Terror’s twisted logic

Like most ideologies, the ideology of terror, works on several premises. Some of these become apparent immediately when an act of violence is committed. Others unravel over time. But things are seldom as straightforward as they appear to be on the first encounter with the incident.

Creating conditions for producing social and cultural backlash against the very community whose honour the terrorists are ostensibly redeeming is as important in the praxis of terror as invoking fear; or transforming apparently liberal democracies into illiberal police states. The cold-blooded assassinations of the staff of the French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo by terrorists this Wednesday, followed by hostage situations on Friday, aimed at producing certain transformative conditions.

The dangers surrounding the territory of free speech and expression are not new. Neither is its violently sectarian culture specific to any country and community. The list of aggressive actions executed against creative authors, artists, musicians and others for their perceived offence to culture, religion, ethnicity, grows longer by the minute. Amid the culture of intolerance, comedians are often particularly bold. More so, some may argue, than pen-wielding defenders of truth and justice. The craft of satire — of clever ridicule — can turn it into one of the more potent weapons of critique. According to Simon Jenkins writing in The Guardian, “It (satire) reaches parts of the political and personal psyche that reason cannot touch.”

What did the terrorists, who attacked the magazine, aim to achieve through this bloodbath? Professor of history, Juan Cole in his blog Informed Comment, described their strategic strike as “aiming at polarising the French and European public.” Out of a population of 5 million, the majority of Muslims in France are not attracted to politics, let alone political Islam or terrorism, he argues. Cole observes that a large section of Muslim immigrants came to France as labourers “… and their grandchildren are rather distant from Middle Eastern fundamentalism, pursuing urban cosmopolitan culture such as rap and rai. In Paris, where Muslims tend to be better educated and more religious, the vast majority reject violence and say they are loyal to France.”
Despite the persistent tarring of an entire community with one brush, the truth remains that majority of Muslims are far from enamoured of terrorism and its violent strategies. Following the mayhem in the streets of Paris, many community leaders across Europe spoke about their disagreement with the Charlie Hebdo’s satirical representation of Islam. Yet, they pulled no punches in unequivocally condemning the killing of journalists.

To sustain the networks of terror and their actions, groups like the al-Qaeda or the Islamic State need to keep expanding their recruitment base. One of the paths to create a shared feeling of discrimination and persecution is through acts of violence. Any terror act, especially when it is large-scale, impacts every aspect of life in a nation, especially life of the community whose member/members are the perpetrators of violence.
The general atmosphere across Europe, which is currently witnessing an escalation in anti-immigration racism, can only help such terror groups. This Monday, some 18,000 people marched under the banner of the Patriotic Europeans against the Islamisation of the West (Pegida) in Dresden. Significantly, thousands of counter demonstrators marched in Berlin, Cologne, Dresden and Stuttgart. In Britain, parties like UKIP have been making enormous headway in recent months.

It can be argued that Wednesday’s bloodbath is aimed at deepening the friction between Muslims and non-Muslims in Europe; at “mentally colonising French Muslims.” This sits well with the over-all, long-term strategy of terrorists. France has the largest Muslim population in Europe. Cole makes this argument explicitly: “This horrific murder was not a pious protest against the defamation of a religious icon. It was an attempt to provoke European society into pogroms against French Muslims, at which point al-Qaeda recruitment would suddenly exhibit some successes instead of faltering in the face of lively Beur youth culture (French Arabs playfully call themselves by this anagram).”

In his thesis on ‘sharpening the contradictions’, Cole draws an interesting analogy with the “unscrupulous among Bolsheviks — who would later be Stalinists”. According to the professor, the reluctance of majority of students and workers to overthrow the business class became inexpedient. In other words the contradictions did not sharpen enough to help the Bolshevik project.

Similarly, the contradictions between Muslims and non-Muslims need to be sustained and deepened if the terrorist project is to achieve its goal. Spiralling violence and counter-violence, beginning with the US attack on Iraq and Afghanistan — and now Syria — has played into the hands of terrorist groups. Osama bin Laden’s attack on Manhattan’s twin towers in September 2001, yielded the intended result: hysteria. Western nations plunging headlong into the war on terror, their actions destabilised regime after regime in the region.

Democratic governments started leaning more and more on authoritarian laws and suspending laws guaranteeing civil liberty. Ironically, these are the very laws that they once claimed to be the true markers of liberal democracies. “In the more belligerent states — the US and Britain – habeas corpus, private communication, legal process and even freedom of speech were curtailed or jeopardised,” writes Jenkins.

The assailants in Paris and the masterminds behind the attack would hope for a similar hysterical response. They would want the Western nations to chip away at rights and liberties. Governments and security agencies will want more surveillance powers. Barriers of access to public spaces will follow, frisking will increase. Muslims are likely to be under special surveillance, more than they already are. It’s useful to remember it’s this feeling of persecution and discrimination that has been nourishing the ideology of terrorism. France’s decision to ban the headscarf was perceived as one such cultural attempt to stifle Muslim identity. In March 2004, employees in schools were banned from wearing insignia or garments which displayed religious affiliation. The rules were applied in the public services in April 2007.

Given the anti-immigration build up across Europe, social backlash can’t be ruled out. Talk of youths in the western nations leaving homes to join the Islamic State and returning to execute direct action on familiar turf has been growing louder. That Wednesday’s assailants spoke unaccented French is likely to act as fodder to Marine LePen and the France’s Right Wing, well known for their anti-Islam views.

The Norwegian government has provided us with an interesting example of how to meet the terrorist provocations. Following the mass murder of Norway’s Leftists by Anders Behring Breivik — for being soft on Islam — the government did not launch into war on terror. Instead it looked inwards into its own values for healing. This, Cole suggests (and one would tend to agree) is the only response one can hope for if the spiral is to be stopped.

The author is Editor, dna of thought