I am not a fortune-teller. I cannot say with certainty what will happen tomorrow or the day after. Predicting what might happen six months or a year from now is far from possible. Our country, society, and life itself never follow a straight line; there are twists, turns, and pitfalls. At any moment, the rhythm can collapse.
Yet, we try to speak about the future based on experience and practical wisdom. Whatever is desirable or undesirable, we prepare for it in advance. But when I am not alone—when thousands of people and institutions surround me—my personal assumptions and preparations for the future are of little use unless they are part of a collective effort. Such situations occur frequently.
What we do not want, what is unexpected, we call an 'incident'. When such events occur, we are shocked. Our spirits are broken, and despair sets in.
Recently, something has happened that was unexpected for many of us. But events do not just happen on their own; they are caused. Behind them are individual or collective efforts. There is always planning involved. The initiators act decisively. The best planner is the one who takes action while keeping the other side completely unprepared. In military terms, this could be called a 'surgical strike'. Such actions have a purpose: to warn—be alert; we are coming with overwhelming force.
At present, we have seen attacks on two popular daily newspapers and two cultural organisations. Did this happen suddenly? Not at all. These institutions had been targeted with hostility for a long time. A quick check on Facebook and YouTube would reveal who incited what and when. Many had been openly opposed to the existence of these institutions. But no one could have anticipated attacks of this scale, involving looting and arson.
At present, we have seen attacks on two popular daily newspapers and two cultural organisations. Did this happen suddenly? Not at all. These institutions had been targeted with hostility for a long time. A quick check on Facebook and YouTube would reveal who incited what and when. Many had been openly opposed to the existence of these institutions. But no one could have anticipated attacks of this scale, involving looting and arson.
In this country, when a certain group decides on any matter, they can instantly designate someone as an enemy, judge them immediately, and enforce their verdict without a moment’s hesitation. This is glorified as 'mob justice'. But is it really justice, or is it violence? Such collective behaviour has a purpose. It involves not only questions of justice but also schemes to punish those with differing opinions or paths.
In a society where the judicial system is ineffective, and the existing structural mechanisms are slow and costly, victims often wait years to get justice. They have to exhaust themselves financially and emotionally to cover court and lawyer fees.
Many therefore take the law into their own hands. No matter how much we lament the rule of law, unless justice can be ensured simply, quickly, and at low cost, mob justice or violence cannot be stopped. How many centuries it will take for our judicial system to provide proper justice, no one can say.
This addresses the issue of aggrieved individuals or groups taking the law into their own hands because they are denied justice. But there is more to it than that. Our society is still backward. In the language of the industrialised West, one might say we are stuck in a medieval 'tribal' culture. Here, clans or groups form around different beliefs and opinions.
Each clan believes it alone is right, while everyone else is misguided and harmful to society. Anyone deemed bad in their eyes must be punished, and that responsibility falls on the clan chief. He is not merely a leader; he is seen as a “savior.” His role is to issue directives to others. He gives the slogan—“burn, burn, set it on fire”—and instantly his followers rush forward with fire in their hands.
Our political culture is still medieval, where justice means an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, a life for a life. Our slogans reflect the same mindset—“catch one or two of so-and-so and slaughter them.” Farmers, fishermen, weavers, and day labourers do not chant such slogans. We hear them instead on university campuses or at political rallies and processions.
The powerful Mughal emperor Jalaluddin Akbar used a special method to carry out death sentences. An elephant would be intoxicated with alcohol, and the condemned person, with hands and feet tied, would be thrown under its feet. The emperor would watch this spectacle with his courtiers and take pleasure in it. His son, Nuruddin Muhammad Jahangir, was no less brutal. He would have a condemned person sewn alive into the freshly flayed skin of a donkey. As the skin dried, it tightened around the body, crushing the person inside. Bones would break, and eventually the victim would suffocate and die—a slow, agonising death.
Our slogans against opponents are much the same. We take to the streets demanding the execution of anyone we choose. Many say such-and-such should be publicly hanged or executed by firing squad so that onlookers can be entertained. In our slogans, speeches, and statements, we utter words against imagined enemies that recall the social culture of a thousand years ago.
Nowadays, the more inflammatory language and slang a speaker uses, the higher their popularity rises. Threats like “We’ll beat you to death,” “We’ll tear you apart,” or “We’ll smash that place” draw applause. A certain group of people then follows them like a swarm of locusts.
I sing and make music; it gives me joy. You may not like it. You do not have to sing. But does that mean you should attack me? You pass a verdict that it is anti-Islam and declare it a duty to wage jihad against it. You then attack my home or institution, set it on fire, and loot musical instruments.
In this country, newspaper readers mostly come from the middle class. Only a fraction of them read newspapers. In my view, the total circulation of all printed newspapers combined is at most one million copies. Of these, only a handful are bought with cash; the rest have little real market value. You claim that the country’s most popular newspaper is an enemy of the people, a lackey of someone, a traitor. Then why do the people not read the newspaper you prefer? Have you ever thought about that? Which “people” are you talking about?
By readers’ verdict, the newspaper you dislike is actually more popular. And those among whom you are popular do not read newspapers at all. Yet you or your associates incited attacks on the newspaper you dislike. And who joined in? Society’s thieves, rogues, and looters.
They stole computers, chairs, tables, and cash, and then set the place on fire.
A certain group of people is always lying in wait, looking for opportunities to loot. The moment they get a chance, they attack others. Now looting has become a full-blown spree. And in the midst of this, I hear one or two so-called intellectuals saying these people should not be called a mob; they are a “pressure group.” Those who call them a mob, they claim, are collaborators of autocrats. What a terrifying attempt to justify looting.
#Mohiuddin Ahmad is writer and researcher
*The views expressed are the author’s own.