Justifying the mob

Every now and then a band of self-styled guardians of the faith in the country go berserk and take to arson or homicide to punish an allegedly blasphemous act.
The latest of such deplorable incidents came about recently in Jhelum, where a mob set on fire a factory and a place of worship belonging to the Ahmadi community on the suspicion of alleged blasphemy. What accounts for such behaviour, which is at once self-righteous and violent?
An attempt to answer this question warrants a brief analysis of mob or collective behaviour.
As a rule, collective behaviour is dramatic, unpredictable and frightening. The starting point is the development of a common sentiment towards an object of hatred – a person, a cultural or religious symbol, or a physical asset owned by the group at the receiving end. As American psychologist Gordon Allport puts it, collective behaviour involves a bunch of people doing what they previously wanted to do but for which they lacked the occasion and the support of like-minded associates.
Once the object of attack has been identified and emotions have been aroused to a high pitch, the crowd goes all out against it. Any interference, discussion and dissent from the course of action are disallowed. Mob behaviour possesses three overriding characteristics: it is more-or-less unanimous, it is intense, and it is different from conventional behaviour.
The mob feels it is placed in a special situation created by perceived violation of some vital norm – alleged blasphemy or cow slaughter (in the context of India) for instance – in which a special moral code applies. The demands of the situation are felt to be so strong as to dissolve normal restraints. Loot, plunder, taking a life or even massacre may be considered justified in view of the ‘enormity’ of the situation.
Thus while to an outsider a violent mob may appear to have clearly gone over the line, for the perpetrators their response is perfectly logical – an extraordinary response to an extraordinary situation. Not only that, they draw immense satisfaction from their acts.
The mob is imbued with a sense of its own power and impunity. It believes that the aim – causing maximum possible loss in terms of life or property belonging to the other side – will be accomplished. It is also convinced that its actions will go unchecked or unpunished, which accounts for the ruthlessness.
American psychologist Neil Smelser has outlined some critical conditions for the development of mob behaviour. These include: (a) the social structure must be peculiarly conducive to the behaviour in question; (b) a group of people must experience strain; (c) a distinctive type of belief must be present to interpret the situation; (d) there must be a precipitating event; (e) the group must be mobilised for action on the basis of the belief (reference: Encyclopaedia Britannica).
Mob behaviour is thus an expression of both cultural conflict and organisational failure. It lays bare chasms present in society. That’s why the action at the same time earns approval and disapproval, admiration and condemnation. One side regards the perpetrators of the mob as heroes serving a ‘noble’ cause; for the other they are despicable villains.
The behaviour also signifies failure of both formal and informal methods of social control. At times, for ethnic or ideological reasons, law-enforcement authorities are sympathetic to the mob and thus wink at, or even facilitate, mob violence.
With this brief analysis of mob behaviour, it is not difficult to understand why minority communities are repeatedly targeted in the name of religion. The incidents taking place in Jhelum and other places, such as Kot Radha Kishan, where a mob burnt to death a Christian couple also for allegedly desecrating the Holy Quran, bring out the divisions existing in our society over the status that minorities are entitled to.
In thrall of a rigid, monolithic interpretation of Islam, a large and growing section of society looks down upon the members of minority communities as second-rate citizens, who should not move about or profess and practise their faith freely. Similar views are held about Muslims belonging to a different sect. Textbooks and other literature carry hate material branding minorities as enemies of Islam and charging them with having polluted the land of the pure.
With such an intolerant view having gained firm ground in society, all that the hate-mongers need is an incident – real or made-up – to incite and unleash a familiar but dangerous chain of events. Attacks on minorities are presented as a religious cause and thus an obligation. In many cases calls are made from mosques to attack alleged perpetrators of an allegedly blasphemous act.
Such calls appeal to ordinary people, who are already under strain for one reason or another and need some outlet to vent their anger. It’s not necessary for the cause of the strain and the object of anger to be the same. All that’s needed is a convenient target. Minority communities are, by and large, a sitting duck. It is also not difficult for those inciting to portray the plight of the people as a curse of God caused by deviation from the righteous path.
People taking the law into their hands and assuming at once the role of judge, jury and executioner – mob justice as it is sometimes called – is dangerous. It clashes with the principle of rule of law, which is the lifeblood of the body politic. It’s not for a mob but for formal public institutions to prosecute, convict and punish an offender. The mob is neither a reliable judge of what is fair; nor is it interested in doing justice per se. It is only actuated by the desire to take revenge from a convenient target for allegedly mischievous actions.
Not only does mob justice signify the weakening of the formal methods of social control, it also erodes the faith of the people in the government’s ability or willingness to protect their life, property and religious symbols – the very raison d’être of the state. This makes public authority even weaker. Mob justice assumes even more threatening proportions when it is prompted, and justified, by an appeal to faith.
As the Supreme Court’s highly acclaimed judgement which upheld the conviction of Mumtaz Qadri noted, no one is justified in taking the law into their own hands and killing an alleged offender regardless of the nature of the offence. Let the law take its course.
The writer is a graduate from a western European university.
Email: hussainhzaidi@gmail.com