The news was a bit disconcerting – four Indian men were detained by the police while trying to enter Bangladesh, allegedly to join the ultra-radical outfit, Islamic State. We later found out that after initial counseling, the young lads were sent back home to their families – an indication that these were possibly young men harbouring some romantic notion about being part of a religion-based war.
The threat level posed by them is obviously low, otherwise they would not have been permitted to go back home. It’s a bit like the delinquent but educated young renegade who, after discord with the parents, leaves the house to discover the world. In such cases, the law enforcers can only work as advisers and resort to words of sense rather than strict actions.
Forgive me if I appear to be trivialising the episode of the four young Indian men, but the fact that they were allowed to go free, states unequivocally that we have very little reason to worry.
May I also say, with the Islamic State propaganda spreading all over the world, it is only natural that someone somewhere will try to reap the current media craze and blow up some innocuous event to create momentary sensationalism.
In recent times, the talk around town is that IS recruiters are here in South Asia and they will be taking in eager young men and women willing to fight for their cause. The question is: What is the cause? If establishment of a Caliphate is the objective, then how can people from other countries help? The sensible guess is by forming outfits across the world aimed at building mass support.
But IS hasn’t gotten official recognition from any major nation – hence even if it has small groups of supporters outside, they need to be clandestine. One cannot expect a newspaper ad: “We are the IS, drop all your fancy clothes, burn the Sheila ki jawani DVD, bury the Manchester United shirt, wear all black, and then come join us! Expertise in using knife on others will be regarded an extra asset.”
The way I see it, there may be an attempt to create a false sense of panic using the IS recruiting declaration and use that to stamp out any remnants of hardliners in Bangladesh. But who is a radical? Would you call a person with a staunchly anti-Western stance an extremist or will that term be used only if the man has a beard and is devout?
If I understand correctly, the word radical and militant have been used to describe those who do not conform to the established social and political ideology. In that definition, the ultra-leftist youth of the 70s who took up weapons against the state were also radicals.
The only difference is that they did not base their extreme beliefs on faith. They based it on socialism. Therefore, it’s not incorrect to state that we always had extremists in some form or the other. In fact, every nation has sections that survive on the edge of society, adopting rather revolutionary and often fanatic notions.
Ku Klux Klan in the American South was and is rabidly militant. Some even say the recent shooting of a black teen, Michael Brown, in Missouri, USA, opens up a deep division in a Western society where entrenched prejudices have formed unbending stereotyped notions. I would call that a sort of extremism. Wouldn’t you?
If denouncing many of the foreign policies of the Western nations is one of the criteria for being labelled a radical, then a whole lot of educated people need to be rounded-up and given proper counselling. If faith-based extremists are the targets, then the search should be in the West first because it has now been proved conclusively that the assailant of the US journalist is a British citizen with an East London accent.
While the focus needs to be on the diaspora communities, answers need to be found as to why multiculturalism failed in developed nations. It is a common understanding that by failing to integrate, immigrant communities became alienated from the mainstream Western societies to be seduced by distorted interpretations of religion.
An expat said much of the fault rests on immigrants because they cannot and do not blend in with the society of an adopted country, deciding to live within a closed circle made of other immigrants, which only widens the gap.
While there is truth in this, no one can deny that a subtle distance maintained by Western society and enforced through the creation of a barrier in life and employment have always prevented a smooth mix. The blame can be given to both sides. Let’s not forget about the tumultuous economic periods when the immigrants were often regarded as “second class” in the priority list. This only exacerbated the problem.
I can’t say if there is an IS recruiter in Bangladesh or not, but even if such a person exists, then his/her work will certainly be difficult.
Since “East London” is under the spotlight, maybe the authority would want to keep a close eye on the faith-based schools in the country where many British-Bangladeshi families send their children.
No need to get tensed – just a regular surveillance would be deemed appropriate.
Meanwhile, on a lighter note, perhaps someone will take the idea of the IS operating in Bangladesh to make a film – Jongi: The Radical.
