Sunday Times 2
Urgent need to defuse burning issue before ‘radicalisation’ sets in among protesters, warns expert
“Don’t let the country-wide mass protests go over the tipping point. Radicalisation is a simmering danger and the authorities need to take heed and take urgent measures to defuse the burning issue.”
This is the appeal going out from a concerned Consultant Psychiatrist who has studied all scientific evidence both on ‘radicalisation’ and the need for ‘de-radicalisation’, as the protests across the country took a life of their own, with one person getting killed in a police shooting in Rambukkana on Tuesday.
Rambukkana: One person was killed in a police shooting during the protest
Reiterating the urgent need to discuss the possible issues surrounding radicalisation as it is timely in the context of the current crisis, Dr. L.L. Amila Isuru stresses that “we need to identify the ‘triggers’ in this scenario which could send Sri Lanka down a slippery slope of unstoppable violence”.
Dr. Isuru is a Senior Lecturer in Psychiatry at the Faculty of Medicine and Allied Sciences of the Rajarata University and an honorary Consultant Psychiatrist at the Anuradhapura Teaching Hospital.
Scientific studies on radicalisation had come about soon after the September 11, 2001 attacks (known as the 9/11 attacks) where militants of the Islamic extremist al-Qaeda group targeted airlines and buildings in the United States of America, through suicide missions. Nearly 3,000 people died in these attacks.
Scientists including psychologists and psychiatrists across the world then began studying how groups could be driven by certain beliefs to cause death and destruction. This is how they had come up with the concept of ‘radicalisation’ – the process of developing extremist beliefs, emotions and behaviours that justify inter-group violence.
An earlier example in the 1930-40s was the holocaust in Nazi Germany where millions of Jews were killed.
“These extremist beliefs cause a ‘profound’ conviction and the person, group or community gripped by such belief is beset with extreme emotion,” says Dr. Isuru, pointing out that in Sri Lanka the classic example of such radicalisation was the Black July of 1983.
During Black July, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) ambushed a military patrol and killed 13 soldiers in Thirunelveli close to Jaffna on July 23. When the bodies of the soldiers were brought to Colombo, waves of communal riots lasting several days engulfed the country particularly Colombo and a large number of Tamil people were killed.
Looking back, Dr. Isuru says that before the soldiers’ bodies were brought to Colombo, an organised group propagated certain beliefs. These beliefs covered the four areas of: Our community is deprived; our community is at imminent risk; our community is facing an uncertain future; and there is ambiguity.
“We could have investigated the ambush properly and brought the perpetrators to justice but delays in doing that and also the action of bringing the bodies of the soldiers to Colombo pushed the trigger further,” he says, explaining that the four strong beliefs caused strong emotions and unstoppable violence. The people got divided into the ‘in-group’ (the Sinhalese) and the ‘out-group’ (the Tamils).
Lining up police trucks along Galle Face when there is a peaceful protest could have escalated the tension, but their removal was a mitigatory move
The Sinhalese and Tamils, many of his older relatives have told him, “were like brothers and sisters in a multi-ethnic setting, visiting each other, etc”. Suddenly, they were in these two groups. The in-group thought they had superior values and heritage and were under severe threat and very vulnerable. So focusing on the out-group which encompassed not just the militants who carried out the ambush but also the whole Tamil community, the violence against them went to unthinkable and irrational levels.
“This is what radicalisation is all about,” he says, putting under the spotlight periods when radicalization has gripped Sri Lanka in its recent history from 1971 to 2009:
- The youth insurrection of 1971
- The northeast war spanning 30 long years till 2009
- The second youth insurrection of 1988-89
Pointing out how extremist groups or politicians ‘manipulated’ the people’s unrest and dissatisfaction over ethnic, cultural, financial or any other reasons, Dr. Isuru says that they then triggered destruction through an unimaginable level of violence which many people did not realise was to meet a hidden agenda.
He explains that even though overall, Sri Lankans have been living in harmony over the past 30 years, wedges have been pushed between communities to create major rifts. Some of these wedges seemed silly or trivial superficially and most certainly unscientific. They have included claims that a group (Muslims) was introducing wanda guli to kottu, which motivated another group (Sinhalese) to resort to violence.
“Once again, it was the in-group which assumed or thought it was under threat and the out-group which was seen as the perpetrators of that threat. Such a major divide makes both groups easy prey to manipulation, whipping up of hatred towards each other group and leads to violence,” says Dr. Isuru.
The question is: Why and how not only individuals but also groups develop this type of extreme behaviour and resort to such unthinkable violence?
The answer, according to Dr. Isuru is that it stems from extreme ideologies and beliefs, whether political, racial, ethnic, religious or economic supremacy. Such ideologies and beliefs are directly and fundamentally opposed to the values of society. These ideologies and beliefs set off strong emotions in individuals and groups (in-group) leading to a denial of fundamental human rights, liberty and democracy of other individuals or groups (out-group).
“In the September 11, 2001 attacks against Americans, the Islamic extremist group had no value for human life when it came to the so-called non-believers. These in-groups have such a profound belief that even a brave and rational person among them cannot stand up against the tide – the moment a person does that he/she too is lumped with the out-group. Therefore, no one would dare take the risk for fear of being cast out. Once established, extreme beliefs are held with strong conviction,” says Dr. Isuru.
He goes onto explain that beliefs are common and non-violent but coercion and/or suppression can lead to extremist emotions and behaviour. It is scientifically proven that our thoughts, emotions and behaviour and physical symptoms are inter-related.
Thereafter, Dr. Isuru looks at the current situation – there is severe stress among people. There is no food, fuel or medicines. They worry about the future of their children and what will happen tomorrow, as they queue up angry and hostile. Their frustration tolerance levels are very low. These groups of people are wide and varied linked by the common factor of collective deprivation – they are also more vulnerable and could easily turn into a violent group. They are tense and with tension can come the wilful breaking of the law. This is radicalisation.
He points out that in this scenario of collective deprivation along with the danger of life being very uncertain, the in-group is the anti-government protestors and the out-group is the government. Earlier, governments divided people to get the votes and come into power. Now there is a clear division between the people and the government.
He cautions that the chances of radicalisation and reacting to this situation with violence are very high. If there is the slightest provocation, any intervention by the police or army, there could be violence. Governments can escalate the tension or mitigate it. Lining up police trucks along Galle Face when there is a peaceful protest could have escalated the tension, but their removal was a mitigatory and good move.
“It is a volatile situation, a tinder-box which could easily cause radicalisation amidst the in-group. There are ‘pull and push’ factors in radicalisation This is why there is an urgent need to act now to reduce the tension and cause de-radicalization. Therefore, being mindful about it is the firm first step in the process of de-radicalisation,” adds Dr. Isuru.
| Radicalisation process “Radicalisation is a process – a person in a normal community can become vulnerable to resorting to violence. Then the person can be hostile within the legal framework. However, if the level of tension in that situation rises, the person may become a deliberate law-breaker,” says Dr. Amila Isuru, stressing that there are some ‘internal’ and ‘external’ factors which could push this person through the process of radicalisation. Many of the internal factors cannot be changed and include genetics, impulsivity, anger-control difficulties, childhood trauma, past experiences and use of alcohol and other psychoactive substances. More importantly, the external factors are those which cause a threat to their existence, overt injustice, ambiguity of a situation, uncertainty about the future, a hostile environment and discrimination and stigmatisation from an opposing groups. These factors can be modified or used to escalate the situation. Dr. Isuru says that another thing that needs to be taken into account is that such people’s thinking and attention span are narrowed. They don’t see the broader picture. So it is important to get them to re-think in a calm and consistent way. Citing a recent example, he says that after the Easter Sunday bomb attacks, the Catholic Church got its beleaguered devotees to re-think the situation look at their deep religious values of forgiveness. The church leaders were calm, composed and non-violent. This a good example of de-radicalisation of a provoked community which saved many lives. Psychology behind aggression in mobs and crowds Aggression may be a result of a state of de-individuation which means that an individual feels that he/she has lost his/her personal identity and merges into a group identity, according to Dr. Amila Isuru. According to this Psychiatrist such de-individuation creates a state of increased sensitivity to a situation specific to a social norm linked with a group. This can increase aggression when the group norms are aggressive (like at Rambukkana this week) or reduce aggression when the group norms are benign (like at the protests at Galle Face Green). Measures for de-radicalisation
| |