How can Bengaluru address mobilised violence?
Dec 7, 2020
Vibhuti Narain Rai, Venkatesh Bubberjung, Madhu Bhushan, Aditya Bharadwaja, Sneha Visakha and Raksha Kumar in converstion
There are significant socio-political, historic and economic concerns that engender mobilised violence but the inadequacy of the legal system and failure of sensible policing also play a role in the failure to prevent the occurrence of such violence.
Existing legal approaches have failed to curb mobilised violence and such incidents continue to occur. While some laws aim to address mobilised violence by imposing restrictions on hate speech and the formation of associations or assemblies, they are often broadly constructed, vague and misused. The discretion conferred by these laws to the State is wide-ranging and prone to abuse. Deficit state capacity and weak institutions, vulnerable to political interference and lack of accountability also seem to be responsible for the state of affairs.
Another cause for alarm is the use of extraordinary laws becoming common-place in addressing mobilised violence. Invoking the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967, which is India’s main anti-terrorist law, in cases of mobilised violence is concerning. Over the last two decades, UAPA’s scope has been significantly expanded through multiple amendments, to enable even minor infractions such as damaging government property, to constitute an act of terrorism. The move to invoke UAPA in the recent disturbances in Bengaluru has been severely criticised by lawyers and activists, who have termed it ‘indiscriminate use of a draconian law.’
Recently, there has also been calls to make the accused in these cases pay for the damage caused to public and private property during such violence. These developments warrant public engagement and critical discussion. What are the causes for the occurrence of mobilised violence in Bengaluru? How can such incidents be prevented? What are the problems endemic to legal and policing systems in Bengaluru that result in a failure to counter mobilised violence? How can the state address mobilised violence without endangering constitutionally guaranteed civil and political liberties? Is seeking economic compensation from the accused a viable and prudent solution?
Part of the Bengaluru Solution Series, in collaboration with CitizenMatters and Vidhi
