Mob
lynching and its defenders
Irfan
Engineer
In
his annual Dussehra address on 8th October 2019, Mohan Bhagwat, the
chief of RSS – a Hindu supremacist organization – stated that lynching was a
concept alien to India. He objected to using a foreign word “lynching” to “isolated
incidents of social violence”. “Such things have never happened in our
country... This is a word for events that have occurred in foreign countries.” (Banerjee,
2019).
It is unfortunate that the Bhagwat problematizes the word “lynching” used to
describe a phenomena or events that are most reprehensible and abominable. What
deserves strongest condemnation is the incident of violence and the brutalities
involved, which most agree, is inhuman. Bhagwat
condemns the violence (rather perfunctorily), however attempts to cover up the
brutalities involved in the lynchings by problematizing the word. Bhagwat tries
to pass such incidents as ordinary phenomenon of violence that occurs in
everyday life which can be attributed as natural reaction to provocation.
Bhagwat attributes the usage of the word “mob lynching” to a conspiracy to
defame Hindus.
Most
Indian language media do not use the word “lynching” to describe such incidents.
Urdu media uses the word “bheed tashadud” (mob violence). Other Indian language
media use translation of words ‘mob violence’ that captures the phenomenon of a
mob beating up a few individuals. Does use of any word to describe the
phenomena reduce the pain of the victims and their families? Bhagwat and in
fact the organizations subscribing to Hindu supremacist political ideology which
are commonly referred to as Sangh Parivar in Indian media, attempt to kill the
sensibilities of Indian people in general and consumer of media towards
suffering of victims by problematizing the word and passing the incidents as
isolated, unconnected ordinary occurences in society although undesirable. Calling
the incidents ‘undesirable’ are more for public consumption, political
correctness and niceties in order to qualify as responsible mainstream
organization. However, important Sangh Parivar leaders unapologetically justify
and even encourage incidents of mob lynching. They are not even condemned by others
from the Sangh Parivar. Jayant Sinha, Union minister in the BJP led Govt. on 7th
July 2018 garlanded 8 persons convicted in the lynching case of Alimuddin
Ansari in Ramgarh. Alimuddin Ansari was lynched to death by a mob of nearly 100
people on 29th June 2017. The message that lynch mobs get from
garlanding of those convicted for the crime by the Union minister is that the
Govt. was with them and supported their ‘heroic’ act. There are other leaders
of the Sangh Parivar who have approved and encouraged such heinous act.
The
BJP led Union Govt. was over enthusiastic and in terrible hurry to criminalise
the practice of triple talaq or instantaneous divorce of Muslim women by their
husbands and made several attempts to get the legislation passed in the
Parliament merely on the ground that the Supreme Court had recommended it, even
though number of such incidents of triple talaq were very few. The same
enthusiasm is not seen in enacting a law against mob lynching even though the
Supreme Court directed that such a legislation be passed (News18.com, 2019).
The enactment of law criminalizing triple talaq in a hurry and denial of
necessity of a law to deal with lynching – both are politically motivated even
though the former was sought to be passed off as a legitimate response to the
Supreme Court judgment.
What
is lynching?
Let
us try to understand why the incidents that are described as lynching by the
English language media are different from ordinary violence leading physical
injuries or even death of the hapless victims. We will primarily try to
understand this through two fact finding missions of such incidents in
Jharkhand in which this author was involved. The first incident happened on 10th
April 2019 in Dumri Block of Gumla District in which Prakash Lakda was lynched
to death and two others were injured. The fact finding mission was appointed by
Centre for Study of Society and Secularism (CSSS) (CSSS Team, 2019). The second incident
of mob lynching took place on 22nd September 2019 which again led to
death of Clemitius Barla and injury to two others in Karra Block of Khunti
Dist. This incident was investigated by SAFFORB-India of which CSSS is a
constituent and this author was a member of the fact finding team. The report
was published on 5th October 2019 and distributed to the media in
Ranchi.
The
lynch mob in both the cases accused their victims of slaughtering a cow and
distributing its meat among the participants. In Gumla Dist. incident, the
victims were skinning a dead ox and traditionally the caste Hindus hand over
their dead animals to the Oraon adivasis for disposal. The Oraons extract skin
and distribute the meat of dead cow and dispose off the carcass of the dead
animal. Oraons eat meat of dead animal at risk of their health as they are
poor. On the material day (10th April), a mob of 40-50 attacked
those skinning dead ox and brutally beat them up for close to 4 hours till
midnight when they called up police to take the injured away and charge them
for illegally slaughtering a cow. The police responded by telling the members
of the lynch mob to bring the three injured to the police station even though
the hospital was on their way to police station. The lynchers obliged,
organized a vehicle and dropped them on the premises of the police station
where they continued to lynch them for some more time. Then the police took to
lynching the injured and then carried two of the three injured to the hospital
at 4.00 am in the morning. By then Prakash Lakda was dead. It is not mere
co-incidence that the targets of lynching belonged to Christian community.
In
Khunti Dist. the Christian adivasis belonging to Munda community were
celebrating their festival Badpahari – an ancient adivasi festival – they were
cleaning an ox on 22nd September near the river and doing dangri
(distribution of meat of the cleaned animal). Badpahadi / dangri is a tradition
practiced by all adivasis and despite of conversion to Christianity the
traditions continued. At around 8.00 am, 15-20 people armed with sticks and
other weapons from 3 to 4 villages 3 to 10 kms away from Suari village where
the lynching took place, started attacking them. The attack could not have been
but planned, if so many people from different far away villages assembled early
in the morning travelling on foot as the river bed where the attack took place
is un-motorable. Those who were cleaning the animal escaped while others who
were in the neighbouring field were targeted. Clemitius Barla who died in the
incident was handicapped and having his bath on the river was caught and
severely beaten. So was Phagu Kachhap, a Hindu from a neighbouring village who
was watering his field was wantonly caught by the mob. Kushal Horo’s testimony
to the SAFFORB team is important. He said, “without asking anything, they
straight away started beating us. We all ran away to save our lives.” Both the
team concluded that the incident they were investigating appeared to be
planned. The targets were carefully chosen – poor, Christians and adivasis
making them triply vulnerable.
Victims
of mob lynching
Christians,
and that too poor adivasis are unable to fight, raise their voices in media
before those who matter or come to their help. They are deserted not only by
the media, institutions of the state and civil society, but also by the Church
itself which is as scared of the political consequences and accused of
conversions. Clemitius’ sister – Karuna Barla – who was eye witness to the lynching
of Clemitius told us that after the incident, some unknown people visited them
and told them not to file any case against those involved in the lynching. As
the case would be time consuming, the result of the case would be uncertain and
that it would cost a lot of money. The villagers got convinced on the last
issue. They decided not to file any case as it would cost them a lot of money.
They were so naive to believe the strangers and fear of financial cost involved
deterred them from taking recourse to legal remedies. They did not know that
they would not have to spend any money as the state would prosecute the accused
on their behalf.
The
triply vulnerable poor Christian adivasis are further victimized by the state
by filing cases against them under the Jharkhand Bovine Animal (Prohibition of
Slaughter) Act 2005. Instead of getting FIR registered against those lynching
them, their instinct is to run away to protect themselves from being maliciously
prosecuted on false accusation of slaughtering a cow. The FIR against the
lynched victims is registered first before registering FIR against the members
of lynch mobs. Tabrez Ansari and his friends were charged for theft in another
instance of mob lynching in Jharkhand. Pehlu Khan and his son were charged under
Section 5 of Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation
of Temporary Migration or Export) Act, 1995 in the case of mob lynching in
Alwar in Rajasthan. In the Khunti Dist. case, the police had not charged the
victims till the date of our visit. That seemed to be a rare exception. The
police took the injured to the hospital immediately, though Clemitius died
after his hospitalization.
The
main reason why only Christian adivasis are planned targets of lynch mobs is to
accomplish their objective of triggering off communally polarizing discourse –
Christians slaughtering go mata. That
is the plank for the Sangh Parivar to divide Christian and non-Christian
adivasis and create its influence among the non-Christian adivasis. Communally
polarising the adivasis blunts their ‘adivasi’ consciousness as having
different way of life and weltanschauung and weakens their the struggle to
protect their right to land, natural resources, forest produce – minor and
major, against the mining mafia and against displacement in the name of
development, in short, their right to jal, jungle and jameen. In Khunti Dist., the
adivasis – Christians and non-Christians together waged a successful struggle
against amendment of the Jharkhand and Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Acts which would
have enabled the big corporations to acquire their land. Their traditional
rights to jal jungle and jameen are statutorily protected under the PESA Act
wherein gram sabhas are all powerful. The Pathalgarhi movement is to precisely
defend these rights wherein the statutory provisions are carved on the stones
in the villages. The Christian – non-Christian divide is blunting this adivasi
consciousness. The BJP is known to be favouring big business more than any
other political party in the country. The discourse of development favoured by
the BJP is one which spurs urbanizing, construction of massive infrastructure
of roads and flyovers for the urban rich and middleclass.
The
lynch mobs and their objectives
The
lynch mobs are drawn from the dominant caste Hindus of the region who use
symbols like cow as a political tool to further their social hegemony and
domination in the area, particularly the adivasis. In the case of lynch mob in
Dumri Block in Gumla Dist. belonged to Sahu community. Sanjay Sahu, who was
arrested for lynching Prakash Lakda to death and injuring two others has a
criminal history sheeter accused previously for extortion and murder. Many
Sahus had their brick kiln on adivasi owned land and using the soil of the land
to bake bricks without paying a farthing to the adivasis. They wanted the
adivasis to live in fear and never demand their land back. Sanjay Sahu was
protecting his hegemony and those of his minions and community members and
killing Prakash Lakda was neither his first murder nor would be the last
murder. ‘Go raksha’ was a convenient cover to his social, economic and
political interests rather than a religious conviction. Sanjay Sahu enjoyed the
political protection of elected representatives and the elected representatives
need Sanjay Sahu and his minions to push the voters to electoral booths. Sanjay
Sahu’s political clout is evident from the fact that BJP MP – Sudharshan
Bhagat’s victory procession ended in his village – Jairagi which makes no other
sense as it is neither the border of the constituency nor has any other
significance.
The
accused in the Khunti Dist. incident were allegedly from Bajrang Dal and
belonging to Rajput caste. They were from Poda, Jaltanda and Karra block head
quarters. Their names are Parmanand Singh, Ravindra Kumar Singh, Bhubaneshwar
Singh and Pushpa Raj. Our informer told us that there were other several
incidents of mob lynching in the area. However, no one reported the incidents
being from the marginalized community. When the victims did summon courage, the
police scared them away. Since in this case the lynching resulted into death,
it attracted media attention and therefore registration of the FIR. The group
was working with impunity and creating their political clout and fear among the
marginalized communities. In both the cases, one of the objectives of the mob
was to establish their unquestioned social hegemony not only over the victim,
but the entire community to which the victims belong.
Lynching
and ordinary crimes
The
difference in lynching and other crimes lies in the manner in which it is
carried out and in the objective. Lynching is carried out openly, publicly, demonstrably
and without any fear of law. Ordinary crimes are done with as much stealth as
necessary to escape the law. Unlike terror attacks, caste violence and communal
riots, wherein the targets are any and every member of a community, the lynch
mobs target particular individuals accusing them of some wrong doing – whether
or not the accusation is a fact. The mob may consist of scores of people, from the
dominant section of the society enjoying the patronage of the state. The
individuals targeted by the mob are under their complete control and can be
made to do anything that the mob orders them to do – even eat shit or chant
‘jai Shri Ram’ or ‘Bharat mata ki jai’ or chant any invocation against the most
sacred creed of the victim. The target of mob lynching is totally helpless. The
members of a large mob encourage even the worst brutality. No brutality is
brutal enough to be not practiced on the victim. This includes jumping on the
body of the injured victim lying on the ground and unable to get up, beating
for hours together with sticks and other weapons, burning, hacking with sharp
instruments. The victim is conceived as worst than animal – a demon whose
existence and his/her community’s existence is a threat to the entire society. The
brutalities are committed to send a message to the entire community to which
the victim belongs. Therefore videos of the brutality are made and uploaded on
the social media to terrorise the entire community and gain sympathies of
others for the, what one thinks, a ‘heroic’ act.
There
is no remorse in the members of the community to which the lynch mob belongs.
Lack of remorse surprises us. How can human beings be without any remorse for
the brutal act on the victims? While the theatre of communal riots has been mostly
in urban areas with some exceptions, mob lynching is communally polarizing in
the rural areas as well. Mob lynching is encouraged by Sangh Parivar as a vehicle
to take Hindu supremacist political ideology to the rural areas. Empathies of the
Sangh Parivar for the lynch mobs is therefore understandable. The BJP and the
Sangh Parivar are therefore against enacting any legislation to deter mob
lynching.
By
problematizing the word ‘lynching’ as foreign Bhagwat and others in the Sangh
Parivar obliterate this distinction between ordinary social violence and the
brutalities that entail mob lynching incident and indirectly acquiesce the
incidents. Some even glorify. However, lynch mobs are not only digging the
grave of humanity, they are also digging the grave of rule of law in India and Hinduism
itself.
Irfan Engineer
Director,
Centre for Study of Society and Secularism
Director,
Centre for Study of Society and Secularism
