Understanding how extremist groups persuade people may be just as important as tracking what they do. A new study suggests that the language used to recruit young Indians into violent movements follows a predictable pattern, and that governments may be getting their response wrong.
Researchers from three Indian law schools examined how Islamic extremist groups shape their messages for audiences in India. Their work, published in Cogent Arts & Humanities, focuses on the idea of framing, which describes how groups select and emphasise certain facts to give people a particular view of the world. The team studied publications including Sawt Al-Hind, Dabiq and Azan.
The authors identified a set of recurring themes that appear across the material. These include the portrayal of a common enemy, a sense of constant persecution, an idealised past or future order tied to a particular place, and the glorification of sacrifice and violent acts. Together, they argue, these themes build a shared identity that helps groups mobilise supporters and make violence appear justified.
Place plays an important role in the messaging. The study notes that propaganda often refers to Kashmir, Ayodhya and Godhra to present Muslims as victims, while pointing to the idea of a future caliphate as a goal worth fighting for. Real events and policy disputes, including debates over citizenship laws and mob violence, are then folded into the same story.
The researchers stress that most Muslims in India have rejected extremism, and that the study does not suggest all Muslims are vulnerable to radicalisation. They also note that the same techniques could be applied to ethno-nationalist, far-right or left-wing movements. Islamist material was chosen because it is well documented and offers a clear case study.
A further finding concerns the role of social conditions. The authors argue that feelings of exclusion, whether real or perceived, can make some people more receptive to messages that offer belonging, purpose and moral certainty. Propaganda, they say, rarely creates grievances, but it can exploit them with great skill.
The paper is candid about its limits. The texts analysed were selected purposively rather than exhaustively, much of the material was translated, and the study cannot measure how effective the propaganda actually is in persuading individuals to act.
Its central policy message is that counter-narratives need more careful design. Messages that rely only on facts and official policy, the authors suggest, often fail to connect emotionally with audiences who are drawn to powerful stories. They call on policymakers to look beyond standard social media campaigns and to understand the appeal of extremist rhetoric before attempting to counter it.
The study adds to growing research on online radicalisation and counter-extremism strategy, at a time when governments worldwide are searching for ways to prevent violent extremism that go beyond security measures alone.
