Professor Martha Nussbaum is an American philosopher and social scientist who has been studying India for decades and written several books on democracy, violence, and diversity and its accommodation. Before her current stint at the Law School, University of Chicago, she has taught at Harvard University, Brown University, and Oxford University. Excerpts from an e-mail interview with SEEMA CHISHTI on increasing mob violence in India, and its effect: The US saw cases of lynchings or mob assault against blacks, and such incidents have been reported from other parts of the world too. How was the US able to tackle this, for example? The lynchings ended very gradually. A number of different factors contributed: strong leadership on civil rights from the national government; a determined effort to remove obstacles to voting for black Americans and to include blacks on criminal juries; effective criminal defence of blacks wrongly charged with crimes against whites (the movie Marshall narrates a part of this); gradual pressure to integrate public facilities, culminating in the protest movement led by Martin Luther King, Jr; and very slow social change. But even though there aren’t lynchings any more, we still have a huge problem of police violence against African-Americans, and racist hatred is still strong in some parts of our society. Does this also require a strong message coming from the law? Absolutely. The signal needs to come from the top, with both national and state governments stating unequivocally that hate crimes are unacceptable, and then following that up with prosecution of offenders. Enhanced penalties for bias crimes have a signalling effect. This is not taking place in India today, and there is a covert signal that such crimes are an acceptable expression of Hindutva. It is especially shocking that at times bar associations have refused to defend Muslims who have been accused of crimes. The bar needs to be the protector of minorities, and I think the legal profession needs to examine itself. More generally, the Hindutva sentiment that India is a Hindu nation and that Muslims (and Christians) really do not belong creates an atmosphere in which violence can easily be ignited. What implications do cases like these have on how the minorities see themselves? Well, the (Indian) Constitution is an admirable document, and (B R) Ambedkar designed it to be the protector of minorities. But the legal profession, the courts, the police, need to live up to the values it contains. As we know from the Sachar report, the Muslim minority is already extremely disadvantaged in education and employment. With so few able to enter the top law schools and to attain other positions of influence in society, it is hard to change the atmosphere that breeds violence. Minorities right now see themselves as despised by society, since they experience discrimination and do not receive any benefits of affirmative action that might correct this situation. And they know all too well what Hindutva ideology means for their status in society. What does mob violence of the kind being seen portend for the future of democracy here? Mob rule is always extremely dangerous for the future of democracy. What it means, really, is that the rule of law can be suspended if the members of the mob are of the majority religion or race or ideology. The only remedy for this is strict enforcement of the law by police, by lawyers, by courts. All too often that is not happening. I recommend to your readers a speech by the great lawyer Clarence Darrow in the 1920s, while defending a young black man, Henry Sweet, in a case of mob violence. A white mob had assembled to drive the Sweet family out of a previously all-white part of Detroit. For days they threatened the family, locked inside the house, and finally the family fired shots in their own defence. It was a crystal clear case of self-defence but instead they were charged with murder. Darrow’s glorious speech unmasks all the lies that society tells itself in cases like this, and even with an all-white jury, he secured the acquittal of the defendant. What can be done by way of confidence-building? Well, you shouldn’t build false confidence. What is needed is a society-wide protest movement demanding better police education, greater accountability for those who commit bias crimes. in short society-wide implementation of the ideals of the Constitution. This needs to be a mass movement of non-violent protest, and it needs to join Hindus and minorities in a firm demand that this sort of thing must stop. Only if the majority expresses the will to defend minority rights will minorities be able to feel confidence. I don’t see leadership in this direction right now. Even the Congress has been soft on such things. It struck me as quite remarkable that the strongest statement recently against mob violence from a top politician came from Lalu Prasad. If India has to depend on Lalu to be the one to uphold the Constitution, things are not in a good state! It was in fact a fine speech, but where were all the other voices? . (This) makes me extremely sad, because I love India, and I think the nation is currently betraying its best self.
