 Hello and welcome to News Clicking, Communism, Combat. Today we are going to talk about the new draft of a law called Manav Suraksha Kanun and to talk with us on the issue we have Sehla Rashid, student and activist. She is also someone who has launched a national campaign against lynching. Welcome to our show. So what is the need for this new law? Glad you asked this question at the outset. One month back, that is on 5th of June, many of us got together, many youth got together and we decided that we have to have a law against mob lynching and this need arose because lynching is a specific crime is not defined in Indian law. Now if we sort of go back to history and we look at people who are lynched or who or which identity is lynched. So we can go back to the US where lynching has been defined as a specific crime against the blacks because there is whole racial history to it. This would happen and people would be lynched and burnt and hung on trees or stuff like that would happen. In India, if you look at it, people belonging to vulnerable identities. Now this may be a transgender, hijda, this may be a mentally challenged woman. Mentally challenged women are often sort of they are branded as witches or even not just mentally challenged women. Widows are often branded as witches. They are lynched so that their property can be confiscated. So all of this happens within a context of inequality and vulnerability and that's why the certain spike that you see in Muslim, you know, lynchings of Muslim people, this is there is a context to it. The context is that Narendra Modi government has come to power. And in 2014, when the Narendra Modi government came to power, days after that, you must have heard about the Mohsin Sheikh lynching case in Pune. I mean, he was targeted for nothing. I mean, he was just he was having a beard. He had a Muslim identity and he was just lynched on the street. And today, what is the status of the case? All the murderers are out on bail and no lawyer wants to take up that case. Even the public prosecutor has said in writing that he needs to be he wants to be relieved from the case. So there is definitely government pressure on him. And why is there government pressure on a public prosecutor? Because these lynch mobs, they are they are supported by the government. They are supported by the central government. And I don't mean this just as a rhetoric or a hyperbole. You have union minister, Mahesh Sharma, going to Dadri and paying homage to the lynching accused, Ravishi Sodhya, who died in custody. Then you have a BJP, MLA, Gyandev Ahuja. He says that he doesn't regret the killing of Pehlu Khan and all of that. So you see, there is like, I mean, obviously, it's not like Narendra Modi will tweet and say that I support lynchings. He will not do that. But he will send enough signals to the whole system that we are on the side of the people who lynch. Now, the next obvious question comes, oh, can't Hindus be lynched? Yeah, of course they can be. If the law and order goes out of the window, then anyone can be lynched. So for the longest time, the lynchings of Dalits or the attacks on Dalits have been tolerated in this country. And that's why today we see that anyone can be lynched. It has been brought to that point. Now, if the law and all, I mean, if this becomes a norm, tomorrow you can say, oh, you are wearing a short dress and I can lynch you. And lynching sort of, you know, represents that you are taking the law into your own hands, or in the case of, you know, let's just say the killings that have happened since Tadri. There is another specific context, the beef laws. Now, who is supposed to enforce the beef law? Let's just say beef is banned. Let's just say chicken is banned. Let's just say India becomes a vegetarian country. Even then, who is in charge of enforcing those laws? Is it Bajrang Dal? Is it VHP? Is it RSS members? Or is it the police? Now, that's our point really. I mean, our point is that whatever the state has to do with beef and cow and all of that, that's another question. We first need to talk about human beings being killed at will by vigilante mobs. That can't be tolerated. Now, the law that we are asking for, it recognizes all of this. It recognizes vulnerability of migrant workers, of mentally challenged people, of people who are transgender, of people who belong to the marginalized communities of women, women being the, you know, biggest marginalized community out there. And we are saying that this has to be recognized as a crime, because two things. First, if the lynching is, let's just say the lynching results in death, then who is actually responsible for the murder? I mean, in Mohsin Sheikh's case, the fact that people are out on bail just means that, you know, no one killed him. Who killed him then? There is no responsibility. The second case where murder does not take place, let's just say someone is just assaulted or maimed. In that case, what happens? I mean, you can get away with a, not even an FIR, with a non-cognizable report, which doesn't even go to court, which in most cases is, you know, it's just a formality. It never goes to court. So such, I mean, and this is happening at a large scale in the sense that the government has given a go-ahead once. And now even after Narendra Modi's, even the PM's, even after his statements, these lynchmops don't seem to come under control, right? Because he has unleashed a monster and he can't put it back in the bottle now. And so that is why it's really important for us to have a law at this moment, because every single incident can be dismissed as being isolated. And every single case of lynching can be dismissed as being one of assault. So what is the constitutionality of this draft? This draft is, it's the law that we have proposed. It is completely, it's consistent with the Constitution, because, see, the Constitution mandates the government. It actually makes it compulsory for the government to protect the right to life, not just of every citizen, but every human living in India. And we've often seen attacks on Africans. We've often seen attacks on people from the Northeast. And if the state doesn't do anything, it amounts to complicity on part of the state. And that is why the right to life is its supreme. It has to be guarded. I mean, even if someone has eaten beef, even if someone has done something, it needs to be guarded. And, you know, it's to give you a couple of examples as in why this law is not redundant, because that's often the question that comes up. Let's just say acid attacks. Acid attack was anyway, I mean, it was anyway punishable as assault, right? But why did we ask for a specific law against acid attacks? Because it happens according to a specific pattern. So there's a person who will be, you know, there'll be a case of unrequited love, there'll be a jilted lover. And he will sort of have this ideology that, you know, if you can't be mine, you can be no one else's, right? And that's why I'll sort of ruin you forever, so that you can't sort of go out with anyone else, so that you can't see anyone else or marry anyone else. And that even as it was technically it was just assault. But it had to be recognized as a specific crime because it happens so often and because there is a social ideology that backs it. Similarly, I mean, in Pakistan, what has happened recently is they have brought a specific legislation against honor killings. So special laws are made. So for example, the SCS tree atrocities act for the longest time. It has been, I mean, how effective it is, how effective it's not a separate question. But specific legislations to deal with specific crimes are. So to give you another example, unrelated, but just to put an analogy, let's just say someone rapes a minor, then they can already be charged under rape. But why do we need a specific, why do we need it to be defined that rape against a minor carries additional penalties or it's a compounded crime. So that's that's what it is. And I mean, you murder and assault maybe crimes like that. But lynching has to be recognized as a specific crime, because it happens because of certain social ideologies, you know, because of a certain view that this is wrong or this is wrong or tomorrow. I mean, now it's not even beef. Now it's not even pubs. Now it's just that your Muslim identity, I mean, Junaid's case, Muslim identity, you can be lynched, you know, it wasn't even a case of beef that makes it even more horrible. But there are provisions in the draft to punish the government officials who don't prevent the lynching. See the accountability of public officials is very important. The accountability of police is very important. And to give to give you a different example, but sort of in relation to making a point, when farmers in Mansoor were protesting, the government did not blink an eyelid before firing on them. When people when students are protesting, the government doesn't blink an eyelid before, you know, tear gas. And I mean, we saw what happened in Punjabi University, they were attacked with tear gas and lattes and everything. So if the police wants, they can really control. I mean, no public lynching or riot mobs or lynch mobs can run amok without the knowledge of the government without without the knowledge of the local police. The local police always knows whenever there is a buildup and lynchings and riots do not happen without a buildup, there is often a buildup. Often there will be a Mahapanchayat. There will be a rumour. There is a I mean, there is a structure of a riot. There is a structure of a lynching. All of these things happen. There will be a WhatsApp forward. Then people will be called to some place. Some, some needs home type person will come, he will give some speech. So it's a there's a buildup and that has to be prevented by the police. Now we are saying that had the police not been complicit or had the police not been sort of had the had the mobs not had the confidence ki police humare saath hai. I mean, this was said in many of the lynching cases that police humare saath hai, police is with us. This happens due to various cast or community factors. They think that the police is with them. That means that the police at some level or the other is complicit. And we have seen how this happened in Gujarat. I mean, the model has been perfected over and over again or not just in Gujarat. I mean, in the case of 1984, same thing happened. The police, I mean, so many journalists have written that only the police had acted in 1984. The, you know, the killings could have been stopped. And that is why we are saying that the inquiry should be done by an independent judicial commission and not by the local police. Because if they couldn't prevent it, or if they couldn't do anything to stop it, how can we trust them to do a fair inquiry? That's our sort of logic behind it. So there are other provisions in the draft which have like provisions to punish people who are the mind behind the lynching and not just the people who are on the ground lynching the victims and also people who financially aid the lynchings. So what was the purpose to include all this? Often what happens is that, you know, there are some masterminds who sit behind the, you know, comfort of their smartphone. They can incite rumors against a certain person. They can have all sorts of fake news and everything circulated over what's over local WhatsApp groups, over Mahalo WhatsApp group, RWA WhatsApp group, something. And incite rumors against a specific person or a specific community. This needs to be investigated. Now this is not a straightforward thing. I mean, this will, this in every case will have to be investigated and it will only come up through investigation. But those persons, I mean, of course the punishment should be proportionate. We think that the courts have the wisdom to sort of differentiate between who actually committed the murder and who was responsible in a different way. But we think that, you know, because right now there is no hate speech provision in the country and hate speech is often mistaken for blasphemy. And we are not talking about blasphemy. We are not talking about people who are disrespecting religion or disrespecting God or something. That's not what we are talking about. There are specific calls to violence that are made. Now in the case of, say, Gurmehar Kaur. I mean, there's this BJP leader and I have put it out in a tweet who is on hoardings with Narendra Modi and everyone, every big BJP leader. And he says that Gurmehar Kaur should be raped like the victim in the 16th December case. That's what he says. And that 20-year-old girl, she now has to roam around with security. There is no hate speech law in the country, right? That's the problem. So, I mean, that would require additional legislation. But right now for the purposes of lynching, as I said, it has a structure and that structure needs to be recognized. And no law right now does that. So, I mean, that's why, I mean, it's not spontaneous. Our whole point is that it's not spontaneous. You know, you and I, we don't just get together to kill someone unless someone has indoctrinated us to the point and made us believe that, you know, someone has to be killed or they deserve to be eliminated or they deserve to be raped. So, were there any existing laws that you took inspiration from while drafting this? Yes, there is a, so, first of all, I mean, the law was drafted by the drafting committee. But, yes, we, when we sort of, when we made the drafting committee, nominated the members of the drafting committee, we took inspiration from the US anti-lynching law and that recognizes them. And that specifically recognizes lynchings of blacks. And I mean, that is what the SCS Treaties Act was also about. That specifically mentions, you know, atrocities against Dalits and tribals. But, you know, we are actually talking about a broader thing because today anyone is vulnerable. No, and it's not just today. I mean, people have been vulnerable for the longest time. We don't want to make it restricted to Muslims, Dalits and tribals. Thank you so much for talking with us. This is all the time we have for today. Keep watching us.