Haryana’s Villages Turn to Vigilantism in Their ‘War on Drugs’

Such Methods Risk Dangerous and Lasting Consequences

January 6, 2025

Haryana Chief Minister Nayab Singh Saini’s “war on drugs” is reportedly being bolstered by vigilantes, resulting in a rise in casteism, which is not the only adverse outcome. Similar experiments in other countries have demonstrated that such measures can lead to extremely dangerous and long-term consequences.

“A growing tide of vigilantism has swept across the state, with makeshift groups, committees, and anti-drug ‘Nasha roko’ (Stop Drugs) panchayats (gatherings) working to stem addiction,” says a recent report by The Print, according to which the state’s primary struggle is against chitta (heroin), which has deeply affected the local youth.

The report adds that in Haryana’s villages, “high” caste drug sellers are often protected, while Dalit consumers are publicly blamed and shamed. This is unsurprising, as vigilantism – which operates outside the legal framework, lacking accountability and oversight and often without than evidence or fairness – allows societal prejudices to surface.

Since vigilantes operate outside the legal framework, their methods often result in abuses of power, unlawful conduct and violations of individual rights, making it an unreliable approach to addressing narcotics.

The Philippines recently faced significant challenges in its fight against narcotics, particularly during the presidency of Rodrigo Duterte from 2016 to 2022. His administration’s “war on drugs” relied heavily on aggressive anti-drug operations and vigilante-style actions, which resulted in widespread violence, with thousands killed in police operations and extrajudicial actions. Many victims were poor individuals suspected of drug involvement, often targeted without due process, while influential drug lords frequently evaded accountability.

Vigilantism also undermines trust in law enforcement and judicial institutions. When people rely on such measures, it weakens the state’s authority and governance, eroding the rule of law.

Unregulated efforts frequently escalate violence and provoke conflicts, endangering lives and destabilising already vulnerable communities.

Vigilantism is fundamentally different from civil engagement, which involves collective efforts to address issues through organised, legal and transparent means, such as advocacy, community programs or collaboration with authorities.

Vigilantism bypasses these channels, often relying on force and intimidation. Rather than creating sustainable solutions, vigilantism risks perpetuating injustice, making it incompatible with the ideals of civil engagement.

Vigilantism provides only temporary solutions. It addresses the symptoms of drug addiction but fails to tackle root causes such as poverty and unemployment.

The vigilante campaign in the Philippines wasn’t able to control drug use and trafficking. Critics noted that it focused disproportionately on users and low-level dealers rather than addressing systemic issues like poverty, lack of rehabilitation facilities and inadequate social support systems.

While Thailand also used a harsh approach to deal with the drug menace, it recently changed its approach. While maintaining strict measures against traffickers and organised drug networks, the country has shifted its focus away from low-level offenders, concentrating resources on dismantling large-scale operations.