Words alone may not have the potency to win battles but they definitely have the strength to rupture the very existence of terrorist outfits that constantly take advantage of naïve, god-fearing people
Recently, a group of terrorists, travelling in a Srinagar-bound truck on the Jammu-Srinagar highway, opened fire at a police team when stopped for checking near a toll plaza in the Ban area of Nagrota, North of Jammu. In the ensuing gunfight, a policeman was injured and a militant was killed, while the rest of the terrorists managed to escape to the adjacent forests. This brings us back to the question whether there is an effective strategy to win against terror outfits? While the security forces have been countering them, there has been no let-up in the attempts by the ultras to strike. One slip-up and there could be a major catastrophe. This clearly indicates that this battle against terror outfits, based on extreme ideologies cannot be won by the security forces alone.
History stands witness to extremist ideologies breeding violence. These extreme ideologies could be Marxist, religion-based or even nationalist. In the second half of the 20th century, the major threat emanated from various outfits influenced by radical Marxist thoughts. In contemporary times, the threat from the radical Marxist ideology appears to have declined and the biggest threat in the 21st century emanates from jihadi outfits that believe in their own radical Islamist ideology. There have been many attempts by Western academics to find raison d’être for terror outfits by justifying their existence on socio-political discrimination or economic deprivation. While doing so, there has been a strong tendency to undermine the theological underpinnings of such outfits. Right or wrong, these groups have an Islamic world view, which entails creation of a global Islamic Emirate. Consequently, groups like the Al Qaeda and Islamic State (ISIS) have shown least concern about the Palestinian problem.
Consequently, to imagine peace without taking into cognisance the theological factors is a mistake. An appropriate example is the Al Qaeda and Taliban matrix. The Al Qaeda wants to wage a jihad which can only happen under a righteous leader or Amir-ul-Mumineen, as per their theological beliefs. The Amir has never been the leader of the Al Qaeda. Neither Osama bin Laden nor Ayman al Jawahir claimed to be the Amir. This exalted position was earlier held by Mullah Omar and now by Mullah Akhundzada, the present leader of the Taliban. Any peace negotiated with the Taliban would, therefore, render Al Qaeda’s jihad theocratically and theologically illegitimate. It is, therefore, obvious that the Al Qaeda will not let the Taliban arrive at a lasting negotiated settlement. More significantly, if the Taliban comes to power in Afghanistan, it will not confine its radical ideology to the territorial frontiers of Afghanistan. An ideological outfit would like to propagate its ideology all around and, therefore, there is no feasibility of ushering in peace by negotiating with the Taliban, notwithstanding the recent attempts by the Trump Administration to reach out to them. On October 28, 2019, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the self-styled caliph of the ISIS was killed. This caliph is dead but his caliphate lives on. The territorial control of the caliphate may have diminished but the influence by no stretch of imagination has vanished. There are outfits across the globe owing their allegiance to it.
Ideology-based outfits cannot be countered by bombs and bullets. This battle has to be fought in the mind. Hence, the need for an alternate or counter-narrative, which needs to be propagated in a subtle manner. For the narrative to be effective, it needs to be seeped in theology.
This attempt cannot stop at merely countering the theological warfare waged by the radicalised groups. There is an equally pressing need to popularise an alternate narrative with peaceful preaching, which aims at holistic understanding and does not stop at just countering the arguments put forth by the extremist groups.
This alternate or counter-narrative cannot be country-specific. With the modern state resting on civilisational crossroads, these narratives have to be specific to a region. In furtherance of their commitment to fight terrorism and create an ecosystem for shared progress and development, the states must collaborate and prepare a potent alternate or counter-narrative, which can only be created by those with good knowledge of history or theology. Quotes from religious texts, scriptures and teachings, as well as incidents from Islamic history must be used, so that people are not influenced by the violent narratives of ideology-based terror groups.
Fighting these elements is a long battle, not a short war. It is not to argue that popularising alternate or counter-narratives is the only weapon available to the state. A state must constantly strategise to weaken the strong footholds of the terrorist groups. It must deploy its resources judiciously to gain control over territory and curtail their avenues of expansion.
However, the long-term solution undoubtedly, lies in developing a comprehensive strategy to delegitimise their cause. Alternate or counter-narrative is one of the more important factors that will make the vulnerable people sitting on the margins, critically think against the arguments propounded by the extreme religious ideology- based terrorist outfits.
Words alone may not have the potency to win battles but they definitely have the strength to rupture the very existence of such terrorist outfits that constantly take advantage of naïve, god-fearing people.
(Bansal is Director and Chaturvedi is Senior Research Fellow, India Foundation. The views expressed are personal)
