-
CENTRES
Progammes & Centres
Location
The lack of Indian Foreign Fighters is hetero-causal encompassing historic, community based, bureaucratic and government factors.
In the aftermath of the Islamic State declaring itself in July 2014, it managed to mobilize more than 30,000 people who travelled to its strongholds in Iraq and Syria. Yet, apart from approximately 100 people (divided into a few batches), scarcely any people travelled to join the Islamic State abroad too. Most of the people who did travel to the conflict zones were from the southern state of Kerala with a few more from states like Maharashtra.
Motivations for these India fighters ranged from wanting to help support oppressed Sunnis against the brutalities of the Syrian president Bashar al Assad, to seeking a sense of identity, a desire to be in a pure ‘Islamic’ atmosphere, and even adventure. This was apparent in the statements of Indians who went to Afghanistan to join the Islamic State in 2017. IS’ propaganda which also expanded to previously untapped languages (for Jihadists) such as Malayalam and Tamil also helped the group gain some currency in non-Urdu speaking regions.
Another facilitating factor was the ties of kinships since many Indians travelled either with their families or friends, a finding that is consistent with studies looking at foreign fighters from other nations. The larger question among policy makers seems to be why has there been such less numbers of foreign fighters from India (including conflict zones like Kashmir)? I argue that this has taken place due to a range of factors.
Perhaps no recent historical conflict has played a stronger role in helping Jihadist groups across the world as much as the Afghan Jihad in the 1980’s. Set in the backdrop of the cold war, the resistance of the Afghan Mujahideen against the Soviet Union was supported by the United States via funding and press releases in its bid to dislodge the USSR as the then superpower. Most Muslim majority countries that were aligned with the US took this one step further by sending in volunteers who entered Afghanistan via Pakistan where they received weapons and training.
According to scholars like Mohammed Hafez, many of these volunteers took part in other conflicts such as in Bosnia and Chechnya and starting networks in their home countries. These eventually became Jihadist groups such as Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), Lashkar e-Taiba and Harkat ul-Jihadi al-Islami Bangladesh (HUJI – B).
In this context, the Indian Muslim population was largely absent in the Afghan Jihad. This happened because of various reasons. Firstly, the Indian government was slightly tilted in favor of the USSR, best displayed in its refusal to condemn the Soviet invasion. Secondly, due to Pakistan’s role as a central node that helped channel funding, weapons and fighters, it was opposed to the Jihad knowing that veterans would likely be let loose on India after the war ceased.
Thirdly, this opposition to the Jihad was why influential organizations such as the Deoband in India (whose Pakistani and Afghan counterparts funneled the most fighters in the Afghan Jihad) explicitly forbade participation in it, likely due to their proximity with the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Fourthly, the Shah Bano situation, the Ram Janmbhoomi movement and resultant communal riots had captured the attention of Muslim public and leaders who were more concerned with domestic issues of majoritarianism rather than supporting international conflicts.
This reluctance to join the Afghan Jihad which was a result of the Indian government’s foreign policy alignment combined with the Muslim population’s domestic concerns were the likely reasons that why no Indian was reported fighting in the conflict. The lack of fighters meant that no veterans would come back with combat training, weapons expertise or violent ideological leanings thereby preventing a Jihadist network from taking roots in the nation.
Yet, West European nations which barely had a Muslim population in the 80’s still contributed a surprising number of recruits to the Syrian conflict which was largely attributed to them being marginalized minorities. Indian Muslims despite being a marginalized minority, the numbers were still low. This lack of Indian foreign fighters then can be due to a combination of other reasons;
It would be folly however, to not include government action and intervention as another set of factors that has contributed to reticence on the part of Indian foreign fighters. Some of these actions are as follows below:
Adil Rasheed classified Jihadist terrorism in India into three types being homegrown, Pakistani inspired and transnational (referring to AQ and IS). Within this, transnational jihadists often have the option to conduct attacks in India or participate in conflicts abroad. While the strategic community feared an Indian foreign fighter presence and subsequent threat of returnees, the numbers have been low. As documented above, each factor is not enough to prevent a foreign fighter exodus. Rather, it is the combination of these factors that has made a difference. This presents several lessons for security agencies.
Firstly, there are many unintended consequences of foreign policy decisions like India’s position on the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. While such unintended consequences are clearer as in the case of Pakistan and its support for Jihadists leading to blowback, there is lesser emphasis on how this has prevented a Jihadist mobilization. Should security communities understanding this better, their capacity to analyze international conflicts with a focus on such radicalization will play a role in preventing the phenomenon.
Secondly, working with the Muslim community, which has renewed its Indian identity in the last few months, is of paramount importance to preventing foreign fighter exoduses. Be it through encouraging better communal relations, facilitating communal policing or softer approaches to de-radicalization, the government can benefit massively from the otherwise impossible task of policing more than 150 million Indian Muslims.
Thirdly, government disinformation campaigns to tackle terrorist propaganda can have multiple positive ripple effects for a long time as seen in the case of operation Chakravyuh. If security agencies continue to persist with incisive campaigns that target Jihadist groups instead of communities, there is a higher chance that future waves of foreign fighters will not comprise of Indians.
The recent killing of a Tamil Nadu policeman by an IS inspired individual displays the persistent presence of the group’s ideology in the nation. Thus, while this study explains a foreign fighter absence, it is notable that many radicalized individuals still live in India. It is imperative that security agencies are not lulled into a false sense of safety and become complacent. Indeed, while India has largely managed to prevent a deep IS footprint/foreign fighters from travelling abroad, there is always a fear that complacency in future conflicts can unravel these gains.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Dr. Mohammed Sinan Siyech is a Non – Resident Associate Fellow working with Professor Harsh Pant in the Strategic Studies Programme. He works on Conflict ...
Read More +