The lynching of two innocent boys at a place they called “home” has taken the entire state by storm. Suddenly everyone is talking about the lost humanity of human beings. The brutality of the act is so nerve-wrecking that many people got sleepless nights. Even more horrifying is the fact that the crowd simply watched the two innocent boys getting tortured and dying a painful death. But, even more disturbing to me was the fearlessness with which people took law in their hands. Why were the rumoured “child abductors” not handed over to the police? Why and how did the crowd decide to deliver “justice” instantly? The dreadful fate of Nilotpal Das and Abhijeet Nath arises many questions about humanity and credibility of institutions.
To find answers to these questions, we firstly need to understand the dynamics of mob psychology. A mob is defined as a large, disorganised and often violent crowd of people. The people in the mob may not know each other but they are united by a common belief and common intention. The mob is led by, what is called as “herd psychology”. Charles Mackay, in his book, ‘Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds’, said: “Men...think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.” The individuals in the mob have a subconscious security that no harm will befall them as they are part of the mob. In a mob, people lose their individual identity and sense of judgement. In the madness of the herd, they commit brutal crimes with the belief that they are doing the right thing.
In 2010, a similar incident had happened in the Sialkot city of Punjab province of Pakistan. Two innocent brothers, Mughees and Muneeb, mistaken as robbers, were lynched mercilessly in broad daylight. In both the lynching incidents, there was an underlying burning issue that aroused among the people a feeling of fear and injustice. In case of Mughees and Muneeb the issue was robbery while in case of Nilotpal Das and Abhijeet Nath it was child abduction. The feeling of fear, injustice and revenge was so strong that people were ready to go to any extent to address them. The fears are related to perceived existential threats to the society, of whose subset the mob is. These fears and sense of injustice creates a feeling of revenge against the offenders.
The merciless mob in the Sialkot city feared that they are not safe in their homes as long as the robbers are at large. The mob at Dokmoka feared that the future of their children was at stake due to the dreaded child abductors. In both cases, the offenders had to be caught and punished on the spot. In fact, an insecure and revengeful mob will commit heinous acts of violence on innocent people in order to send a message to the society at large. The underlying motive behind the gruesome act is to send the message that “this will happen to anyone who does this again”. This sort of vigilante justice is a threat to humanity and seeks to endanger the social contract in lawful societies.
Mob lynching is an outcome of vigilante justice which can be defined as a general state of lawlessness wherein a single person or group of people try to enforce their own law. These self-proclaimed torchbearers of law mobilise the local people about a perceived threat to their existence. Cases of vigilantism across the world have two commonalities: 1. Spreading the idea “how dare they do this?” and 2. Loss of faith on the law enforcement institutions. Vigilantes fuel anger among the masses to an extent that it overpowers their rational thinking. In order to stay relevant, vigilantes often resort to rumour-mongering. Mughees and Muneeb as well as Nilotpal and Abhijeet became victims of vigilante justice and rumour mongering. In order to keep our humanity alive, this form of vigilantism has to be checked.
This is where the role of established institutions becomes important. Our law enforcement agencies have a reactive approach towards crime prevention. But checking vigilantism requires a proactive approach. The police in our country is extremely overburdened, under-resourced and under-staffed. But that cannot be an excuse for its failures. While it is extremely difficult to control an angry, revengeful mob, but it is relatively easier to check vigilantism and rumour-mongering. The police should remain alert and try to check the problem at its roots. Visible policing, conducting awareness programmes to counter the rumours and keeping a watch on the activities of vigilantes is essential. The intelligence sources should be activated, even in the remotest areas. These sources should be clearly instructed to inform the police, immediately of any suspicious activity and any congregation of more than 5 persons at a place where activities of vigilantes and rumour-mongering has been going on. Had the rumours and the vigilantes been checked on time, maybe Nilotpal and Abhijeet would have been with us today.
That said, mob lynching has been a part of human societies for a very long time. Infact, the maximum number of lynchings happened in America in the 18th and 19th centuries, against the African Americans. The French Revolution and Germany under Nazi rule saw horrendous mob lynchings. But, these societies have over the years matured into strong institutions and established credible legal systems. Mob lynchings may continue as long as human societies continue on this Earth. But, they do not imply loss of humanity. Our institutions need to evolve and grow stronger in order remain credible. Individuals should think and act rationally and avoid falling prey to “herd psychology”. The death of Nilotpal and Abhijeet should serve as a mirror to the failures of our society and institutions. Rather than condemning a particular community for their deaths, we should analyse our mistakes and rectify them timely so that no other innocent life is lost.
