Extremist politics generally originates from frustration in society. When people feel deeply aggrieved for any reason, consider they are being deprived, discriminated against, neglected, and oppressed; find no scope to vent those -- even if expressed there is no redress -- be convinced that the establishment of social justice is not possible in a normal way, radicalism becomes the only option to remedy their problems.
Those angry people tend to achieve desired change by use of coercion. Terrorism or violent extremism is chosen as a means, like a weapon of the weak. Radicals follow specific ideology-based political philosophy and pursue the ultra left or ultra right.
Ultra left politics was visible in Bangladesh just after independence. It could not survive. Extremists here are now following religion-based ultra right beliefs. A distorted version of Islam is considered the basis of their political ideology.
Presently, Islamic militancy has become a concern internationally due to the serious nature of the damage it is inflicting in different countries. Militancy has spread considerably.
Arms, ammunition, even trained soldiers move from one country to another to support their activities there.
Another dangerous aspect is suicide attacks. Militants use it frequently. Efforts are seen to downgrade al-Qaeda or ISIS militants operating in Bangladesh as homegrown. McDonald’s burgers made here with American franchises do not make those homegrown, or less tasty.
For sustaining and developing, terrorists need new recruits and patronisation. The support base in society is important. The bigger the number of sympathisers among the population, the more effective they become.
Supporters of terrorists are not necessarily followers of their ideology. Similarity lies in deep-rooted frustration and hatred against a common enemy.
Activities of terrorists create embarrassment for the authorities. That makes the aggrieved people happy, and they support terrorists in conducting their activities.
Mr Taj Hashmi (teaches security studies, and is a published author), wrote: “In sum, terrorism isn’t a problem of law and order to be resolved by law enforcers. Terrorism is more than 90% political, social, economic, and psychological; only a small portion may be motivated by deviant religious ideology or practices.”
It is agreed by most that the rise of militancy in Muslim-majority counties like Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc, is due to deficiency of democracy. The government is run without proper accountability.
Widespread corruption, discrimination, deprivation, oppression, and injustice are prevalent in society. People are frustrated, and live in uncertainty. Large numbers of militant supporter are created in such environments.
An alarming possibility is that terrorists are not going to stop soon. They can simply destabilise the country -- its social, economic, and political structure. They may not even need to kill too many people. Has that not been learned in recent several incidents?
Bangladesh is also a Muslim-majority country where elements of social evils are common. It is a fertile land for militancy.
Ambassador William B Milam (who worked in Bangladesh and is now a senior policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Centre in Washington) wrote: “The recent string of vicious killings in Bangladesh is less a terrorism issue than a governance issue; it is the ruling Awami League’s onslaught against its political opponents, which began in earnest after the last election in January 2014, that has unleashed extremists in Bangladesh.”
He finished the writing with: “Responding to this wave of attacks as though it were principally a security issue, rather than a governance problem, would only make matters worse.”
It may be concluded that a “distorted version of Islamic ideology” does not contribute significantly to the rise of militancy.
Militants, unlike ordinary criminals, possess ideology and support-bases in society. They are not created due to “law and order sluggishness,” and cannot be tackled accordingly. Governance is to be considered a major cause for militancy here.
Ignoring this aspect, it is being judged principally as a security issue. Efforts are concentrated in eliminating militancy by use of force. Use of haphazard and excessive force as reported is being considered harassment and oppression. This could end up counterproductive by helping further rise of militancy.
An alarming possibility is that terrorists are not going to stop soon. They can simply destabilise the country -- its social, economic, and political structure. They may not even need to kill too many people.
Has that not been learned in recent several incidents of hacking and killing, including the Gulshan massacre?
The principal issue is governance, through which frustration and desperation are to be diverted into hope and enthusiasm. Proper practice of democracy guarantees accountability at all stages, and ensures good governance.
The government should convene meetings of all important political parties to reach a consensus on relevant issues.
The idea is to take up a concerted effort for safeguarding the people’s welfare, leaving behind ant personal or party interests.
