27 July 2020, NIICE Commentary 5673
Jigyasa Gulati
Non-Traditional Threats are challenges to the well-being of people, as well as the state; mainly arising from the non-military sources and having transnational character. It is often defined in political and socio-economic terms, requiring international cooperation for resolution. Some of the examples are terrorism, climate change, and infectious diseases such as COVIDI-19. The article attempts to understand one of these threats i.e. extremism and radicalization.
In the last few years, there has been a constant rise in such cases across the globe. The growing cases have just not been limited to increasing numbers, but have also been witnessed in the countries that have earlier been immune to it. A reverse chronology provides a better frame of understanding. Recently, New Zealand saw a gunman entering the mosque to kill the minority Muslim community and streaming the killing live. This was the first such incident reported in the country. Since 9/11 the acts of radicalization and violent extremism became one of the most important threats that needed to be addressed. This event was followed by a series of counterterrorism strategies to address the same. Since then, there has been an evolution in the understanding of these acts as its conduct has seen a change. From the security-led, top-down approach of Counter Violent Extremism, there has been a shift towards a more wholesome approach of Preventing Violent Extremism – which takes multiple causing factors into account. Further, it also identifies the role of civil society.
However, there are certain loopholes that need to be examined. The attempt of defining such acts sheds light on the most fundamental issues. There has been no standard definition developed to identify the acts of extremism and radicalization. For instance, the 2015 Plan of Action, identifies Violent Extremism as, and when conducive to terrorism. Further, it leaves the definition of Violent Extremism to the discretion of states. This has led to an ambiguity as well as misuse of the term. Hate crimes, violent extremism, acts of radicalization, and many more have been loosely used. Another issue arises with the collection of data. The vagueness associated with the terminologies has also extended here. States use different definitions and various methodologies, giving a blurred picture of the intensity of the problem. Further, there are certain states that simply abstain from such practices such as India. The dominant form of violent acts termed as hate crimes in India has been ‘Lynching’, with main targets being Muslims and Dalits. But the National Crime Bureau of India does not collect the data of lynching separately. Some civil society groups have endeavored to take the lead, but the limitation given their dependence on media reports, and reporting of cases also presents an incomplete picture.
The general understanding that prevails with the use of terms, as well as the currently adopted legal framework, i.e. the 2015 United National Plan of Action, are pervasive with certain conceptions that need to be modified. Starting from the basics, it lacks the definition of Violent Extremism and terrorism. Further, the language constantly refers to terrorist groups – Al-Qaeda, ISIS, etc. for misleading the youth through online propaganda.
The recent spate in acts of extremism, perpetrated by white supremacists has seen individuals getting radicalized by extremist ideologies such as ‘great displacement’, ‘white genocide’, which has been propagated by various fascist groups; hardly any of which, have been classified as a terrorist organization. The document mainly refers to the conflict-ridden environments. It identifies the minority community as the perpetrator that could be motivated by multiple factors such as unemployment, economic burden, self-esteem etc. As per the document, principles of good governance, democracy, respect to human rights, and development could play a role in staving off violent extremism.
But, can these definitions cover all the cases that we are witnessing today? For instance, the Christchurch shooting. The perpetrator involved in the attack was a former gym trainer, and it took place in a democratic country that pays heed to all the principles of human rights and good governance. Another point of concern is that of perceived victimhood. In recent cases including the New Zealand attack the perpetrators belonged to the majority community and targeted the members of the minority community. Thus, the main reason for such violent acts can be seen to be based on the identity of the individual. The majority consider themselves as the victim and under threat from the minority community. “Jews will not replace us”, chanted at Charlottesville could be taken as an example. Therefore, there needs to be a re-evaluation of the normative frameworks. This is especially significant when a universal consensus is desired. The UN document presents the established framework, more as a call from the US and the West to be followed by for the rest of the world, overlooking the fault lines in their own conduct.
What is required is a more contextualized approach. These acts have spontaneity in the conduct which takes place anywhere, whether a shop, road, or a train; the use of weapons could be anything as well, ranging from a knife, truck to AK-47. This makes it difficult to predict and prevent the violent occurring. But the contextualized approach could help in curbing the intensity of these acts. For instance, the availability of guns makes the situation worse by increasing the number of casualties, and thus, changes in the gun laws as adopted by New Zealand could help in providing curbs. A proactive approach taken by the state could be of help. In India, even after years of lynching, there still exist an absence of a law that directly criminalize it. It is not even defined in the IPC and CrPC. This shows the reluctance of the political class as in many cases the political rhetoric has been the cause, and the motivating factor helping the vested interests of the elites.
The use of media has added advantages for the perpetrators by increasing the spread and accessibility. The plethora of such platforms has been a tool of dissemination of violent ideologies, and ideas by maintaining anonymity. But most importantly, it has added an “element of fun”, that helps in normalizing the violence by dehumanizing the other. The notions of getting popular and receiving more likes have also motivated the individuals; and the constant circulation of visuals, and audio material with repetition indirectly adds in accepting the existence of violence. It helps in overlooking the violence, until and unless something appalling such as the killing of a large number of people take place which is induced with enough horror to attract the attention of the people. Thus, a multi-pronged and interdisciplinary approach is required to detect the root cause, and come up with effective policies. A collaboration of minds from various domains such as security studies, psychology, neurobiology, etc., along with multiple actors- state, private institutions, and civil society could provide a more holistic understanding to this issue.
The current pandemic has presented a good opportunity, as it has led to the reduction of such violent acts. Further, it has also provided time for leaders and policy makers to rethink and re-evaluate- what could be amended and what new policies could be adopted.
