Rethinking counterterrorism beyond crackdowns

The path towards countering terrorism or violent extremism in Bangladesh is precarious. It is well documented how the Awami League’s “zero tolerance against terrorism” policy had engendered unprecedented levels of harm within the nation through enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings. The regime had adopted a punitive and securitised approach to counterterrorism (CT) and countering violent extremism (CVE) through preemptive measures based on arbitrary arrests and detention.

The multiple amendments and expansion of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2009 created scope for mass arbitrary arrests and detention of suspects, which often led to extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. The draconian Digital Security Act, 2018 was supposedly developed to deal with cybercrime and ensure digital security, which included controlling extremist propaganda, terrorist recruitment online, indoctrination of radicalised ideologies, etc. However, in reality, the DSA was exploited to stifle dissent, targeting journalists, government critics, and political opponents. In 2021, there was a backlog of more than 46,000 cases under the DSA and 700 cases were pending at the Anti-Terrorism Tribunals (ATT). Many of the accused, while awaiting bail, served detention for periods longer than their sentences.

At the same time, we observed narratives of denial, rejecting any risk of terrorism or violent extremism within the country. This presents another extreme of the same problem; that is, the politics of securitisation of counterterrorism where states and different stakeholders either exaggerate or underplay the threat of terrorism for their own sociopolitical goals.

In this context, the current government of Bangladesh should consider a holistic, decolonial, and whole-of-society approach in dealing with risks and the persistence of terrorism within the country. Such an approach can be operationalised in three key ways. Firstly, through the effective utilisation of community policing as a preventive and trust-building mechanism between law enforcement and local communities. Secondly, by adopting a case management model—already in practice in many countries, such as in Canada—that emphasises individualised assessment and tailored interventions rather than blanket punitive responses. Thirdly, by integrating biopsychospiritual interventions within prison settings to address the underlying psychological, social, and spiritual dimensions of radicalisation. Together, these three pillars offer a comprehensive framework that bridges prevention, intervention, and rehabilitation in addressing violent extremism.

A whole-of-society approach to preventing and countering violent extremism and radicalisation that lead to extremism (VERLT) refers to a coordinated and collaborative effort among relevant government agencies and nongovernmental actors. This involves leveraging the role of the youth, women, religious, and community leaders in developing proactive strategies to prevent radicalisation and violent extremism. Herein, the role of community policing can become productive as well. Community policing can prove to be one of the most efficacious methods through which the government can promote a community-centred and inclusive approach to counterterrorism. The existing community policing strategy in Bangladesh can be capitalised to devise transformative and restorative solutions for terrorism or violent extremism within society. As proactive measures, local community policing committees can be established consisting of law enforcement officials, youth members, religious and community leaders, and other civil society actors. This can contribute to fostering communication, a sense of belonging, and social cohesion. Instead of pathologising Islam or “Muslimness,” these local platforms will mobilise religious values to promote community resilience, tolerance, and a sense of belonging within society.

While the above strategies are more preventive in nature, the government also needs to consider effective responsive measures as well. In cases where the threat of violent extremism materialises, security agencies can adopt a “case management model” based on individualised responses, rather than one-size-fits-all punitive measures. The case management approach to works through client identification based on preliminary assessments to determine if the individual requires formal intervention with rehabilitative measures. In cases where the individual is not a hardened criminal, security agencies may consider alternative measures such as theological guidance, mental health support, vocational training, etc. Government agencies and such as the social welfare ministry can be involved within this process to carry out rehabilitative treatment of those who receive referrals. Additionally, accredited civil society organisations can also be involved within the assessment and rehabilitation process to ensure transparency and effectiveness.

For those who require formal criminal sanctions, the justice process should be carried out following credible due process and on a strong evidentiary basis. The authorities must not repeat the cycles of violence that were seen during the orchestrated “justice” processes that led to the institutionalisation of punitive detention centres like aynaghor. It is imperative to establish clear evidentiary standards for detention and ensure regular review of intelligence assessments associated within counterterrorism cases.

A decolonial approach following the above measures would entail holistic local solutions grounded in the contextual values, norms, and ethos of Bangladesh. It would be grounded in biopsychospiritual interventions based on therapeutic approaches that address the biosocial, psychological, and spiritual dimensions of an individual’s identity and well-being. Such approaches in the context of counterterrorism policies can offer sustainable solutions by addressing underlying extremist ideological belief systems in Bangladesh. At a macro level, community-based spiritual interventions can promote “peace before justice” through the utilisation of spirituality as a psychosocial coping mechanism against longstanding marginalisation, polarisation, and injustice associated with the “Muslim identity.” The road to lasting peace and harmony can only be reached through an arduous journey of coexistence, mutual respect, and dialogue—securitised and populist punitive responses can only take us so far.

Nousheen Sharmila Ritu is a PhD Candidate at the Warwick Law School and executive director of Bangladesh 2.0 Initiative.

Dr Muhammad Asadullah is associate professor at the University of Regina’s Department of Justice Studies.

Nazmul Arifeen is a public policy professional based in Ottawa with extensive experience in international security and foreign policy analysis.