Michelle Obama said in her final speech as first lady: “Our glorious diversity is our faiths, our colours, our creeds. That is not a threat to who we are; it makes us who we are”
The world is undergoing difficulty digesting the reality, there is a large majority of Muslims readily becoming more conscious of their image, which is helping them shape a new world for their existence by questioning their own kin. However, on the other hand a large majority of thousands and millions of people lead by pre-dominantly radicalized leadership are leading NATIONS without division into reactive radicalization, against the Muslim population without assessing the differences among them, the rising rift between the handful of practically “disowned” Muslim terrorists and larger majority of unrecognized Muslim victims and sufferers. It is ironic that nations like Syria, Pakistan, Turkey, Iraq are fighting within their own national boundaries violent battle against the radicalization, which is both at the ideological and physical grounds.
Is this where world is moving towards? Suggesting to counter extremism, religious fanaticism by becoming a fanatic? – Assessing by the nature of the said analogy, the result of such strategy would be counterproductive, resulting in a world full of fanatics, running wild to kill one another. If the world has to judge Muslims by the acts of a few than it would be equivalent to: India is a country of rapists or America is the country of gun violence, ignoring the fact that nations cannot be branded over actions of the few.
When countries fight extremism at national level, it is witnessed that they are deliberate and conscious of dealing it with two contrasting strategies, while there is counter strategy to curb terrorism through military, on the other hand there is a softer, a diplomatic strategy to counter extremism that is the root-cause of terrorism.
By the virtue of basic knowledge, which is expected of leadership, it is evident that proclamations aimed at causing polarization in the world is the formula for fanning and feeding the extremism. Nation-branding, religious and racial discrimination presented as a solution to counter the prevalent global problem is only the work of a closed-mind, work of someone who is ignorant, incapable of understanding the dynamics of political deliverance, in the nutshell, this is someone unfit for securing executive position, let alone member of an administrative staff.
If extremism is the solution to extremism, then the terrorists have won already. If they were in favour of Muslims of the world then they would not place them in a position of suffering, they wouldn’t cause them criticism victimization. It is the generic anatomy of the terrorists to produce a situation where the world becomes hostage to their presence, their activities. It is rather interesting and unfortunate, whenever a terrorist attack occurs, Muslims are taken over by the fear of being judged and questioned for their identity, and on the other hand non-Muslims are taken over by fear of Muslims for being the cause of the attack. The common factor here is indisputably the phenomenon of fear, which is THE objective of the terrorists. According to research conducted by various quarters, following are the average goals of terrorist groups:
- To spread FEAR among the population
- To become relevant in the global politics
- To garner support from certain community who they proclaim to be fighting for
- To make headlines by carrying significant actions, attacking monumental places
It is quite evident that the basic motives of terrorist groups around the world are quite similar; therefore, this homogeneity of purpose should be utilized as a platform for unity among the victims of terrorist in order to form a counter terrorism strategy.
How to deal with terrorism?
Numerous studies relating to terrorism have suggested that there are direct psychological effects of terrorism on the individuals from all around the world. It is unfortunate that Donald Trump’s new immigration policy based on global polarization and radicalization would do little to improve the situation. Donald Trump’s aggressively rigid policy for countering terrorism is already producing negative impact, causing him criticism and protests inside United States and globally. On the contrary, to take a lead from where Obama presidency came to an end, he could initiate a more globally inclusive policy as far as countering terrorism in concerned.
- Forming a global alliance for countering terrorism, including local Muslim population alongside the leadership.
- One of the few Obama talents was his communication skills, Mr. Trump would have been appreciated more than the criticism coming his way for being vocal about his globally inclusive policy.
- Taking advantage of Muslim population growing weary of their racial branding by bringing them in the fold of global counter terrorism policy
- Focus on countering terrorism rather countering cultural beliefs. USA growing more accepting towards to non western cultures, which would help USA changing the perception of the country in larger Muslim population.
This is rather naïve to expect peace by holding “no entry” signs in your hands. Logic dies indeed, from where Trump leads.