Opinion Rajasthan lynching case: Cop vigilante, vigilante cops
The Junaid and Nasir case involved the abduction, lynching, shooting and burning the captured persons. Such operations qualify as serious criminal activities
Charred remains of the vehicle, in which the bodies of the two men were found, at Loharu in Bhiwani district. (PTI) 
On February 15, two Muslim men, Junaid (32) and Nasir (25), who were travelling from their home in Rajasthan, were lynched and set ablaze in their Mahindra Bolero SUV. Investigations have indicated, yet again, that Haryana’s cow protectionists acted with the state police’s cognisance. Incidents of cow vigilantism are increasingly becoming frequent. The latest case, however, is particularly significant, because it reveals the fragile, and unpredictable, relationship between state and non-state actors. The state actors may deem certain acts of the vigilante groups undesirable and back away from the partnership, leaving the latter exposed. The delicate contract between the state and non-state actors seems to have come apart in Junaid and Nasir’s case.
As reported in this newspaper, the Haryana government’s Special Cow Protection Task Force comprises both state and non-state agents — the police and gau rakshaks. The gau rakshaks usually work in partnership with the police to facilitate arrests in alleged cases of illegal transportation, smuggling and slaughtering of cow progeny. Such incidents don’t always end in fatalities — they usually culminate in the arrest and charging of Muslim men under the Cow Slaughter Act.
The enforcement of this law often involves a division of labour – the gau rakshaks carry out the work that lies outside the law. The police step in and handle the arrests, register reports and lodge cases. Cases such as the burning and killing of Junaid and Nasir, however, disturb this state-non-state actor contract.
A similar incident took place in Kurukshetra, Haryana, in 2016. As reported by this paper, 27-year-old Mustain Abbas from Uttar Pradesh was brutally assaulted and killed by gau rakshaks on the Shahbad-Delhi road when he was returning home after buying cattle. The police were forced to locate Mustain’s body one month later and lodge an FIR against the gau rakshaks after the Punjab and Haryana High Court intervened. An analysis of the two cases reveals three common patterns:
First, the apprehension of alleged cow smugglers happens at inter-state borders and often follows a pattern of chase and assault. According to several reports, vigilantes routinely use force and employ measures such as barricading roads and pursuing vehicles on the highway. This is often followed by inflicting violence on the accused and seizing their cattle, if present.
In the Mustain Abbas case, his Mahindra pick-up truck was chased by a police van and a cow protectionists’ vehicle. The techniques used to capture him included firing bullets and spreading planks that had embedded nails on the road, puncturing the truck’s tyres and intercepting the vehicle through a high-speed chase and shooting, followed by assault and torture. The Junaid and Nasir case involved the abduction, lynching, shooting and burning the captured persons. Such operations qualify as serious criminal activities.
Second, there is a shifting of blame between the two agents – the vigilantes and the police – who would otherwise operate in a seemingly coordinated manner. In both cases, the gau rakshaks were reported to have turned over the Muslim men – brutalised but alive — to the police. In 2016, the gau rakshaks reported that they had beaten and shot Mustain Abbas and then handed him to the Shahbad police. Similarly, in the latest incident, Junaid and Nasir were allegedly handed to the Ferozepur Jhirka police after they were lynched. In both cases, the Haryana police refuted the claims and maintained that they had no knowledge of the incidents. This reveals a displacement of blame between the cow vigilantes and the police, although both parties had interests in apprehending the alleged cattle smugglers.
Third, in both cases – six years apart – the bodies of the lynched individuals were found far away from their last known locations. The bodies had been brutalised beyond recognition. This indicates attempts to conceal their identities.
In 2016, Mustain Abbas’ body was found lying in a drain, a month after he was shot in Kurukshetra. He was unrecognisable to his family. Similar attempts were made to conceal the bodies of Junaid and Nasir, whose charred skeletons were found 200km away in Bhiwani, Haryana. Such extreme measures indicate the culprits’ endeavours to distance their groups from any responsibility for the crimes. These incidents did not involve any celebration by the gau rakshaks.
An analysis of the two cases highlights three aspects of the state and non-state actors’ partnership — the need for coordination during the chase, assault and torture while apprehending alleged smugglers; the pattern of shifting responsibility when things don’t go as planned; and the use of excessive force to conceal any association with the crime.
In the 2016 case (Tahir Hasan v. State of Haryana & Ors), the Punjab and Haryana High Court stated that “even the senior functionaries of the police are hand-in-glove with such vigilante groups”. The court observed that “there is every likelihood that local police, to save its officers, and on account of political overtones is not likely to investigate this ugly incident in its entirety”. The Court directed the state to immediately transfer Shahbad’s district magistrate, superintendent, deputy superintendent and station house officer “to a far-off place at inconsequential posting… and ensure that they are not given postings where they could wield influence in the investigations and intimidate the witnesses.”
The blurred boundaries between the “state” and “non-state” actors often end up legitimising violence by the latter.
The writer is a Phd candidate at SOAS, UK.
Share
