Who are the men and women who choose to become assassins? What are their personal, political and religious motivations? Are they brainwashed by their cult leaders?
As a student of political and religious psychology, these were some of the questions that came to mind when I read about the assassination of Salmaan Taseer, the governor of Pakistan’s Punjab province. On January 4th, 2011, he was murdered by his security guard Malik Mumtaz Qadri. I was shocked by the number of both lawyers and lay people who supported and celebrated the assassination, showering him with rose petals and calling him a hero. Some of his supporters compared him with Ilm-ud-din, who was considered a martyr by many Indian Muslims.
When I read the news reports, I learned that Taseer, a secular- minded politician, had spoken out in defense of Aasia Bibi, a poor innocent Christian woman, who had become a victim of Pakistan’s controversial Blasphemy Law. Qadri was offended by Taseer’s criticisms of religious fundamentalism and his reference to the Blasphemy Law as the “black law”. Taseer was challenging the abuses of the law in Pakistan. Qadri, like Ilm-ud-din, was proud rather than ashamed of his violent act. I am curious to see what will be the outcome of Qadri’s trial, as we all know that Ilm-ud-din was tried, convicted and hanged by the Indian courts on October 31st, 1929, even though political and social leaders like Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Mohammad Iqbal had tried their best to defend him.
Ilm-ud-din was charged and convicted in the killing Raj Pal, publisher of the book Rangeela Rasul [Colourful Prophet] written by Champu Pati Lal. The book was considered blasphemous by many conservative Muslims. It is also interesting to note that when the Blasphemy Law was discussed by the British government, Jinnah had opposed it as a secular person as he saw the law obstructing the freedom of speech of Indian citizens. It is becoming quite obvious that in Pakistan a large number of Muslims not only support the Blasphemy Law but also praise Qadri for taking the law into his own hands and killing an unarmed, peaceful citizen.
After reading the story of the assassination by Qadri, I wondered whether only Muslims used their religious sentiments to justify their violent acts or whether such cases were to be found among followers of other religions. While doing my research I came across the following cases.
The first example was Indian leader Mohandas Gandhi, who was assassinated on January 30th, 1948 by Nathuram Godse, an extremist Hindu who was offended and angry that Gandhi was being friendly with Muslims and had agreed to engage in serious political dialogues with the Muslim League’s leader, Mohammad Ali Jinnah. Gandhi had been attacked four times prior to his assassination. When he died he was calling out “Ram Ram” [Oh God]. It was ironic that the promoter of non-violence died a violent death. His assassin was a member of the extremist political organization, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, and the militant religious organization, Hindu Mahasabha, which were banned by the Indian government after the assassination. Nathuram Godse was tried in court and convicted.
The second example was Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, who was assassinated on October 31st, 1984, by her Sikh security guards, Satwant Singh and Beant Singh, who were angry because Indira Gandhi had ordered a military attack on the Golden Temple as a part of Operation Blue Star. There was a strong emotional and political reaction to that assassination and thousands of Sikhs were killed in retaliation.
The third example was Indira Gandhi’s son Rajev Gandhi, who was assassinated on May 21st, 1991, in Tamil Naidu, India by Thenmozhi Rajarathan, a female assassin, also known as Dhanu. She was a member of the Tamil Tigers [LTTE, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ealam] and was motivated by a nationalist rather than a religious ideology.
The fourth example was Martin Luther King, Jr. who was assassinated on April 4th, 1968. James Earl Ray, who was charged with the assassination, pleaded guilty on March 10th, 1969 and was sentenced to 99 years in prison. Ray, a white man, hated King and his political ideal of ending racial segregation in America. The assassin, like his victim, was also a Christian but was angry because of his racial prejudice.
The fifth example was Yitzak Rabin, who was assassinated on November 4th, 1995 in Tel Aviv, Israel, by Yigal Amir, a right wing Jewish extremist, who was angry because Rabin had shaken hands with PLO [Palestinian Liberation Organization] leader Yasser Arafat and was paving the way to create a peaceful Middle East by supporting the Oslo Accords. The Jewish community was ashamed and embarrassed by his act. To commemorate Rabin’s sacrifices for peace, the Israeli government declared the date of his death a national memorial holiday.
When I reflected on the stories of these assassinations, I realized that the assassins have the following ten characteristics:
1. Assassins who are fundamentalists, extremists and militants are present not only among Pakistani Muslims but in other communities, cultures and religions. They justify their behaviors by their ideology.
2. The ideology of the assassin need not be religious; it can be a political or nationalistic ideology.
3. These assassins are connected with a religious or political group that provides them the support, guidance and inspiration they need.
4. While some communities feel ashamed of their violent acts, there are others who feel proud of their behavior and create shrines to remember them.
5. The assassin sees his victim supporting his enemies and by association perceives him to be his enemy who must be eliminated.
6. The assassin believes that problems can be solved by bullets rather than ballots. He does not believe in a political process to make positive changes in society.
7. The assassin does not trust the legal system and takes the law into his own hands. He feels that his act of violence is an act of heroism rather than cowardice.
8. The assassin has no personal animosity against the victim and the murder is not an act of revenge.
9. The assassin is not a serial killer and does not commit a series of murders against a particular religious, racial or ethnic group.
10. The assassin does not suffer from schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder, paranoid psychosis or other form of mental illness.
I find it interesting that other than the female Tamil Tiger who killed Rajev Gandhi and many innocent civilians, the other assassins were men, and they were not suicide bombers. They were involved in target killing of leaders but did not seek to kill civilians.
It is a sad state of affairs that even in the contemporary world, we have cultish leaders of religious institutions, political organizations and nationalist parties who brainwash their young members and prepare them for target killings. They remind us of Hasan Sabah, a mesmerizing religious leader of 11th century Persia, who used to intoxicate his disciples with hashish, music, women and fantasies of heaven, and then send them to kill religious and political leaders all over the Middle East. Because of the hashish intoxication they were known as hasisheen, precursors of modern assassins.
It is unfortunate that even in the 21st century, we have not reached a level of human evolution and enlightenment that embraces a sense of tolerance for each other’s philosophy and lifestyle, so that we resolve our conflicts peacefully. We are still surrounded by religious zealots and political activists who believe that by killing a political leader they will advance their religious or political cause and make a name for themselves in history. As long as we live in communities, countries and cultures that consider these people heroes, there will be more people who will kill political and religious leaders to become martyrs / murderers.
