I was talking to a young journalist on the culture of violence. As we were moving forward with our discussion, he remarked: “And just look at the spread of a new mob violence” at which point I interrupted my young journalist friend.
“No, the mob violence you referred to is not new.”
I told him: “Right after our independence, we witnessed mob violence on the streets of Dhaka. I still remember an incident back in 1972,” I spelled out.
“It was in the earlier part of 1972. The incident took place on the streets in Baitul Mukarram, next to GPO. I had just dropped a letter and stepped out on the street. All of a sudden, there was pandemonium from the Paltan side and loud shouting.
“Catch that bastard! Catch him and beat him to death. I looked at the direction from which all the shouting was coming from. I could see that a young boy, aged about 18 or 19, was running for his life towards the Baitul Mukarram mosque, and behind him, a group of people were running to catch him.”
I paused for a moment to take a breath.
“Glancing at him once, I could see that he was bleeding profusely from his nose and mouth, with his shirt torn into pieces and his hair totally dirt-laden. I realized that the teenager was trying to flee from a mob. Once he just turned his head to see how far behind the mob was, and just at that moment, the whole mob shouted, “Catch the devil. Beat the bastard. Beat that traitor to death.” All of a sudden, the boy tumbled on a piece of a brick and fell on the ground.
“A group of violent animals attacked his fallen body with sticks, chunks of bricks, and knives. After a few minutes, the only thing I could see was the dead body of a bloody teenager.”
I finished my tale. “You know what? The monstrous animal instincts within humans do not die, they just change appearance.”
Once I finished, a strange silence fell on. My young journalist friend changed positions on his chair. He looked around uncomfortably. I put down my tea cup almost silently on the table. The discussion did not flow well after that. After a few disjointed words, the young journalist collected his papers and got up to leave. I led him to the door.
As I was coming back to my seat, I pondered more on the observation of my young friend. Three things struck me.
First, in the context of a bloody War of Independence, mob violence was not unusual. But why now?
Second, in 1972, mob violence was sporadic, it was an exception, rather than a norm. But today, mob violence is everywhere, it is the norm, rather than an exception.
Third, today, for each and every conflict, for every difference of opinion, and for every grievance, we resort to violence and not to any other means of conflict resolution.
I asked myself that fundamental question: Why does mob violence happen?
Mob violence is not a bilateral violence between two individuals, it is a collective attack. Those mobilized for violence, do not think properly for a second, do not consider whether the act of violence is right or wrong, and they do not think through the rationality or justification of their act.
With incitement, anger, and frenzy, they merely do the violent act. But why?
Thinking through the issues, three explanations seemed plausible to me. But those are exclusively my thoughts -- they may be wrong, and they may also be unacceptable to others.
Looking at the mob-related violence, it seems to me that some of them are pre-planned, while others are spontaneous. But in both cases, those events are executed with bad intentions, for achieving some wicked objectives of the mob organizer.
For a mob, an individual mobilizes others, because it cannot be a one-person operation, and also because it is safer to divide the liabilities. In addition, as a means, the effectiveness of mob violence has already been proven.
As a result, mob violence is planned and executed to settle an old score -- either because of an old animosity, or for harming the old foe. But mob violence also happens just for looting. Why do other people join in the process? They do so either on whims or to gain something as a by-product of the incident.
Today, for each and every conflict, for every difference of opinion, and for every grievance, we resort to violence and not to any other means of conflict resolution
For example, if looting happens, they can get part of it. Or if the violence involves women, they have an opportunity to inappropriately touch women or do worse. Some of them get satisfaction just by participating in the jubilation derived from destruction.
Organized violence generally has two sources -- religion and politics. Offending religious sentiments or religion conflicts in other countries can ignite mob violence in a society. Mob violence is also used as a mechanism to destroy political opposition.
Spontaneous mob violence generally does not have any leader or planner. It is rather organic. If an act or an event is not tolerable to someone, or if someone is decided to be punished, a violent mob attack happens. Who takes part in a spontaneous mob attack? They are primarily the jobless and the poor, people without education, and mercenaries, who would do it for money. Most of them seem to be in the age group of 15 to 20 years.
What drives people towards a spontaneous mob? I think there are three driving forces.
First is the anger. Large-scale deprivations on many fronts, lack of social justice, inequalities and disparities in various aspects of their lives make the affected people angry. Particularly, when such deprivations, injustice, and disparities are not limited to economic lives of common people, but are spread over their political, social, and cultural arenas. Over time, such anger slowly grows bit by bit and ultimately, people have their backs against the wall. At one point, the anger of the people, accumulated over years, just explodes through mob violence.
Second is the issue of disempowerment. The poor, the marginalized, and the deprived do not usually have a platform to express themselves. They often remain marginal in economic, political, and social decision-making. As a part of the mob, people feel that they can do whatever they wish and this feeling gives these life-long deprived people a sense of accomplishment and empowerment. And in the process, they get a taste of power and autonomy.
Third is related to the issue of class. In our society, there are wide-spread class disparities -- disparities in income and wealth, disparities in social standing, positions, and inequalities in the standard of living. When the deprived groups witness that the richer class has so much, while they do not have anything and lead a sub-human life, they become extremely agitated. Because of a rapid expansion of information and communication technology, the spread and the depth of the inequalities become clearer and more explicit to the deprived. As a result, a deep sense of animosity grows. Mob violence here may be a reflection of class differences as well.
To end, it is also absolutely wrong and unjustified to term “mob violence” as “mob justice.” Justice cannot be established through wrong means like violence. Several justified, meaningful, and relevant means exist for ensuring justice.
Using and executing those means are absolutely necessary in a democratic society. Similarly, it is equally wrong to equate mob violence with “mobocracy.” A violent process cannot be compared with democracy.
Ultimately, mob violence is extreme violence. Nothing less.
Dr Selim Jahan is the Former Director, Human Development Report Office and Poverty Division, United Nations Development Program, New York, USA.
