Radicalisation is the process through which an individual becomes a militant. Hypothesis emerging from research conducted over the past few decades on the reasons behind radicalisation, can be broadly divided into two categories. The first one points to certain conditions and tendencies prevalent in society, and the second one see politics as the main factor.
Those who feel that the social conditions are the main factor, believe a person or group’s experience of relative depression is a particularly significant cause. This relative depression stems from a sense of unequal treatment in life, in one’s social surroundings and even on a global perspective. When the individual compares himself with others and sees they are relatively better off than him, a sense of anger grows.
The sense of well-being can be based on questions of materialistic, cultural or social status. Such differences are accepted as normal and can hardly be cause for such reaction. It is when these differences are seen as unjust and unfair, that they begin to have a psychological impact on a person. This relative depression is created when a person sees that the rights he has enjoyed in the past are shrinking or that others are enjoying more advantages than him. Such feelings are observed in the Muslim communities in Europe, even among the second or third generation Muslim residents there. The main reason behind this is the lack of integration. They feel that they and their community are excluded from the social structure and deprived by the system. The existing conditions prompt such feelings within them.
The question then may arise as to whether this theory has relevance outside of Europe. After all, the question of integration as seen in Europe will not apply to understanding radicalisation among members of a majority community. Actually in a society if a person feels that certain sections of the society gain advantages though unfair process, even if he himself is beneficiary, this may be a significant catalyst to relative depression.
I believe that this relative depression is one of the causes behind a large section of the youth from the new middle class in Bangladesh, who are now involved in militancy. This depression cannot be understood simply from the standpoint of those afflicted by depression. One must take into consideration whether an individual considers the prevailing system around him as unjust. His identity is an important factor here. How does he identify himself as an individual? Does he consider himself excluded from society? The acute sense of exclusion, the extent of this feeling of discrimination and the anger generated from these feelings, create the possibility of radicalisation. ‘Possibility’ is a key word here because it is not proven beyond question that this feeling is enough to lead to radicalisation.
Those who point to political reasons behind the radicalisation of youth in Europe, maintain that anger and discontent are important issues. We can also term this as a socio-psychological explanation, where frustration creates an aggressive mindset or where humiliation sparks feelings of vengeance, opening the way to radicalisation. In this regard, the foreign policies of European countries play a considerable role. The general feeling of Muslims in Europe is that if Muslims in the Middle East or elsewhere are oppressed, this is tantamount to oppression on them too. Surveys run in Europe, particularly in Britain, support this contention. This cannot be restricted to Europe alone. Muslim communities all over the world strongly share similar sentiments.
The foreign policies of the US and other countries of the West, the ‘war on terror’ launched by George W Bush and Tony Blair, and the various wars over the past decade and a half, are blatant proof of double standards of the western countries and the wrongful laws they have propagated.
The anger is not only directed towards the western powers. A section of society is drawn towards extremism when they feel the government of a particular country supports such polices, or when the scope to oppose such polices is restricted, or if it is felt that those in power are backed by such powers, or that not enough protest is being generated within the society. They then feel justified in waging war against the West. They consider these positive points for radicalisation.
Even regional events can have an influence on individuals and the Kashmir crisis is an example in this regard. Politics in one’s own country can also lead to political anger and frustration. It is nothing new for extremism to erupt in an outburst of anger when civil rights are cramped.
It is not that anger and dissatisfaction will inevitably lead to violent Islamic radicalisation. The outcome of such frustration is also manifested in other forms such as extreme left-wing politics or non-violent Islamic politics. When the scope to protest is absent within mainstream politics, then alternative outlets sprout up.
Generally speaking, there are two important factors that drive a person to violence. Firstly, a crisis or incident in one’s personal life can act as a catalyst. The incident does not even have to take place in the person’s own life. It can take in the family, in someone else’s life, or in society as a whole, and also work as a catalyst. Secondly, there is the matter of social network.
Marc Sageman's book ‘Understanding Terror Networks’ published in 2004, Quintan Wiktorowicz’s 2005 research book ‘Radical Islam Rising: Extremism in the West’, Paul Gill’s research work ‘Suicide Bomber Pathways Among Islamic Militants’ published in 2008, and plenty of other such research, indicate that groups or communities, social relations, linkages and bonds, play an extremely important role in an individual’s participation in violence. It is clear from such research that just as radicalisation takes place through recruitment drives of terrorist organisations, it is also often self-inspired, among friends and family members.
There are all indications of a network among the militants in Bangladesh, killed or missing over the past few weeks. It is important to interrogate those in custody to find out whether they were inspired by each other to join such radical activities, or whether they formed social bonds only after joining militant organisations like IS. We have seen examples elsewhere of radicalisation among groups of friends.
The six Bangladeshi-origin young men in Britain who joined ISIS in Syria would live together in Portsmouth. The ‘Al-Britaini Brigade Bangladeshi Bad Boys’, were not known for participation in politics or for religious practice. Masud Chowdhury (31), Mohammed Mehdi Hasan (19), Mamunur Mohammed Rashid (24), Mohammed Hamidur Rahman (25), and Asaduzzaman (25), inspired by another friend of theirs, Ifterkhar Zaman, left Britain to join the war in Syria in October 2013. When Masud Chowdhury, the father of two, returned home, he was arrested and given a four-year prison sentence in December 2014. The rest lost their lives in Syria. They were all friends. Ifterkhar Zaman and Asaduzzaman were related. Peer pressure in a group instigates similar behaviour. If not, a member could break away.
Inspiration can come from the family too. In April 2015, Muhammed Abdul Mannan, a Bangladeshi resident of Luton in Britain, came to Bangladesh in April 2015 with 11 members of his family, and on the way back went to Syria via Turkey to the so-called Islamic State. When Rokon Uddin Khandakar, Naima Akhter and three other members of their family went missing in July 2015, it was assumed that they went to Syria, radicalised from within the family.
No matter how it takes place, radicalisation is a process of political change. And certain factors are required for any form of political change.
Ali Riaz is a professor of politics and government at Illinois State University, USA