had a "very strong legal system which is structured to maintain peace, order and ensure non-violence at any cost".
"Today's India does not need any certification from any 'anti-India reports industry' which is run by vested interests to prejudice and dent India's image," Jaiveer Shergill said.
But the party was accused of using hate speech during the heated election campaign last year. The prime minister himself was accused of using divisive rhetoric that attacked Muslims. In May, India's Election Commission also asked the party to remove a social media post that opposition leaders said "demonised Muslims".
According to the India Hate Lab report, 269 hate speech instances were reported in May 2024, the highest in the year.
Christians have also been targeted by hate speech, but to a lesser extent than Muslims, the report says.
Rights groups have often said that minorities, especially Muslims, have faced increased discrimination and attacks after Modi's government came to power in 2014. The BJP has repeatedly denied these allegations.
'Invisible in our own country': Being Muslim in Modi's India
Beaten and humiliated by Hindu mobs for being a Muslim in India
The lab's report said that hate speech was especially observed at political rallies, religious processions, protest marches and cultural gatherings. Most of these events - 931 or 79.9% - took place in states where the BJP directly governed or ruled in coalition.
Three BJP-ruled states - Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh - accounted for nearly half of the total hate speech events recorded in 2024, the lab's data showed.
The ruling party was also the organiser for 340 such events in 2024, a 580% increase from the previous year.
"Hate speech patterns in 2024 also revealed a deeply alarming surge in dangerous speech compared to 2023, with both political leaders and religious figures openly inciting violence against Muslims," the report said.
"This included calls for outright violence, calls to arms, the economic boycott of Muslim businesses, the destruction of Muslim residential properties and the seizing or demolition of Muslim religious structures."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gizmodo
8 minutes ago
- Gizmodo
DOGE Has Continued to Waste Billions While Saving Almost Nothing: Reports
The Trump Administration's Department of Government Efficiency has been a project largely defined by ever-diminishing expectations. At the outset of DOGE's journey, its chief operator, Elon Musk, famously claimed, in a bout of wild optimism, that he hoped to cut 'at least' $2 trillion out of the federal budget. Not long after the election, Musk reduced his ambitions to $1 trillion. Throughout the first few months of Trump's second term, DOGE claimed to be saving Americans billions, but analyses repeatedly showed the organization was wildly inflating its savings and often making rudimentary math mistakes. In May, the billionaire claimed that DOGE had saved Americans $160 billion, but admitted that his org was 'not as effective' as he'd hoped. At the time, the New York Times reported that DOGE had only publicly accounted for $58 billion of the savings Musk alleged and that even those purported savings had been 'significantly inflated, by including outright errors and guesses about the future.' Now, yet another fact-checking effort aimed at Musk's initiative has resulted in greatly reduced facts and figures. An analysis by Politico claims that, of some $52.8 billion that DOGE purports to have saved Americans by cancelling various government contracts, only a fraction appears to have been realized. The report states that, of the savings bragged about on DOGE's 'Wall of Receipts' website, only '$32.7 billion in actual claimed contract savings' could be verified. On top of that, the news outlet found that 'DOGE's savings over that period were closer to $1.4 billion.' Politico further notes that none of those savings will lower the federal deficit unless Congress steps in. Instead, the money went back to the respective agencies to which it had been allotted. In other words, DOGE basically did nothing. The apparent blunder was achieved through a poor grasp of timetables, the report claims: DOGE's savings calculations are based on faulty math. The group uses the maximum spending possible under each contract as its baseline — meaning all money an agency could spend in future fiscal years. That amount can far exceed what the government has actually committed to pay out. Counting this 'ceiling value' gives a false picture of savings for taxpayers. 'That's the equivalent of basically taking out a credit card with a $20,000 credit limit, canceling it and then saying, 'I've just saved $20,000,'' said Jessica Tillipman, associate dean for government procurement law studies at George Washington University Law School. 'Anything that's been said publicly about [DOGE's] savings is meaningless.' Also relevant is another recent report that claims DOGE spent substantially more money attempting to downsize government than it saved by destroying public programs. Authored by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, the analysis claims that DOGE blew through some $21.7 billion in taxpayer money as it attempted to downsize the federal workforce. Between January and July, DOGE spent some $14.8 billion through its Deferred Resignation Program, which paid public employees 'not to work for up to eight months.' DOGE allegedly spent another $6 billion on '100,000 employees who have been involuntarily separated from federal service or who remain on prolonged periods of administrative leave pending separation, many of whom were paid to not do their jobs for weeks or months.' The organization spent hundreds of millions more on various inefficient and wasteful policies. The Senate committee notes that the amount that DOGE spent in this fashion is more than double the amount that DOGE has definitively culled from the government ($9 billion, via cuts to NPR, PBS, and foreign aid) through the rescission package voted for by Republicans this summer. Meanwhile, as DOGE has continued on with its questionable antics, its own staff have continued to suck taxpayer money out of the government. In March, NPR reported that $40 million in public funds had been apportioned for DOGE's activities, but much about the cost of the initiative remains unclear. That same month, Wired noted that some DOGE staffers were making six-figure government salaries for their slash-and-burn work. The money often appeared to be coming from the very agencies that DOGE was butchering, the outlet noted. If both the recent studies are accurate, they reveal the very ironic contours of DOGE and its activities—an organization that claims to be rooting out governmental waste and fraud, but whose operations appear wasteful and whose public statements are frequently, according to many journalistic analyses, fraudulent. At this point, it's unclear what the heck DOGE is even doing. The organization isn't dead, but with the loss of its Supreme Leader (Musk), its mandate has become increasingly unclear, and its activities are now shrouded in mystery. Like a computer virus, the organization continues to worm its way through the bureaucracy's guts, servicing nebulous projects, like the creation of a national citizenship database that has alarmed privacy activists. Some of DOGE's former members continue to prove useful to the administration in other ways. Last week, the 19-year-old former DOGE-ling known as 'Big Balls' (real name Edward Coristine) managed to get punched in the face by a group of juveniles while out for a stroll in the nation's capital, according to Washington D.C. police. The spectacle of Coristine's bloodied visage was shared widely on Musk's X platform and other social media sites, and the incident has since served as a justification for Trump's authoritarian-style federalization of local police forces in D.C. The episode shows that, while DOGE has been an utter trainwreck from a governance and policy standpoint, it continues to serve certain functions deemed critical to the success of the current regime: namely, those of the public relations (i.e., propaganda) department.
New York Times
9 minutes ago
- New York Times
U.S. Ethics Agency Warns Bessent Over Conflicts of Interest
The U.S. government's ethics watchdog agency warned this week that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has failed to comply with an agreement that required him to divest his financial assets, posing potential conflicts of interest as he leads the Trump administration's economic policy agenda. The United States Office of Government Ethics sent a letter dated Aug. 11 to Senator Michael D. Crapo, the Republican chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, alerting him to Mr. Bessent's delinquency in fulfilling or amending the agreement. The questions about conflicts of interest come as Mr. Bessent is steering President Trump's agendas on taxes, trade and financial deregulation. A millionaire former hedge fund manager, Mr. Bessent pledged before his confirmation hearing in January to divest from dozens of funds, trusts and farmland investments. In a letter to the Treasury's ethics office at the time, Mr. Bessent, who was formerly the top investor for the liberal billionaire philanthropist George Soros, said that he would do so to 'avoid any actual or apparent conflict of interest.' Cabinet officials are required to shed certain holdings and investments within 90 days of being confirmed to avoid the potential for conflicts of interest. Mr. Trump has pushed the boundaries of traditional government ethics norms by publicly pushing his business interests, and top Trump administration officials have reached unusual ethics agreements that have allowed them to oversee government matters that involve former lobbying clients or could benefit family members. Most members of Mr. Trump's cabinet have completed their compliance agreements, but Mr. Bessent has not yet lived up to that commitment. 'I am notifying you that Scott Bessent, secretary of the Department of the Treasury, has failed to timely comply with certain terms of the ethics agreement he signed and that O.G.E. previously provided to your office for consideration during his confirmation process,' Dale Christopher, the ethics office's deputy director of compliance, wrote to Mr. Crapo in a letter on Monday that was reviewed by The New York Times. Mr. Christopher said that Mr. Bessent was required to divest from certain investments or sell assets by April 28. The Treasury secretary made changes to his ethics agreement on May 2 and June 5, but still has yet to fully honor his pledge and has offered no timeline for when he will comply. 'O.G.E. will continue to monitor the status of the secretary's compliance with his ethics agreement,' Mr. Christopher wrote. 'O.G.E. has also advised Treasury's ethics officials to emphasize to the secretary that it is his personal responsibility to avoid taking any action that could create a real or apparent conflict of interest with regard to his holdings.' In a follow-up letter that the ethics office sent to the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday, Mr. Christopher said that Mr. Bessent subsequently indicated through Treasury ethics officials that he was committed to complying with the divestiture agreement by Dec. 15. 'The ethics officials explain that the assets are illiquid and are not readily marketable,' Mr. Christopher wrote. 'They add that excluding the farmlands, the assets also have significant restrictions on who can acquire them and that the secretary has been working to divest them since his confirmation in January 2025.' Treasury officials told Mr. Christopher that Mr. Bessent would continue to be recused from 'particular matters' affecting his assets and that the department's ethics staff had given Mr. Bessent's office a 'screening memorandum' to help identify potentially conflicting matters that the secretary might encounter. Mr. Bessent said in a statement that he divested 90 percent of the assets that he was required to before assuming office and that just 4 percent of the required divestitures remain. He explained that much of what remains is farmland, which is 'an inherently highly illiquid asset,' and made clear that he was not using the job for personal financial gain. 'The honor of serving the American people under President Trump can't be ascribed a dollar value,' Mr. Bessent said. 'As agreed upon with O.G.E., I am working towards selling the rest of my required divestitures before the end of this year.' The Treasury secretary added that he was 'committed to full transparency and disclosure in my personal finances.' After he was nominated, Mr. Bessent shuttered his Key Square Capital Management investment fund and resigned from several nonprofit organizations and trusts that he oversaw. The letter from the Office of Government Ethics does not specify exactly which holdings Mr. Bessent has yet to divest. However, in a June letter to the Treasury's ethics office, Mr. Bessent said that he would not divest from a private equity fund or his investments in a flavored water company and a clinical stage drug development company. He explained that the assets, which he originally pledged to divest, proved too difficult to sell and that officials from the government ethics office confirmed that they did not pose conflicts of interest. 'I initiated the process to find buyers for these private holdings, but all three assets are privately held investments for which there is no liquid market for their resale,' Mr. Bessent wrote. The biggest potential conflict of interest for Mr. Bessent is his ownership of as much as $25 million of soybean and corn farmland in North Dakota. The land spans thousands of acres in Burleigh, Kidder, Eddy, Benson and Wells Counties and earns Mr. Bessent as much as $1 million a year in rental income, according to his financial disclosure form. Cropland values in the state have been rising by more than 10 percent annually over the last four years, according to data from North Dakota State University. Farm brokers in North Dakota were not aware of a public listing of Mr. Bessent's properties and noted that there was traditionally a six-week marketing period before an auction. Wealthy individuals such as Mr. Bessent might also try to sell a big portfolio of land privately. The sale of Mr. Bessent's farms could be complicated by the U.S. trade war with China, which the Treasury secretary has been actively trying to defuse. According to William Wilson, a professor at North Dakota State University, about 70 percent of North Dakota soybeans are exported to China. As trade tension escalated this year, however, China has purchased more of its soybeans from Brazil and has bought virtually none from the United States. Although real estate holdings can be more complicated to sell than other assets, senior government officials have historically been able to take other measures to distance themselves from assets that could pose conflicts of interest. In 1977, President Jimmy Carter, who was a peanut farmer, put his family farm supply business into a blind trust. According to his presidential library, the trust allowed for a law firm in Atlanta to take full administration of the business while he was in office. When Mr. Carter reclaimed the business after his failed re-election bid, it was $1 million in debt. It is not clear how Mr. Bessent, who has at times referred to himself as a farmer, is disentangling his holdings from trade negotiations with China. At his confirmation hearing in January, he said that one of his first acts as Treasury secretary would be to push China to honor the commitments to buy American farm products that it made during Mr. Trump's first term. Soybean purchases have continued to be a central part of the trade negotiations with China. In a post on Truth Social this week, Mr. Trump urged China to quadruple its purchases of American soybeans. 'Our great farmers produce the most robust soybeans,' Mr. Trump said. Ethics watchdog groups have raised alarm about Mr. Bessent having conflicts of interest while serving as the nation's top economic policymaker. On Wednesday, the Campaign Legal Center and the Democracy Defenders Fund filed a formal complaint with the government ethics office and requested that the Treasury's inspector general investigate whether Mr. Bessent had violated criminal conflict-of-interest laws. The groups pointed to Mr. Bessent's role overseeing trade negotiations, regulation of cryptocurrency markets and policies that affect private equity funds. 'Secretary Bessent's continued deferral of his ethics obligations raises serious concerns about whether he is complying with the ethics laws or not,' wrote officials from the Campaign Legal Center and the Democracy Defenders Fund, which is led by the former Obama administration ethics czar Norm Eisen. Democrats in Congress have also been scrutinizing Mr. Bessent's holdings. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, the top Democrat on the Finance Committee, suggested that Trump administration officials were being duplicitous by flouting federal ethics guidelines. 'If these guys gave a whit about clearing the stink of corruption off this administration,' Mr. Wyden said, 'then you wouldn't have the Treasury secretary picking and choosing which ethics requirements to follow and which to blow off.'
New York Times
9 minutes ago
- New York Times
The ‘Womanosphere' Is Booming. No Wonder Katie Miller Hopped Aboard.
Katie Miller, who is married to one of the president's most powerful aides, sat cross-legged in a tank top and bluejeans, facing her new YouTube audience. 'Welcome to my living room,' Ms. Miller said, as though doing her best imitation of an 'MTV Cribs' guest star. 'You may be wondering what I'm doing here, hosting a podcast.' What Ms. Miller was doing here is a tale that goes back to early June, when Elon Musk, who was then her boss, began publicly feuding with her husband's boss, President Trump. Immediately, Ms. Miller's position seemed to many observers awkward and potentially untenable. How would she serve Mr. Musk while being married to Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff? She would not. Last week, Ms. Miller announced she had left Mr. Musk's orbit to follow in the great American tradition of starting a new show. 'This podcast is meant to be in my own words,' Ms. Miller told The New York Times, adding that she had 'no thoughts on monetization yet,' meaning advertising or paid subscriptions. Her target audience is conservative women, she said in her introductory video, particularly working mothers interested in healthy living. 'There isn't a place for a conservative women to gather online,' Ms. Miller argued. Except there is — and it's booming. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
