CONTROLLING
PSYCHOLOGICAL DAMAGE AFTER THE EARTHQUAKE
A fortnight after the traumatic earthquake of 8th October, the ground still shakes at times. People are under stress and keep watching the ceiling fans and chandeliers for the least movement. In the tent villages in Kashmir and Hazara thousands lie injured, crushed in body and spirit and suffer from anxiety. Psychological damage has occurred but nobody knows how many are affected. While much is being done for the physical suffering—rushing of aid, medicine, food, tents etc—the mental suffering goes unaddressed. Indeed, it is largely unnoticed unlike physical injuries which are. Let us consider what increases it and what may, therefore, reduce it.
First, sermons on the sins of the people are unhelpful. The ‘sins’ preachers talk about generally refer to personal conduct—sexual indulgence, drinking, gambling etc. These are found everywhere in the world and at all times and it is pointless to blame only the poor victims of the quake—ordinary mountain villagers who find it difficult to procure bread for themselves let alone indulge themselves—for them. I once heard of a person blaming the female doctor who was giving excellent medical advice for wearing jeans! Such an attitude takes away the sympathy which people feel for the victims and they start blaming them as if they were monsters of iniquity. Even worse, those of them who have a negative self-image will blame themselves unnecessarily for the catastrophe and push themselves towards madness. It is, therefore, callous to blame the victims.
It may be more helpful to suggest that, while the movements of tectonic plates causing quakes cannot be cotrolled, human beings in positions of power can protect ordinary citizens by building earthquake proof houses and public buildings. Those who had the knowledge and the power to make such buildings should be blamed in the public interest. Those who cut down trees—the ‘timber mafia’ as it is called—should also be blamed. Trees hold the earth together and when they are cut down the soil is eroded. The area becomes prone to landslides. Imagine landslides when a big earthquake occurs? You get stranded on the road; aid cannot reach the poor people trapped in the area and the cost of reconstruction increases manifold. Projects like creating new leisure resorts in the mountains by felling hectares of forest are precisely the kind of destructive activity which ought to be criticized. Moreover, the lack of helicopter ambulances; lack of hospitals; lack of roads in our far flung mountains can be blamed upon all governments since 1947.
Not creating university departments of earthquake engineering should be blamed. So, without blaming the poor victims of tragedies, there are lot many people, pressure groups and leaders whom one can blame. When we blame the poor victims we allow such people—the ones responsible for poor housing and bad services etc—to go Scot free. This means that we allow the sharks in our society to keep exploiting poor people and do nothing to prevent a repetition of such horrendous events. This, I believe, is criminal. So, by blaming the victims for ‘sins’ and not blaming powerful decision-makers for their ignorance, selfishness and lapses, we are abetting crime—and worse!
Another thing which decreases our sympathy for human suffering is to let our judgment become clouded with the myths and stereotypes of our society. All societies have stereotypes--jakes are based upon them (remember the Scottish, Irish, Sikh and Pathan jokes). Some groups of humanity are called miserly; other stupid; and still others cowardly or corrupt. Powerless groups-- working–class ones, minorities, women --have generally been seen as being foolish, lazy, ignorant and unreliable. In our country the Kashmiris are called ungrateful, unfaithful and so on. There are also stereotypical images of the Pashtuns, Sindhis, Urdu-speakers etc. Most stereotypes are created by prejudice and are based on hearsay or on the impression given by a very inadequate sample. Also, when people are talking about ‘national’ or ‘group’ or ‘racial’ character in terms of stereotypes, they assume that this or that character trait is inborn, fixed and unchangeable (‘It is in the blood’ people claim).
While there may be similarities of behaviour in cohesive groups, there is no evidence that it is necessarily intrinsic and therefore, fixed. Moreover, sometimes the stereotype is based on the one-sided impression or is completely erroneous and prejudiced. In the case of the stereotype about the Kashmiris, it may harden people’s hearts towards the victims of the earthquake—who are mostly Kashmiris—on the false premise that they are by nature ‘ungrateful’ and will blame Pakistan even after all the generosity which is shown to them.
Kashmiris are like other people. They are grateful and loyal to their families. There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that they lack the normal human emotions which the rest of humanity possesses. That they are alienated from other people, and have been alienated from them in all known history, is because they have always been treated badly by outsiders. Kashmir was ruled by the Pathans, the Mughals and the Dogras for centuries. All used to tax these very poor people and they had to hide their goods from the oppressive taxation agent. This made them lie about their goods (animals, produce) and try to please the agent. But of course they did not like the agent or the ruler who had sent him so they were not faithful or grateful to them. They also had to work in the plains in the winter to exist at all. But, come spring and they would pack up and leave for their heavenly hills. The city people, their masters, called this lack of gratitude, breaking of faith (bewafai) and so on. But if you reduce someone to beggary and make him choose temporary exile just to survive, can you really blame him for going off to his native land to till the soil which will keep the wolf from the door through the snows of winter? And after 1947 both the Indian and the Pakistani governments foisted very corrupt leaders upon both parts of Kashmir. The ordinary person has no access to hospitals, good roads, good jobs and a decent living even now. So what makes us—whether in India or in Pakistan—feel that the Kashmiris should be grateful to us? In short, the stereotype is wrong because it is constructed by outsiders from the behaviour of Kashmiris—justified in my opinion—towards them (the outsiders) and not within their own families, clans and villages.
This does not mean that generalities of behaviour, group values or shared norms do not occur. Of course, they do. It is true, for instance, that European societies allow girls and boys to mix freely. Our society puts restrictions on such meetings. This means that the values of the two societies are different. It does not mean that Europeans are shameless and have no honour (be ghairat). To say that would be wrong because we cannot judge another culture according to our values. It is also true that developing countries have corrupt public employees. But if someone says that Asians and Africans are basically, intrinsically, irredeemably and unchangeably corrupt by nature, that would not be a scientific statement. There are social, economic and historical reasons why groups do behave in a certain manner. But a social scientist should explain this kind of behaviour with reference to these factors and not give a value judgment in terms of an essential character quality. Giving such judgment would be a stereotype.
To sum up, the negative stereotypes about Kashmiris are harmful at this point because they tend to draw sympathy away from them. This is the time to help them whether such help does away the alienation they have felt for outsiders for centuries or not.
In short, if we want to reduce mental pain let us first heal ourselves. Let us get rid of superstitions, value judgments and prejudices. That is the way to sanity for our traumatized society.
The author is a linguistic historian
Dr. Tariq
Rahman