A foul cry: On alleged attempts to ‘desecrate’ Punjab

In a disturbing sequence of events, two men were lynched over alleged attempts “Sacrifice” in the sanctum On the Golden Temple and the Sikh flag in Amritsar Gurdwara in Nizampur village of Kapurthala Earlier this week in Punjab with the passion to hold elections in the state early next year, political parties have jumped into the fray to slap stringent laws and alleging conspiracies. Prominent political leaders scoffed at alleged attempts to sabotage, but some questioned the killings of alleged perpetrators, not even investigating their crimes. The use of vigilantism as retribution for their alleged acts is clearly illegal, but it is also deeply problematic in other ways as it has ruled out any possibility of ascertaining why these incidents occurred and whether they were communal. There were attempts to create tension. In Nizampur incident, police have told unknown person as lynching servitor The gurdwara was most likely to be a thief, which suggests that the police should book those who took the law into their own hands. Maintaining law and order is paramount to reduce tensions related to religious sentiments and, unfortunately, the proximity of elections makes this a possibility.

the ruble-raising State Congress President Navjot Singh Sidhu, for example, extended eastward by demanding “public executions” for those convicted of offenses of sacrilege. Earlier in 2018, the state cabinet had sought passage of amendments to the Indian Penal Code (IPC) seeking life imprisonment for those convicted of sacrilege against holy books of major religions, a problematic resolution that included Very high punishment was demanded for the crimes. The proposal itself was redundant as the Supreme Court clarified that Section 295A of the IPC “punishes for a serious form of insult to religion if done with intentional and malicious intent to outrage religious feelings”. Also, if enforced, it could be used to jail miscreants for up to three years. It is a section misused to prosecute people in the name of protecting the sentiments of sections of the society, thereby affecting the freedom of expression. Seeking extraordinary punishment for offenses that are vaguely defined as “sacrificing” would be an even more regressive step as demonstrated elsewhere by the application of stringent “blasphemy laws”. The state should now allow the police to conduct thorough interrogation. Those involved in vigilance should also be brought to justice. Meanwhile, political parties committed to peace in the state should try to assuage any public anger over the alleged acts of “profanity” and not allow it to escalate into communal tension.