Torture (And Empathy)

By Charles Ponnuthurai Sarvan –November 22, 2016

Prof. Charles Sarvan

The following arises from the furore caused by sending one Mr. Sisira Mendis, a senior police officer, to attend an international conference on torture because, it is alleged, Mr Mendis was a torturer himself. As one “Pentheus” (Sorrowful) responded in Colombo Telegraph, if to a conference on banking we send out best bankers, then it’s logical that to a conference on torture we send our best torturers. (There’s also the fear that the in-coming American President, Donald Trump, will condone “enhanced interrogation” – a euphemism for torture – and so encourage the practice elsewhere as well.)

But leaving aside levity and not-funny humour, torture is the intentional inflicting of pain, be it on humans, animals or insects: it’s appropriate that the word “torture” comes from the Latin meaning “twisted“. The impression or knowledge of torture that most of us have comes, fortunately, from a distance. We have neither seen nor heard but only read about torture. What follows is the thought of one who has no special knowledge nor has undertaken any research into the subject. The intention is to elicit response, provoke discussion and so work towards a better understanding of torture. The casual use of the word “torture” is not helpful: “It was a real torture to sit through that film”, etc.

Earliest records lead to the sombre conclusion that torture is as old as human history. Right from the beginning, we have indulged in it. Perhaps the experience centuries ago when we, little creatures with rudimentary tools and weapons, fought for our very survival, implanted in us a streak of cruelty which has persisted. Children are known to trap small creatures, and settle to having fun in torturing them. Is our willingness and wanting to torture natural, that is, from nature? The psychiatrist, R D Laing, wrote that, inhabiting a crazy world we all are, to a greater or lesser degree, maladjusted. Then is torture nurture, rather than nature? Or is it both?

It seems to me that a torturer cannot see himself as evil. (For convenience, I will use the masculine, though women have also participated in torture.) On the contrary, the torturer sees himself as serving a high cause, be it the state, ‘race’, religion or ideology. I suppose his declared intention is to punish; secondly, extract information and, thirdly, act as a deterrent to others. But is it as simple as that? Paedophiles are known to seek work where there is opportunity for them to give vent to their sickness. Similarly, torturers may gravitate to jobs which give them the opportunity, and the power, to vent their sadism. Cruelty becomes duty, the inflicting of pain, a pleasure. It can also be that certain work-environments (for example, the armed forces, the police, prison-guards) inure those employed to brutality. In some situations, crudity and brutality can become the norm, the every-day reality; no longer noted and thought about. It’s a case of nature and nurture coming together.

Read More