Have we got our bearing right on terrorism?

Distractions hamper the fight against terrorism. Photo: SNN2606AA_682_765125a

ONE is a little bit confused by comments on terrorism that have emanated from some quarters, amongst which are ministers and government officials.
Terrorism has been hogging the limelight for some time in Bangladesh. To the credit of the law enforcing agencies, we have not had a terrorist attack on our soil since the simultaneous bombings on August 17, 2005. But we need coordinated action and a coalescence of view while determining the strategy to combat terrorism.
Given that a large quantity of arms and weapons and large numbers of extremist cadres have been apprehended in the last three years, it shows that there has not been a lack of trying on their part. But what is happening in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India should give us some comfort, if one can call that so, that we are not in the vortex of terrorist activities.
However, there is no scope for euphoria when it comes to terrorism. And that is why our comments on the matter must stem from clear understanding of the issue and deep cognisance of the matter. And one is constrained to believe that some of the comments on the matter have been very randomly made while some have stemmed from a purely political impulse. Such comments do favour to the terrorists while terrorising the people.
There is hardly any scope of playing politics with a matter that has great influence on our security. We saw that most unfortunately happen during the 4-Party Alliance regime and we are regrettably seeing it happening now. The consequence of this fusion, of random comments and playing politics, is that the method of combatting the phenomenon is likely to go awry, because that influences the determination of who, why and how of terrorism.
The minister for law sees a correlation between the amendments to the 1972 constitution after 1975 changeover and the rise of religious extremism in the country. We understand that he is referring to the changes incorporated by Zia and Ershad, where secularism was dropped by the former and Islam made the state religion by the latter. And of course rise of religious based parties has had a role in the spawning of religious terrorism, according to the minister.
There is a contradiction in the logic. The two major changes in the constitution should have assuaged the sentiments of those that feel strongly about involving religion in the governance of the state, and helped dissuade those that are so inclined from the path of extremism and terrorism. But the contrary has happened. The minister's explanation is a very simplistic way of looking at the problem.
If we go by the remarks of the minister, which implied that removing the secular character of the constitution helped the growth of religious extremism, are we to believe that secular states are free from the curse of terrorism? Glancing at the globe, particularly the region, the argument doesn't hold good.
According to the minister there are as many as 122 organisations involved in terror activities in the country. This is quite a revelation, since even in Pakistan or India there are not so many. His comments that kaumi madrasas foster terrorism must also be taken seriously. One would benefit from statistics and empirical evidence to support the contention. It may be of interest to know that of all the religious extremists and terrorists captured by the law enforcing agencies in Bangladesh in connection with JMB and Huji (B) activities in 2006-2007, no more than 20 percent are madrasa educated.
There is a perception globally too about madrasas being suppliers of terrorists. But research statistics, not by Muslims but by Western scholars, give a very different picture. William Dalrymple, writing in The Guardian says: "Peter Bergen of John Hopkins University published the conclusions of his in-depth study of 75 Islamist terrorists who had carried out four major anti-western attacks. According to Bergen, '53% of the terrorists had either attended college or had received a college degree.' As a point of reference, only 52% of Americans have been to college."
It is a fact that some madrasas are indeed engaged in dispensing radical ideas and some may have joined the ranks of the terrorists. It is fact too that some of the madrasas students do not have access to information, having only one newspaper to read, and that too belonging to a particular political party. Some madrasa students are not able to access the internet in spite of the fact that the madrasas have computers because it is deemed anti-Islamic to use internet. Such bigotry must be curbed and those that are engaged in dubious activities must be identified and action taken against them. Sentiments should not play a part in this.
It is for this reason that the madrasas must be brought under state oversight, and some sort of regulatory mechanism evolved to monitor the curricula and the teaching to make the students, as someone has commented, "more than pious villagers from impoverished background," and make them fit for the job market. But to paint all the madrasas with a terrorist brush gives one the impression that we may not have our bearing right on terrorism.

Brig. Gen. (retd) Shahedul Anam Khan ndc, psc, is Editor, Defence & Strategic Affairs, The Daily Star.