On July 4, Bangladeshis remained glued to their television sets while Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina paid her last respects to the victims of the terrorist attack in Dhaka. Over the last 24 months, Bangladesh has experienced numerous episodes of well-coordinated attacks on atheist bloggers, secular writers, members of the minority, LGBT and the expat community, resulting in more than 40 deaths.
A hostage situation of such a huge magnitude in Dhaka’s diplomatic zone has never been experienced.This probably explains why it took more than nine hours to put in place a rescue operation. The attack has been an eyeopener for the entire nation. Not only did the terrorists slaughter 20 hostages but their brutal actions symbolised a complete rejection of our liberal way of life.
Most of the murdered expats were associated with local investments, while the seven murdered Japanese were working on the flagship bilateral project — the Metro Rail. Bangladesh is also implementing an array of mega infrastructure projects, most notably, the coal-based power projects in collaboration with Japan and India, and a nuclear power plant with Russia. The attack raises a question mark on the government’s ability to smoothly deliver these projects. This new threat necessitates new strategies and more cooperation from the global community.
Several world leaders have offered support, but Bangladesh must objectively evaluate the threat first. The nature of the attack was such that it can be safely regarded as a suicide mission. Hence, it is prudent to infer that the threat from radicalised terrorists no longer follows the “lone-wolf” model in Bangladesh.
In fact, various security analysts have noted that Bangladeshi local Islamic terrorist organisations are inspired by the Islamic State. The situation is further complicated since Bangladesh enjoys a unique geostrategic location. The threat from radical Islam is further complicated by some other factors as well.
One, more than three million Bangladeshis are working in Saudi Arabia and they are a vital source for the country’s income from remittances. But there is a strong likelihood that this is the reason why “Wahhabism” is gaining traction in Bangladesh. Two, the use of Islam in order to generate political support continues to be a popular strategy for the right-wing political parties in the country. This is particularly true about the Jamaat-e-Islami, which has faced several trials for its involvement in the crimes against humanity during Bangladesh’s liberation movement.
Therefore, it is possible that a combination of a complex set of factors — both international and local — is creating fertile conditions for such attacks. And Prime Minister Hasina must recognise this before she can implement an effective strategy to counter such terror attacks. In the recent past, the government resorted to large-scale crackdowns and arrested more than 10,000 suspects. Yet, it is evident from the Dhaka attack that the government needs to adopt a comprehensive de-radicalisation agenda, comprising both short-term and long-term strategies, to tackle the problem.
Lastly, a daunting question remains, which should be answered by the concerned global actors: Can countries like Bangladesh, India, Nigeria, Pakistan, Libya or Turkey ensure total immunity from the influence of the IS even if they put in place the best of measures? It is pertinent that the United States and its allies assess the necessity of their ground troops in Iraq and Syria in order to mitigate the threat from IS. There is no doubt that if the IS continues to maintain a stronghold in Iraq and Syria, it will also be able to inspire such radicalism in other parts of the world.
