Khabor Wala Desk
Published: 17th June 2026, 11:57 AM
“Calumny is a vocabulary of toxic vapours which seeks to obscure the most brilliant virtues, if only for a brief moment; yet, once the air clears, the light inevitably breaks through again.”
— Voltaire
The parameters of human social and psychological existence are traditionally defined by familiar interactions, personal relationships, conflicts of interest, and emotional exchanges. However, beyond this structured social framework lies a vast, ambiguous domain where no visible relationships or shared histories exist. Within this detachment, individuals frequently become the targets of hostile, unprovoked verbal assaults, commonly categorised as calumny or defamation.
When an individual initiates character assassination or propagates falsehoods against another party with whom they share no personal or professional conflict—and with whom they have had no prior interaction—it prompts fundamental sociological questions regarding human behaviour. From literary, philosophical, and psychological standpoints, the dissemination of such unsubstantiated hostility functions as a form of proxy warfare. The defamer does not engage with the target directly; rather, they project internal discontent, deep-seated feelings of inferiority, and existential isolation. As the Bangladeshi author and linguist Humayun Azad observed:
“Detractors are fundamentally parasites; incapable of independent creation, they attempt to sustain themselves by draining the lifeblood of another’s achievements.”
Table of Contents
When examined through the theoretical frameworks of psychoanalysis, the hidden psychological structures of unaffiliated defamers can be systematically decoded.
Sigmund Freud (1856–1939) posited that unwarranted defamation is not merely a reaction to external events, but a manifestation of an unconscious and distorted psychological defence mechanism known as projection. Within the deeper layers of the human psyche, individuals often harbor unacceptable desires, failures, or insecurities that the conscious mind refuses to acknowledge. To maintain an illusion of moral purity and protect the ego, the subconscious mind projects these repressed shortcomings onto the character of an external party.
Consequently, the defamer perceives their own unacknowledged, shadow qualities within the target of their malice. This phenomenon arises from the persistent friction between the primal desires of the id and the societal restrictions of the superego, occasionally manifesting as a form of psychological sadism—wherein an individual derives gratification from inflicting emotional distress upon another.
The French psychoanalyst and philosopher Jacques Lacan (1901–1981) provided a structural and linguistic dimension to this psychological state through his seminal concept of the Mirror Stage (Le stade du miroir). Lacan asserted that during infancy, an individual perceives their reflection in a mirror to formulate an initial, unified concept of the self—a concept that is ultimately an illusion. For chronic defamers, this mirror stage develops into a lifelong psychological distortion.
When they observe another individual from a distance who appears integrated, successful, or content, their own fragmented internal identity is brought into sharp relief. Unable to cope with the tension generated by this perceived inadequacy, they resort to aggressive linguistic measures. Lacan famously deduced that human desire is intrinsically tied to “the desire of the Other” (le désir de l’Autre). When a defamer witnesses another individual experiencing a facet of fulfillment that they themselves have been denied, it triggers profound resentment. Lacan noted that the defamer’s primary objective is not to misappropriate the material assets of the target, but rather to systematically dismantle their happiness and peace of mind. Defamation thus serves as a hostile psychological instrument designed to disrupt that perceived contentment.
From a philosophical standpoint, the propagation of unprovoked defamation serves as a clear indicator of existential bankruptcy. The Bengali poet Ishwar Chandra Gupta (1812–1859) articulated this human tendency in his verse:
“One’s own virtues are readily accepted by oneself as good.
Yet, when witnessing the success of another, the malicious mind resorts to slander.”
The German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) explored this condition extensively through his concept of ressentiment. This psychological state occurs when a weak or unsuccessful individual suppresses deep-seated resentment and accumulated malice regarding their own personal incapacities. Lacking the internal drive or capability to elevate themselves, they adopt what Nietzsche classified as a Slave Morality, wherein they seek to recharacterise the excellence of others as a moral failing or transgression.
Defamers act as living embodiments of ressentiment. Just as darkness reacts defensively to the introduction of light, the psychology of the unprovoked defamer operates on a similar principle: the target has committed no tangible offense, save for the fact that they radiate achievement. Philosophers argue that when an individual fails to establish authentic meaning in their own life, their existence collapses into absolute Nihilism. In this vacuum, they seek a superficial sense of purpose by attempting to tarnish the lives of others.
The patterns of unwarranted envy and character assassination are thoroughly documented across classical world literature.
In William Shakespeare’s (1564–1616) tragedy Othello, the antagonist Iago serves as the definitive literary archetype of this malice. Neither Othello nor Desdemona had caused harm to Iago; nonetheless, driven entirely by motiveless malignity and a desire to witness human ruin, he constructed a web of falsehoods that destroyed their lives. Shakespeare explicitly warned against this psychological trait in the play:
“O, beware, my lord, of jealousy;
It is the green-eyed monster which doth mock
The meat it feeds on.”
The French novelist and playwright Honoré de Balzac (1799–1850), in his work Le Père Goriot, likened defamers to societal pygmies who, because they are incapable of achieving natural height, attempt to sever the legs of others with a sword to bring them down to their own level.
Similarly, the Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky (1821–1881), in his psychological novella Notes from Underground—widely regarded as the world’s first existentialist novel—demonstrated that when an individual is alienated from their own identity, they begin to project hostility onto the existence of others. The narrative’s unnamed protagonist, known as the “Underground Man,” lives entirely isolated from mainstream society. Driven by personal failure, profound loneliness, and deep-seated inferiority, he directs intense vitriol toward the broader public, harboring a resentment for human progress, happiness, and social well-being.
Bengali literature features equally precise depictions of the defamer’s psyche. Rabindranath Tagore, in his poetic anthology Kanika, captured this behavioral trait with sharp conciseness:
“The malicious one says, ‘Blessed are you, O Master,
Inflict as many kicks upon my back as you please.’
The virtuous bear no unnecessary burdens upon their spine,
Yet the wicked ever prostrate themselves to endure the blow.”
In Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay’s novel Pallisamaj, the characters Beni Ghoshal and Gobinda Ganguly represent classical archetypes of the community slanderer. Although the protagonists Ramesh and Rama sought only the welfare of the village and caused no harm, the narrow-mindedness and malice of Ghoshal and Ganguly led them to orchestrate a defamatory campaign, using social structures to manipulate and tarnish the reputation of a pure relationship.
A similar dynamic is observed in Tarasankar Bandyopadhyay’s novels Kabi and Ganadevata, which depict individuals who gather in communal spaces for the sole purpose of scrutinising the private affairs of their neighbors and escalating minor rumors into widespread scandals.
Tagore’s short story Laboratory further highlights how self-proclaimed guardians of society eagerly dissect the personal lives of others. The overarching cultural frustration with this societal malady is encapsulated in the poetry of Kazi Nazrul Islam:
“Nothing exists greater than humanity, nothing more majestic!
…Yet it is humans who compose songs of slander against their own kind.”
While defamation was historically confined to village assemblies, local tea stalls, and domestic whispers, the advent of modern information technology has institutionalised the practice. Social media platforms have become highly efficient breeding grounds for unprovoked defamation. Services such as Facebook, YouTube, and X (formerly Twitter) provide detractors with a powerful digital shield: anonymity through pseudonymous profiles and fake accounts.
Operating from behind a screen with a concealed identity, individuals can execute comprehensive character assassination against entirely unfamiliar targets within seconds. Modern sociologists categorise this phenomenon as the “trolling pathology of keyboard warriors.” Driven by the pursuit of likes, comments, shares, and superficial digital virality, individuals routinely expose the private lives of others to public scrutiny.
This practice has been actively monetised, turning defamation into a lucrative stream of income generated through platform monetization algorithms. The underlying infrastructure of social media networks is mathematically optimized to accelerate the spread of negative content, deliberately capitalising on primitive human impulses toward gossip and scandal.
Recent years have highlighted the impact of certain expatriate social influencers who systematically distribute hatred, obscenity, and provocation, significantly polluting the digital discourse. In this virtual environment, individuals remain entirely unacquainted, yet they show no hesitation in launching toxic digital campaigns against one another. This systematic behavior extends far beyond individual harm, shifting contemporary society toward an increasingly unsympathetic and hostile environment.
The act of defamation is subject to strict prohibitions across almost all major theological systems and historical legal frameworks.
World religions consistently classify slander and backbiting as major moral and spiritual transgressions:
Islam: The propagation of calumny (Gheebah) is explicitly equated with the consumption of the flesh of one’s deceased brother (Surah Al-Hujurat, Ayat 12). Furthermore, Islamic jurisprudence mandates eighty lashes as a legal penalty for leveling unproven accusations against chaste women. Under these tenets, listening to defamation without interceding carries equal moral culpability to originating it.
Hinduism: Slander is classified as a significant sin (Mahapapa) rooted in Tamasic (dark or ignorant) qualities. Scriptural doctrines dictate that backbiting actively depletes an individual’s accumulated spiritual merit (Punya), inevitably yielding negative karmic consequences.
Christianity: The Ninth Commandment explicitly prohibits “bearing false witness against thy neighbour.” Furthermore, the New Testament places immense emphasis on governing the tongue, warning that unbridled speech can devastate an entire life.
Buddhism: A core component of the Noble Eightfold Path is Right Speech (Samma Vaca), which strictly mandates the abandonment of slander, falsehoods, and harsh language in favor of truthful, benevolent communication. The Buddha advised adherents to maintain mental tranquility and remain unswayed when confronted with false allegations.
Despite these clear spiritual mandates, a recurring contradiction exists: religious speakers, scholars, and institutional leaders occasionally engage in severe condemnation and slander against opposing faiths or those holding alternative viewpoints. A parallel pattern is frequently observed within contemporary politics, where public figures tasked with upholding statutory laws regularly deploy systematic defamation campaigns against political adversaries.
| Jurisdiction / Era | Legal Mechanism | Core Penalty / Provision |
| Ancient Rome & Medieval England | Roman Law / English Common Law | Severe physical and financial restitution to preserve public peace. |
| Ancient India | Kautilya’s Arthashastra | Strict statutory corporal and pecuniary punishments for slander. |
| Bangladesh (Penal Code) | Sections 499 & 500 | Criminalizes the origination and distribution of defamatory statements. |
| Bangladesh (Penal Code) | Sections 501 & 502 | Prescribes penalties for accomplices who print or sell defamatory material. |
| Modern Digital Era | Modern Cyber Security Laws | Classifies online defamation as a severe, punishable cybercrime. |
Ultimately, the act of originating unwarranted defamation inflicts the greatest long-term damage upon the defamer. As the traditional proverb states, “He who hurls mud at another loses the most ground; his own hands are soiled first.” An individual who resorts to slander publicly exposes the distorted nature of their own internal psyche—a deeply self-destructive tendency. This continuous stream of vitriol from unaffiliated detractors is fundamentally an expression of an isolated psyche unable to tolerate achievement or moral clarity. Those who lack the fortitude to confront the light choose to operate from the shadows, weaving intricate networks of deception.
The aerospace scientist and former President of India, Dr A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, provided a constructive philosophy for enduring public detraction:
“If people criticise or slander you, do not be disheartened. Remember, in any stadium, it is the spectators who make noise, not the players. Continue to play your game.”
Calumny may temporarily complicate an individual’s journey, but it cannot permanently alter the trajectory of truth and merit. To thoroughly expurate this behavioral malady from the social fabric, it is insufficient merely to counter the defamer; society must collectively diagnose the underlying psychological darkness driving the act and systematically marginalise it. Only when human focus shifts entirely toward constructive, independent creativity will this hostile impulse toward the achievements of others be fully neutralized.
Professor Dr. Mijanur Rahman, University of Dhaka
Comments