Why has the largely-liberal Western media hesitated to label the Bondi beach massacre as Islamist terrorism? Part of the answer may lie in ideological sensitivities, particularly in progressive circles wary of stigmatising communities. … Critics argue that such an approach softens and whitewashes the threat. If doctors themselves are afraid to name a disease, how can they ever hope to cure it? – Prof. Makarand R. Paranjape

The horrific mass shooting at Bondi beach on December 14 during a Hanukkah celebration claimed at least 15 lives and wounded dozens more. Sadly, the perpetrators have an India link. We used to believe that Indo-Australian relations were defined by cricket and the Quad, not to mention Anglo-cosmopolitanism. But now, a new and disturbing element has been added to the mostly pleasant relations between the colonial cousins.

The Sydney terrorist massacre was perpetrated by a father-son duo, Sajid Akram, a 50-year-old Indian national from Hyderabad, and his 24-year-old Australian-born son Naveed. Sajid was shot dead by the police. Naveed now faces multiple charges. To my mind, however, the news coverage and analysis that followed were far from satisfactory.

How is it that this father-son pair of killers carried out such a massacre without the state agencies intervening? Worse, how is that even after being disarmed so bravely and spectacularly by Ahmed al-Ahmed, Sajid was allowed to return to the bridge, join his son, rearm, and even kill a Jewish senior who threw a brick at him?

Where were the police? Was there a laxity, if not intelligence failure? After all, the Akrams were already under state scrutiny if not surveillance. Surely, the attack is only the tip of an iceberg. There is likely a bigger group, with an international network and support system, behind the attack. The Philippine authorities have denied that Davao City, where the Akrams visited for nearly a month this November, had a role to play.

But we know that Mindanao, at the Muslim-majority southern tip of the island nation, has been a hotbed of Islamist radicalism for decades. Secessionist movements led by groups like the Moro National Liberation Front and Moro Islamic Liberation Front have waged a war of insurgency, with splinter factions like the Abu Sayyaf Group, and later, Al Qaeda and Islamic State modules, trying to take control. The death toll over the last 50 years is estimated to exceed 1.5 lakh.

Does the Indian angle, with father Sajid being an Indian national from Hyderabad, suggest that not just Pakistan, but India too is a breeding ground for international Islamist extremism? Closer, in India’s own neighbourhood, the recrudescence of Islamist violence in Pakistan and Bangladesh are a daily reality. The Indian high commission in Dhaka has been under siege recently, with the authorities there allegedly preferring to look the other way.

Targeting a Jewish community event, that too during a major festival, invites the obvious and easy labeling of ‘antisemitism’. However, such framing risks obscuring the deeper ideological driver: global jihadism. Australian authorities, including Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, have acknowledged the suspects were “driven by Islamic State ideology”.

Why, then, has the largely-liberal Western media hesitated to label the massacre as Islamist terrorism? Part of the answer may lie in ideological sensitivities, particularly in progressive circles wary of stigmatising communities. Albanese’s Labor government, while condemning the act as a “radical perversion of Islam”, has emphasised community cohesion over blunt confrontation of jihadist ideology. Critics argue that such an approach softens and whitewashes the threat. If doctors themselves are afraid to name a disease, how can they ever hope to cure it?

More troubling are operational questions about the attack itself. How did this duo, despite Naveed being on the radar of security agencies, acquire licensed firearms? Eyewitness accounts and footage show a brave couple, Boris and Sofia Gurman, confronting Sajid early in the rampage. They were shot and died in each other’s arms. An unnamed New Zealander also helped tackle one of the gunmen on the bridge. Yet, the attackers pressed on, suggesting gaps in immediate containment by the police.

Sajid Akram, who migrated to Australia decades ago, left behind family in Hyderabad who claim ignorance of his radicalisation. But if an individual from India’s Muslim community can embrace violent jihadism abroad, what does it say of undetected extremist undercurrents within India itself?

Traditionally, Islamist militancy in South Asia has been more associated with Pakistan-based groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed. But one cannot rule out their tentacles reaching deep within our country. Should India’s domestic counter-terrorism efforts be stepped up? Or is the Akram case a product of diaspora radicalisation rather than a direct export from India?

Closer home, the recurrence of Islamist violence in our neighbourhood demands scrutiny. In Pakistan, militant groups continue to operate with varying degrees of impunity. In Bangladesh, the post-2024 political upheaval following Sheikh Hasina’s ouster has unleashed a wave of Islamist assertiveness and radicalism.

The interim government under Muhammad Yunus has faced accusations of leniency toward radicals, with far-right groups like Khilafat Majlis organising protests and marches toward the Indian mission in Dhaka. Escalating violence against Hindu minorities, with 250 incidents reported in early 2025 alone, not to mention open threats from outfits like Hizb ut-Tahrir, signal a dangerous shift toward Islamisation, even demanding the establishment of a new caliphate. Anti-India sentiment, fuelled by jihadist propaganda, has boiled over in demonstrations, effectively placing Indian diplomatic missions under siege.

What connects Bangladesh to Bondi? Though no direct evidence is palpable immediately, it is the resurfacing of global jihadism that is the real red flag. While online claims attempting to tie the attackers to Pakistan have been debunked, the missing link is the global resurgence of Islamic State ideology, behind which, arguably, is the Muslim Brotherhood, some of whose chapters have been recently designated as terrorist organisations by the US.

Despite territorial defeats, the Islamic State claimed responsibility for thousands of deaths worldwide in 2024-25, leveraging online propaganda to radicalise individuals far from its core bases. But the truth is that ideology alone doesn’t inspire people to kill others or themselves. Networks of funding, logistics, and rogue state support are essential. Why isn’t international media focusing on this?

The reluctance to confront Islamist terrorism head-on, coupled with regional tolerance for extremists and intelligence failures, connects the Dhaka violence to the Sydney massacre. The true missing link is not conspiracy, but complacency in facing the persistent threat of global jihadism. – The New Indian Express, 20 Decemeber 2025

› Prof. Makarand R. Paranjape is an author, columnist, former teacher at JNU and former director of the Indian Institute of Advanced Study.