Mon 7 Jul 2008
Whether a mugging, road accident, or protests against a national policy — whenever something goes wrong in our country, violence breaks out. Actions one would never even imagine taking individually are carried out by groups or “the mob”. Is this anger a response to a failing social system where people feel forced to take the law into their own hands? Does this violence erupt all of a sudden, or is it dormant inside us all, just waiting for a trigger to set it off?
Last month, 25 people were injured in clashes between students of two private universities in Uttara. When Mehedi Hasan Rana, a student of Shanto-Mariam University (SMU) went to Asian University Bangladesh (AUB) to protest his sister’s assault by some men at the latter institution, he was beaten up. Following rumours that he had died, hundreds of students from SMU went to AUB and ransacked buildings, including the Vice-Chancellor’s residence, torched furniture and also vandalised other buildings and business establishments in the area. Students from AUB on the other hand, went to SMU and vandalised the Design Centre of the university, allegedly causing losses of Taka 2 crore. Police in the meantime clubbed and fired teargas shells at the agitating students.
At the end of last month, Dhaka University students beat to death 22-year-old Ehtesham Al Ziad, a student of Bangladesh Medical College, suspected of stealing cellular phone handsets from the university’s Sir Salimullah Hall.
Just weeks prior to these incidents, students of Dhaka Polytechnic Institute in Tejgaon damaged vehicles and clashed with police following the death of a student from the institute in a road accident. The month before that, police and activists from some obscurantist religious groups clashed over the announcement of the National Women Development Policy 2008, the latter burning prayer mats and other furniture inside mosques after Friday prayers. A few months ago, people pierced a rod through the face of an auto-rickshawpuller allegedly involved in a mugging. In August of last year, violence spread throughout the country following an altercation between army personnel and students of Dhaka University leading to the arrest of a number of teachers and students from the university as well as Rajshahi University. In October 2006, everyone watched with horror the beating to death of a political activist aired on television, followed by the scene of the killers dancing around the dead body. We often see news headlines about muggers being lynched by mobs, violence at garment factories following demands or protests and, of course, political violence.
They may be different people in different situations protesting or being victimised for different reasons, but the common thread that runs through all these incidents is that of violence, more specifically, violence caused by groups of people or mob violence.
The term “mob” is derived from the Latin mobile vulgus meaning “the movable common people” and refer to the fickleness or inconstancy of the crowd. A mob, which has become a politicised word, is basically a crowd that is seen as being out of control or one waiting for a trigger to set it off.
Mob violence has been a common phenomenon throughout the history of humanity, from ancient Greece and Rome, to modern Europe and the Americas, communal violence in Asia and political violence in Africa and the Middle East. The Paris violence in October 2005 in which 1,500 vehicles, several businesses and a school were burnt, many people injured and at least one person died, was sparked by the death of two Muslim teenagers who were electrocuted while allegedly trying to hide from police in an electricity substation in a Paris suburb characterised by high rates of poverty and unemployment. While the boys’ deaths acted as a trigger for the violence, the underlying cause was said, by scholars, to be the relative economic deprivation and hopelessness that many Muslim immigrants suffer in such “ghettoised suburbs”.
A mob develops a mind of its own with individuals becoming highly vulnerable and suggestible to the will of the collective group. Crowds are essentially contagious, and if one person gets angry, excited or violent, others quickly pick up on these emotions or actions. Individual conscious personality disappears and is replaced by a collective mind which Gustave LeBon, the grandfather of collective behaviour theory, describes as being “credulous, impulsive, emotional, without moral responsibility, less intelligent than individuals, blindly obedient to charismatic leaders who ‘hypnotise’ and mobilise a crowd into action”.
A mob thinks very differently from an individual, says psychologist Dr. Mehtab Khanam. “As an individual, we have our own perceptions, our emotions are influenced by our own thoughts, because behind every emotion is a thought, though we may not be conscious of it.”
For example, says Dr. Khanam, when we are stuck in a traffic jam, as an individual, we may experience many different emotions. Some people may blame the roads, city planning, or a driver who seems to have caused the traffic. Others may blame themselves, for not having started earlier. “But in a mob,” says Khanam “one’s reaction is not one’s own, it shifts to the position of the group.” Because something like a mugging or a road accident also affects others, it is also an obstacle for them and they think yes, why not join in the action? “They say ‘dhauro, maro’; individual behaviour becomes mob behaviour. Mobs encourage and build courage and we do in a mob what we would not have done on our own.”
A crowd becomes a mob in steps. First, something exciting or interesting happens — the trigger — for example, a mugging or a road accident. Then, the focus of the crowd converges on a common element as emotions strengthen and, united around this issue or object, individuals escalate into a behaviour that is then imitated by others. For example, someone may start to beat the mugger, followed by others, or someone may smash a car window, leading others to follow and ultimately set the car on fire. But, while crowds are affected by emotions spiralling out of control, their behaviour may also be rational responses to political, social, religious, racial and/or economic catalysts. People may also participate in such violence because of their novelty in an otherwise routine life, for emotional release, to feel powerful, or simply to go with the flow, feeling no individual moral responsibility or normal constraints on their behaviour, sometimes, with participants not even being clearly aware of what is happening.
But where does this dormant violence erupt from all of a sudden? Is it really sudden, and does it only happen to certain people, or is there a “shadow” in us all? According to Dr. Khanam, the eruption of violence is a result of accumulated anger.
“Frustration leads to aggression,” says Khanam, a professor of psychology at Dhaka University. There are two kinds of anger — passive and active. In the former, a person who is angry does not show it due to their personality type. In the latter, people with low frustration tolerance or LFT, express their anger and react. Those in the former group pay internal costs, such as hormonal secretions, the volume of anger increases with every incident and one day there is a sudden outburst. Those in the latter group also pay a price but externally, in their relationships, etc. “The best way to be is assertive,” says Mehtab Khanam. “If anger-inducing behaviour occurs, one should say that one is angry while respecting the thoughts and feelings of the other person as well as oneself.”
We all react to a perceived threat with fear and anxiety, leading to anger, says Dr. Khanam, but how we will deal with our anger depends on our self-concept. “If we have a negative evaluation of self, that is, if we don’t have a clear idea of who we are and what our worth is, we may resort to destructive anger. This may be depressive and internalised where we inflict harm on ourselves, the extreme case being suicide, or aggressive and externalised, where we harm others, the extreme being homicide. On the other hand, we may also practise constructive anger. This will occur if we focus on a positive self-statement, reminding ourselves of positive things about ourselves, understanding our self-worth. In this case, we can respond assertively. This is productive, where we take action to fix the situation. Without harming ourselves or others, we can tell the person who makes us angry how their behaviour is making us feel and what he or she can do to make it better. But this needs a lot of practice and very few people can do this,” says Khanam.
Anger can be caused by many factors, one of the most common being a feeling of being underprivileged or deprived and helpless. Frustrations caused by poverty, unemployment and social class difference, characteristic of our society, aggravate this anger. For example, those who do not happen to own a car but see cars being driven by others every day might just join a mob burning a car because of their feeling of deprivation piling up over a long time. “The actual reason behind the incident, for example, a car accident, may not be the real reason behind the violence, but the accumulated frustration of being deprived,” says Dr. Khanam.
“There is also displaced anger,” says Dr. Khanam, “where we take our anger on one person out on another. For example, if we are angry with our boss, we may not be able to express it because of the relationship and power dynamics of the situation. And so, when we go home and our child wants attention, we sometimes rebuff them or even react violently. We express anger towards those more helpless than us, less powerful and those who we feel it is safe to abuse.”
Thus, on any given day in Dhaka City, we witness people verbally and even physically abusing others on the street. People foul-mouthing other people’s drivers, drivers grabbing collars of auto-rickshawpullers, or the latter beating rickshaw-pullers. When we feel insulted by someone above us in the social hierarchy, we take it out on someone below us.
According to Dr. Mehtab Khanam, a lot of anger and violence is the result of imitation. Whether it was a bad-tempered father who beat his wife or someone else we witnessed breaking things, we often pick up such emotions. “Though we may have hated such behaviour in our childhood, we sometimes end up doing it ourselves as adults,” says Khanam.
There is a common myth about anger, says the psychologist. Many people say that only external things affect them. If everything external were perfect, they would not get angry. “This is a myth. It is unrealistic and problematic to have such an expectation.”
A father, husband or other family member may be an angry person, but we cannot say that they always cause our anger. “We have to own our feelings, we cannot hold others responsible for our anger,” says Khanam. “We may be annoyed and irritated, these are the precursors of anger. But whether or not we will be angry or aggressive is up to us and we can do a lot to deal with it.”
The nature versus nurture debate continues, but, Dr. Mehtab Khanam believes that, while genes do play some role in human behaviour, their negative aspects can be overcome by creating a positive environment. One’s upbringing goes a long way, and treating children with warmth and care, giving them love and security in their earliest years can shape or break their image of the world as one that can be trusted.
The best way to deal with one’s feelings of anger and aggression, says Dr. Khanam, is to focus on the positive. “Human beings are like sponges,” she says, “they absorb everything, and the negative more than the positive. There will be anger caused by negative input from others who put us down, treat us like doormats, tell us we are not good enough as mothers, wives, professionals, human beings, whatever. But we cannot let them get beyond our skin. They can touch and injure our skin but not get through deep enough to infect it. We all have our dark as well as bright spots. We need to understand ourselves, know ourselves and our worth. We must evaluate ourselves keeping in mind both our strengths and weaknesses. If we can accept ourselves completely after this self-evaluation, we will not be as affected by how others behave towards us and be better able to handle our negative emotions.”
Democratic dissent and getting quick justice in an otherwise failed justice system are the most common excuses today for people resorting to vandalism, lynching and killing in groups. Lynching is often seen as a form of popular justice in cases where a crime has been committed and, is sometimes accompanied by a carnival-like atmosphere. In 19th century America, for example, the lynching of African Americans accused of real or alleged crimes of murder, theft, rape, or challenging society and authority by being uppity or rude, was witnessed by hundreds of people who would travel miles to be at the event and pose for photographs with the bodies of the victims, which would sometimes then be made into postcards, while other spectators would take home scraps of clothing, rope or bone as souvenirs.
Sometimes, more than the pursuit of justice, mob violence provides people with opportunities to settle scores between individuals or groups. Resorting to violence in groups has become the easiest way for a mob to settle a matter in their own way. Their anonymity in a mob leads to a diffusion of responsibility for their actions, making it easier for them to get away with their own crime of punishing a culprit. Often, these mobs also get patronage from various quarters, which safely bails them out from punitive action.
A justice system which has failed the society, however, is often the justification for people taking the law into their own hands. In a BBC Africa Live Debate, while there were many people who condemned mob violence for the crime that it was, others found it to be the only means of punishing criminals who would otherwise slip through an unreliable, inefficient and even corrupt legal and justice system. In fact, a victim of mob violence in Kenya who had been caught stealing hashish was also on the forum and said it was a “good” experience because he stopped stealing as he knew that if it happened again, he would be killed. Another person who witnessed an instance of such violence in Ghana saw the actual perpetrator getting away after pointing to someone else as the thief, who was then besieged by the mob, but, luckily, saved by the police. Yet another person related an incident of a man in Monrovia who had bumped into a woman on the street and was beaten up on suspicion of being a pickpocket. It was later found that he had collided with the woman due to his poor sight as he was half blind.
Mob violence is chaotic, confusing and a crime. It is not something someone alone and in his or her right mind would carry out. Violence only begets more violence, and is not only pointless but it actually extracts a price from society. Every building vandalised, every bus burnt is a cost to society as a whole. The legal and justice systems must be strengthened in order to ensure quick and correct justice to the people. People must be educated about the risks of mob violence. At the same time, individuals themselves have a role to play in reining in and controlling their negative emotions in order to avoid harming themselves, others and society.
July 7th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
In August of last year, violence spread throughout the country following an altercation between army personnel and students of Dhaka University leading to the arrest of a number of teachers and students from the university as well as Rajshahi University.
Kajalie: I humbly disagree with your classification of the August riots as “mob violence.” It was clearly based on a legitimate political agenda, by that count part of a political struggle. “Civil unrest” could have been the apt description.
July 8th, 2008 at 3:58 am
Thanks for your feedback, Tasneem. I’d just like to point out that I was not referring to the whole incident as mob violence but as an example where such violence was carried out, which it was because mob violence isn’t only about people on the street lynching muggers but violence carried out in groups. In the photos with my story, as well as elsewhere, you will have seen/heard about the random incidents of violence in August which were not even a part of the movement/did not have any relevance to it - destruction of private restaurants and business establishments and even just random people throwing stones at private houses and inside their garages, obviously carried out either for settling personal scores or just caught up in the flow of violence/unrest in the country. In that sense, even the violence surrounding the women development policy cannot be termed what we typically think of as mob violence but, again, it was that. Even though the reasons were very political, what occurred was groups of people in and outside mosques causing violence and destruction. If you look at definitions of and literature on mob violence, there are three types - riots, lynching and vigilante groups, in order from the least to the most organised. Thus politically motivated violence also falls under the category of mob violence, which, again, refers to violence carried out by mobs or groups of people.
July 8th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Kajalie,
Thanks for bringing this to highlight to understand the context of the violence.
However, it would have been great to see a stronger conclusion in your piece.
You have correctly pointed out that violence takes place when people feel there is no other recourse left for them. Justice system in Bangaldesh has always favoured the rich and the powerful and hence there is a sense of injustice among common mass. To top it all off, when there is no legitimate form of outlet available (like now), the output is bound to be even more violent.
During the August riots, it was told that the first couple of days saw spontaneous response and the third day saw a more planned destruction of properties. How do we draw the distinction between a mass upsurge in a community vs a planned hooliganism? Differentiate a Kansat from a restaurant burning in Sat Masjid Road. Mass participation is the key, perhaps? But there are also cases where the mass movement has been relatively peaceful like that of 52, 70 and a major part of the 90 and 96 movements.
So how should we deal with it? By more stringent enforcement of law that will beget more violence? Addressing the underlying social causes of course. This is where its important that the various classes that exist in our society be in tune with each other. Unfortunately, in our country, specially in Dhaka, this gap is widening. So no one wants to understand each other. We need to fix it sooner than later. Otherwise, some of us would soon be asking the questions “Why do they hate us?”.
Also there is another question — is it our natural national tendency to resolve conflicts through force rather than negotiation?
July 8th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Asif Bhai, thank you for the valuable insight. In retrospect, I see what you mean, my conclusion could have been stronger. It’s just that I was dealing with the psychology behind mob violence and of anger in general (there are several angles from which it could have been written) and of course there are the usual time and space constraints and, when I write, I try to keep the readers in mind and, especially in the conclusion, try to give them something to ponder and actually work with to try and bring change themselves. I guess I kept it simpler here by focusing on personal anger and controlling it, as well as pointing to the flawed/failing social/legal/justice system.
Of course it’s important to distinguish between different incidents of violence spurred by different causes and there is obviously no comparison between mass upsurges and planned hooliganism. It just becomes confusing and even invites criticism when the lines blur between the two as it did, as you said, after the first one or two days of the August violence.
Yes, social causes are key, which I did try to touch upon in my story. But, like I said, there could have been several angles to the story and separate stories for each, actually, if we want to go into them in depth. But yes, I always believe that many if not most of our social problems are due to the huge and ever-widening gap between the different classes in our society, not only in economic terms but also in terms of understanding, respect, and, like you said, being in tune with each other (which of course is largely due to the socio-economic differences), and that this is a major hindrance to our moving forward as a nation.
Your last question was possibly the most interesting. It’s something I’ve heard before and pondered on myself. One of my professors at university once said something like “protest (I can’t remember if the word was ‘protibaad’ or ‘andolon’) is in the blood of Bangladeshis”. I don’t feel knowledgeable enough to comment on whether it is “our natural national tendency to resolve conflicts through force rather than negotiation” - I don’t think I know or have studied the issue or even history enough, but it’s interesting and I’d really like to know what the general take is on this.