by JINOY JOSE P.
“Be militant each in your own way… Those of you who can break windows—break them. Those of you who can still further attack the secret idol of property…do so.” Emmeline Pankhurst (1858-1928) spoke these lines as part of her now-famous speech, “I Incite This Meeting to Rebellion”, on October 17, 1912.
Pankhurst, a leading figure in the British suffragette movement, was known for her powerful and often controversial rhetoric, which she used to mobilise support for women’s rights. Pankhurst also employed shocking tactics like property damage and hunger strikes. These methods were widely condemned as extremist. However, Pankhurst’s disruptive tactics brought much-needed attention to the cause. The sheer controversy surrounding the Suffragettes forced Parliament to acknowledge the issue and ultimately grant women the right to vote.
The fight for gender equality has had other provocative voices. Feminist writer Andrea Dworkin brought controversy with statements like: “Under patriarchy, every woman’s son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman.” While such declarations were undoubtedly uncomfortable, they served to dismantle complacency and sparked crucial conversations about the deeply entrenched structures of patriarchy.
Emmeline Pankhurst or Andrea Dworkin are not isolated instances. Through history, social progress has been stimulated by voices who challenge the status quo with high-decibel provocation. My personal favourite is Sojourner Truth (1797–1883), the African American abolitionist and women’s rights activist, who didn’t leave behind a vast collection of written works but her famous “Ain’t I a Woman?” speech, delivered at the Women’s Rights Convention in 1851 in Akron, Ohio, is a masterpiece of provocation.
Or take Malcolm X, who said: “I don’t even call it violence when it’s in self-defence; I call it intelligence.” Malcolm’s early speeches were fiery and confrontational, calling out white racism as “evil” and advocating Black self-defence. While some found his pronouncements radical and a blatant call for violence, he forced America to confront uncomfortable truths about its deeply ingrained racial inequality. It prompted action, it empowered the Black Power movement, it pushed the conversation on race to national and international stages.
In fact, Black activists in America have historically been very aggressive in speech. “…a Winchester rifle should have a place of honour in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give,” said Ida B. Wells, a pioneering African American journalist, educator, and early leader in the civil rights movement. Wells was known for her campaign against lynching. Her investigations into lynching and her outspoken publications were considered highly provocative, challenging not only the perpetrators but also the prevailing norms and laws of her time.
Many years later, Angela Davis, an academic, philosopher, and radical Marxist, gained global attention when she was tried and acquitted on charges connected to a courthouse shootout. A long-time member of the Communist Party USA, her work addresses issues like prison reform and racial justice and continues to provoke discussions around civil rights.
Huey P. Newton, co-founder of the Black Panther Party, with which Davis was also associated, advocated for African American self-defence (which included violence) and was involved in several initiatives considered provocative, including community self-help programmes and armed patrols to monitor police behaviour in black neighbourhoods. His speeches, which highlighted the Black Panther Party’s focus on black empowerment and readiness to confront injustice, were seen as highly provocative, particularly by the authorities.
Changemakers, be they reformers or activists, religious figures or feminists, have always employed one powerful tool: controversial, provocative speech. While their pronouncements ruffle feathers and intimidate adversaries and even their supporters at times, they intend to ignite the larger cause. When wielded effectively, provocative speeches pierce through apathy, challenge deeply held beliefs, and force people to confront a flawed social order.
Whether Che Guevara or E.V. Ramasamy “Thanthai” Periyar, they used carefully crafted provocation. Periyar, who took on social evils such as caste, class, and gender inequality as well as religious superstitions, often resorted to extremely aggressive statements that continue to create controversies even today. Sample this: “There is no god, there is no god, there is no god at all; the inventor of god is a fool, the propagator of god is a scoundrel, and the worshipper of god is a barbarian.”
Does this make Periyar a hate monger, as a section of the right wing claims? Not necessarily, says Karthick Ram Manoharan in his equally provocative essay “Did Periyar call for the genocide of Brahmins?” in the latest issue of Frontline. “In hierarchical societies, reformers challenge the status quo with provocative and uncivil speech. Accusing them of hate speech is ill-intentioned,” he writes. Read the article (it is free for the readers of this newsletter, but only for a while) and let us know if you understand Manoharan’s reasoning.
Did Periyar’s statements actually harm any community? Have minority communities faced much more actual physical damage to person and property over the years? Does gross caste inequality demand strong, provocative language? How does one differentiate between speech aimed to liberate an oppressed minority and speech that seeks to further oppress a minority? Which one is hate speech? Where do we draw the line?
Frontline for more