A chilling look at how clear warnings, political inaction, and evolving ideological networks allowed radicalization to grow silently in Sri Lanka, ultimately leading to devastating consequences that could have been prevented.
The legacy of colonial rule continues to cast a long shadow over Sri Lanka. Many of today’s deep-rooted challenges were shaped during that era through divide and rule strategies that fractured communities. Yet, continuing to dwell on the past alone offers no solution. The real urgency lies in confronting present realities and taking decisive action against emerging threats. Public awareness remains a critical starting point. When people understand the risks of extremism and radicalization, they are more likely to support meaningful countermeasures.
Sri Lanka has witnessed this pattern before. When the LTTE first appeared, they were seen by many as protectors, even affectionately referred to as “our boys.” Over time, they transformed into one of the most violent terrorist organizations in the world, leaving decades of bloodshed in their wake. This was followed by violent uprisings linked to the JVP. Today, a different and more subtle form of extremism has taken shape within another community, culminating in the Easter Sunday attacks. The country cannot afford another cycle of violence. Accountability and action must rise above political affiliations, business interests, and communal loyalties.
The roots of this radicalization trace back several decades. In 1942, Jamaat-e-Islami was founded in British India by Abul A’la Maududi, introducing a political interpretation of Islam that prioritized governance through religious law rather than secular frameworks. By 1954, Sri Lanka Jamaat-e-Islami had taken root under Abdul Cader Jailani Sahib, focusing on education, preaching, publications, and community influence. At that stage, these activities were legal and largely social. However, they laid the groundwork for structured ideological networks, gradually building influence and complexity over time.
The 1990s marked a significant shift with the introduction of Wahhabism through institutions such as the Centre for Islamic Guidance. This ideology promoted a rigid and exclusivist interpretation of Islam that rejected other traditions and non-Muslims. It is important to note that not all religious movements are extremist. Radicalization begins when religion becomes politicized, intolerant, and eventually weaponized to justify hostility and violence. During this period, certain elites and community leaders began recognizing opportunities for influence and funding through religious institutions. These developments quietly created an environment where extremist ideologies could take root.
Between the 1950s and 1980s, ideological expansion occurred through education, literature, mosque networks, and madrassas. These institutions initially focused on basic religious teachings and community engagement, posing no immediate national security concerns. However, by 1980, the formation of the Sri Lanka Islamic Students Movement introduced a structured approach to youth engagement. This marked a turning point where ideological transmission became more organized, ensuring continuity across generations.
The 1990s further accelerated this transformation with the spread of Wahhabi and Salafi teachings. Religious discourse shifted toward stricter and more exclusivist interpretations, leading to divisions within the Muslim community, particularly targeting Sufi Muslims. Because these changes were presented as religious reform and remained within legal frameworks, they attracted little attention from authorities. Beneath the surface, however, recruitment pathways were forming, networks were expanding, and influence structures were becoming more entrenched.
By the mid-1990s through 2009, the transition from ideology to violence became increasingly visible. Attacks against Sufi Muslims included shootings, arson, and intimidation. The killing of M.S.M. Farouk Qadrihere in 1998 and mob violence in 2004 highlighted rising sectarian tensions. These incidents demonstrated a familiar pattern seen in extremist movements, where dissent within the same community is suppressed to enforce conformity. Such internal consolidation often precedes outward expansion.
Between 2003 and 2014, these networks became more organized. The Oluvil Declaration of 2003 reflected a growing emphasis on communal identity and political mobilization. Figures such as M.H.M. Ashraff played a role in shaping this landscape by promoting autonomy, representation, and identity. While not inherently violent, these developments contributed to the creation of political and social networks that could later be exploited by radical ideologues, particularly after the end of the LTTE conflict in 2009.
A major turning point came in 2012 with the emergence of National Thowheed Jamaat under Zahran Hashim. Influenced by global Salafi-Wahhabi ideologies, the group developed localized recruitment and indoctrination networks. By 2013, international observers had identified such movements as sources of foreign fighter recruitment. Connections between Sri Lankan networks and global jihadist groups began to surface, highlighting the growing transnational dimension of extremism.
During this period, changes within society became more noticeable. Shifts in dress, stricter religious practices, and economic activities tied to identity signaled alignment with hardline ideologies. Some individuals within political, business, and professional circles exploited these networks for financial and social advantage while ignoring the risks. Actions such as influencing law enforcement, facilitating foreign funding, and enabling unchecked movement contributed to a protective environment in which radical networks could flourish.
After 2009, Sri Lanka’s intelligence agencies closely monitored these developments, including the spread of radical ideology and foreign recruitment. However, because early activities were largely non-violent, legal intervention remained limited. Authorities relied on monitoring, advisory efforts, and community engagement, but these measures proved insufficient as networks continued to evolve and expand.
From 2014 onward, the global rise of ISIS had a profound impact. The declaration of a caliphate inspired recruitment efforts in Sri Lanka, with individuals traveling abroad to join conflict zones. At the same time, local networks intensified their activities through online propaganda, fundraising, and organized study circles. By 2016, these efforts had matured into coordinated structures with clear operational intent.
Zahran Hashim’s journey illustrates how this escalation unfolded. What began as hardline preaching gradually evolved into public confrontations, acts of vandalism, and organized violence. Despite multiple intelligence warnings and arrest warrants, he continued to operate underground, strengthening his network. The discovery of explosives, training operations, and coordinated attacks marked a clear shift from ideological radicalization to organized terrorism.
Between 2015 and 2018, intelligence warnings became increasingly urgent. Both local and international agencies raised alarms, yet decisive action was lacking. Arrests were delayed, extremist groups were not effectively dismantled, and networks continued to operate. Even when specific warnings were issued shortly before the Easter Sunday attacks, preventive measures were not taken. The tragic loss of life that followed was widely seen as avoidable.
This raises a fundamental issue. The failure was not due to a lack of intelligence but a failure to act. Questions remain about why known individuals were not apprehended, why networks were allowed to grow, and why warnings were ignored. Concerns about political interference, lack of accountability, and limited transparency continue to fuel public debate.
At the same time, it is important to recognize the broader societal context. Sri Lankan Muslims have long been an integral part of the island’s history, contributing through trade, cultural exchange, and coexistence. Over generations, communities adapted to local traditions and social structures. However, the introduction of foreign ideological influences has disrupted this balance, creating tension between traditional practices and imported interpretations. Such shifts, when disconnected from local context, can weaken social cohesion.
The story of Zahran Hashim serves as a stark reminder of the dangers of uncritically adopting rigid ideologies. Around the world, several nations are now moving away from such interpretations after recognizing their destabilizing effects. Sri Lanka must also reflect on its own history and learn from past mistakes. The lessons are clear. Vigilance, accountability, and collective responsibility are essential to prevent similar threats from emerging again.
SOURCE :- SRI LANKA GUARDIAN
