❈ ❈ ❈

Is There Any ‘Honour’ in Killing?

K. Chandru

“We sometimes hear of ‘honour’ killings of such persons who undergo inter-caste or inter-religious marriage of their own free will. There is nothing honourable in such killings, and in fact they are nothing but barbaric and shameful acts of murder committed by brutal, feudal minded persons who deserve harsh punishment. Only in this way can we stamp out such acts of barbarism.”

These were the Supreme Court’s words in the Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh case (2006). The apex court went on to state:

“The caste system is a curse on the nation and the sooner it is destroyed the better. In fact, it is dividing the nation at a time when we have to be united to face the challenges before the nation unitedly. Hence, inter-caste marriages are in fact in the national interest as they will result in destroying the caste system. However, disturbing news are coming from several parts of the country that young men and women who undergo inter-caste marriage, are threatened with violence, or violence is actually committed on them.

“In our opinion, such acts of violence or threats or harassment are wholly illegal and those who commit them must be severely punished. This is a free and democratic country, and once a person becomes a major, he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes. If the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage, the maximum they can do is that they can cut off social relations with the son or the daughter, but they cannot give threats or commit or instigate acts of violence and cannot harass the person who undergoes such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage.”

There could not have been a better explanation of the issue of killing of young couples from different castes solely for the reason of caste. The court also gave a positive direction not only to the Uttar Pradesh government but to all State governments:

“We, therefore, direct that the administration/police authorities throughout the country will see to it that if any boy or girl who is a major undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious marriage with a woman or man who is a major, the couple are not harassed by any one nor subjected to threats or acts of violence, and any one who gives such threats or harasses or commits acts of violence either himself or at his instigation, is taken to task by instituting criminal proceedings by the police against such persons and further stern action is taken against such persons as provided by law.”

Despite this direction, the Union government of the day did little except give sermons to the State governments. In 2009, former Home Minister P. Chidambaram told the Rajya Sabha that the National Crime Records Bureau did not have any data on this crime because “it is difficult to identify or classify an honour killing as such in any given community, since the reasons for such killings often remain a closely guarded private family matter. There is no separate law to deal with the crime of ‘honour killing’, and such crimes are dealt with under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and are investigated and prosecuted as offences under the IPC/Cr. P.C.”

Chidambaram reiterated that his government condemned crimes committed to uphold the honour of the family or the victim or women in general, and was open to a wide discussion on how to prevent them. Claiming that the Union government had initiated legislative and ameliorative measures to check such crimes, he thereafter relegated the issue to State governments by pointing out that the subjects of police and public order were a State subject.

A reference was made to the Law Commissioner headed by Justice P.V. Reddi, to submit a report on this issue. In its 242nd Report, the Law Commission recommended the passing of a separate legislation. It advised that the members of the community gathering to protest the marriage or calling for social boycott be treated as an unlawful assembly and given a mandatory minimum sentence. It also proposed a new Bill named “Prohibition of Interference with Matrimonial Alliances” in the name of Honour and Tradition Bill. Accepting the report, the government introduced the Bill in the Rajya Sabha as The Prevention of Crimes in the Name of Honour & Tradition Bill, 2010.

‘Rarest of rare cases deserving death punishment’

Long after the Lata Singh case, when there was a similar incident in Delhi, the court once again highlighted the previous ruling in Bhagwan Dass v. State (Nct) of Delhi case (2011) and observed: “‘Honour’ killings have become commonplace in many parts of the country, particularly in Haryana, western Uttar Pradesh, and Rajasthan. Often, young couples who fall in love have to seek shelter in the police lines or protection homes, to avoid the wrath of kangaroo courts. We have held in Lata Singh’s case (supra) that there is nothing ‘honourable’ in `honour’ killings, and they are nothing but barbaric and brutal murders by bigoted, persons with feudal minds. … Honour killings, for whatever reason, come within the category of rarest of rare cases deserving death punishment. It is time to stamp out these barbaric, feudal practices which are a slur on our nation. This is necessary as a deterrent for such outrageous, uncivilised behaviour. All persons who are planning to perpetrate ‘honour’ killings should know that the gallows await them.”

V. Vijayasai Reddy, the leader of the YSR Congress in the Rajya Sabha, introduced a Private Member Bill (2017) in order to protect individual liberty, right of association, movement and bodily integrity and the right of adults to choose their own partners in marriage and to prevent victimisation by prohibiting unlawful assemblies and other conducts interfering with matrimonial alliances in the name of honour and tradition.

Meanwhile, the NGO Shakti Vahini moved the Supreme Court with a petition “seeking directions to all State governments and the Central government to take preventive steps to combat honour crimes, to submit a National Plan of Action and State Plan of Action to curb crimes of the said nature and further, to direct the State governments to constitute special cells in each district which can be approached by the couples for their safety and well-being”. Shakti Vahini also sought to “launch prosecutions in each case of honour killing and take appropriate measures so that such honour crimes and embedded evil in the mindset of certain members of the society are dealt with iron hands”.

The Supreme Court gave several directions for preventive measures and steps to be taken by the police officers in case of any complaint received from newlywed couples in inter-caste marriages. It directed the creation of special cells in every district and also authorised the police to invoke Section 151 the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC, now the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) in areas disturbed by communal threats. The direction included safe houses for the young couples directly under the supervision of the District Magistrate and the police. The apex court also directed the providing of logistical support to the couples to register their marriage by giving police protection and the establishment of a 24-hour helpline by the special cells. It also directed the State governments to establish designated courts to try the offence expeditiously and directed that the cases be heard by a jurisdictional judge who would not otherwise be disturbed.

Tamil Nadu’s badge of shame

While dealing with these cases, the Supreme Court often addressed the problem of khap panchayats in the northern States that punish couples for crossing caste barriers. It was scarcely realised that this was not a phenomenon unique to North India. As things stand today, Tamil Nadu, which prides itself on leading in the economic advancement index and boasts about attaining cent percent literacy soon, now tops the crime statistics for reported killings of couples who marry outside their caste.

These issues have been repeatedly raised in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly by the members of the CPI(M) under the previous AIADMK government (before 2021) as well, only to receive a lukewarm response. In 2014, distressed by the killing of young couples in the name of family honour, the Madras High Court directed the Tamil Nadu government to implement measures to protect inter-caste couples. Justice V. Ramasubramanian directed the government to establish a special cell in each district to receive complaints from couples who faced threats for marrying across the caste divide. The cells, which were to be set up in three months, would comprise the Superintendent of Police, the District Social Welfare Officer, and the District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer. The only action on the part of the government was to constitute a special police cell in Madurai District. Apart from that, there has been no concerted attempt to tackle the issue of honour killing.

Interestingly, in 2015, Justice K. Kannan of the Punjab and Haryana High Court followed the precedent set by the Madras High Court and passed a similar order to curb honour killings.

According to the Dalit rights activist Kathir, founder of the NGO Evidence, there were as many as 400 instances of honour crimes—including honour killings—recorded in Tamil Nadu from 2018 to 2023. Submitting a petition to the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu in 2022, Kathir claimed that the Rajasthan legislation was not satisfactory and Tamil Nadu should enact a new law, and proposed a draft Bill named “The Freedom of Marriage and Association and Prohibition of Crimes in the Name of Honour Bill 2022”.

In 2024, the CPI(M) MP from Kerala V. Sivadasan moved a private member Bill in the Rajya Sabha seeking the establishment of a National Commission for Protection from Honour Crime. He explained the objects and reasons for moving the Bill as follows: “Young couples, particularly women, who go against the religious, cultural norms and/or societal norms being followed by a person or a group of persons are often subjected to various crimes like harassment, violence, sexual abuse and even murder, under the pretext of preserving honour. Recently, there has been a significant increase in the number of such crimes across the country. Such horrendous honour crimes need to be eradicated from the society. A clear message should be given to the perpetrators that they will be severely dealt with.

“This Bill aims to achieve the said objective by creation of a mechanism, which will work efficiently to address this social malady and for this purpose it is proposed to declare honour crime as a non-bailable offence, prescribing punishments for various honour crimes and constitute a National Commission for Protection from Honour Crimes Board to look into such matters.”

While the rest of India remains deeply concerned about honour killings and has been discussing the strategies to prevent the same, the Uttar Pradesh government has introduced the Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion (Amendment) Bill 2024. The Bill states: “… if for religious conversion, the life or wealth of a person is put under threat, or there is use of force or there is marriage or promise of marriage for religious conversion, punishment will range from 20 years imprisonment to life imprisonment”. This compels us to consider whether intentional communal polarisation will only further exacerbate the already volatile situation with regard to both inter-caste marriages and inter-religious marriages.

On July 27, Kavin Selvaganesh, a software engineer belonging to the Scheduled Caste, was killed in Tirunelveli by Surjith, the brother of his girlfriend Subashini, a Siddha doctor belonging to a Most Backward Caste. Although the murder sent shock waves in Tamil Nadu, it failed to elicit the universal condemnation seen in cases such as the custodial killings of Jayaraj and Bennix by the Sathankulam police and or the death of Ajith Kumar by the Special Police Team set up by the DSP, Manamadurai.

It appears while the voices of condemnation are unanimous in case of state excesses, in the case of honour killings, the condemnation is only from the political groups. The dominant caste-based groups are not only silent on the issue, but also take a peculiar line. Leaders of the three dominant communities of the Tirunelveli and Thoothukudi region i.e. the Nadars, Mukkulathors, and Pallars, claimed that while the killing of Kavin was not acceptable, this issue could be avoided if he had chosen to marry a girl of his own caste. Dr K. Krishnasamy, the leader of Puthiya Tamilagam Party, which largely represents a certain Scheduled Caste in south Tamil Nadu, was of the opinion that it was necessary to obtain parental consent for such marriages.

While several political parties (including the allies of the ruling DMK) have vociferously demanded that a special legislation be enacted by the State government, there has been no official response so far. This only shows that both the Centre and State governments may indulge in rhetoric but are not willing to act on finding an appropriate solution to the problem. One can understand that the issue of inter-caste marriage, especially when one of the spouses belongs to a Scheduled Caste, is a little sensitive; at the same time, the continuous barbaric killing of the Scheduled Caste spouse (rarely is it the caste Hindu spouse) has not stirred the conscience of the public. The response of the State government is also weak and it has not risen to the occasion.

The directions to the State governments in the Lata Singh and Bhagwan Dass cases,and later by Shakti Vahini, are yet to be implemented. While the previous AIADMK government had announced that it would set up a special task force in Madurai city to prevent such happenings, it is not clear as to why this would be implemented only in Madurai, and not in other, more sensitive districts south of Madurai.

The ruling DMK government has also not come out with a strong response to the case. It must be noted that the parents of Subashini and Surjith are both sub-inspectors of police in Tamil Nadu. While the FIR referred to the names of the brother and the father and mother, the police have arrested only the brother and the father, not the mother who is also a serving police officer.

More than enacting a special legislation, even if actions are initiated under the existing laws as claimed by the government, the investigation and the subsequent trial and conviction will take its own time. It is still unclear what should be the punishment and who should be hauled up as accused in the trial. However, even higher courts have not shed their inhibitions in the matter of punishment.

In the Dilip Premnarayan Tiwari & Anr v. State of Maharashtra case (2009), the Supreme Court reduced the punishment imposed on a brother who killed his younger sister. The court went on to justify this, stating:

“Sushma was the younger sister of this accused. It is a common experience that when the younger sister commits something unusual and in this case it was an intercaste, intercommunity marriage out of the secret love affair, then in the society it is the elder brother who justifiably or otherwise is held responsible for not stopping such affair. It is held as the family defeat. At times, he has to suffer taunts and snide remarks even from the persons who really have no business to poke their nose into the affairs of the family. Dilip, therefore, must have been a prey of the so-called insult which his younger sister had imposed upon his family and that must have been in his mind for seven long months.

“It has come in the evidence that even if the marriage was performed with Prabhu, there were efforts made by the family members of Dilip to bring Sushma back. It has come in evidence that mother of Dilip tried to lure back Sushma and so did her other married sister Kalpana who actually went on to meet Sushma in her college. Those efforts paid no dividends. Instead, Sushma kept on attending the college, thereby openly mixing with the society. This must have added insult to the injury felt by the family members, and more particularly, accused Dilip. Why did he wait for seven months?

“The answer lies in the fact that Sushma became pregnant and thus reached a point of no return. Till such time as she became pregnant, there might have been some hopes in the family to win her back but once she became pregnant, even that distant hope faded away and, in our opinion, that is the reason why this ghastly episode took place. As if all this was not sufficient, Dilip himself must have had the feeling of being cheated. It is not that Dilip did not know Prabhu who was living only three houses away from his house. The secret love affair which went on between Sushma and Prabhu for which Abhayraj acted as a messenger must have raised the feeling of being cheated by Prabhu. This was further aggravated because of the so-called higher status of a Brahmin family on the part of Dilip and so-called non-Brahmin status of Prabhu.

“It has come on record that Sushma was moved to Andheri at [sic] the house of Shashidharan and this ought to have added as a spark which resulted in a tornado. Dilip undoubtedly was a young person not even having crossed his 25 years of life and not having any criminal antecedent. If he became the victim of his wrong but genuine caste considerations, it would not justify the death sentence. The murders were the outcome of social issue like a marriage with a person of so-called lower caste. However, a time has come when we have to consider these social issues as relevant, while considering the death sentence in the circumstances as these. The caste is a concept which grips a person before his birth and does not leave him even after his death. The vicious grip of the caste, community, religion, though totally unjustified, is a stark reality. The psyche of the offender in the background of a social issue like an inter-caste-community marriage, though wholly unjustified, would have to be considered in the peculiar circumstances of this case.”

After exhorting that there is no honour in such killings and that it should be held as a brutal murder with appropriate imposition of penalty, it is unbelievable that courts should reduce penalties based on brother-sister sentiment and supposed restoration of family honour by the male relatives of the woman.

One reason why the judiciary also deals with such issues is owing to lack of focus and enough leverage available under the existing system of law. It is high time that the state enacted a special law to sternly deal with the issue of honour killing and also carry out the various directions issued by the Supreme Court to protect and safeguard couples who marry out of their caste.

As far as the judges are concerned, the Supreme Court has sounded its bugle in the Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India case (2024): “The fight against caste-based discrimination is not a battle that can be won overnight; it requires sustained effort, dedication, and the willingness to confront and challenge societal norms that perpetuate inequality. When faced with practices of caste-based discrimination, this Court must take an active stand. In entertaining the current petition, this Court is making its contribution to the ongoing struggle to dismantle caste-based discrimination.”

[Justice K. Chandru is a retired judge of the Madras High Court. Courtesy: Frontline, a fortnightly English language magazine published by The Hindu Group of publications headquartered in Chennai, India.]

❈ ❈ ❈

Tamil Nadu’s Journey From Social Justice Towards ‘(Dis)Honour Killings’

Karthikeyan Damodaran and Hugo Gorringe

The image of a socially progressive ‘land of Periyar’ and cradle of the self-respect movement, has been tarnished yet again by the brutal murder of an upwardly mobile Dalit man named Kavin Selva Ganesh, a techie working in one of India’s topmost information technology companies who dared to love across caste lines. This murder is to reiterate the fact that economic mobility does not necessarily guarantee social acceptance within a rigid caste order.

Pushed to respond more proactively towards casteism by Dalit movements and parties, the Dravidian government in the state of Tamil Nadu has taken a number of symbolic measures recently to lay claim towards social justice. This includes the recent renaming of all student hostels of Other Backward Classes (BC), Most Backward Classes (MBC) and Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) as Social Justice Hostels.

The aim is to erase all caste identifiers in educational institutions, with a view to tackling caste-based polarisation. Although this move – and other such symbolically important steps – are projected as advancing the social justice driven ideal of the much-promoted Dravidian Model, these champions of justice often remain muted in the wake of caste atrocities. It occurs even as the state has become a hotbed for caste atrocities, particularly caste-based so-called ‘honour killings’.

A couple of decades ago, such violence was largely seen as a phenomenon related only to places like Haryana and Rajasthan, rhetorically alluded to as the backward regions of the North rather than progressive states like Tamil Nadu. Politicians pointed to schemes to support inter-caste marriages as illustrating their commitment to eradicating caste discrimination. A. Kathir, the founder of the Madurai-based NGO Evidence says since 2017 they have documented 65 cases of honour killings Tamil Nadu. In what follows we ask what accounts for this rising caste violence and what can be done to prevent it.

PMK and its polarising anti-Dalit rhetoric and action

The first point to make is that such violence was not unheard of before, and the seeming absence of such killings in the past may be due to under-reporting, or mis-recording of caste violence as ‘suicide’ or ‘violence due to previous enmity’. Despite this caveat, the spurt in caste based ‘honour killings’ in the recent past cannot be brushed aside or ignored.

The second point is to note that caste enmity is neither natural nor inevitable. Research on anti-immigrant sentiment illustrates how high unemployment only results in hostility towards migrants when such sentiments are stoked by far-right parties. Similarly, we argue that casteism is actively fomented. Central to the recent upsurge, we contend, is a meticulously planned political and cultural effort to discredit and devalue Dalit economic empowerment.

We view it as a physical and psychological attack on upwardly mobile Dalit castes led by the Pattali Makkal Katchi (Toiling People’s Party) (PMK), and its founder S. Ramadoss, following the inter-caste couple Elavarasan and Dhivya’s love marriage in 2013. The PMK since then has circulated and popularised a strong anti-Dalit (false) narrative calling any inter-caste romance or love or marriage involving Dalit boys as nadaga kadhal (staged love) designed to usurp the riches of the intermediate or upper castes.

He openly accused young Dalit men wearing jeans, sunglasses and shoes of seeking to seduce caste Hindu women with their ‘newfound’ lifestyle. Not only have such assertions been floated on political platforms, they have seeped into popular culture by way of films and social media.

Going further still, the PMK along with numerous fringe caste outfits organised conferences in every district after floating a forum called Dalit Alladha Anaithu Saathiyinar Kootamaippu (Federation of All Castes Excluding the Dalits).

With this, politics in the state was turned on its head, from the non-Brahmin movement’s progressive radicalism to an effort to retrench caste privilege. Despite being launched in the so-called progressive state of Tamil Nadu, this political formation did not face strong opposition from either civil or political society, and it was left to the Dalit organisations parties and Left leaning movements to fight against it. Tellingly, most writers, academics, and social activists who claim to be progressives (with a few honourable exceptions) failed to condemn it vehemently.

Legitimising caste violence

The PMK and the federation if nothing else, were able to instill a certain language and rhetoric of anti-Dalitness among different sections of the society, particularly among the youth. An illustration of this tendency came in responses to the film Maamanan. The hero of this film, played by M. K. Stalin’s son, was a young Dalit who fought against social justice from within the fold of the Dravidian parties.

The nakedly casteist villain was clearly disapproved of in the plot, but was celebrated online as a symbol of caste pride and valour. The PMK and other intermediate caste organisations have already established a certain sense of caste pride among their youth as Aanda Parambarai (castes that ruled these lands) and with terms like nadaga kadhal, kalappu thirumanam (mixed marriages) were sanctioning anti-Dalit violence both physically and culturally.

Political personalities like Kaduvetti Guru (deceased now) delivered provocative speeches advocating violence openly in meeting after meeting, likewise leaders from the locally dominant castes in the Kongu region, southern Tamil Nadu and elsewhere followed this. Worryingly, such rhetoric is no longer confined to the politicians of caste-based parties as some intermediate caste film-makers have taken such narratives into the cultural sphere.

Though these films have not been commercially successful, they have served to amplify and normalise the circulation of caste hate speech and the reproduction and legitimisation of anti-Dalit violence.

G. Mohan’s movie Draupathi is an example. The trailer begins with Martin Luther King’s assertion that ‘injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere’. It claims to be based on real life events and showcases caste hatred and violence. At this point, however, the narrative shifts. Louts who are identified as Dalit through use of well-known political slogans, are portrayed as seeking to ensnare Vanniyar (low status but socially dominant caste) women who are forced to fight back to defend their honour.

‘For us land and women are both important’, a Vanniyar woman in the film states, ‘if anyone lays a hand on either we will chop it off’. In a clear echo of the PMK’s political campaign that accused Dalit boys of deliberately and deceitfully wooing Vanniyar women, Shekhar notes in Outlook, the film urges ‘young girls to protect their family pride (and thus, caste and community)’. Writing for the Indian Express, Ezhilarasan observes that ‘Director G Mohan believes that many cases of honour killings were not true and that thought finds explicit reflection in some scenes and dialogues’.

Films such as this, serve to erode the cultural legitimacy of campaigns against ‘honour crimes’ and legislation designed to eradicate untouchability. In suggesting that the only way to combat ‘uppity Dalits’ is through force, the film reinforces the particularistic and exclusive nature of caste boundaries.

The upshot of this is the spate of caste-honour killings from across the state, alongside brutal murders of assertive or non-compliant Dalits – some in broad daylight. These violent murders are celebrated on social media by the caste youth, and the perpetrators are hailed as heroes. As pointed out by Aisha K. Gill in their book “Honour Killing and Violence: Theory, Policy and Practice”: “In countries where ‘honour’ killings occur regularly, perpetrators who are arrested often proudly display their handcuffs as many believe that killing for the sake of individual or collective honour is heroic”.

When Yuvaraj of Dheeran Chinnamalai Peravai [Dheeran Chinnamalai Front], currently serving a jail term for the murder of Dalit youth Gokulraj, came out on parole to attend a family function he was given a hero’s welcome, and he is routinely valourised on social media. The self-styled leaders from different intermediate castes attended the function to showcase solidarity, thus legitimising his act as a protection of caste honour.

Dheeran Chinnamalai was an 18th Century Kongu Vellalar chieftain who fought against the British East India company. His re-discovery and re-signification as a caste hero, is telling of the ongoing processes through which caste pride is inculcated by organisations.

In his study of riots and disorder in the UK, social historian E. P. Thompson noted that collective violence was facilitated by the legitimation of such action. ‘By the notion of legitimation’, he explains (Thompson 1971: 78), ‘I mean that the men and women in the crowd were informed by the belief that they were defending traditional rights or customs; and … were supported by the wider consensus of the community’.

Special legislation against honour killings

The actions and utterances of the PMK and likeminded organisations, we argue, have created the conditions within which casteist violence can foment and spread: where young caste Hindu men can come to see violence as the only form of communication that protects their ‘honour’ and their community.

Whilst welcoming the DMK government’s belated attempts to reduce caste tensions and foster cross-caste interaction, it is clear that symbolic actions alone are insufficient to put the caste genie back into the bottle. Just as a sustained and systematic campaign has got us to this pass, changing cultural values and attitudes will require significant action. One simple first step would be for the governing party to routinely call out and condemn caste-based violence when it happens. It is an indictment of the Dravidian parties’ claims to social justice that even this small step is routinely neglected for fear of alienating intermediate caste voters.

To leave the condemnation of casteism to Dalit and Left parties is to relinquish all commitment to a fairer society. Secondly, governments should ensure prompt and impartial police investigations and action against culprits. Too often, caste power appears to over-ride state power when it comes to apprehending perpetrators.

Thirdly, caste hate-speech should be rendered punishable by law and roundly condemned whenever it occurs, irrespective of who the speaker is. Failure to do so, lends tacit support and legitimacy to such rhetoric at the very least. Finally, serious consideration should be given to decades old demands for specific legislation against (dis)honour killings.

Whilst Chief Minister Stalin may be right that existing legislation should be sufficient to act against such violence, his stance displays a lack of understanding and imagination. Given the Government’s own emphasis on the symbolic actions mention in the introduction, surely they do not need to be reminded that legislation is never purely instrumental.

It is important to emphasise the social significance of legislation: it raises awareness, shines a light on particular forms of discrimination, highlights the need for action and helps to shift norms. As Waughray argues, such legislation would not create issues where none exist (any more than legislation against corporal punishment or marital rape created new issues) but it would send a powerful signal that we are no longer willing to tolerate forms of discriminatory and prejudicial behaviour.

Tamil Nadu has a proud history of politics committed to social justice. Failure to act decisively against the scourge of caste-violence and so-called honour-killings, contributes to the perception that egalitarian commitments have been sacrificed at the altar of electoral politics. Those spouting hate-speech and lecturing against cross-caste marriages are the primary instigators of the rise in caste violence, but the inaction of the Dravidian parties mean that they too are culpable.

[Karthikeyan Damodaran is an Assistant Professor in Social Sciences at the National Law School of India University, Bangalore. Hugo Gorringe is a Professor and Head of the Department of Sociology, at the University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom. Courtesy: The Wire, an Indian nonprofit news and opinion website. It was founded in 2015 by Siddharth Varadarajan, Sidharth Bhatia, and M. K. Venu.]