Daily Times

De-radicalisation is the latest buzzword in political lexicon here and is aimed at making people believe that something substantial is being done for solving problems of terrorism. This fancy word really means counter-brainwashing the brainwashed persons. Edward Hunter, writing for the Miami News in September 1950, translating the Chinese word his-nao, which meant ‘to cleanse the mind’, first coined the word ‘brainwashing’ and claimed that post-revolution China was using insidious never-before-known psychological techniques to force the Chinese into the Communist Party.

De-radicalisation’s success depends on isolating victims from the radicalising environment, giving them more powerful beliefs than the previous ones and ensuring enduring curtailment of exposure to old thoughts. This is well nigh impossible here because effectively ‘societal his-naoing’ is at work and societal his-naoing can only be countered by a ‘societal de-radicalisation’.

This brainwashing has been going on for a few centuries now and its effects are etched and ingrained into the psychological make-up of millions upon millions, so ridding them of what is now nearly a biological appendage may well nigh be impossible without a superhuman effort.

The world over, Muslim majority states are aplenty but the Muslims here, indigenous to the subcontinent, are Islam’s staunchest self-appointed stakeholders and protectors. Their fervour and enthusiasm surpasses all others; the Arabs would be expected to be more passionate defenders of Islam but that is not the case. Blasphemous books and cartoons are violently protested here; it is here that murderers are celebrated as heroes; it is here that people falsely accused of blasphemy are lynched with impunity and sadly only here people blow themselves up to kill those they disagree with.

This societal brainwashing began with Aurangzeb’s beheading of Dara Shikoh and Sarmad; beheaded with them were tolerance and amity. Desiring to legitimise throne usurpation, he sought legitimacy in sanction of religion. This sowed the seeds of intolerance and bigotry, which the clergy exploited to enhance their power whereas previously the clergy were a marginalised force with little say in the social or political life. The societal brainwashing began in this milieu and with the state’s increasing dependence on religion, more and more power devolved to bigots. If one looks back at the time before Aurangzeb, there was a lot of amity and tolerance among different people and religions; with decline the amity turned into antagonism.

An important qualitative change occurred when the British gained unchallenged power in the subcontinent. Human beings are psychologically very fragile and vulnerable in stressful situations like disease, deprivation or distress. Have you ever noticed how vulnerable jilted persons are? The jilted persons become victims of low self-esteem because deep down they know they are somehow inferior to the persons chosen instead; hit hard by this realisation they try to prove it otherwise to themselves and others and go for someone or something to provide consolation to their ego. Choices made by jilted persons on bounce are always pathetic.

The Muslims of the subcontinent after being jilted by power and the supremacy they enjoyed for centuries and relegated to a very secondary position became victims of low self-esteem and to make up for that they, in a desperate effort to satisfy their collective ego, resorted to an intolerant version of Islam to convince themselves they were superior to other inhabitants. Therein started the prevalent intolerance and bigotry found mostly among the people who lived in the Hindu-majority areas and to a lesser degree among those in majority areas except in Punjab.

It was this feeling of being disowned and jilted that made them struggle for a place where they could lord it over others again. This resulted in the urge for a Muslim homeland and the efforts to secure it with the help of the British. With the advent of Pakistan, radicalisation became more organised, systematic and pervasive. The rulers zealously ensured that their version of Islam and worldview be accepted as final. It was in the name of Islam that the Bengalis were forced to study Urdu, the independence of the Baloch usurped and the tribal lashkars (militias) sent to Kashmir to defeat the ‘infidels’. The Objectives Resolution was the last nail in the coffin of tolerance and sanity as it opened the floodgates of fundamentalism that has now assumed the proportions of a tsunami.

An observation by Hans Toch, distinguished professor in the School of Criminal Justice, State University of New York, will help understand why there is such finality in the belief of the fundamentalists. He says, “Beliefs, once adopted, become vested interests and are actively defended. Perceptual and cognitive mechanisms of various kinds ‘dispose’ of facts and logic, so as to ensure that that world we encounter corresponds to our conception of it, rather than vice versa. At a given point in the process, the believer has walled himself in. Every event he encounters must be processed in terms of his beliefs. Every opportunity must be used to cement his system.”

Apparently, fundamentalists cannot be but intransigent and naturally are absolutely unwilling to compromise or give quarter, hence the suicide bombings. To expect them to see reason is potentially dangerous because that will lead to wrong and often lethal consequences. To accommodate them is even more fraught with dangers and on a higher level. Those bereft of feelings for a majority of humankind on the basis of religion cannot be expected to see reason.

The state, its institutions and luminaries here are complicit in the spread and sustenance of fundamentalism because they were the immediate beneficiaries and without it could not have sustained themselves; it is only now when this tsunami is engulfing them that they are having second thoughts. The fundamentalist ‘brainwashing’ here is societal and if this tsunami of fundamentalism is to be rolled back it has to be tackled on a similar scale. Pebbles of de-radicalisation are not going to stem this tsunami.

The remedy, which may take a generation or more to take effect, is adopting a secular constitution like Bangladesh, curbing the media channels spewing hatred in name of religion, allowing nations the right to self-determination, disempowering the army, shunning ‘strategic depth’ and ‘assets’, ensuring transparency in governance, revamping education curriculum, banning loud speakers and keeping madrassas in check. But I ask the impossible. They simply will not move an iota from their established lucrative position and will readily take down all with them; this tsunami will haunt the world for a long time.

The writer has an association with the Baloch rights movement going back to the early 1970s. He can be contacted at mmatalpur@gmail.com