The challenges of de-radicalisation in India

Upneet Lalli
Deputy Director, Institute of Correctional Administration

When terrorism became too difficult to predict, the focus turned to radicalisation, a term introduced after 9/11 to describe “what goes on before the bomb goes off”. Since 2002, eight of the nine regions in the world experienced an increase in terrorism. The November 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai perpetrated by the Lashkar-e-Taiba, wherein 166 people were killed, revealed how deadly violence can be unleashed by a few individuals.

It has been seen that rigid, dogmatic convictions, along with condemnation beliefs, lead to a path of destroying the other. Last year, when the fidayeen suicide attack on a convoy of the CRPF in Pulwama took place, it revealed how a youth with a history of minor grievances can be indoctrinated. Prisons have been found to be fertile grounds for radicalisation. Imprisonment may increase a prisoner’s susceptibility to new and radicalising ideas or beliefs; referred to as a cognitive opening.

The threat from radicalisation remains underestimated and understudied in India. There is also no official Indian policy on radicalisation and de-radicalisation. Statements about opening up of de-radicalisation camps, as a solution to the radicalisation problems have been made recently. The focus is yet to turn to understanding about the philosophy of radicalisation, its precursors, process nodes and the potential of de-radicalisation.

Radicalisation is a process with multiple reinforcing pathways of developing extremist beliefs, emotions, and behaviours. People become increasingly motivated to use violent means against members of an out-group or symbolic targets to achieve behavioural change and political goals. Radicalisation develops gradually over time and may occur at individual, group or mass public levels. It also involves changes in attitudes, beliefs, behaviour, ideals, goals, ideology, and willingness, which become extreme. Those extreme aspects are related to political, social, religious, ideological, economic or societal issues.

Research in this critical area continues to shed new light. Different models have been suggested, and it is clear that feelings of discrimination can evoke radical thoughts and actions. The New York Police Department Study of 2007 has explained various stages of the process of radicalisation-pre-radicalisation, self-identification, indoctrination and jihadisation stages. The first stage occurs when individuals are placed in environments that lead to being receptive to extremism. The drivers can be either intrinsic or extrinsic. Commitment is constantly calibrated and re-calibrated.

Be it the left wing extremism, right wing, North-East insurgency, Kashmir militancy or the separatist Khalistan movement, the perceptions of injustice play an important role in pushing someone to extremism and the radicalisation process. Many individuals who join radical groups do so because they have the feeling that they have not received the treatment they deserve. In order to better deal with feelings of relative deprivation and injustice, experts suggest empowering individuals by helping to increase their perceptions of efficacy and self-esteem, and fostering the creation of a strong self-identity.

De-radicalisation is a process in which people reject the ideology they once embraced. This is a step further than disengagement, characterised by a change in behaviour (leaving the radical group, stopping violence) without giving up. Individual disengagement and de-radicalisation programmes cannot be looked at in isolation. It has been argued by Daniel Koehler, Director of the German Institute on Radicalisation and De-radicalisation Studies, that when an individual has a “cognitive opening” and an environment that supports personal reflection, then de-radicalisation can be initiated. Detained former Tamil Tigers underwent a de-radicalisation programme in Sri Lanka that addressed the educational, vocational, spiritual, recreational, psychosocial, and socio-cultural/familial aspects of an individual’s life when transitioning back into society. The most developed programmes at the prison level have been in Saudi Arabia and Singapore. Yemen is the best example how not to do it since the government showed little interest in after-care. Former extremists often ended up being the victims of police harassment. The focus should be on reform and rehabilitation of individuals.

Looking for one’s own identity forms a part of every normal development process from child to adulthood. Studies have pointed out that many individuals enter extremist groups during adolescence. Not only is there more thrill-seeking, but also increased efforts to maximise short-term pleasures. Peer pressure and unfamiliar situations can make adolescents less capable of logical reasoning than adults. Internet remains an active vector for violent radicalisation.

At the primary level, what are the chances of parents identifying the personality changes? Angry, alienated youth can be easily ideologically driven. Radicalisation leads in adopting a (new) identity or self-image. Personal growth is also an important push factor.

While interviewing one such radicalised person in a prison, I found that there was existential angst that had pushed the person towards radicalisation. In prison, opportunity for reflection and finding new meaning in life, by being redirected towards more positive goals, such a meaningful job or education, can take place. The longing to reestablish good relationships with family members, and to start own family can work to pull away from radicalisation.

The European Union approach focuses on supporting families in preventing radicalisation and in de-radicalisation. Many parents and teachers are uncertain of how to deal with signs of radicalisation. Educating and equipping them becomes essential to recognise vulnerable individuals who are at risk or are in the early stages of radicalisation. Focus should be to train and educate professionals, and to stimulate disengagement and de-radicalisation.

At the primary level, the government needs to reinvest in educational institutions. The aim should be to decrease prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination and to increase knowledge about democracy. Collective sports and citizen programmes based on exchanges have been found helpful.

Prof Theo Gavrielides recently led a three-year study in the UK. More than 3,000 young people and professionals in schools, youth prisons, universities, migrant centres, and online were interviewed. The research found that when young people were encouraged to develop a talent or pastime, the radicalisation process was successfully challenged.

There are links between extremism, social exclusion and radicalisation. Sociological interventions to prevent or counter extremist behaviours are needed. The success of Kerala and Maharashtra programmes of de-radicalising indicates how community-based programmes may work in vulnerable states. Let us not forget that disaffected youth with no real job prospects and limited futures are vulnerable. The war on terror is to be countered more in the human mind, and requires different skills and tactics.