JOIN USWhy Vikas Dubey won’t be the last to die in police custody
Given the brazenness of Uttar Pradesh police in the custodial murder of Vikas Dubey, it was natural that the majority of people who responded to the incident, flagged questions regarding governance in Uttar Pradesh, political accountability, police reforms, procedural matters, violation of Supreme Court guidelines regarding conditions when accused can be handcuffed and brazen 'sanitisation' of the particular highway stretch prior to the 'encounter'.
Deaths in custody must include the entire process starting with the detention and interrogation prior to arrest, transport to a facility and during captivity, judicial or otherwise. Vikas Dubey was not the first to die in police or judicial custody, in transit or in lockup or jail. He certainly shall not be the last. Opacity shrouding other 'encounters' in which Dubey's aides were eliminated, puts closure to the gangster's possible links with police, politicians, government officials, including the judiciary. This also is not the first time that tongues which could wag, were permanently silenced.
Acceptability of police violence
Police brutality, from the stage of apprehension to formal arrest and eventual transfer of accused to a judicial facility, is an accepted part of Indian consciousness. From television serials to popular cinema, the baton is shown as the most favoured weapon of the typical cop. Likeliest directives of seniors to subordinates during interrogation is koot dalo isko (bash him up) or similar phrases in other Indian languages. Majority of the people see such scenes without flinching, even endorsing police tactics by contending that there is no other way to ‘get dreaded criminals to reveal dark secrets.
The Vikas Dubey case needs to be examined from another side of the prism – that of the growing culture of public acceptability of custodial killings and verdicts of kangaroo courts. Although outrage and cynicism was the most commonly heard public response in the wake of Dubey's murder, there was a muted sentiment that justified the gangster's murder, irrespective of the means. A common refrain on social media that half-justified the action of the Special Task Force of UP Police was that "those who live by the gun, die by the gun."
Dubey certainly did not merit sympathy. Yet the due process of law was his entitlement. The police, because they are primarily law enforces, needed to go by the old adage of a person being deemed innocent till found guilty. And, guilt has to be duly apportioned by appointed courts, part of the judicial system. But we are witness to, not for the first time again, nascent justification for actions of the UP police. There are reports of family members of the cops who died in the action, expressing satisfaction and sensing that justice was 'delivered'. Many in society 'forward' such a viewpoint.
Backing for Hyderabad ‘encounters’
The 'support' for police action in the Dubey case certainly does not match the extent of backing for Telangana police after the murder of four men, accused of raping and murdering a Hyderabad veterinary doctor. In December 2019 too, the police acted after public outrage over the abduction and rape of the young doctor from a fairly public and crowded place.
Failure of the police in ensuring that a toll-plaza, of all places, must not become a place where potential rapists have a drink or two before zeroing in on a victim, was forgotten by celebrities and political leaders alike. No one asked in indignation why such a horrific crime was allowed to be committed at 9 pm in a place where police presence must be mandatory.
Instead, political leaders and celebrities alike gave a call to junk laws made by their predecessors. Some like Jaya Bachchan, who strides across the world of entertainment and politics, assumed the role of the foul-mouthed character from Lewis Caroll's immortal Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. Although she had wanted the four accused to "be lynched," the police did not repose faith in the public and instead staged an 'encounter' and pulled the triggers themselves.
But not all custodial murders end in valorising police personnel who committed the act. The recent death of the father and son, allegedly due to custodial torture in a town near Thoothukudi in Tamil Nadu sparked rage across the state and is a case in point. The difference however, is because the deceased duo did not have a criminal past. Instead, they were small time traders and this made the difference in public reaction. It is evident that people veer around to the viewpoint that anyone with an alleged criminal past is not entitled to the due process of law and the safeguards that are laid down.
Not a new development
Forty years ago, in the winter months of 1980, several newspapers and magazines carried detailed reports on what came to be known as the Bhagalpur blindings. It turned out that the police in this Bihar city known for its eponymous silk, had blinded 33 under trials over a two year period by pouring acid in their eyes. The case became a judicial landmark and the Supreme Court ordered compensation for the human rights violations.
Filmmaker Prakash Jha made the successful Gangajal – the moniker given by the police and the people to acid – based on this incident which created anger in the media, catalysing the emergence of investigative journalism that saw a spate of 'police brutality' stories. What missed public attention amid the furore was support from the local people for police action.
The reasons cited four decades ago remain the same: First, the process of justice is agonisingly slow and crimes committed are rarely punished because witnesses either get fatigued, won over, or lose interest after migrating elsewhere in search of livelihood. Second, society must have proper 'deterrent' and if this does not exist by legal means, extra-legal processes are acceptable.
In one way or another, public backing has always existed for extra-legal police action, at times resulting in custodial deaths, but in most cases stopping at extreme torture leaving accused permanently maimed. Support existed for political reasons too – for instance 'encounter deaths' of dacoits in UP in the early 1980s and when extra-judicial action in Punjab and later Jammu and Kashmir found acceptability for 'nationalist reasons.' That cinema has valorised 'encounter specialists' with laudatory titles like Ab Tak Chhappan (So far 56) is because 'encounter' specialists are either rewarded or even provided specific briefs to eliminate alleged criminals or terrorists,
Mobs as dispensers of justice
In recent years, we have witnessed a steady rise in incidents of mob lynching where it is not police but a politically-motivated crowd which acts as dispensers of punishment. In these cases, kangaroo courts concluded that a person, merely suspected to have committed a crime, is indeed guilty. Thereafter, it is the mob that lets itself loose, while the police remain mere onlookers. Most incidents of lynching have the colour of majoritarianism.
The State has tacitly endorsed these incidents. Furthermore, mob violence has never been systematically investigated because for the State, rising acceptability of extra-legal policing and custodial deaths comes as a handy ploy. This enables the State to free its arm while pursuing its political objective. Which is why it becomes more imperative to argue that for democracy to be true, even those who do not live by the law, must die by the law.
(Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay is a Delhi-based journalist and author. His latest book is RSS: Icons Of The Indian Right. He has also written Narendra Modi: The Man, The Times (2013))
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author’s own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.