Saturday, May 4, 2024
Latest:
CultureNational

Encounter Killings, Mob Lynchings, Death Penalty: The Underlying Social Consent

Arjun S Mohan
Illustration by Deccan Herald

Arjun S Mohan, Rahul M R

The Tuticorin custodial deaths were the pinpoint for a lot of recent outrage against the brutalities of ‘Police Raj’ in India. At the same time, the encounter killing of Vikas Dubey, a gangster from Uttar Pradesh did not induce any commendable protest as the Tuticorin incident did. A public consensus approving extrajudicial policing was evident in Dubey’s case and the indifference shown by people to the latter episode is reasonable — Dubey was the prime suspect in murdering 8 police officers in a clash between the goons and the police. A few months ago, people expressed the same indifference and even celebrated another ‘encounter killing programme’ of four rape suspects by the Cyberabad police. The primary concern heeded in these extrajudicial programmes is the social consent of the people celebrating such killings. The recent verdict of the Raja Man Singh murder case, an independent legislator from Rajasthan, exposed the drowsy nature of the Indian judicial system. The suspects were convicted by the court only after 35 years after the crime took place. The culprits, naturally, enjoyed decades of impunity following the heinous murder. In such a context, social consent in favour of extrajudicial methods is developed and built up when people are frustrated with the system of governance.

Encounter Killings

‘Encounter killing’ is a method of extrajudicial assassination allegedly conducted by the police taking a jibe at the proper channel to be followed. The term encounter itself has dangerous connotations in the modern era and the murder of Vikas Dubey was the latest in the league. The police claim that the “dreaded criminal” snatched a pistol and tried to escape from the police force even after he publically surrendered in Madhya Pradesh. Unsurprisingly, the media convoys were conveniently stopped just before the ‘necessary action’ (Bhushan, 2020) was taken. The Hyderabad encounter was the first of this kind in the country’s recent past. Following it, the police were greeted by the public with garlands. 

When we examine popular culture, such a kind of social consent appears quite evident. The protagonist of Tamil movie Theri (2016) portrays a police officer resorting to encounter a suspect involved in a brutal rape-and-murder case. Literature is often termed a mirror to society. However, as a majority of the common audience welcome such ‘heroism’, there is a dialectical question that remains about the civic sensibility encouraged by such films.

One must remember that it is not appreciative of a democratic country when the executive arm of the government assumes judicial power.

Mob Lynchings

Mob lynchings display the novel mode of free-floating violence across the country. Several incidents — from Muhammad Akhlaq who was killed for allegedly slaughtering a cow in Uttar Pradesh’s Dadri to Madhu for larceny in Kerala’s Attappadi — indicate the public consensus that has so dangerously developed to work as a parallel, alternative judicial desk. Such consensuses are, of course, dependent on several social factors beyond any solid evidence. The Palghar incident of lynching Hindu priests by mistaking them as thieves is an example of ‘action without evidence’. The torturing of minorities, especially Muslims and Dalits, are mainly dependent on social factors like name and appearance. The recent lynching in Karimganj accounts for the murder of 3 Bangladeshi nationals, alleged ‘cow-lifters’. The incidents mentioned above and the regional differences imply the prevalence of such a mob-psychology across the country, resorting to extrajudicial methods denouncing the rule of law.

Death Penalty

The Indian judiciary is not meant for retribution but reformation. The five-year gap between the last two state-advocated capital punishments is an evidence to this.

‘An eye for an eye’ definitely belongs in an uncivilised school of thought. The UN resolution against death penalty is a call for nations who still carry out such judicial killings to stop it. However, the latest trends in society express a vehement approval of death penalty. A majority of the public are those who strongly advocate for such punishments for culprits involved in brutal crimes. Such a collective conscience was at display in the Nirbhaya rape case.

Thomas Hobbes’s observation that one of man’s major fears is death provides a philosophical explanation for the public’s craving for death penalty (Ahrensdorf, 2000). There are several reasons behind the rise of such collective judgements.

Behind the Consensus 

People expect fair and speedy trials. The case of Raja Man Singh and the 28-year long Hashimpura case in which 40 Muslims were butchered are examples of the stark reality of pendency in Indian courts (The Hindu, 2020). When suspects lead their lives unpunished for decades, the rest of the public generally starts to lose faith in the judiciary. For many, ‘delayed justice is denied justice’. Thus rage towards culprits, unfortunately, results in a distrust of the entire system. A Hindu Business Line report from 2018 states that the lumbering pace of our legal system is a result of the severe lack in the number of judges, adjournments, and delay in appointment of judges. Also, reports of convicts using mobile phones and drugs inside prison question the possibility of ‘rigorous punishment’ imposed by the judiciary. Such flaws were enough to create prejudices in the minds of the people, leading to total distrust in the system. 

The incidents of mob lynching have another dimension as well that needs to be explored in detail. Political psychologist Ashish Nandy has rightly pointed out that lynching happens where “there is no obeisance towards the removal of inequality, poverty, and injustice”. He refers to the early days of Partition when lynching had emotional and passional backgrounds; however, in the current scenario, these are calculated acts for political benefits (India Today, 2017).

Illustration by Ashish Asthana

Political outfits have been instrumental in operating WhatsApp groups to spread fake news. Such elements, along with communal narratives, entail vigilantism in people. Vigilantism thus developed would be expressed by people in their day-to-day lives and gradually transformed into unlawful procedures like lynching and such atrocities on others. These planned manipulations have a significant role in strengthening social consent behind many invisible ‘kangaroo courts’ and their extrajudicial programmes.

Civic Consciousness

Developing a civic sense is a crucial part of addressing the aforementioned problems. Though the improvement of civil society is dependent on various factors like family, economy, and government, the foremost player among them is the state machinery itself — as the government has the ability to improve the other two factors. Civic sense is attributed to a ‘we’ feeling in society. This feeling should not exist along communal, religious, regional, or caste lines. Instead, in a nation, the ‘commune’ should be all the citizens under its constitution.

A legal citizen is always below the constitution, and any unconstitutional measure that degrades the essence of that charter would deteriorate the civic sense of its subjects, the citizens. Rejuvenating the importance of ideals upheld in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution itself is a useful tool for improving civil society. When civic ethics are developed in tandem with the framework of the constitution, essential concepts like ‘tolerance’ and ‘faith in law’ would be eventually restored. Both are better imbibed than imposed.

Way Forward

India, the second most populous nation is currently facing an emergency situation to increase the number of judicial bodies to resolve the backlog of cases in its courts. The pendency of the Raja Man Singh murder case for 35 years defines the reason behind civil disrespect towards the governing system. If the same lag happens in the trial of the Tuticorin murder case, we cannot expect today’s ‘democratic citizens’ to respect the judiciary in the far future. The 245th Law Commission (2014) in its report, recommends doubling the number of judges and to introduce a ‘rate of disposal’ of cases for each judge. Shailesh Gandhi, former Central Information Commissioner estimates that “the capital cost of setting up a courtroom would not exceed about Rs 4 crores per courthouse or a total of about Rs 24000 crores only” (Scroll, 2019). 

The possibility of a civilian interference in a positivist-state system is primarily through ballots. In a representative democracy, election results are a reflection of the prevailing public consensus. If it is a fragile civil society, the most debauched party will emerge victorious by utilising and manipulating the same consensus of the people. Improving civic sensibility is the responsibility of the student community. Rather than being intolerant towards opposing arguments, being tolerant and outspoken is indeed the necessity of the day.

Works Cited:

  • Ahrensdorf, P. J., ‘The Fear of Death and the Longing for Immortality: Hobbes and Thucydides on Human Nature and the Problem of Anarchy’, American Political Science Association Review, pp. 579-593, September, 2000
  • Bhushan, P, ‘A Chance to Restore the Rule of Law’, The Hindu, p. 7, 2020
  • Hindu Business Line, ‘India has 19 judges per 10 lakh people: Data’, https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/india-has-19-judges-per-10-lakh-people-data/article25030009.ece, 2018
  • India Today, ‘Mob lynching over beef, faith are crimes of calculation’, 2017
  • Scroll, ‘Clearing India’s huge backlog of legal cases isn’t quite so tough – 6,000 new judges could do it’, https://scroll.in/article/928468/clearing-indias-huge-backlog-of-legal-cases-isnt-quite-so-tough-6000-new-judges-could-do-it, 2019
  • The Hindu, ‘Justice, slow but sure’, 2020

Other Sources

Arjun S Mohan is a Masters’ student of Politics & Public Policy at the School Of International Relations & Politics of MG University, Kottayam. He can be reached at 9400909770, arjunsumo@gmail.com.
Rahul M R is a Masters’ student of Politics & International Relations at the School Of International Relations & Politics of MG University, Kottayam. He can be reached at 8943732729, rahulmrshery@gmail.com.

Follow us for regular updates:
Telegram
t.me/studentstrugglein
Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/studentstrugglemonthly
WhatsApp
https://chat.whatsapp.com/BvEXdIEy1sqIP0YujRhbDR