GyaniNani's Reading Room

Category: Conversations

  • Beyond the Breaking News-Part 7

    Violence, Fear, Perception and Agency

    Deepali Bhattacharya

    In conversation with TD, Clinical Psychologist  ·  An eleven-part reflection, with notes and references

    PART VII

    Why Old Wounds Never Really Leave

    “Communities remember far longer than newspapers do.”

    There are moments in history that become reference points.

    Ask people where they were during a major earthquake, a terrorist attack or a national tragedy, and many can answer almost instantly.

    Not because they were present.

    But because the event became part of their collective memory. 16

    After the recent train murder, I heard several people say the same thing.

    “It reminded me of 26/11.”

    The comparison was not about numbers.

    It was about emotion.

    When I asked TD why old tragedies return so easily, he explained the idea of collective trauma. 15

    Unlike personal trauma, collective trauma belongs to an entire community. It becomes part of the stories people tell, the fears they inherit and the way future events are interpreted.

    A new incident does not arrive alone.

    It awakens older memories.

    This is true not only for acts of terrorism.

    Communities affected by riots, displacement, recurring floods or long histories of violence often carry invisible emotional maps. A loud sound, a familiar location or even a news headline can reopen emotions that had never completely healed.

    Perhaps this is why healing requires more than time.

    Time passes.

    Memory remains.

    The challenge before society is not to erase painful memories. That is neither possible nor desirable.

    The challenge is to prevent painful memories from becoming permanent prisons.

    Collective memory can become a source of wisdom.

    Or it can become a source of perpetual fear.

    The difference lies in how societies remember.

    Do we remember only the horror?

    Or do we also remember the courage of ordinary people who helped one another?

    History offers both.

    What we choose to pass on matters.

    A QUESTION THAT STAYED WITH ME…

    When does healthy caution quietly become a life governed by fear?

    Notes:

    15.  Erikson (1976), studying the Buffalo Creek flood, first described trauma that damages the tissue of community itself; Hirschberger (2018) reviews how collective trauma becomes part of a group’s identity and meaning-making across generations.

  • Beyond the Breaking News-Part 6

    Violence, Fear, Perception and Agency

    Deepali Bhattacharya

    In conversation with TD, Clinical Psychologist  ·  An eleven-part reflection, with notes and references

    PART VI

    “That Could Have Been Me”

    “Fear is not only about danger. It is about nearness.”

    A few days after the train murder, I found myself listening to conversations in different places. At a café. In a waiting room. During a taxi ride. People were discussing the same incident, but their reactions were strikingly different.

    One young woman who travelled daily by local train admitted that she had barely slept the night after watching the video.

    An elderly gentleman who mostly travelled by car said, “Terrible incident… but these things happen.”

    Neither response was wrong.

    They were simply different.

    When I mentioned this to TD, he smiled.

    “The mind asks only one question before it measures risk,” he said.

    “Could that have been me?”

    Psychologists call this risk perception. Interestingly, our perception of risk is rarely based on statistical probability. It is shaped by familiarity, proximity and imagination. 13

    A commuter who boards the same train every day does not see a random incident. She sees herself standing in that compartment.

    A parent watching news of violence against children imagines their own son or daughter.

    A young bride hearing of another dowry death quietly wonders about her own future.

    Fear becomes personal long before danger becomes probable.

    This is why two people watching the same news bulletin often walk away with entirely different emotions.

    The event is the same.

    The imagination is different.

    Years ago, while interacting with women in rural communities, I noticed something similar. Women routinely described walking long distances before sunrise or after sunset because they had no choice. When I asked whether they were afraid, many replied, “Yes. But we still have to go.”

    Their fear had not disappeared.

    Life had simply left them with fewer alternatives.

    Risk perception is therefore never only psychological. 14

    It is also social.

    Economic circumstances.

    Gender.

    Age.

    Disability.

    Occupation.

    All shape how close danger feels.

    Perhaps this is why public policy must listen not only to crime statistics but also to people’s lived experiences of safety.

    Because people do not live according to probability.

    They live according to perception.

    And perception shapes behaviour.

    A QUESTION THAT STAYED WITH ME…

    If fear grows through imagination, can memory make that fear last long after the event has passed?

    Notes:

    13.  The classic account is Slovic (1987): lay risk perception tracks dread, familiarity and controllability rather than probability. Loewenstein et al. (2001) formalise this as “risk as feelings” — emotional reactions to risk routinely diverge from cognitive assessments and often drive behaviour.

    14.  Kasperson et al. (1988) call this the social amplification of risk: social position, communication channels and institutional response amplify or attenuate how dangerous an event feels to different groups.

  • Beyond the Breaking News-Part 4

    Violence, Fear, Perception and Agency

    Deepali Bhattacharya

    In conversation with TD, Clinical Psychologist  ·  An eleven-part reflection, with notes and references

    PART IV

    The Crowd That Watches

    “Violence is committed by one person. Helplessness is often created by many.”

    The video disturbed people for many reasons.

    But one detail returned repeatedly in conversations.

    “So many people were standing there.”

    “Why didn’t anyone intervene?”

    “Couldn’t someone have stopped it?”

    These questions arise almost every time footage of public violence emerges.

    We imagine ourselves inside the situation and instinctively believe we would have acted differently.

    Perhaps we would.

    Perhaps we would not.

    When I posed this question to TD, he introduced me to one of the most widely studied ideas in social psychology—the Bystander Effect. 9

    Developed through the work of psychologists Bibb Latané and John Darley, the theory suggests something that appears counterintuitive.

    The more people witness an emergency, the less likely any one individual is to intervene.

    Responsibility becomes diluted.

    Each person unconsciously waits for someone else to act. Someone older. Someone stronger. Someone more qualified. Someone else.

    By the time everyone had waited, no one had moved.

    Understanding this does not excuse inaction.

    But it helps us understand it.

    Human behaviour under stress is rarely as simple as courage versus cowardice.

    Fear freezes.

    Confusion delays.

    Crowds look to one another for cues.

    If nobody moves, stillness itself begins to feel like the appropriate response.

    Yet the consequences extend far beyond the moment.

    For the victim, help does not arrive.

    For those watching later, another message is silently learnt.

    “If nobody helped them, would anyone help me?”

    This is where the psychological damage spreads.

    The violence lasts for minutes.

    The helplessness lasts much longer.

    As someone who has spent years listening to survivors of domestic violence, I have heard another version of the same story.

    “My neighbours knew.”

    “My relatives suspected.”

    “My colleagues noticed.”

    “But nobody asked.”

    Different setting.

    Different violence.

    The same silence.

    Sometimes people remain silent because they are afraid.

    Sometimes because they feel it is not their place.

    Sometimes because they genuinely do not know what to do.

    But from the perspective of the person experiencing violence, silence often feels indistinguishable from indifference.

    Perhaps that is why communities matter so much.

    Communities are not built merely by living close to one another.

    They are built when responsibility remains personal.

    When we stop assuming someone else will notice.

    Someone else will report.

    Someone else will intervene.

    Kindness begins long before heroism.

    It begins with paying attention.

    By asking if someone is alright.

    With refusing to dismiss obvious distress as “their personal matter.”

    Most acts of intervention will never appear in newspapers. 10

    But they may prevent tragedies that otherwise would.

    A QUESTION THAT STAYED WITH ME…

    If fear can stop us from acting, what helps us move again?

    Before we can answer that, perhaps we need to understand something fundamental.

    Fear itself is not our enemy.

    Notes:

    9.  The foundational experiments are Darley and Latáné (1968) and Latáné and Darley (1970) on diffusion of responsibility; Fischer et al. (2011) provide the definitive meta-analysis, confirming the effect while showing it weakens in genuinely dangerous emergencies.

    10.  There is hopeful evidence here: Philpot et al. (2020), analysing real CCTV footage of public conflicts across three countries, found that in roughly nine out of ten incidents at least one bystander — typically several — did intervene. Intervention, not apathy, is the statistical norm.

  • Beyond the Breaking News-Epilogue

    Violence, Fear, Perception and Agency

    Deepali Bhattacharya

    In conversation with TD, Clinical Psychologist  ·  An eleven-part reflection, with notes and references

    Epilogue

    As I finished writing these reflections, I realised that this series was never really about one train, one crime or one headline.

    It was about us.

    About how we respond when violence enters our lives—not always directly, but through the stories we hear, the images we carry and the memories we inherit.

    The questions in these pages do not belong to psychologists alone.

    They belong to commuters.

    Parents.

    Teachers.

    Police officers.

    Journalists.

    Policy-makers.

    Neighbours.

    And to every one of us who has ever looked at a disturbing headline and wondered,

    “What is happening to us?”

    Perhaps the better question is,

    “What are we going to do next?”

    Because, in the end, TD’s final words remain the simplest and perhaps the wisest:

    “Keep living your life. What you are going to do matters more.”

    References

    Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.

    Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(2), 164–180.

    Bonanno, G. A. (2004). Loss, trauma, and human resilience: Have we underestimated the human capacity to thrive after extremely aversive events? American Psychologist, 59(1), 20–28.

    Darley, J. M., & Latáné, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4), 377–383.

    Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58.

    Erikson, K. T. (1976). Everything in its path: Destruction of community in the Buffalo Creek flood. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Fischer, P., Krueger, J. I., Greitemeyer, T., Vogrincic, C., Kastenmüller, A., Frey, D., Heene, M., Wicher, M., & Kainbacher, M. (2011). The bystander-effect: A meta-analytic review on bystander intervention in dangerous and non-dangerous emergencies. Psychological Bulletin, 137(4), 517–537.

    Foa, E. B., & Kozak, M. J. (1986). Emotional processing of fear: Exposure to corrective information. Psychological Bulletin, 99(1), 20–35.

    Freyd, J. J. (1996). Betrayal trauma: The logic of forgetting childhood abuse. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. (1976). Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of Communication, 26(2), 172–199.

    Halbwachs, M. (1992). On collective memory (L. A. Coser, Ed. & Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1950)

    Hirschberger, G. (2018). Collective trauma and the social construction of meaning. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1441.

    Holman, E. A., Garfin, D. R., & Silver, R. C. (2014). Media’s role in broadcasting acute stress following the Boston Marathon bombings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(1), 93–98.

    International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS) & ICF. (2021). National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5), 2019–21: India. Mumbai: IIPS.

    Janoff-Bulman, R. (1992). Shattered assumptions: Towards a new psychology of trauma. New York: Free Press.

    Kasperson, R. E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H. S., Emel, J., Goble, R., Kasperson, J. X., & Ratick, S. (1988). The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis, 8(2), 177–187.

    Latáné, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help? New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

    LeDoux, J. E. (1996). The emotional brain: The mysterious underpinnings of emotional life. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Lieberman, M. D., Eisenberger, N. I., Crockett, M. J., Tom, S. M., Pfeifer, J. H., & Way, B. M. (2007). Putting feelings into words: Affect labeling disrupts amygdala activity in response to affective stimuli. Psychological Science, 18(5), 421–428.

    Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 267–286.

    Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56(3), 227–238.

    McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176–187.

    National Crime Records Bureau. (2026). Crime in India 2024. New Delhi: Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.

    Öhman, A., & Mineka, S. (2001). Fears, phobias, and preparedness: Toward an evolved module of fear and fear learning. Psychological Review, 108(3), 483–522.

    Philpot, R., Liebst, L. S., Levine, M., Bernasco, W., & Lindegaard, M. R. (2020). Would I be helped? Cross-national CCTV footage shows that intervention is the norm in public conflicts. American Psychologist, 75(1), 66–75.

    Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236(4799), 280–285.

    Slovic, P. (2007). “If I look at the mass I will never act”: Psychic numbing and genocide. Judgment and Decision Making, 2(2), 79–95.

    Small, D. A., & Loewenstein, G. (2003). Helping a victim or helping the victim: Altruism and identifiability. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26(1), 5–16.

    Snyder, C. R. (2002). Hope theory: Rainbows in the mind. Psychological Inquiry, 13(4), 249–275.

    Thompson, R. R., Jones, N. M., Holman, E. A., & Silver, R. C. (2019). Media exposure to mass violence events can fuel a cycle of distress. Science Advances, 5(4), eaav3502.

    Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207–232.

    World Health Organization. (2002). World report on violence and health. Geneva: WHO.

    World Health Organization. (2009). Violence prevention: The evidence — Changing cultural and social norms that support violence. Geneva: WHO.

  • Beyond the Breaking News- Part 11

    Violence, Fear, Perception and Agency

    Deepali Bhattacharya

    In conversation with TD, Clinical Psychologist  ·  An eleven-part reflection, with notes and references

    PART XI

    Keep Living Your Life

    “The final word should never belong to fear.”

    As our conversation drew to a close, I asked TD one last question.

    “After everything we have discussed—the violence, the fear, the uncertainty—what would you like people to carry with them?”

    He did not answer immediately.

    Then he said something beautifully simple.

    “Keep living your life.”

    The sentence stayed with me.

    Not because it dismissed fear.

    But because it placed fear in its rightful place.

    Fear has a purpose.

    It warns us.

    It prepares us.

    Sometimes it protects us.

    But it was never meant to become the author of our lives.

    Violence seeks more than victims.

    It seeks to alter the way the rest of us live.

    It asks us to withdraw.

    To distrust.

    To isolate ourselves.

    To become suspicious of one another.

    When that happens, violence succeeds far beyond the original act.

    Perhaps resilience is not the absence of fear.

    Perhaps resilience is quietly refusing to surrender our humanity because of it. 23

    This does not mean becoming careless.

    It does not mean ignoring danger.

    It means refusing to allow danger to define every decision we make.

    As I look back on my years in the development sector, I realise that the people who have inspired me most were not fearless.

    The widow who learnt a new livelihood after unimaginable loss.

    The survivor who chose to testify.

    The social worker who continued visiting difficult communities.

    The police officer who listened with compassion.

    The teacher who believed one child could still change.

    None of them were untouched by fear.

    They simply chose not to let fear make all their decisions.

    Perhaps that is what agency finally looks like.

    Not extraordinary courage.

    Quiet courage.

    The courage to continue caring.

    To continue trusting carefully.

    To continue building communities.

    To continue believing that kindness is worthwhile.

    To continue living.

    Because the opposite of violence is not only justice.

    It is also connection.

    The opposite of fear is not bravado.

    It is agency.

    And perhaps the opposite of despair is not certainty.

    It is hope expressed through action.

    The headlines will change tomorrow.

    Another story will replace today’s.

    But long after the breaking news fades, the deeper question remains.

    What kind of society are we becoming?

    And equally important,

    What kind of society are we choosing to build?

    A QUESTION THAT STAYED WITH ME…

    What if our greatest contribution is not that we lived in safe times…

    …but that we helped create a safer, kinder and more compassionate society for those who come after us?

    Perhaps that is where every meaningful conversation on violence should finally arrive.

    Not at fear.

    But at responsibility.

    Not at despair.

    But at agency.

    And certainly not at the breaking news.

    But beyond it.

    Notes:

    22. WHO (2009) reviews the evidence that changing cultural and social norms — including the everyday speech, jokes and silences that signal acceptability — is a core violence-prevention strategy in its own right.

    23.  Resilience research supports this quiet framing: Bonanno (2004) shows resilience is common rather than exceptional, and Masten (2001) famously calls it “ordinary magic” — arising from everyday human systems of relationship, meaning and agency rather than rare heroism.

  • Beyond the Breaking News-Part 10

    Violence, Fear, Perception and Agency

    Deepali Bhattacharya

    In conversation with TD, Clinical Psychologist  ·  An eleven-part reflection, with notes and references

    PART X

    Kindness Is Not Softness. It Is Prevention.

    “Violence rarely begins with a weapon. More often, it begins with everyday indifference.”

    When people speak about preventing violence, the conversation usually turns towards stricter laws, policing, surveillance or harsher punishments.

    These conversations are important.

    But they often begin too late.

    By the time the law intervenes, someone has already been hurt.

    TD offered another perspective that stayed with me.

    “Kindness,” he said, “is prevention.” 21

    At first, I wondered whether the idea was too simple.

    Then I thought about the people I have met over the years.

    A teacher humiliating a child in front of the class.

    Parents constantly comparing siblings.

    A husband controlling every decision his wife makes.

    Friends laughing at sexist jokes.

    Neighbours choosing silence when they hear repeated screams next door.

    None of these moments make the evening news.

    Yet they quietly shape the emotional climate in which violence either grows or is challenged.

    Violence is rarely born overnight.

    It rehearses itself.

    In language.

    In ridicule.

    In entitlement.

    In humiliation.

    In the belief that some people deserve less dignity than others.

    Perhaps this is why TD insisted that we pay attention to our ordinary conversations.

    Every joke that normalises dowry.

    Every casual remark that blames survivors.

    Every statement that dismisses emotional pain.

    Every act of public humiliation.

    These may appear insignificant.

    They are not.

    Children are always listening.

    Young people are always observing.

    Communities are always learning what is considered acceptable. 22

    If cruelty can be learnt, compassion can also be learnt.

    If disrespect spreads through imitation, so can kindness.

    I often think of development work in the same way.

    Communities do not change only because policies change.

    They change because everyday behaviour changes.

    One respectful conversation.

    One teacher who listens.

    One police officer who responds with dignity.

    One neighbour who chooses to intervene.

    These actions may never become headlines.

    Yet they prevent stories that otherwise might have.

    Perhaps kindness has been misunderstood.

    It is not a weakness.

    It is one of society’s earliest warning systems.

    It notices suffering before statistics do.

    A QUESTION THAT STAYED WITH ME…

    If kindness is prevention, what ultimately gives us the courage to keep choosing it in a world where violence still exists?

    That was the final question I asked TD.

    Notes:

    21.  Public health reaches the same conclusion: the WHO’s World Report on Violence and Health (2002) locates the roots of violence in an ecology of relationships, communities and norms — prevention therefore begins long before law enforcement. On learned aggression, see Bandura (1977).

    22.  WHO (2009) reviews the evidence that changing cultural and social norms — including the everyday speech, jokes and silences that signal acceptability — is a core violence-prevention strategy in its own right.

  • Beyond the Breaking News-Part 9

    Violence, Fear, Perception and Agency

    Deepali Bhattacharya

    In conversation with TD, Clinical Psychologist  ·  An eleven-part reflection, with notes and references

    PART IX

    Agency: The Antidote to Fear

    “Fear tells us what we cannot control. Agency reminds us what we still can.”

    After several conversations on fear, I found myself asking TD a question that many of us quietly ask ourselves after every disturbing news report.

    “What can one ordinary person possibly do?”

    It is an honest question.

    We cannot eliminate violence.

    We cannot predict every danger.

    We cannot control the choices other people make.

    So where does that leave us?

    TD’s answer shifted the conversation in an important way.

    “Psychology uses a simple but powerful word—agency.” 19

    Agency is our ability to recognise that even when circumstances are beyond our control, our response is not.

    Fear narrows our world.

    Agency begins to expand it again.

    It is the difference between saying,

    “The world has become unsafe.”

    And asking,

    “What can I do to become safer?”

    The difference may appear small.

    Psychologically, it is enormous.

    Agency restores something that violence often steals.

    Choice.

    I have seen this repeatedly while working with women rebuilding their lives after violence.

    The turning point rarely arrives through one dramatic event.

    It begins quietly.

    A woman decides to attend a support group.

    Another applies for a job.

    Someone learns self-defence.

    Someone else files a complaint after years of silence.

    Each decision appears ordinary.

    Yet together they represent something extraordinary.

    They mark the return of agency.

    The same principle applies beyond individual lives.

    Communities become stronger when people know one another.

    When neighbours exchange phone numbers.

    When commuters intervene instead of merely recording.

    When schools teach children not only mathematics and science but also empathy, emotional regulation and responsible citizenship.

    Preparedness is not paranoia.

    It is confidence.

    The purpose of preparedness is not to convince ourselves that danger is everywhere.

    It is to reassure ourselves that if danger appears, we are not entirely helpless.

    Perhaps that is why agency is so deeply connected with hope.

    Hope is not wishful thinking.

    Hope is believing that our actions still matter. 20

    A QUESTION THAT STAYED WITH ME…

    If agency helps us respond after violence, what helps prevent violence from taking root in the first place?

    Perhaps the answer lies much closer to home than we imagine.

    Notes:

    19.  Bandura (1997, 2006) places agency and self-efficacy at the centre of psychological functioning: the belief that one’s actions can influence outcomes is among the strongest protections against helplessness.

    20.  This is close to Snyder’s (2002) hope theory, in which hope is not optimism but the combination of goals, pathways and the sense of one’s own capacity to act.

  • Beyond the Breaking News-Part 5

    Violence, Fear, Perception and Agency

    Deepali Bhattacharya

    In conversation with TD, Clinical Psychologist  ·  An eleven-part reflection, with notes and references

    PART V

    Fear Is Not the Enemy

    “Before we learn how to overcome fear, we must first stop being ashamed of it.”

    One of the most reassuring moments in my conversation with TD came when I asked him whether people were overreacting.

    His answer surprised me.

    “No,” he said.

    “Fear is survival equipment.” 11

    I have carried that sentence with me ever since.

    We often speak about fear as though it were a weakness.

    Parents tell children not to be afraid.

    Leaders urge people to be fearless.

    Films celebrate those who appear untouched by danger.

    But psychology tells a different story.

    Fear is ancient.

    Long before human beings learnt to build cities or write constitutions, fear kept them alive.

    It warned them of predators.

    It prevented unnecessary risks.

    It prepared the body to respond quickly to danger.

    Without fear, our species would probably not have survived.

    The problem, therefore, is not fear.

    The problem is what happens after fear arrives.

    Some people deny it.

    Some become overwhelmed by it.

    Some quietly organise their lives around avoiding it.

    TD explained something that I found both comforting and practical.

    “The healthiest response,” he said, “is to begin by naming it.”

    “I am afraid.”

    Not because fear deserves control.

    But because unnamed fear often controls us.

    Psychologists have long observed that emotions become easier to regulate once they are acknowledged. 12

    The simple act of recognising fear reduces some of its power.

    Perhaps this explains why conversations matter.

    When people speak honestly about fear, they often discover they are not alone.

    The commuter who hesitates before boarding a train.

    The young woman returning home after work.

    The elderly man living by himself.

    The parents waiting for their child to come home.

    Their fears are different.

    Their humanity is the same.

    The goal is not to become fearless.

    The goal is to prevent fear from becoming the architect of our lives.

    Fear should inform our decisions.

    It should never imprison them.

    A QUESTION THAT STAYED WITH ME…

    If fear is natural, why do some people recover from frightening experiences while others remain trapped by them?

    Perhaps the answer lies in another psychological truth.

    We do not respond only to danger.

    We respond to how close that danger feels to us.

    Notes:

    11.  On fear as evolved protection, see Öhman and Mineka (2001) on the brain’s dedicated “fear module,” shaped by evolutionary threats and designed for rapid, automatic response.

    12.  This is affect labelling: Lieberman et al. (2007) showed that simply putting feelings into words dampens amygdala reactivity — neural evidence that naming an emotion begins to regulate it.

  • Beyond the Breaking News-Part 3

    Violence, Fear, Perception and Agency

    Deepali Bhattacharya

    In conversation with TD, Clinical Psychologist  ·  An eleven-part reflection, with notes and references

    PART III

    When Violence Is Chosen

    “The deepest wound is not always death. Sometimes it is the knowledge that another human being chose to inflict it.”

    Not long ago, I found myself thinking about two families.

    One had lost a loved one after a long battle with cancer. They spoke of hospital visits, hope, setbacks, prayers and finally acceptance. Their grief was immense, but woven into it was the painful recognition that illness had followed its own course.

    The other family had lost a young member in an act of violence.

    As I listened to them, I realised that although both families had experienced profound loss, their grief was different.

    The second family kept returning to the same question.

    “Why?”

    Why would someone do this?

    What kind of anger could make another human being take a life?

    Could this have been prevented?

    These questions had no easy answers, yet they refused to disappear.

    When I shared this observation with TD, he remained silent for a few moments before responding.

    “Because intention changes everything.”

    It is such a simple sentence that one can easily overlook its depth.

    Natural disasters destroy homes.

    Diseases claim lives.

    Road accidents leave families devastated.

    Yet deliberate violence carries a different psychological burden.

    It is not simply that someone died.

    It is that another human being made a conscious decision to cause suffering.

    Psychologists often describe this as a rupture in our fundamental assumptions about the world. 7

    Most of us move through life believing that although bad things happen, most people are basically decent. We trust strangers enough to board a train, send our children to school, seek help when we are lost, or knock on a neighbour’s door.

    Deliberate violence unsettles these invisible assumptions.

    It forces us to ask not only whether the world is safe, but whether people are.

    That is why acts of intentional violence leave behind something more than grief.

    They leave behind doubt.

    I have often noticed this during conversations with survivors.

    Many speak less about the injury itself and more about the betrayal.

    “It was my husband.”

    “It was someone I trusted.”

    “It was my neighbour.”

    “It was a relative.”

    “It was someone everyone respected.”

    Violence committed by strangers is frightening.

    Violence committed by people we trust is psychologically devastating. 8

    The injury is no longer only physical.

    It becomes moral.

    It shakes our confidence in relationships themselves.

    Perhaps this is why violence against women within homes leaves such deep scars.

    The home is meant to represent safety.

    Marriage is meant to represent companionship.

    Family is meant to represent belonging.

    When violence emerges from these very spaces, the injury extends beyond the individual.

    It disturbs the meaning of home itself.

    The same is true for violence against children.

    Children are not merely hurt by abuse.

    Their understanding of trust is altered.

    Their sense of security becomes uncertain.

    The world no longer feels predictable.

    As I reflected on this, another thought emerged.

    Perhaps violence frightens us not because it reminds us that death exists.

    We already know that.

    Perhaps it frightens us because it reminds us that human beings are capable of choosing cruelty.

    And yet, if this is true, another truth must also exist.

    Human beings are equally capable of choosing compassion.

    Every act of violence is someone’s decision.

    Every act of courage is also someone’s decision.

    Perhaps the real question is not whether human beings are capable of darkness.

    History has answered that many times over.

    The question is whether we are equally committed to choosing light.

    A QUESTION THAT STAYED WITH ME…

    If deliberate violence destroys trust, how do societies rebuild it?

    Perhaps the answer lies not only in those who commit violence, but also in those who witness it.

    Because sometimes the deepest lesson is not what one person did.

    It is what everyone else did not do.

    Notes:

    7. Janoff-Bulman (1992) calls these “shattered assumptions”: trauma’s deepest damage is to our implicit beliefs that the world is benevolent, meaningful, and that we are safe within it.

    8.  Freyd (1996) terms this betrayal trauma: harm inflicted by those we depend on and trust is processed differently — and often more damagingly — than harm from strangers.

  • Beyond the Breaking News-Part-2

    A GYANINANI CONVERSATION | Series 2 | Part-2 of 11

    Violence | Fear |Perception| Agency

    Deepali Bhattacharya

    In conversation with TD, Clinical Psychologist  ·  An eleven-part reflection, with notes and references

    PART II

    When Fear Becomes Selective

    “Not every act of violence enters the national conscience. That, too, tells us something about ourselves.”

    A few years ago, I was sitting with a group of women during a field visit. The discussion had moved from livelihoods to marriage, from marriage to daughters, and almost inevitably, from daughters to dowry.

    One woman looked at me and said almost matter-of-factly,

    “Madam, every time we hear that another girl has died after marriage, we feel sad. Then life goes on.”

    There was no anger in her voice | No surprise | Only acceptance.

    That sentence disturbed me more than I admitted at the time.

    Not because she lacked compassion. But because violence had become familiar.

    Contrast this with what happens after an act of public violence.

    A murder inside a train

    A terrorist attack

    A school shooting

    A bomb blast

    For days, sometimes weeks, they dominate public conversation. News channels replay the footage. Experts debate motives. Politicians visit families. Security measures are reviewed. People change their routines. The violence enters our collective imagination.

    But the violence that unfolds quietly inside homes often follows a different trajectory.

    A woman dies after years of abuse.

    An elderly parent is assaulted by family members.

    A child is repeatedly abused by someone they know.

    A young bride is burned for dowry. 4

    The grief is devastating.

    Yet the public response is often muted.

    Why?

    This question stayed with me long after my conversation with TD.

    I asked him whether our minds respond differently to different forms of violence.

    He smiled before answering.

    “The human mind is influenced by visibility, proximity and novelty,” he said. 5

    “But society adds another layer. It decides which stories are repeatedly told—and which remain confined to private spaces.”

    His words made me think of something psychologists have long recognised.

    Human beings do not simply respond to events. We respond to how those events are framed, repeated and remembered.

    A violent incident that is filmed, replayed and discussed acquires psychological weight far beyond the number of people directly affected. Every replay tells us that this is important. Every headline reinforces its urgency. The story becomes part of our mental landscape.

    The violence inside homes rarely follows this path.

    It is hidden by walls. Protected by silence.

    Wrapped in words like adjustment, family honour, private matter, or these things happen.

    Many survivors of domestic violence have told me that the deepest wound was not only the abuse itself.

    It was the loneliness of carrying it.

    No cameras.

    No witnesses.

    No hashtags.

    No breaking news.

    Only another day.

    As someone who has worked on gender issues for much of my professional life, I have often wondered whether our public imagination has developed an unequal relationship with violence.

    We are startled by the unexpected. We are less disturbed by what repeats.

    Not because repeated violence hurts less.

    But because familiarity has a strange psychological effect, it slowly erodes our ability to remain shocked. 6

    Children growing up in violent homes often begin believing that shouting is normal.

    Communities living with caste violence may stop expecting justice.

    Women repeatedly exposed to harassment may begin planning their routes around danger rather than questioning why the danger exists.

    What begins as adaptation can quietly become acceptance.

    Psychology reminds us that human beings are remarkably adaptable. That is one of our greatest strengths.

    It is also one of our greatest vulnerabilities because we can adapt not only to kindness-

    We can adapt to cruelty.

    We can adapt to injustice.

    We can even adapt to fear.

    And once that happens, violence no longer needs to terrify us.

    It only needs to become ordinary!

    Perhaps that is why some of the most dangerous forms of violence are not those that explode into public consciousness. They are the ones that disappears into everyday life.

    This is not an argument against mourning public tragedies. Every life lost deserves our grief.

    Rather, it is an invitation to ask whether our compassion has become uneven.

    Why does one death become a national conversation while another remains a family secret?

    Why do we remember some victims by name while countless others are remembered only by statistics?

    There are no easy answers. But there is an uncomfortable truth.

    A society reveals its deepest values not only by what it condemns loudly.

    It also reveals them by what it quietly learns to live with.

    A QUESTION THAT STAYED WITH ME…

    When violence becomes familiar, do we become stronger as a society?

    Or do we slowly lose our ability to recognise suffering when it stands quietly beside us?

    In the next part, I want to explore another question that emerged from my conversation with TD: Why does deliberate violence disturb us so much more deeply than illness, accidents or natural death?

    Notes

    1.  On indirect, media-based exposure to violence: Holman, Garfin and Silver (2014) found that repeated media exposure to the Boston Marathon bombings was associated with higher acute stress than direct presence at the event — empirical support for the idea that widely broadcast violence is psychologically “experienced” by people far beyond the scene.

    2.  The mind’s preference for stories over statistics is well documented: the availability heuristic (Tversky & Kahneman, 1973) shows that vivid, easily recalled events inflate judgments of risk, and Small and Loewenstein (2003) demonstrate that a single identifiable victim moves people far more than statistical lives.

    3.  On fear as evolved survival machinery, see LeDoux (1996) on the brain’s ancient threat circuitry.

    4.  The scale of this quiet violence is documented annually: the National Crime Records Bureau’s Crime in India 2024 recorded 5,737 dowry deaths in that year — roughly sixteen every day — with researchers noting these figures are likely undercounts. NFHS-5 (2019–21) found that around 45% of women and 44% of men considered a husband justified in beating his wife in at least one circumstance — a measure of how far such violence has been normalised.

    5.  On how repetition and framing confer public importance: agenda-setting research (McCombs & Shaw, 1972) shows that media attention shapes what the public regards as significant, and framing analysis (Entman, 1993) shows that how a story is told shapes what it is understood to mean.

    6.  Psychology describes this erosion as habituation and “psychic numbing”: Slovic (2007) shows that human feeling fails to scale with repeated or mass suffering — we can remain moved by one story yet grow numb to a pattern.