The 2019 Easter Sunday terror attack was a tragedy no country should ever have to witness. It was a monumental failure in governance. The tragedy also opened doors for Sri Lanka to learn many lessons, ranging from having a serious dialogue on inter-ethnic/religious harmony and tolerance at the grassroots level to improving accountability on the part of political and law enforcement authorities. In the broad discourse that entailed the Easter Sunday attack, both the then United National Front (UNF)-led government as well as the successive Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) government vowed to learn from lessons and not allow history to repeat.

But, as the said discourse faded away over time and alleged culprits of the Easter Sunday attack were penalised, we may have once again become complacent, and distracted with another crisis. Radicalisation and religious extremism have again become topics that have become distant to many. A significant deficit in trust in the state apparatus, long held views of inequality and conspiracy theories have made the topic distant and unpalatable to many. According to terrorism expert and former Director General of a government think tank, Prof. Rohan Gunaratne, successive governments’ failing to take the necessary steps to establish a deradicalisation programme is unacceptable, and there is a pressing need to rehabilitate those linked to the extremist ideology which led to the Easter Sunday attack. The lack of such a specialised programme, he warned, would risk the proliferation of such extremist beliefs. He made these remarks during the launch of a book titled “Sri Lanka's Easter Sunday Massacre: Lessons for the International Community,” penned by him. There are diverse views about Gunaratne, but his criticism regarding the lack of a proper deradicalisation program and of tools to combat the spread of extremist ideologies remain valid.  

Sri Lanka has suffered long enough due to extremist ideologies to know that Prof. Gunaratne’s warnings are logical. In fact, as a country that suffered for decades due to extreme ideologies-led conflicts, the fact that someone has to keep reminding us to take extremist ideologies seriously is disheartening. However, history and evidence from Sri Lanka and overseas indicate that putting people with extremist ideologies in prisons with the general inmate population can have disastrous repercussions. Simply jailing those with extremist views does not eliminate the forces that instil such ideologies in the minds of susceptible individuals. Sri Lankans know that our social fabric has serious fault lines, and socio-economic, political factors that could make people vulnerable to such ideologies, remain in play.  As such, Sri Lankans should pay more attention to preventing the spread of radicalisation than dealing with radicalised persons later.

The government must initiate the deradicalisation and rehabilitation programme that were deemed necessary following the Easter Sunday attack, with a focus on those who have already been arrested or charged with extremism-terrorism related offences. It should be a programme that pays attention to the factors that make people vulnerable to extremist ideologies and also the extremist elements that are operating in the country. However, the government should be sensitive in preparing such a program, and take into consideration that there is a significant trust gap between the public, especially from the minority communities, and the state.

In preparing such a deradicalisation program, and one to prevent the spread of extremist ideologies,  the government should not only look at resources it already has access to, but also consult experts and foreign nations such as the United Kingdom, Sweden, Indonesia, Singapore and even countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, who have had some success in such matters. Along with the United Nations, there will be many countries that are willing to assist it. Sri Lanka should study how other democratic countries have dealt with extremist ideologies in a sustainable, effective manner, and follow their international best practices where possible. Most importantly, the government should move to update its knowledge about how religious extremist groups are linked to and disseminate their messages of hate, particularly in cyberspace.

It has been the experience of many countries that have dealt with similar issues, that in dealing with religious extremism, community-level programmes, awareness building and surveillance is more effective than heavy handed police crackdowns, which often have undesired consequences.  At the end of the day, it is an issue that lies in the minds of the people and is not something that can be seized or destroyed physically. Therefore, grassroots-level awareness raising and harmony building programmes, backed by close monitoring through informal and formal channels help identify potential victims of such ideologies, before they move to an actionable phase. Remember that the Easter Sunday attack happened while Sri Lanka had the draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), which failed to prevent the tragedy. So, a change in how policing is done is also essential. 

Another measure that can have significant impact is to jail religious extremists separate from those who are in jail for other offences, in order to prevent the spread of such ideologies. Once some suspects or extremists have been deradicalised, a community support program will help them reintegrate back to society, and may well give the government role models they can point to radicalised youth, to follow. This way, young impressionable, would be extremists could be diverted early from the path of hate and destruction.  

It is a fact that extremist ideologies, especially religious extremism, exist in all communities, although certain religions are known to have more extremist groups than the others. In this context, it is crucial that the government handles these matters with an open mind, without being blinded by preconceived notions about such groups. Also, the government must be fair in engaging extremists from all communities. Any indication to the contrary will fan flames of exclusivity and make communities resistant to liaise with law enforcement.

In all these attempts, the government has to gradually bridge that trust deficit that exists between the government, law enforcement and military personnel, and other social services. Without gaining the public’s trust first, the government would not be able to get the public’s support, without which any deradicalisation processes, or chance of early detection would not succeed.