'Whatsapp lynchings' are common in India

The argument

Before the incident, rumours were spreading around the area that children were being kidnapped in the night. These rumours were largely spread via WhatsApp. Lynchings occurring due to rumours spread on WhatsApp is not new in India. There have been many other prominent lynchings in recent years. Prominent examples include a 2,000 person mob murdering a software engineer who was offering chocolate to local children, believing him to be a child kidnapper, and five men killed in a nomadic community by a crowd of thousands because they were seen talking to a six-year-old. The police have nothing to do with the lynching. It is, sadly, a not unusual incident.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Those who hold the police were complicit reply that the prevalence of WhatsApp-driven mob killings does not by itself exonerate the officers present. The specific charge concerns what police did at the scene — accounts indicated that officers were present as the mob attacked and, critics argued, failed to intervene effectively or even handed victims to the crowd. That such lynchings are common speaks to a general phenomenon; it does not answer whether, in this instance, the police discharged their duty to protect those in their custody. Complicity is assessed by conduct on the day, not by base rates.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] That WhatsApp rumours commonly trigger lynchings explains the mob's motive, not the conduct of the officers present, which is what the complicity charge concerns. [Rejecting P2] The Palghar case fitting a general pattern does not establish that police at this scene acted properly; critics point to their alleged failure to protect the victims. [Rejecting C] Complicity turns on what the officers did or failed to do on the day, so the commonness of such killings cannot by itself settle that they were not complicit.