Lynch mob republic

Union Home Secretary Rajiv Mehrishi has opined that lynchings are not a new phenomenon; they are “feudal” in nature. They do “shake the conscience” today, but that must be because they are “over hyped and over reported”. This on a day when reports emerged of three Muslim men being lynched in North Bengal, and just days after a 16-year-old Muslim boy was beaten to death on a train in Haryana and a 57-year-old was killed outside a mosque in Kashmir on June 22. Mehrishi’s remark, which seems to suggest that such incidents should be shrugged off as normal, is frightening.

Certainly, a lynching is an atavistic form of violence, ritualised and spontaneous at the same time, drawing on crude notions of mob justice, enacting a society’s deepest fears and paranoias, its need to find a scapegoat. There are no official records to prove whether such incidents are on the rise or not; the fact that they are being reported and discussed now can only be a step in the right direction.

But a certain kind of lynching is undeniably a product of the current political climate and the majoritarian frenzy it has enabled. Almost all the victims have been individuals from the minority community. All the attackers have been members of an empowered majority – they just happened to be a different community in Kashmir. Many of these killings have been in the name of cow protection laws advocated by the Central and state governments with a new zeal. Mobs now kill with a sense of impunity, with many drawing out cell phones to film the act of violence. It is not enough to deal out death, it must be witnessed and commemorated, making the act of killing a symbolic one, reenacted again and again in the virtual world. In 19th and early 20th century America, grim memorabilia from the lynchings of black people could be bought for a small price. Modern technology has ensured that the event itself can be experienced repeatedly, for free.

Most chilling is the government’s own silence on this rash of violence. On Sunday, Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke on his radio show, “Mann ki baat”, holding forth on yoga, the origins of the word “juggernaut”, toilets and the Emergency. But the lynchings that have occurred over the last few days passed without comment. So the home secretary’s breezy remarks should not come as a surprise. Lynchings may not be new, but this culture of political acquiescence certainly is.

The Big Scroll

Samar Halarnkar dissects the story of two lynchings and how they indict Hindu India.

Ajaz Ashraf says Indians who still believe in morality must wear black bands this Eid

Punditry

  1. In the Indian Express, Fali S Nariman recalls the Emergency, when a majoritarian government became dictatorial and there were few dissenters.
  2. In the Hindu, Shashank Joshi points out that Prime Minister Narendra Modi could shape United States President Donald Trump’s views on Pakistan during his trip to America.
  3. In the Telegraph, Manini Chatterjee describes Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar’s ideological somersault on saffron politics.

Giggles

Don’t miss...

Arunabh Saikia reports how, in Arunachal Pradesh, the Army owned up to killing a civilian, but what about prosecutions?

The Armed Forces Special Power Acts – which gives the military sweeping powers and immunity from prosecution in conflict-hit areas – is in effect in parts of Arunachal Pradesh, including Changlang. The district, owing to its proximity to Myanmar, is used by insurgent groups like the Nationalist Socialist Council of Nagaland (Khaplang) and the United Liberation Front of Asom (Independent) as a transit point to cross over to training camps in Myanmar, security officers say.

Under the AFSPA, an Armed Forces official can only be prosecuted after permission is taken from the central government. In the present case, if the police investigation finds enough grounds to press with the murder charges, they will first have to approach the Centre. Since 1991, when the Act was enforced in parts of Arunachal Pradesh to 2015, 38 requests have been made to the Centre for prosecution of Army personnel, of which 30 have been rejected and eight put under review. There has not been a single conviction.