Subhash Gatade
“Our dead are never dead to us until we have forgotten them”
– George Elliot (English Novelist and Poet, 1819-1880)
Firdaus Alam alias Asjad Babu – age 24 years – is dead.
Details of this cold blooded killing have appeared in a section of the media and make chilling reading. (1)
Asjad – a native of a village in Kishenganj district of Bihar, married hardly 7 months back, worked as a tailor in Panipat, Haryana.That tragic evening, he was sitting with his friends including his brother Asad Raza in a playground when the accused approached him and started mocking him for wearing a skullcap.
None of the friends had any personal enmity with the accused Narendra alias “Susu Lala”.When confronted, he felt further agitated and attacked Asjad with a knife, inflicting serious fatal injuries.
Death of Asjad is no ordinary death.
It appears to be a hate crime.
Hate crime is a special crime where a person is targeted just because of hostility or prejudice towards that person’s colour, look, dress, which reveals the person’s community, religion or belief etc. One does not know whether the police or the law-and-order machinery would be ready to acknowledge this brutal murder as a hate crime (2) because that would entail stricter charges, which may be followed by stricter punishment.
What is even more disturbing, is to note that killings, like that of Asjad have become commonplace.
Merely a week back four people carrying buffalo meat in Aligarh were brutally attacked by a group of vigilantes, all Hindu youths, calling themselves Gorakshaks; but,they could be better termed as (protected?) criminals. (3) Few of the attackers have been arrested and police is searching for the rest. There are reports that these youths run an extortion racket from people engaged in this trade; and when these four people, who were engaged in this business with proper license, refused to pay the ransom, they were brutally attacked and left for dead.
One does not know if these self-proclaimed vigilantes, operating under the cover of Gau-Raksha politics, will transform into professional criminals, or revert to a normal law-abiding life.
Or how Gulfam, a biryani seller in Agra was killed point blank by one Manoj Chaudhary – who later claimed in a video that “Pahalgam has been avenged’. (4)
A cursory glance at the last decade of India’s democracy makes it clear how such attacks/ killings are increasingly getting normalized.
Perhaps the first such killing was that of a computer techie (2014) Mohsin Sheikh, who was killed by a mob allegedly belonging to Hindu Rashtra Sena , when he was returning home from his namaz. (5) Till date, there have been many ups and downs in the case. His father Sadiq Sheikh died waiting for justice in his son’s case.
Despite the controversial record of the Hindu Rashtra Sena in the police files, and even though the Maharashtra government had once contemplated banning the group, the high court judge – Mridula Bhatkar – granted bail to the three men accused of killing Mohsin Sheikh. (6) The order given by the judge is ‘remarkable’for its astounding logic and deserves to be read,
The applicants/accused otherwise had no other motive such as any personal enmity against the innocent deceased Mohsin. The fault of the deceased was only that he belonged to another religion. I consider this factor in favour of the applicants/accused. Moreover, the applicants/accused do not have criminal record, and it appears that in the name of the religion, they were provoked and have committed the murder. Under such circumstances, I allow the bail Applications.
In other words, if one kills someone out of personal enmity than that is worse than if someone is killed ‘merely’ on religious grounds. Those who kill in the name of religion should be – by Justice Bhatkar’s logic – given favourable treatment vis-à-vis other kinds of murder.
The Supreme Court observed that the high court ruling was ‘coloured with bias for or against a community’. It set aside the order of the Bombay High Court. But, thanks to the absence of any witness protection scheme, few of the key witnesses in the case turned hostile.And, after nine long years of legal battles,the result, however, went against the victim. All the accused in the case were allowed to go scot free after nine years of the legal battle, could be said to be an eyeopener in this case. (7)
Last one heard about the case that family members of IT Engineer Mohsin Sheikh plan to approach High Court after acquittal of all the 22 accused in the case. (8)
What happened in case of Junaid was not qualitatively different.
On 23 June 2017, Junaid (age 15) was in a festive mood, waiting to celebrate Eid with a lot of gaiety with his family. He was on a train from Delhi to Mathura. Some men on the train began to mock him and his friends for their religion. They tugged at their beards and accused them of being beef eaters. The train compartment was crowded. Then the men attacked Junaid and his friends viciously. None of the co-passengers came to their rescue. Junaid was stabbed. Then the men pushed Junaid and his friends onto the platform at Asaoti railway station. Junaid bled to death in his brother’s lap.
The men were arrested, but then released on bail. The wheels of justice are stuck. Junaid’s mother waits for something to happen. But what is going to happen startles her. (9)
It is worthwhile to revisit the case to know how, in an ambiance of majoritarian triumphalism, certain deaths become ‘non-events’as a scholar-activist Aarthi Sethi had then commented in her article (10).
..Kaunain Sheriff M returned to the railway station in Faridabad to find out ‘who saw what’ when Junaid was killed. He found that nobody saw anything as a young boy lay bleeding to death on Platform number 4. The blood stains, the journalist writes, are ‘still visible’ on the platform and yet no-one saw anything, neither the Station Master Om Prakash nor the post-master Bhagwat Dyal whose office is right across from the platform. ‘I did not see anything’, said Om Prakash. ‘I did not see anything’, said Bhagwat Dyal. Even the CCTV did not see anything. One official said, ‘There is a CCTV camera opposite the spot. The wire has been tampered with and it is non-functional’. ..
Sethi recounts what Sheriff M had written, and writes,
“Then they collectively, and without prior agreement, continued to not see what they had seen after the event. This is the uniquely terrifying aspect of this incident on which this report reflects: the totalising force of an unspoken, but collectively binding, agreement between Hindus to not see the dead body of a Muslim child. Hindus on this railway platform in a small station in north India instantly produced a stranger sociality, a common social bond between people who do not otherwise know each other. By mutual recognition between strangers, Hindus at this platform agreed to abide by a code of silence by which the death of a Muslim child cannot be seen by 200 people in full public view on a railway platform in today’s India.”(11)
India has of late metamorphosed into a land of such hate crimes.
Anyone can recall how a key leader of the ruling dispensation had in a public meeting underlined how ‘they’ can be recognised by the ‘clothes they wear’ (kapdon se pehchanejane wale) or how his senior colleagues have been caught umpteen times stigmatising these ‘others’ as termites etc.
It is true that under the exclusivist ideology and praxis, presently, such attacks are mainly targeted against the religious minorities. But violent attacks cannot remain limited to minorities, as the reactionary forces advance. Soon, it would engulf others as well.
As analysts have noted, lynching appeared in India not as individual acts – i.e., one person killing another person – but as group violence, i.e.,mobs targeting religious minorities, Dalits, transgender persons and people belonging to deprived sections. Anyone considered ‘other’ was a fair game. Professor Sanjay Subramanyam, who teaches at the University of California, Los Angeles, told Indian Express that the members of the lynch mobs know that nothing will happen to them, that their acts have the approval of higher authorities.
Earlier, organised acts of mass violence were repetitive in character and there was a pattern, e.g. processions were attacked, or the violence was timed with public festivals. This was so even in the time of the Mughals. Then, post-Independence, there have been largely urban, organised forms of violence, where various political parties have provided protection to the perpetrators.
The difference between the earlier phase of mass violence and the current phase requires differentiation, writes Professor Subramanyam.
But what we are seeing now is not at a single place, there are fewer numbers attacked, and it is decentralised, done by little groups all over the place. These groups are either being told or imagine that they have been told to act in this way. Further, after the event, no one in authority is clearly telling them the contrary. There is also an aspirational quality to the violence. …curious thing is that the perpetrators want it to be known. After all, some of the people doing this are even videotaping it. They make sure the information is circulating, intended as a warning, as a signal and controlling device for the social behaviour expected of minorities. It is a form of violence which can pop up here one day and there on another. It is never mass killings but based on the existence of grassroots kind of organisations which believe in doing this, and also to an extent on copycat behaviour. So even if it is decentralised, there is a larger context.
If anyone doubts this understanding, then it is worthwhile to look at the excerpts of a sting operation done by NDTV regarding the killing of a meat trader – Qasim Querishi – in Hapur (Uttar Pradesh) and beating of Samiuddin. The police arrested Yudhisthir Singh Sisodia, who was the main accused. Let off on bail, Sisodia spoke to NDTV’s A. Vaidyanathan, who had a hidden camera. Sisodia told the court that he had no role in the killing, but when Vaidyanathan asked him about it, he said,
I told the jailer that [the victims] were slaughtering cows, so I slaughtered them. My army is ready. If anyone slaughters a cow, we will kill them and go to jail a thousand times.
The lynching of Junaid was not seen by 200 people who were on the platform at that time. They did not see the violence. They did not see Junaid.
Likewise Mohsin Sheikh was murdered in a marketplace with lot of people around but none from the crowd gathered courage to give testimony about his perpetrators.
This is Today’s India.
Could it be correct to say that today, India is a country with a new normal of hatred and bigotry.
This ‘new normal of hatred and bigotry’ is the consequence of an unholy alliance between corporate interests and Hindutva zealots. It is defined by upturning the rule of law, sabotage of institutions, and the creation of an atmosphere of fear for those, who differ. India has become a republic of violence instead of republic of hope.
Does anyone bother to even remember the n number of religious congregations, called Dharam Sansads, held in different parts of the country, including in the national capital itself, openly giving a call for ‘final solutions’ to solve the ‘problem’, instigating the crowds gathered to go for ‘cleansing of the country’ of the ‘unwanted elements’? And despite such open calls for genocide, no substantive action against the organisers or the instigators is to be seen.
There is no official statistics of such crimes available at the national level.
The studies show that this government has a scant regard for gathering data.In fact, it is accused of ‘suppressing crucial data’; and it is engaged in undermining ‘even the institutions responsible for data collection’’(12) Looking at stray reports, appearing here and there, it can be safely and correctly guessed that such murders, such attacks, have seen a quantum jump since the ascent of Hindutva Supremacist forces in this part of South Asia.
Firdaus Alam alias Asjad Babu – age 24 years – is dead.
We are told that a case has been filed by the police and the accused has been arrested.
Demands have been raised by concerned citizens that this killing be considered a hate crime, the accused be arrested under UAPA and the case should be dealt under a special court to expedite the whole process, to send a clear-cut message to all such fanatics.
Today, looking at the changed ambiance, it looks difficult that police would be keen to send such a message.
And one needs to ready for a long battle for justice; perhaps it would be crucial to understand why justice eluded in earlier cases and what corrective action(s) are needed.
Death of Asjad Babu in relatively peaceful times raises many questions before us.
The key question is why is it that violence against the religious minorities and ‘others’ never subsides completely, and it continues to simmer even in relatively peaceful times.
Whether it is an outcome of a wider and deeper penetration of Golwalkarian worldview among votaries of Hindutva politics, who in his book ‘Bunch of Thoughts’ lumps together Muslims, Christians and Communists as ‘internal enemies’ and considers them equally or rather more dangerous than ‘external enemies’.
Or it relates to what Prof Aijaz Ahmad calls the existence of ‘Cultures of Cruelty’ in our society.[https://www.jstor.org/stable/3517939]. According to him it is
“[a] much wider web of social sanctions in which one kind of violence can be tolerated all the more because many other kinds of violence are tolerated anyway. Dowry deaths do facilitate the burning of women out of communal motivations, and, together, these two kinds of violences do contribute to the making of a more generalised culture of cruelty as well as a more generalised ethical numbness toward cruelty as such.”
No doubt, these questions need detailed probing, and more about it sometime .
____________
Subhash Gatade is an eminent author, activist and the Convener of New Socialist Initiative. He is the author of Pahad Se Uncha Aadmi (2010), Godse’s Children: Hindutva Terror in India,(2011) and The Saffron Condition: The Politics of Repression and Exclusion in Neoliberal India (2011). The article first appeared in Counter Currents.
