-By Rudrangshi Saha
Does it truly take a devil to commit a crime? Or is it possible for someone conventionally “normal,” someone like you, me, or the person standing next to you, to commit atrocities without blinking an eye? Rather, can one commit evil without truly being evil? Philosopher Hannah Arendt posed this exact question as she reported for The New Yorker on the 1961 war crimes trial of Adolf Eichmann. Eichmann, the unremarkable Nazi bureaucrat responsible for organizing the mass deportation of Jews to concentration camps, appeared to Arendt as shockingly ordinary—a man devoid of the sadistic malice typically associated with genocidal perpetrators. In her seminal work Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (1963), Arendt controversially concluded that Eichmann wasn’t some deranged monster but a “terrifyingly normal” figure, driven not by hatred, but by the mindless pursuit of career advancement.
But here’s where Arendt hit a nerve: Eichmann, in her view, performed evil acts not out of an evil heart, but due to an astonishing inability to think. His "thoughtlessness" was the crux of the problem—an inability to comprehend or consider the moral consequences of his actions. He simply followed orders, disengaged from the moral weight of his deeds. Arendt famously termed this phenomenon “the banality of evil.”
The controversy surrounding Arendt’s thesis exploded immediately. Critics baulked at the notion that such a key figure in one of history’s darkest genocides could lack evil intent. The theologian Gershom Scholem dismissed it as a simplistic slogan. Even Arendt’s close friend, novelist Mary McCarthy, was bewildered: “If he lacks thought, if he lacks conscience, isn’t he a monster?”
Rethinking The Banality Of Evil In Today’s Context:
Now, let’s hit pause on the Eichmann reel and fast forward to today. We are bombarded with heinous acts in the news- violent assaults, sexual abuse, racially charged attacks. Take, for instance, the woman raped on a busy street in Ujjain on September 4th while bystanders did nothing but film. Or the assault of a 72-year-old man on a train, accused of carrying beef. And just last month, an attendant in Badlapur was arrested for sexually abusing young girls in a school. These are chilling examples, not of psychopathic outliers, but of individuals who blend into society. They walk among us, often undetected, seeming like ordinary people.
Were these perpetrators born evil? Or, in their minds, did they think, rather, convince themselves, that their actions were “normal,” even justified? What if they too, like Eichmann, lacked the moral clarity to truly grasp the gravity of their actions?
Arendt’s thesis beckons us to reconsider: perhaps these individuals aren't inherently monstrous but are shaped by thoughtless conformity to norms, deeply ingrained prejudices, or an absence of self-reflection. Consider the shocking statistic: According to NCRB, in 2021, there were over 31,677 reported rapes in India. That’s 86 women raped every day. And yet, how often do we hear defences that trivialize the crime? “She dressed provocatively,” “Boys will be boys.” When society conditions individuals to view such acts as routine or justified, we edge dangerously close to Arendt's idea of "banal" evil—abominable acts carried out without the burden of moral reflection.
Is Evil Merely Thoughtlessness?
But is the banality of evil really as banal as Arendt proposed? Philosopher Claudia Card offers a critical counterpoint: evil, she argues, involves intolerable harms inflicted knowingly. Eichmann’s defence, that he was "just following orders" or was too shallow to grasp the consequences, feels like a cop-out. After all, does thoughtlessness absolve one of guilt? Can someone hide behind the veil of ignorance while carrying out systematic atrocities?
Think of the meticulous layers of deception surrounding the Holocaust. Jews were told they were being “resettled” for their own safety, right up to the gas chambers. These weren’t spontaneous outbursts of violence; they were precisely planned with the explicit aim of erasing evidence. Himmler himself ordered the bodies from mass executions to be exhumed and incinerated to hide Nazi crimes from the world. Here, it becomes hard to believe that those in charge were merely “thoughtless.” The layers of deception—to the victims, to outsiders, and perhaps even to themselves, were anything but banal.
In today’s world, this self-deception remains pervasive. Police brutality in India often operates in the shadows, obscured by excuses of "self-defence" or "following orders." In 2021 alone, there were over 2,200 custodial deaths reported in India, yet convictions of responsible officers remain disturbingly rare. The "thoughtlessness" defence crumbles when confronted with such cold, deliberate concealment.
Societal Complicity in the Banality of Evil:
Perhaps what makes the banality of evil so disturbing is the ease with which societies can slip into complicity. Eichmann was not an anomaly; he was a man of his time, shaped by a system that normalized genocide under the guise of bureaucracy. Today, when we excuse police violence, ignore caste-based atrocities, or passively scroll past videos of sexual assaults, we too participate in this normalization.
It is time to reconsider the concept of evil, not as the domain of psychopaths or monsters, but as something far more insidious. As societies, we must grapple with our own roles in perpetuating systems of violence and injustice. We cannot afford to remain morally disengaged. Because if we do, the line between ordinary and odious may become terrifyingly thin.
Reckoning with Responsibility:
Ultimately, if evil can be banal, are we all just one step away from becoming part of the machine? Are you sure you’re above it all? Are any of us? It’s not about being a psychopath; it’s about sliding into the abyss of conformity, about not asking the right questions—about following orders, blending in, and convincing ourselves that someone else will deal with the fallout.
Whether it’s the Nazi genocide concealed by bureaucratic euphemisms or modern-day violence hidden behind societal indifference- societies thrive on deception. But deception, in all its forms, is never banal. It requires deliberate choices, whether to ignore, conceal, or trivialize suffering.
To truly understand evil, we must defy how we deceive ourselves, as well as others. The theory Arendt posed, and one that remains relevant today, is not merely to identify evil but to ensure that our collective thoughtlessness doesn’t allow it to fester unchecked. After all, a society without reflection is one step closer to making the unimaginable routine.
“बुरा जो देखन मैं चला, बुरा न मिलिया कोय। जो दिल खोजा आपना, मुझसे बुरा न कोय॥”
Comments