The US saw cases of lynchings or mob assault against blacks, and such incidents have been reported from other parts of the world too. How was the US able to tackle this, for example?

The lynchings ended very gradually. A number of different factors contributed: strong leadership on civil rights from the national government; a determined effort to remove obstacles to voting for black Americans and to include blacks on criminal juries; effective criminal defence of blacks wrongly charged with crimes against whites (the movie Marshall narrates a part of this); gradual pressure to integrate public facilities, culminating in the protest movement led by Martin Luther King, Jr; and very slow social change. But even though there aren’t lynchings any more, we still have a huge problem of police violence against African-Americans, and racist hatred is still strong in some parts of our society.

Does this also require a strong message coming from the law?

Absolutely. The signal needs to come from the top, with both national and state governments stating unequivocally that hate crimes are unacceptable, and then following that up with prosecution of offenders. Enhanced penalties for bias crimes have a signalling effect. This is not taking place in India today, and there is a covert signal that such crimes are an acceptable expression of Hindutva. It is especially shocking that at times bar associations have refused to defend Muslims who have been accused of crimes. The bar needs to be the protector of minorities, and I think the legal profession needs to examine itself.

Read more at The Indian Express