The tragic killing of Aryan Mishra, a high school student in India’s Haryana state, allegedly shot by a notorious cow vigilante named Anil Kaushik, casts a searching spotlight on the deep-rooted failures of Indian law enforcement and the unimpeded rise of cow vigilantism. Mishra, wrongly suspected of cow smuggling, was pursued for over 25 miles before being gunned down by Kaushik and his associates. This heinous act momentarily seized media attention, more because of the irony of the identity of the victim: he was a Brahmin, the highest ranking caste group that sits atop the caste hierarchy among Hindus, and not a member of the Muslim community hated by the cow vigilantes.
But the larger issue remained woefully underexamined: the growing impunity with which cow vigilantes operate in India and the complicity of both law enforcement agencies and social media in allowing these groups to thrive.
Vigilante groups like Kaushik frequently use social media to glorify their illegal activities, gain sympathizers and community legitimacy, and intimidate minorities. Kaushik’s brazen pictorial and videographic display of power, guns, and night chases in social media posts carried on for years until the tragic death of an innocent student. The impunity with which Kaushik operated is not just a reflection of the failures of local police; it is indicative of a broader systemic collapse.
The Menace of Cow Vigilantism
There have been several tragic incidents of lynchings and murders by cow vigilantes in India recently. The list is long and growing. Among the recent most harrowing cases is Afan Abdul Ansari, who was lynched by cow vigilantes in Maharashtra in June 2023 while transporting meat.
Just weeks prior, Lukman Ansari was similarly lynched by cow vigilantes in the same region. Other victims include Muhammed Majloom and Azad Khan, lynched in Jharkhand, and Pehlu Khan, a dairy farmer, killed in Rajasthan in 2017 despite having legal documents for transporting cows. High-profile cases like the lynching of Mohammad Akhlaq in 2015 and the killing of 16-year-old Zahid Rasool Bhat in Jammu and Kashmir and lynching of Qasim and Shamiuddin in Hapur, Uttar Pradesh in 2018 illustrates the pervasive nature and normalisation of cow vigilante violence against Muslims.
According to a report by IndiaSpend, 97 percent of cow vigilante attacks between 2010 and 2017 occurred after 2014, coinciding with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s rise to power.
In March 2024, a local court in Uttar Pradesh’s Hapur district sentenced all 10 accused to life imprisonment for the lynching of Qasim and the assault on Shamiuddin. But the conviction of Qasim’s killers stands out as an exception. All the other cases mentioned above have either ended in acquittal or remain mired in the sluggish processes of the Indian judiciary. For instance, in August 2019, all six accused in the Pehlu Khan lynching case were acquitted by a court in Rajasthan. The trial in Mohammad Akhlaq’s case began in 2021, five years after the incident. As of now, there have been no convictions.
A Systemic Failure of Indian Law
Under the Indian Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, and its subsequent amendments, the government is mandated to monitor and remove illegal content online. Section 69 of the IT Act empowers the central government to issue directions for the interception, monitoring, or decryption of any information through any computer resource. This can be done in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, defense of India, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offense.
State governments, through their law enforcement agencies, are responsible for the prevention, detection, investigation, and prosecution of crimes, including cybercrimes. They can take legal action against offenders as per the provisions of the IT Act and other relevant penal laws. State agencies are supposed to work in coordination with central authorities to monitor and remove illegal content. They can also request the central government to issue directions under Section 69 of the IT Act for interception or monitoring of information.
The question arises as to why Kaushik and his gang were allowed to operate all along. His Facebook posts did show that he was pally with local station officers. He was a hardcore fan of Monu Manesar, another notorious cow vigilante, and wanted to equally ‘power’ like him. However, local police patronage only partially answers the question. Why did no one in the system, from state to federal agencies, red-flagged Kaushik’s massive illegal digital empire?
With a personal following exceeding 10,000 on Facebook and nearly 3000 for his organization ‘Live for Nation,’ Kaushik’s online presence significantly bolstered his cow vigilantism. His YouTube channel, boasting over 25,000 subscribers, became a stage for dramatic videos of cow rescues and high-speed car chases. This meticulously crafted social media strategy not only amplified his notoriety but also attracted a legion of sympathizers, endowing him with both social legitimacy and influence.
How did the government allow this to carry on for such a long period? Ironically, the same government overzealously attempts to censor social media for any posts critical of the ruling dispensation. For example, during the widespread farmers’ protests against the new agricultural laws, the Indian government requested Twitter to block hundreds of accounts and tweets that were critical of the government’s handling of the protests. In 2021, the government targeted activists and opposition leaders who shared a “toolkit” on social media, which was a document outlining ways to support the farmers’ protests. Amid the devastating second wave of COVID-19, the government ordered social media platforms to remove posts that criticized its handling of the pandemic. Therefore the question arises as to why the government is not equally alert to the online criminal activities of cow vigilantes like Kaushik.
Social Media’s Complicity
The role of social media platforms in enabling the spread of hate and violence makes the situation even worse. Platforms like Facebook and YouTube repeatedly allowed Kaushik and his associates to post content glorifying cow vigilantism, display firearms, and incite violence, particularly against minorities. Despite the IT Act, which mandates the removal of unlawful content, these platforms have consistently failed to act swiftly or decisively.
Under the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules of 2021, social media intermediaries are required to remove unlawful content within 36 hours of a court order or government notification. In Kaushik’s case, it’s safe to assume that no such notification was issued. However, significant social media intermediaries (those with more than 5 million users) are required to deploy automated tools to proactively identify and remove content that is identical to previously flagged unlawful content. This helps in preventing the spread of harmful content. Yet Kaushik’s posts on Facebook and YouTube remained online, amplifying hate and emboldening other vigilantes to act similarly. This raises the question: How much longer will these platforms remain unaccountable for their role in perpetuating violence?
Monu Manesar, also effectively utilized social media to promote his activities and instill fear among minority communities. With a substantial online presence, boasting over 200,000 subscribers on YouTube and 83,000 followers on Facebook, he frequently live-streamed videos of himself and his team chasing vehicles suspected of illegally transporting cattle. These live-streams and posts garnered significant attention, amplifying his influence. Kaushik was motivated by Monu Manesar’s online activities, demonstrating the pernicious effect of his social media activities. Manesar is currently in judicial custody in connection with the murder of two Muslim men from Rajasthan and for inciting violence in Nuh, Haryana in July 2023.
The implications of allowing such illegal and harmful content to proliferate on social media are grave. By not doing enough to check the spread of hate and violence, social media platforms bear a degree of responsibility for the real-world consequences. It raises urgent questions about their legal liability and their role in fostering environments that lead to violent acts.
The Urgent Need for Reform
The recent killing of Aryan Mishra and ongoing cow-related violence against Muslims is a stark and pressing reminder of the failures of India’s legal and political systems to address the rise of cow vigilantes. These groups thrive on the complicity of local authorities, political patronage, tardiness of the judicial process and the unchecked reach of social media. Both state and central governments must take immediate and decisive action against vigilante groups like Kaushik’s, along with their enablers within the police force.
Moreover, social media platforms must face greater scrutiny and accountability for their role in allowing hate to fester online. By failing to remove such content, they remain no more passive intermediaries but enablers in the cycle of violence that continues to consume innocent lives. Social media platforms must not allow them to become a breeding ground for hate speech, incitement to violence, and targeted harassment of minorities. It’s time for them to take decisive action to curb this toxic content.
First and foremost, platforms must strictly enforce their community guidelines and policies against hate speech and incitement to violence. This requires more than just lip service; it demands the deployment of sufficient human moderators, especially those trained in vernacular languages, to review and remove harmful content. Additionally, platforms should leverage artificial intelligence algorithms to more accurately detect and identify hate speech. AI can quickly scan vast amounts of data, but human moderators are essential for providing context and judgment. Platforms should also focus on identifying specific linguistic markers that indicate hate speech or incitement to violence, such as certain phrases, symbols, or patterns of speech. Instead of relying solely on profanity filters, algorithms must be trained to recognize more subtle forms of hate speech and harmful content.
Collaboration is key. Social media companies should partner with human rights organizations, minority groups and experts to develop better strategies for identifying and removing harmful content. Transparency and accountability are also paramount. Platforms must be open about their content moderation policies and processes, including regular reports on actions taken against hate speech and incitement to violence. Moreover, platforms should improve and promote user reporting mechanisms. Users should be encouraged to report hate speech and incitement to violence, and platforms must respond promptly to these reports.
Unfortunately, there is a lingering suspicion that some social media platforms have been politically biased in their operations. Recent allegations of censorship and preferential treatment for certain groups raise serious concerns about the platforms’ impartiality and their role in influencing public discourse. For instance, in August 2020, a report by The Wall Street Journal alleged that Facebook’s top public policy executive in India, Ankhi Das, had opposed applying the company’s hate speech rules to certain individuals and groups linked to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). A recent investigation by Access Now and Global Witness revealed that YouTube approved 48 advertisements in English, Hindi, and Telugu that violated YouTube’s policies about advertising and election misinformation.
There is an urgent need for reforms. Tech giants have immense resources at their disposal. It’s time for them to step up and take meaningful action to combat violence-inciting content and protect their users.
(Ashish Khetan is a lawyer and investigative journalist. He specializes in human rights law, constitutional law, and public international law.)