Psychoanalysing lawyers' attack.

Byline: Muhammad Tahir Iqbal

The lawyer's attack on Punjab Institute of Cardiology (PIC) and the subsequent support from many big wigs of the legal fraternity should not shock those who are not lawyers and condemning the raid in worst tones.

A layman on the street is profoundly perplexed as to why the legal community is still unapologetic and calls for the release of its comrades held for being involved in the attack, notwithstanding the fact of causing ample disorder outside and inside the hospital.

This, no doubt, is unprecedented. The analysts are rightly saying that even the opposing foes do not attack the infirmaries in days of wars. The ranting anchors before TV cameras cannot comprehend the logic of defending the wrathful demeanours of the attacking lawyers.

What can be the root cause of this problem? Why has the legal community gone exceedingly berserk in a society where the precepts of constitution enjoin upon the citizens to stick to them?

To my perception, the problem is not political or cultural or constitutional; rather it's psychological. Human history has witnessed many a time that when individuals in society rise above the social and legal bindings of norms and laws, they are uncontrollably violent. When a certain group in a social fabric abuses the edicts of the law, it may play havoc if remains unhampered for a long span of time.

To analyse the psychological aspect, do examine the character of America through the prism of its war ambitions. It attacked Iraq on the plea that it carried Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). The world community was told that Iraq's WMD's are perilous for the security of the Middle East.

The United Nations took up the issue through resolution 1441 and appointed Hense Belix to ascertain the truth, who later submitted his report that he could not find signs of the presence of WMD's. But by the time the report appeared, the allied forces led by the United States had attacked Iraq.

Then take the examples of the kings of dark and medieval ages across the world. The most powerful in a tribe would get hold of the coveted throne and sway the people through the way he conceived right. His decree itself was the law. Even the judges or arbitrators couldn't dare to give a verdict against the sweet will of the king.

Now fast forward to the age of independent media where we find anchors and media men taking up the seats of social influence. You must have seen how some portion of media has been blatantly...