There are two ways to eradicate terrorism. One is to physically eliminate the terrorists and destroy their combat infrastructure. The other is to erase or push back the ideology of extremism.
The first method provides an immediate solution, but in some situations, it is not a permanent fix. The second method offers a permanent solution, but it is difficult to achieve. When there is no large or deep ideology behind extremism and the movement itself is its lifeblood, victory against the terrorists is easy.
Examples of the first method: The crushing of Khalistani terrorists in Punjab and the elimination of the LTTE in Sri Lanka. Both of these are instances where victory was achieved against terrorism.
It is difficult to find clear examples of the second method. When terrorism is not just a movement but its roots lie in religious mandates, the problem becomes ideological in nature. It is impossible to eliminate this type of problem without religious or ideological reform.
Jihadist extremism is one such problem. To a certain extent, Left-wing extremism (Naxalism/Maoism) is also ideological in nature. While ideological brainwashing is actively in place, you can only temporarily push back the terrorists. Examples of achieving such temporary victories can be found here and there. However, they only established peace for a few years or decades; they did not lay the foundation for permanent peace. This is because within a few decades or a few years, there is always a possibility of extremist forces sprouting again, driven by religious and ideological motivation. In tactical terminology, this is called “regrouping.”
On one hand, terrorists must be eliminated, and on the other hand, they must be continuously prevented from regrouping like the mythical demon Raktabija (whose every drop of blood spilled created a new clone). This is a massive challenge. To achieve this, dialogue and reform at the ideological level are inevitable.
It is difficult to demonstrate and convince people that the ideology of extremism is “incorrect.” Bringing those who are already brainwashed onto the path of free thought is no ordinary task. They do not realize what kind of ideological freedom they have lost. Attempts made to make them realize this usually pave the way for controversies and conflicts.
Human nature itself is fundamentally opposed to open dialogue. The divisive worldview of “our belief” versus “their belief” holds a stronger gravitational pull. Even if you say the right thing, the stubbornness not to lose increases in those engaging in dialogue with you. Even those who secretly desire tolerance in their hearts often end up standing in support of fundamentalism during a debate.
Consider an example of this. In the 1970s, the burqa, which completely covers the face, was not prevalent everywhere. It was common for female students in most schools and colleges to dress like everyone else. It was a common opinion among many educated women of that very community that “covering the face with a burqa is a degrading way to look at women.” Many Muslim women in several countries did not accept the 1979 Islamic movement in Iran. Women in Turkey, who wore skirts and walked around freely, were entirely against such forced impositions.
Today, the situation is different. The burqa has begun to manifest itself more than ever before. Even 8-year-old primary school girls are being made to wear the burqa.
Particularly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, reformists have faced a severe setback. Many women who used to criticize the burqa system in the past are now seen arguing: “Who are they to tell us whether wearing this is right or wrong? We will wear the burqa and move around. What can they do?”
This is precisely what is called “the problem of dialogue.” Without dialogue, reform is impossible. However, dialogues initiated for reform turn into controversies and end up strengthening fundamentalism even further. This is exactly what usually happens in societies where fundamentalism is strong. Religious followers who actually desire reform might shut the doors of their minds—either out of fear of their religious leaders or trapped in the resentment of ‘why should we listen to outsiders?’
Author
