‘At least 30 witnesses and 30 assailants': civil society groups release report on Mangaluru mob lynching
The civil society groups, including the People's Union for Civil Liberties, the Association for Protection of Civil Rights, and the All India Lawyers Association for Justice, released the report in Bengaluru on June 28.
Alongside its findings, the 164-page report explains the background of the situation in Dakshina Kannada and includes a detailed timeline of the incident as well as testimonies from locals, those who knew the victim, and police officers.
The report stated, 'This mob lynching did not happen in the wee hours of the night in stealth. Based on the testimonies, it is starkly clear that the mob lynching of Mohammed Ashraf took place in broad daylight with at least 30 witnesses and 30 people beating him to death. Those who undertook this lynching had no fear of consequences. They acted with absolute impunity as self-appointed vigilantes who are not held accountable either by law or the people.'
Pointing out that it was not certain that Ashraf had actually raised slogans mentioning Pakistan as it might have been misinformation spread by the accused, the report went on to question whether this could at all be a justification for murder.
Mavalli Sankar, convener of the Dr Ambedkar Dalitha Sangharsha Samiti (Ambedkarvaada), stated that in such cases officials must at least visit families of the affected to ensure trust in the rule of law. He also highlighted a demand of the brother of Mohammed Ashraf, the victim, that this ought to be the last such lynching incident.
According to Maitreyi Krishnan of the All India Lawyers Association for Justice, the incident was not a mere murder but a hate crime. She noted that in the Tehseen Poonawalla judgment, the Supreme Court had described hate crimes as a 'product of ideological dominance and prejudice which ought not to be tolerated, lest it result in a reign of terror'.
The report said the local law enforcement agencies were not aware of the mandates of the Tehseen Poonawalla judgment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 hours ago
- Business Standard
IAF vs PAF: War of doctrines and the question of aircraft downings
Now that both the IAF and PAF have made their formal claims of having shot down the other's aircraft in the 87-hour, predominantly aerial conflagration in May, we can ask a larger question Shekhar Gupta Listen to This Article I can begin this with a trick question: If in a war, one side lost 13 aircraft to combat and the other five, who won? All of the active India-Pakistan wars and conflicts have been short, 22 days in 1965 being the longest. Operation Sindoor was just over three days. Whenever a conclusive outcome like a capitulation and mass surrender is missing, there's scope for both sides to claim victory. There is clarity in some situations, however. We Indians believe we won every war or skirmish, but accept that we lost 1962 to China. Similarly, the Pakistanis concede defeat in
Time of India
6 hours ago
- Time of India
Harvard under fire as more than 14,000 push back against $500 million Trump deal: Campus activists vow to fight political interference
Harvard University is under mounting pressure from its own community to walk away from a potential settlement with the Trump administration that critics say could undermine academic freedom and set a dangerous precedent for higher education, The Harvard Crimson reported. A letter signed by more than 14,000 students, faculty, alumni, and members of the public was sent Wednesday to University President Alan M. Garber '76 and the Harvard Corporation — the institution's highest governing body. It warns that striking a deal to restore billions in frozen federal research funds in exchange for political concessions would have a 'chilling effect' not only on Harvard but across American academia. High-stakes negotiations The New York Times revealed earlier this week that talks between Harvard and the White House, ongoing since June, are nearing a resolution. The reported terms: Harvard would pay $500 million to vocational and educational programmes in return for full restoration of its research funding — but is resisting the administration's demand for an external compliance monitor. Harvard's Ivy League peers have already accepted similar deals. Columbia University agreed to pay $220 million, allow continuing administrative reviews of certain academic programmes, and submit to oversight by an outside monitor. Brown University paid $50 million to state workforce development initiatives. Both schools also handed over admissions data on race and gender — a move critics argue infringes on academic autonomy. Contentious demands As reported by The Harvard Crimson , the letter's organisers including student group Students for Freedom and alumni coalition Crimson Courage, say the administration's demands go further: punish pro-Palestinian student groups, curb campus protests, and place certain Middle East-focused academic centres under heightened oversight. The signatories are calling on Harvard to: Protect international affiliates from politically motivated targeting Reject what they describe as 'extortionate' fines Keep admissions and hiring decisions free from political or ideological interference Campus pushback grows Student protests and alumni advocacy have intensified. Students for Freedom staged two large demonstrations last semester, while Crimson Courage rallied 12,000 alumni to sign an amicus brief supporting Harvard's lawsuit against the federal funding freeze. 'Academic freedom and democracy are inherently tied, and once you knock down one side, the rest of the dominoes fall,' Evelyn J. Kim '95, a Crimson Courage organiser, told The Harvard Crimson . A Harvard spokesperson declined to comment on the letter or the status of settlement talks. Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
Hindustan Times
9 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
'Snipers in Anchorage': Commentator faces flak amid Putin assassination row ahead of Trump meeting
Commentator and social media influencer Brian Krassenstein faced flak on Friday after posting about having 'snipers in Anchorage', where Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump are meeting. Several users alleged that Krassenstein was calling for the Russian president's assassination. President Donald Trump (R) greets Russian President Vladimir Putin as he arrives at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson(Getty Images via AFP) At the time of writing this story, a meeting between Presidents Trump, Putin, and other officials was underway. Just before the summit, Krassenstein posted a video of the two leaders shaking hands on the tarmac. 'They should have had snipers in Anchorage, Alaska, ready to take him out as soon as he shrugged,' he posted on X, platform formerly known as Twitter. Read More: 'Stop Killing Civilians?' Putin dodges Ukraine ceasefire question at Alaska Airport This came after reporters yelled at Putin, asking him 'When will you stop killing civilians in Ukraine?'. The Kremlin boss shrugged and gestured that he couldn't hear the question. Social media users, including pro-Trump accounts, were quick to slam Krassenstein. 'Brian Krassenstein is now calling to ass*ssinate Putin on American soil,' one person tweeted. 'You really didn't suggest that we kill Putin?' another person asked. Krassenstein quickly replied: 'I did.' He did not stop there. 'Correction. We should poison him instead. Make it less obvious,' he wrote in a follow-up tweet. Read More: B-2 Bomber roars overhead as Putin lands in Alaska for Ukraine talks with Trump | Video 'Weird. Lots of Russian bots are reporting me to the FBI and Kash Patel for saying that I think the US policy should be to try and end Putin's life. It's almost as if there is no free speech in Russia.' 'In my opinion the US government should have taken care of him,' he further said. Brian and Ed Krassenstein are American twin brothers who are writers, entrepreneurs, and social media personalities. 'This will will be remembered as one of the most disgraceful moments in U.S. presidential history. In Anchorage, Alaska, Putin brushes off a question about killing civilians. Trump smirks, then drapes his arm around him while they both stand on the literal red carpet the Trump administration rolled out for him. I like presidents who don't roll out the red carpet for war criminals,' Ed posted.
