Disclaimer
The following article reflects the professional opinion of Mamta Bhatt, MACP, RP, a practicing psychotherapist. It should be read as a psychological analysis rather than a statement of fact regarding any ongoing legal proceedings. As the trial is currently underway, new evidence or findings may emerge that could alter or refine these observations.
The Psychology of “Us vs. Them”
One of the most powerful mechanisms underlying interpersonal and collective violence is the psychological process commonly referred to as the “us vs. them” mentality. Social psychology has long demonstrated that individuals naturally categorize people into an ingroup (“us”) and an outgroup (“them”). While this tendency is a normal aspect of human cognition, under certain circumstances it can evolve into othering—viewing another person as fundamentally different or less worthy of empathy.
When othering intensifies, it can progress to dehumanization, a process in which the targeted individual is no longer perceived as a complete human being with independent thoughts, feelings, and rights. Dehumanization lowers the psychological barriers that typically prevent acts of extreme aggression and violence.
From a psychological standpoint, this framework may offer one lens through which to understand the dynamics that have been alleged in the case involving Sia Goyal, Chetan Choudhary, and Ketan Agarwal.
Perceived Victimhood and the “Us vs. Them” Narrative
One recurring pattern observed in violent interpersonal crimes is that perpetrators often perceive themselves as victims of an oppressive system. Rather than viewing the intended victim as an individual, they may begin to see them as a symbol of everything that stands in the way of their autonomy, aspirations, or emotional needs.
In the present case, based on publicly available information and subject to the outcome of ongoing legal proceedings, one possible psychological interpretation is that the victim came to be viewed not as an individual but as an obstacle to desired goals.
When this cognitive shift occurs, empathy can gradually diminish. The individual becomes psychologically transformed from a person into a perceived problem that must be solved.
Family Dynamics, Autonomy, and Psychological Rebellion
Another possible contributing factor relates to family and cultural expectations.
In many traditional family systems, values such as being a “good daughter,” maintaining family honour, and respecting rigid hierarchical authority can play a significant role in shaping identity. When children—particularly daughters—experience limited opportunities to express differing opinions or exercise personal autonomy, feelings of resentment and emotional conflict may develop.
If these experiences are interpreted as persistent psychological oppression, some individuals may seek autonomy through secrecy, deception, or relationships that validate their frustrations.
Within such relationships, shared grievances can strengthen mutual identification. The bond becomes reinforced by a common narrative: “We understand each other because we are both victims.”
Over time, this shared identity can deepen the psychological divide between “us” and “them,” where those perceived as representing the oppressive system become increasingly devalued.
Reinforcement Through Like-Minded Relationships
Psychological research suggests that close relationships can significantly influence decision-making, particularly when both individuals reinforce each other’s beliefs without challenge.
When two people repeatedly validate shared grievances, perceived injustices, or fantasies of escape, their beliefs can become progressively more extreme. This phenomenon, often referred to as mutual reinforcement or group polarization, can reduce critical thinking and increase commitment to increasingly harmful ideas.
If plans are repeatedly discussed and rehearsed over time, actions that would normally seem morally unacceptable may gradually become psychologically normalized.
In this framework, financial motives and promises of a more desirable future may further strengthen commitment to a shared objective, particularly if they are perceived as offering an escape from existing circumstances.
The Process of Dehumanization
A hallmark of dehumanization is the gradual erosion of empathy.
From this psychological perspective, the following features may be relevant:
- The victim’s individuality, emotions, and autonomy become increasingly disregarded.
- The victim is viewed primarily as a means of achieving personal objectives rather than as a human being with intrinsic value.
- Personal grievances and desired outcomes become psychologically prioritized over the welfare of the victim.
- Moral concern diminishes as the perceived “greater goal” becomes increasingly justified in the minds of those involved.
When these cognitive and emotional processes converge, the normal psychological barriers that inhibit serious violence may become substantially weakened.
Understanding Does Not Mean Justifying
It is important to distinguish psychological explanation from moral or legal justification.
Understanding the mechanisms of othering, perceived victimhood, group reinforcement, and dehumanization does not excuse violent behaviour. Rather, psychological analysis seeks to identify the cognitive and emotional processes that can contribute to extreme acts so that similar pathways may be recognized and interrupted in the future.
Final Thoughts
The concepts of othering, dehumanization, and “us vs. them” thinking are not unique to any one individual or case. They have been observed across interpersonal violence, domestic homicide, gang violence, terrorism, and even large-scale atrocities throughout history.
Studying these psychological mechanisms allows mental health professionals, researchers, educators, and society at large to better understand how ordinary cognitive processes can, under particular conditions, evolve into extraordinary acts of violence.
As the legal proceedings in this case continue, any psychological interpretation must remain provisional and open to revision in light of new evidence. A balanced and evidence-based approach is essential in respecting both the judicial process and the complexity of human behaviour.
Leave a Reply