Jaipur Express shooting: Does India need a law to address hate crimes?
In the wake of the horrific shooting of four people, including three Muslims by a Railway Protection Force (RPF) jawan on the Jaipur Express, observers are now asking if there is a need for specific legislation against hate crimes of this nature. At the other end of the conversation, there are attempts to explain the actions of the shooter, Chetan Singh, by referring to his mental health record instead of focusing on the communal nature of the crime. As early news reports pointed out, Chetan allegedly scoured through several coaches looking for suitable targets and picked out only Muslims among hundreds of other passengers. The three passenger victims – Abdul Kadarbhai Mohammed Hussain Bhanpurwala, Asgar Abbas Sheikh and Syed Saifuddin – are all Muslim.
A 2021 paper in the International Journal of Law Management & Humanities addresses the issue of defining hate crimes in the absence of special legislation. The paper, titled Legal Regulation of Hate Crimes in India: A Look at the Current Regime and its Shortcomings, says, “There is no legally consensual definition for hate crime, however, the most popular definition widely accepted is that ‘A hate crime, also known as a bias crime, is a criminal offence committed against a person, property, or society which is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin.’ Hate crimes are mostly violent in nature while other discreet manners also exist. In this form of crime the individual is seen as a representative of the community … and targeted for this affiliation.”
Whether the Jaipur Express killings qualify as a hate crime or not is still being debated but this is how the sequence of events seems to have played out.
Chetan first killed his superior officer, Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) Tikaram Meena, who belongs to a Scheduled Tribe, before proceeding to gun down three Muslim passengers who he allegedly picked at random based on their appearance.
ASI Meena and a passenger Abdul Kaderbhai Bhanpurwala were killed in Coach-B5. He then passed through four coaches until he found his second target in the pantry car. Chetan then passed through two more coaches before arriving at Coach-S6 where he killed his third victim Asgar Abbas Sheikh.
What Chetan allegedly said after killing the four men gives an insight into the killer’s ideology and motivations. Standing over the dead bodies of the Muslim men, without any apparent remorse, he could be heard saying in a video, “They are operating from Pakistan and the media is showing that they know everything that these people are up to. If you want to vote and stay in Hindustan there are only two people to vote for–Modi and Yogi [Adityanath].” The video, which was shot by passengers, is being forensically examined by the investigating agencies.
Is it time for a special legislation against hate crimes?
The General Secretary of People's Union For Civil Liberties (PUCL) Kavita Srivastava tells TNM, “Hate crime is a product of a certain politics and presently it is Hindu majoritarian. So no police, especially in BJP-ruled states, is going to pull o,ut sections (of the IPC) that are applicable for hate crimes.”
She says that there are enough laws to deal with hate crimes, but it is often the case that the police either do not use the relevant I,PC sections when filing a case, or even if they do, no further action is taken. Kavita says that despite pending cases against Vishwa Hindu Parishad’s (VHP) Sadhvi Prachi and godman Ramkrishna Yadav, aka Baba Ramdev no action has been taken against them so far.
“We have cyber protection laws now, because what they say is all over social media,” Kavita says, adding, “On the other hand, immediate police action is taken when there are voices against the government. Even recently, CPI leader Annie Raja and two others were booked for calling the violence in Manipur state-sponsored. The I,PC sections against Annie included 124 (assault of president and governor) a,nd sections 153a and b which relate to spreading religious discord. If it had been a Muslim that killed three Hindus on the Jaipur Express, there would have been swift moves to call it an act of terror and the NIA [National Investigative Agency] would have come into the picture.”
Kavita also recalls the murder Kanhaiya Lal in Udaipur in June last year. “A Hindu tailor was murdered by two Muslim men and the NIA was roped in to investigate by the Union government. The attack was even attributed to Pakistan. But if you are a Hindu and go on a counter killing, nothing like that happens. They talk about the accused being mentally ill but you have to remember these are not stray killings. Why did he target only the persons who looked like Muslims.? It comes back to the statement that [Prime Minister] Narendra Modi made about identifying people by their clothes.” Kavita is referring to Modi’s statement in 2019 against anti-CAA protestors and the communal angle suggestive in his comments about identifying protestors by their clothes.
It is not about hate crime, it is about impunity and amnesty, she adds, “And the police are often complicit.”
What Kavita points out also recalls the Kerala train arson attack of April 2023, the NIA was pulled in after the accused was identified as a Muslim man from Delhi. The accused, Shahrukh Saifi, had sprinkled petrol over passengers in a compartment of the train and set it ablaze. Though most passengers escaped, three died while attempting to jump from the train when they were pulled under the wheels instead. The NIA took over the case from the local police, and invok,ed sections of the UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act).
Activist and author Harsh Mander tells TNM, “Focusing on the need for special legislation against hate crimes is a bit simplistic. There are already some laws in place such as I,PC sections governing hate speech. The real problem is the State is on the side of the perpetrators while simultaneously, the current laws have not envisioned such a political situation, he says, adding that, “In the last 7 to 8 years there has been a steady rise in hate-based violence whether it is lynchings based on the so-called ‘love jihad’ or cow protection. Several patterns have become apparent in these crimes. One is crowd participation in terms of actively carrying out the violence or by simply watching on. In these instances, we also see that the police also participate.”
Harsh also addresses the concern of the practicality of bringing in special anti-hate crime laws, when it is the BJP regime that is backing the violence. “Opposition parties need to take a clearer stance on this matter. During the previous UPA [the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance], I was a part of the National Advisory Council. At the time, we came up with an anti-communal violence law, but there was no political will to implement it. If we do not learn from the current situation where there is no access to justice for victims, the future looks terrifying.”
Harsh also draws attention to the narratives that have been set so far when lynchings take place. “Instead of the victims getting justice, it is they who are framed as the guilty party, while the perpetrator is presented as someone understandably incensed.”
In that regard, Harsh also responds to the current narrative around Chetan’s mental health as a factor in the crime he committed. “The shooting cannot be seen as an act (borne out) of mental illness. It is targeted hate violence that is legitimised by the ruling BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party] regime. It must be noted that the mental health narrative is eerily similar to the narrative in the US and other global north countries where mass shootings are a common occurrence. In those instances, media and state narratives afford the doubt of poor mental health to white perpetrators, while Black and Brown perpetrators are characterised as either criminals or terrorists.
Commenting on this similarity, Harsh says, “Take the 2011 Norway Massacre for example. It took a long time for the country to admit that the perpetrator was motivated by radicalised white supremacist ideals. But when an Islamist terror group attacks, there is no such conversation about mental health. In India, it is caste or religion, or class that decides whether mental health is factored into the narrative.
Meanwhile, The Wire reports that the remand copy filed by the police makes no mention of the communal speech made by Chetan. It instead focuses entirely on Singh’s “illness” and indicates that he is mentally unstable, causing him to take an extreme step, The Wire further reports. Chetan is as of now charged under I,PC section 302 (murder), the Arms Act, and the Indian Railways Act. In line with what both Kavita and Harsh highlight, I,PC sections regarding even hate speech are missing from the remand copy.
Further, on Tuesday, Aug 2, TOI reports having accessed Chetan’s medical records. TOI claims that according to the medical records, the jawan was on prescribed antipsychotic drugs, and that he suffered from “abnormal hallucinations” and an anxiety disorder. TOI further adds that Chetan had also consulted a neurosurgeon for his hallucinations, aggressive behaviour and headaches and that he allegedly has microhemorrhages in the brain.
The newspaper also claims to have spoken to a senior doctor in the Agra Institute of Mental Health and Hospital, who reportedly told TOI that, “It is shocking that the man was assigned duty with a weapon on a train full of passengers. As per the medical records, he too is a victim.”
While the medical records of Chetan provide a complicated angle, it also raises ethical questions about conflating violent crime, particularly hate crime, with mental health conditions. Further, the situation echoes concerns raised in countries like the US when police brutality by white officers is routinely blamed on poor mental health rather than institutional racism.
Mental health narrative and the harm it causes
Citing poor mental health when a violent crime is committed has multiple consequences, psychiatrist Thara co-founder of the not-for-profit organisation Schizophrenia Research Foundation (SCARF) points out. “A US-based study has proved only 3-5% of people with mental health conditions are an actual threat,” she says, adding, “India does not have a similar study but from clinical experience, we can emphasise that those with mental illness are rarely violent. Yes, they may at times resort to verbal abuse but hardly violence. Often, in the instances there is any violence the use of substances like alcohol is the underlying cause.”
She further says that when it comes to the specific problem of hate crimes the perpetrators are rarely those with mental health conditions. “In India, take caste killings for example. In the event of an inter-caste marriage, the couple are killed by close family. Hate crimes are committed here on the basis of caste or religion or other such factors. In my 40 years of experience, rarely have I seen that such perpetrators have any mental illnesses.”
On the other hand, she agrees that making allowances for poor mental health is a privilege offered across the globe on the basis of ethnicity, race, religion, or caste. “A white perpetrator of a hate crime is able to take refuge under their mental health in the US. In India, that privilege is afforded to an upper caste individual, but never a Dalit person, for example,” she adds.
With Inputs from Cris