I came across a news report about thousands of people attending the funeral of the man referred to as the “Butcher of Bosnia.” His name is Ratko Mladić. The report said that he was convicted of genocide for his role in the killing of more than 8000 mostly Muslim Bosniak men and boys in Srebrenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina. He died in prison at the age of 84 in August this year.
I was totally taken aback by this information and I had to look into why such a controversial figure is being considered a hero by many. I found that his supporters remember him as a military commander who defended their community against what they saw as “perceived threats” from Bosniak Muslims during the Bosnian War, which began in 1992.
I can’t help but notice a pattern here: violence is often justified nowadays by this very “perceived threat” – the belief that another community poses a threat to our existence, religion, culture, or way of life. Maybe this pattern has always been there, or maybe social media has simply made these attitudes much more visible.
Let’s take a look at some examples.
Israel’s ongoing conflict with Palestinians is framed by supporters of Israel around threats to its existence, while Palestinians and their supporters describe the consequences in terms of occupation, displacement, and violence against civilians.
Hitler is also being glorified on TikTok today, with his actions being presented through the deeply disturbing logic that he “helped eradicate” a community, Jews, whom they view as a threat to the world.
Afzal Guru and Ajmal Kasab are considered heroes by many because their actions are framed as acts of resistance against perceived threats or justified through a particular political narrative.
Savarkar is hated by many, even more strongly than some historical figures associated with mass violence, but he is also considered a hero by many who believe Hinduism and Hindu identity have been under threat.
I remember feeling absolute dread (a feeling of threat) when thousands attended Yakub Memon’s funeral in Mumbai.
And that is what makes this whole subject so uncomfortable.
Mourning, glorifying, or defending people who have done questionable things simply because they supposedly acted against “perceived threats to our existence” is becoming mainstream.
Closer to home, Hindus have attacked minorities in India because they believe their religion or cultural identity is under threat.
Christians in places like Tamil Nadu have also staged protests when public spaces in their area are used for festivals associated with other religions, with some viewing this as a threat to their own religious identity or traditions.
Then there are Kashmiri Pandits, who are being portrayed as a threat to the “culture” or “religion” of the land even when they are simply celebrating their festivals in a place with which they have a deep historical connection.
The circumstances are obviously different. But the underlying psychology is worth examining.
Once we convince ourselves that another community is an existential threat, almost anything can start being rationalised in the name of protecting our own.
And that leaves me wondering: who is going to do what next in the name of a “perceived threat”?
No community is completely free from this tendency, and no community can automatically claim moral superiority. Across religions, nationalities, ethnic groups, and political movements, people have at different points convinced themselves that their identity, culture, religion, or very existence is under threat.
Once “they are a threat” starts gaining ground, the question is no longer simply who is right or wrong. The question becomes how far people are willing to go to bring down or harm the people they have decided are the threat.
The Monkey Dilemma 
You must be logged in to post a comment.