But it was a crowd that killed him!
Apparently all it takes to suspend the rule of law in Chennai is for people to act in groups. This morning the Deccan Chronicle carried a story about a suspected thief who broke into a local businessman's house and was nabbed in the act. Neighbors rushed in to capture the thief and when they had him safely in custody they beat him mercilessly. Once the police arrived the man was carted off to the hospital where he promptly succumbed to his injuries.The police didn't charge anyone for the man's death and stated that, "This is a clear case of mob fury since the public caught a man who they thought was a thief and assaulted him...nor can we identify the accused since it was not their intention to kill him."
Forgive me if I have missed something, but when did it become legal for vigilantes to issue death sentences? The man's crime did not merit being beaten to death, and the crowd certainly had no right to do so. The police even used the word "assault" in their statement--and I believe that assault is a crime meriting at least a slap on the wrist.
The officer's statement makes it seem that any time someone acts in a group they are subject to a different set of laws. If we push his logic just a little further what would happen if a mob of people upset about rampant graft and corruption in government stormed the secretariat and killed a few ministers. Would they not be liable? Clearly the mob would simply be upset at the actions of a thief and would assault in a group. Would they not merit at least disorderly conduct charge?
The man's death is also an issue of class privilege and illustrates that in Chennai that there are separate legal systems for people occupying different rungs on the social ladder. The mob in this case was made up of wealthy landowners and businessmen and we can only assume that the thief was a lower class man. Maybe the mob shouldn't have been charged with murder, but they are culpable in a lesser crime.
(Photo: The front page of The Hindu of a riot that happened in Delhi yesterday)
posted by Scott Carney @ 9:41 AM
7 comments
7 Comments:
India has always been this way....mob rule is the rule. Numbers legitimize everything. How long have you been here again?
It's a sad truth, but it doesn't mean that it has to be that way. It would have been very easy for the officers on the scene to actually do something. The real problem is apathy.
Well, apathy and blood thirsty mobs.
Yes, it does have to be that way, because in order for anything to change, someone first has to admit there is a problem. And of course, this is not perceived as a problem, therefore, effectively it is *not* a problem...
...because it's always been that way. The way things have always been is good, because to say otherwise is to question our system. If you question our system, you are not one of us...therefore you must be silenced. Preferably by a bloodthirsty mob.
Getting the hang of how things work (or don't) round here?
There is a distinct lack of moral outrage about such things. It just is not considered a problem. (Outcaste kids wanting reservations in a university is, by contrast, considered a huge problem.)
I agree with you that mob which beat the thief must be brought to justice. I dont agree with your point that it is because the mob was made up of wealthy landowners and businessmen and thief is a poor guy, cops didnt press charges.
In India, mob always gets away from the hands of law. Mob doesnt have to be upper/middle class people. This happens whenever a riot occurs.
Anon,
Definitely true it isn't necessarialy a class issue. Mobs get away with a lot in this country. Was anyone punnished for Gujarat, or for that matter, partition? But in this case it sounds like it was a group of neighbors, not a proper riot. Though this is a guess, at 3:00 am the most it could have been was 15 people. From the article it made it sound like it was an upper class neighborhood. Though this doesnt have to be a class issue, it certainly could have contributed to the police reaction.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." (John 8:7)
Not just in India, but anywhere, when the mob feels righteous, it may act without restraint or reason.
It isn’t about class, but as Scott rightly points out in his story, the same mob couldn’t have killed a powerful person without getting into very serious trouble with the police.
To my mind, if the mob knew that the thief would be brought to justice--rather, if they knew that anyone who breaks the law, whether acting alone or in a group, would be brought to justice, they would have acted with greater restraint.
More than a year ago, when Mohinder Singh from Noida was taken to court, he was attacked by a mob which was waiting outside the court premises. As a parent, I definitely would show my anger at a man who was responsible for the death of so many innocent children. Looking at the way the legal system and the police 'deal' with such cases, I owuld not blame the public if they take things into their own hands.
Post a Comment
<< Home