Bloodshed in Brussels and Angst of Muslims of the West

Terrorists struck again within six months of the carnage in Paris, this time in Brussels, the city that serves as headquarters of both NATO and European Union. Brussels is not unknown to terrorism; the city saw acts of terror no less than six times in the past few years, but none with the ferocity and violence of March 22 that demolished part of an international airport, a subway station, and took at least 31 lives. The number of deaths is the highest so far from terrorist attacks in a single day in a European city. As in the past such occurrences in Europe, the viciously militaristic outfit of ISIS came out, boldly claiming ownership of the horrendous attack.

While governments in Belgium, France, USA and UK condemned the attack and swore to strike at ISIS and end its cycle of violence, the entity continued to thrive and attract militants who are either directly employed by the organisation to carry out terrorist attacks or are inspired by the organisation's message to attack countries that are deemed to be its foes. The most fearful and daunting aspect of such attacks is that these have been launched by militants who are mostly homegrown. All seven of the attackers in Paris in November were either French or Belgian citizens. The three identified as the bombers of the Brussels attack are reported to be Belgians. But more importantly, all of these attackers are also Muslims descended from immigrants from Morocco or Algeria. And that is the crux of the problem and cause of angst of the Muslims; not only in Belgium, France, and UK and other parts of Europe, but also as far as the United States.

Immediately following the Paris attack, the neighbourhoods targeted for search and surveillance were those mostly inhabited by Muslims. Despite protestations by the French President and politicians that Muslims need not fear a counter attack, the Muslims of France felt vulnerable to condemnation by general public because the attackers were fellow Muslims. Although no visible discrimination was made against Muslims, they felt insecure as police scoured Muslim neighbourhoods and raided apartments in search of suspects.

The latest apprehension of a Paris attacker, Salah Abdeslam, from a mostly Muslim neighbourhood of Molenbeek in Brussels lent further fear among Muslims,making them  worry that any neighbourhood inhabited by Muslims could be an easy target for police raids. What is more worrisome for Muslims is how such new attacks feed the apprehension of non-Muslims against Muslims in general, and make their normal life more difficult in those countries. In the ongoing campaign for the presidential nomination in the US, the candidates have made war against terrorism a central issue, and are projecting each as the best to beat ISIS. But in running that campaign against terrorism, two Republican candidates, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, are vilifying not only the ISIS, but also ordinary Muslims. In the heels of the Brussels attack, Ted Cruz declared that he will support policing and surveillance of Muslim neighbourhoods in the US.  

Terrorism is not a new global phenomenon . It has been the chosen path of many organisations and political parties in the past to claim freedom or to overcome oppression. Terrorism was not identified with one particular political belief or religious entity. But unfortunately, in the past decade, it has generally come to be identified with Islamic radicalism because the activists who carried out acts of militancy did so in the name of Islam. While the majority of the Muslims in the West either denounced these acts or distanced themselves from such groups, the Muslim communities were not proactive enough to counter these forces that secretly grew within.

Radicalism does not grow in a vacuum. It either comes from a feeling of neglect, frustration, and desperation, or from being brainwashed by an ideology. In the case of radicalised youth of UK, it has been suggested that a large number of them turned this way because they felt they were marginalised or unassimilated in a society that gave them no promise of growth. In the case of the militants in Belgium and France, who were apparently born in those countries, their radicalisation came not from a deep religious faith or ideology, but from societal neglect, poverty, and early association with crime and criminals. All reportedly had criminal records before they bonded with ISIS, which gave them the wherewithal and required training for militant operations. They were easy cannon fodders for the malevolent organisation with grandiose schemes. 

Unfortunately, elements like the Brussels and Paris attackers cannot be stopped by hitting at the ISIS territory alone. The biggest conundrum of fighting the militant outfit of ISIS is determining whether the fighters working for the entity are limited to the geographic territory it has currently occupied, or it has volunteers and loyalists who have penetrated more countries, extending far beyond its known territory.  It is important because a war that targets only the territory that it currently occupies may dislodge them from it, but not its loyalists or volunteers who have spread out. Similarly elimination of a single leader may not bring an end to the whole organisational structure. The entity as a whole may rotate leadership, just as it may move its physical location from one country to another.

To ensure that a war against terrorism is a success, the efforts will have to be made in each country affected by it or likely to be affected by it, starting with its minorities, Muslims in particular. Assimilation is not a one-way exercise. Community leaders have to make efforts to make themselves, their culture and religion better understood in schools, community spaces, and by participation in local activities, including local elections and political parties. The more the Muslims spread out among the larger, mainstream communities, the lesser will be the impact of fear mongering tactics of bigoted politicians.

The writer is a political analyst and commentator.