THE GIST of Editorial for UPSC Exams : 27 March 2020 (Rising incidents of hate crimes point to the growing power of the lumpen (The Hindu))

Rising incidents of hate crimes point to the growing power of the lumpen (The Hindu)

Mains Paper 1: Society 
Prelims level: Hate Crimes 
Mains level:  Rising hate crimes and its prevention 

Context:

• There have been marked by hate crimes two Muslim men beaten by mobs in Jharkhand and Mumbai, demanding they shout ‘Jai Shri Ram’, one so mercilessly that he died. 
• Another man, a tribal, lynched in Tripura on suspicion of being a cattle thief. 
• Most recently, 24 men accused of being cattle smugglers, beaten and made to shout ‘Gau Mata ki Jai’, in Rajasthan.

CLICK HERE FOR FULL EDITORIAL (Only for Course Members)

A rising graph:

• Studies of hate crimes in India show that they have steadily risen over the past five years. 
• Amnesty International India documented 721 such incidents between 2015 and 2018. 
• Last year alone, it tracked 218 hate crimes, 142 of which were against Dalits, 50 against Muslims, 40 against women, and eight each against Christians, Adivasis, and transgenders. 
• The more common hate crimes, they found, were honour killings that have sadly occurred for decades and ‘cow-related violence’, that was rare earlier but has become more frequent over the past five years.
• These facts are striking enough to concern any government. 
• The Prime Minister expressed pain at the sickening murder of Tabrez Ansari in Jharkhand, but clearly far more is required. 
• The Rajasthan administration is introducing a Bill prohibiting cow vigilantism, but that deals with only one hate crime. 
• An omnibus act against all hate crimes, including hate speech, is required across India and should be a priority of the 17th Lok Sabha. 

CLICK HERE FOR FULL EDITORIAL (Only for Course Members)

Constitutional Provision: 

• Germany, for example, amended Section 46 of its Criminal Procedure Code, dealing with sentencing in violent crime, to say the sentence must be based on consideration of ‘the motives and aims of the offender, particularly where they are of a racist or xenophobic nature or where they show contempt for human dignity’.
• We have a number of sections in the Indian Penal Code that can be used to punish or even prevent hate crime, but they are disparate and few policemen are aware of them. 
• Those that are, fear to use them in areas whose political leaders mobilise through hate speech. 

CLICK HERE FOR FULL EDITORIAL (Only for Course Members)

Court directives:

• In 2018, the Supreme Court directed Central and State governments to make it widely known that lynching and mob violence would ‘invite serious consequence under the law’ (Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India and Ors).
• Then Home Minister Rajnath Singh told Parliament that the government had formed a panel to suggest measures to tackle mob violence, and would enact a law if necessary. 
• The panel’s recommendations are not in the public domain, and acts of hate crime do not appear to have diminished in the year since Mr. Singh’s promise.
• In a May 2019 report, Human Rights Watch India pointed out that only some States had complied with the Supreme Court’s orders to designate a senior police officer in every district to prevent incidents of mob violence and ensure that the police take prompt action, including safety for witnesses; set up fast-track courts in such cases; and take action against policemen or officials who failed to comply. 
• Those State governments that did comply, the report commented, did so only partially. In several instances, the police actually obstructed investigations, even filing charges against the victims.
• Whether it is political hate speech or police bias on the ground, there is little doubt that the national bar against hate crime has been lowered. 
• On television, we see replays of hate speech and videos of lynching.
• Though the accompanying commentary is critical, repeated iterations normalise the hateful. Indeed, anchors themselves resort to invective far more often than before note how Kashmiris are routinely heckled and abused on talk shows. 

CLICK HERE FOR FULL EDITORIAL (Only for Course Members)

Key steps needed:

• One of the policy issues that is high on the Modi administration’s list is dealing with incitement to violence through social media. 
• But the focus is on hate in relation to terrorism, and it is unclear whether government policy will extend to cover hate crime. 
• Important as it is to do so, the digital media is not the only offender. In fact, there are several obvious steps which would be easier to take and yield more immediate results than regulation of the digital media. 
• Parliament could enact an omnibus act against hate crime, and the Home Minister could set benchmarks for policemen and administrators to deal with hate crime. 
• The legislature and political parties could suspend or dismiss members who are implicated in hate crimes or practise hate speech.
• The electronic and print media could stop showing or publishing hateful comments and threats. 
• Priests could preach the values of tolerance and respect that are common to all religions and schools could revitalise courses on the directive principles of our Constitution.

Way forward:

• For a demographically diverse country such as India, hate crimes — including crimes of contempt — are a disaster. 
• Each of our religious and caste communities number in the millions, and crimes that are directed against any of these groups could result in a magnitude of disaffection that impels violence, even terrorism. 
• Far less diverse countries than India are already suffering the result of hate ‘moving into the mainstream’, as UN Secretary General António Guterres recently highlighted. 

CLICK HERE FOR FULL EDITORIAL (Only for Course Members)

Online Coaching for UPSC PRE Exam

General Studies Pre. Cum Mains Study Materials

Prelims Questions:

Q.1) With reference to the short duration discussion, Rajya Sabah, consider the following statements:
1. The Chairman decides the admissibility of the notice.
2. There is no formal motion before the House nor is there any voting but the member who raises the discussion has the right of reply.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
A.   1 only
B.   2 only
C.   Both
D.   None 

Answer.......................................

CLICK HERE FOR FULL EDITORIAL (Only for Course Members)

Mains Questions:
Q.1) The national bar against hate crime has been lowered, but resolute corrective action is possible. Critically analyse.