"The terrorism took him," argues Mohammed Ferchichi, a childhood friend of Seifeddine Rezgui - the lone gunman who killed 38 tourists in Tunisia on June 26.
Approximately 90 minutes before Rezgui opened fire in the Tunisian resort town of Sousse, a suicide bomber - Suleiman al-Muwahhid - exploded his vest inside the Imam Sadiq Mosque in Kuwait city. 27 people were killed. Another 300 were injured. 90 minutes before that, and thousands of kilometres away from both Tunisia and Kuwait, Yassin Salhi drove a van into a chemical factory in south-eastern France. He unsuccessfully tried to blow up the plant he had worked in, and was eventually arrested. The head of what is believed to be Salhi's former boss was found on a pike alongside flags inscribed with markings of the so-called Islamic State.
The Najd Province - a group associated with the Islamic State - claimed responsibility for the attack on the Shia mosque in Kuwait. A tweet sent out by the
Islamic State claimed responsibility for the actions of
Abu Yihya al-Kairouni, the norm-de-guerre given to Rezgui, who received training in Libya. Whether or not Salhi was directed by the Islamic State to destroy the American-owned factory in France or simply inspired by the Islamic State is yet to be determined.
French authorities have found no connections so far. In the cases of Rezgui and Muwahhid, it seems certain that they were inspired and trained by the Islamic State and its franchisees.
These attacks only reaffirm the fact that the politics of persuasion is as lethal as that of the gun. After all, Rezgui was only 23. He wanted to be a break-dancer. He was turned by a group of Salafists in an unsupervised mosque in his university town. A compelling narrative around violence against the "infidel" combined with a dose of drugs - confirmed by an
autopsy report - led to an act that in turn has every potential to escalate Britain's - and the West's' - war against the Islamic State. 30 of those gunned down in Sousse were British tourists.
On June 29, UK Prime Minister David Cameron forcefully argued that no one can
"hide from this threat." "They are attacking," he underlined, "our way of life." The solution lay in an "attack at its source in Iraq and Syria." In short, he claimed, the Islamic State had "declared war on Britain." Whether or not the attack was designed to provoke a reaction is yet to be determined, but this is exactly what it has done. On July 2, British Foreign Secretary Michael Fallon stated that Britain needed to adopt a
"full spectrum" response. This was denied to the Cameron-led Coalition government in 2013 when the House of Commons voted against such escalation. But the mood has changed, as has the government. Further, reports -
first made in January 2015 - that the Islamic State in Khorasan, the older name for Afghanistan, have established a presence in the eastern province of Nangahar along the border with Pakistan is at the very least worrisome. It further threatens stability in a part of the world at war with itself. Ironically, and perhaps only for the time being, the Islamic State in Khorasan is also at war with the Afghan Taliban. The two groups seem to be battling for a caliphate that they both claim. It won't be long before they accept that an alliance is more in their interest than war.
The debate with regards to battling a group like the Islamic State and its affiliates is a familiar one to historians and social scientists alike. In simple terms, such a war is fought on the ground with bombs and jets. Yet, and equally, it requires what might be called the development of a counter-script debunking the lines of persuasion that convinced those like Rezgui to commit cold-blooded murder. Countries such as Britain have tried to maintain this balance between kinetic action and carefully-crafted words of counter-persuasion for a very long time. Indeed, what is so difficult for Britain is that the battleground extends between the
81,000 square miles of territory controlled by the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, and the 80,695 square miles of territory that make-up Great Britain. 600-700 Britons are said to be part of the Islamic State's fighting cadre. In fact, around 4,000 foreigners from over 90 countries fight for the Islamic State. As
one report makes clear, there are more British Muslims fighting for the Islamic State than for the British Army.
In addition, this is not a male-dominated fight. Large numbers of schoolgirls from within Europe have made their way through Turkey to the Islamic State. This is a curious development. A document released in January 2015 by the all-women
Al-Khanssaa Brigade (part of the Islamic State) in Syria makes clear that freedom for women is a highly dubious affair. Discouraged from fighting in the frontlines, girls are instead encouraged to marry by the age of nine. Their "fundamental function," the English translation of the document reads, is to "stay in the house." No matter the liberal critique of such documents, its appeal is clearly strong. It has drawn a number of young women to transition from relatively free and democratic locales to embrace a stricter code for life and spirit in a part of the world far removed from the bustling high streets of South London and Birmingham. Propaganda lies at the heart of this battle. Indeed, winning this war may well be close to impossible. Containing it is a must.
This is where India needs to take a stand. This is not to suggest,
like some have, that India too join the campaign with guns and bullets alike. In fact, this would be a calamity where the cost of action will very quickly outstrip any potential benefit. Rather, it is an opportunity to work more closely with nations like Britain and others in Europe from where the Islamic State draws its personnel and confidence. Britain today might just be at the centre of a Jihadi complex ordinarily thought to exist in South Asia and North Africa. For when these fighters turn away from the bloodletting in Syria and Iraq, they will be drawn to a Khurasan they claim as theirs alone. This Khurasan, they claim, is as much physical as a metaphor. It as much about land and territory as it is about ideas and beliefs - there is no borderline. Still further, these are beliefs held and worn by those from almost every part of the world.
The assaults on June 26 ought to strike a degree of pause in the hearts and minds of leaders from across the world. Successful containment lies in greater cooperation. The terrorism that took the 23-year-old Rezgui away from his friends and his passion for dancing is supported as much by training and sinister mentorship as an idea. Defeating this idea will take more than the sharp reaction of nations under attack such as Britain. It requires those like India, with its sharp and long history of maintaining cohesion amongst division to work with those in the West. For it is essential to fully appreciate the sheer weight of those ideas that inspire hatred and which bombs and bullets alone cannot reverse.
(Dr. Rudra Chaudhuri is a Senior Lecturer at the Department of War Studies and the India Institute at King's College London.)Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. The facts and opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of NDTV and NDTV does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.