By Munmun Majumdar
Recently two notable French theorists, Gilles Kepel and Oliver Roy engaged in a debate over different interpretations of contemporary extremism. While Oliver Roy highlighted the dysfunctional individual who enacts violence and finds an excuse for their internal rage, that ideology becomes a cover for violent individuals and therefore it is neither about society nor about Islam per se, for Gilles kepel on the other hand and in the French context, holds the society responsible and coupled with a particular interpretation of Islam, associated with Wahabism that justifies terrorist violence against a hostile world.
The fact that these scholars disagree so fundamentally is indicative of the reality that there is no one answer. Perhaps different individuals are probably drawn to acts of terror, and militant organizations, for more than one reason. Structural reasons in society are certainly important, making extremist narratives credible; individual psychology is also a factor, as not every young immigrant becomes a killer; and, an ideology that legitimates violent actions.
The identified suicide bomber the 22-year-old, Salman Abedi, detonated a shrapnel laden improvised explosive device at Manchester Arena in Manchester, England, after a concert by American singer Ariana Grande, at the exit, as concertgoers were leaving. ISIS has claimed responsibility for the deadly explosion in which twenty-three adults and children, including the bomber, were killed and 116 were injured, some critically. Born to a refugee parent of Libyan decent living in Manchester Salman Abedi went to a UK university but dropped out. He even worked in a bakery and supported Manchester United football club. From the scant information available so far he had partially integrated but found it difficult and attacked the country where he was born and had grown up.
In the case of St. Petersburg Metro Bombing that ripped through the metro line in St. Petersburg on April 3, 2017, had claimed 16 lives, including that of the suicide bomber, and seriously injured over 50 people. The bombing coincided with President Vladimir Putin’s visit to the city, and was obviously a message threatening him and Russia for anti-terrorism policies.
The responsibility for the St. Petersburg Metro bombing was placed on Akbarzhon Jalilov, an ethnic Uzbek from Osh in south Kyrgyzstan holding a Russian passport. He had been identified through both CCTV coverage and DNA traces found on the bombs. Akbarzhon Jalilov was born in Osh in 1995 and moved to St. Petersburg with his father in early 2000, where he did his schooling. His school peers found him to be quiet and accommodating. While his parents returned to Osh in 2011, Akbarzhon Jalilov continued to live in Russia to study, and even procured Russian citizenship. His VKontackte (the Facebook equivalent in Russia) has the usual feeds like any other of his age on pop music, martial arts, etc. Akbarzhon Jalilov, had held a number of jobs in St. Petersburg, that included working as a sushi chef, and had shown no overt signs of radicalization. In February 2017, Akbarzhon Jalilov had visited Osh, his hometown, which is in the Fergana Valley, a region that spans Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, and is said to be the centre of radical Islam in the region. On his return, he rented an apartment in the centre of St. Petersburg. There was nothing in his background to raise red flags. Hence, the April 3 attack shocked the Russian Federal Security Bureau (FSB) that was on a state of heightened alert. The attack was certainly well planned, and seemed similar to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) inspired lone wolf attacks similar to those committed by Omar Mateen in the US at a night club in Orlando, and by Khaled Massoud in Westminster, London, etc.
The ISIS applauded the act but did not claim responsibility and its public statement on the incident merely supported all jihadi action against Russia, with no reference to the propaganda video, titled ‘We will burn Russia’, showing a fallen Kremlin and Putin with bullet holes in his head, that had been circulated through the ‘Amaq’ media channel used by the ISIS. Putin’s reaction to this incident was fierce and unequivocal. His statement that said “To Forgive the terrorist is up to God. But to send them to him is up to me” after the attack went viral on the Internet.
Unfortunately, such trends appear to be having an impact on India as well. Unrest in Kashmir is one such example. Sponsored calls for Azadi in the valley is showing signs of shifting to refusing to live in a secular India, as well as, to set up an Islamic caliphate. Zakir Musa, became the Hizb ul-Mujahideen Commander, after the death of Burhan Wani boldly claimed that he was against nationalism and would only work for establishing the rule of Islam — Dar ul-Islam. The Hizbul Mujahideen leadership and the Hurriyat leaders have distanced themselves from Musa’s views and expelled him from the party. However, the example of the Chechen agitation transforming from territorial insurgency into Islamic terrorism is before us to implore its deadly consequences if not acted upon before it is too late.
This brings us to the question of why some (generally young) people are drawn into extremism and terrorism. Undoubtedly, in the wake of the Manchester bomb attack on 23 May 2017, it is likely that increased attention will be given to the question of why and how seemingly modern, young, people become radicalized. Many theories, often empirically based on profiles and interviews with former extremists already exist. Marc Sageman, the American counter-terrorism specialist, has spoken about the “bunch of guys” theory, like wise scholarship has shown that a disproportionate number of extremist militants have been engineers. While these studies have been empirically based, they are not adequate to explain the so-called lone wolf attackers, or provide a catchall profile.
The problem gets magnified when one looks for the factor, which leads to radicalization. All three factors i.e. psychology, society and ideology identified by Gilles Kepel and Oliver Roy have a role to play. Arguing that one of these is the most crucial would be akin to ignoring the complexity of individuals. While a single theory explaining every aspect of terrorism or radicalization is attractive, it may not be possible to find that magic key. The theories of Gilles Kepel, Oliver Roy, and Marc Sageman are important, but it cannot be concluded that they have provided a view of the entire picture more so because no single factor, or idealized profile, will fit all terrorists or potential terrorists. Moving forward therefore a holistic approach in developing a positive counter strategy while dealing with the complexity involved rather than in seeking that illusive magical key.
The writer is Associate Prof, Dept of Political Science
NEHU, Shillong.