Conceptualizing Terrorism in context with South Asia

Conceptualizing Terrorism in context with South Asia (Dr. Nand Kishor Kumar) Introduction Terrorism is an elusive term. It means different thing to different people. No single universally accepted legal definition of terrorism exists. Therefore, one state’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter and national hero. The terrorist of India is the freedom fighter and the hero of Pakistan and the vice versa. Bhagat singh, Veer Savarkar and Chandrashekher Azad were the darling hero of Indian people where as they were terrorists for colonial ruler. Even Gandhiji was meant and taken differently. Does it mean that terrorism does not materially exist? All about it is merely an imagination? People are killed. Property is damaged. Airplane is hijacked. All is it an illusion? No, not all. No one can deny about terrorist attack on Mumbai and hundreds of such attacks worldwide and killed thousands of innocent lives and damaged properties of millions. This is factually, materially and absolutely correct that terrorism exists not only now but also for centuries in different forms at different times. However, the fact remains that Terrorism exists beyond doubt. But what does not exist is the universally acceptable definition of terrorism. Why it happens? The matter exists but its meaning is elusive and its common concept does not exist. It happens because each individual, nation, community, religion etc. has different self interest. Their interest varies from each other. Each one of them takes terrorism according to their own need and interest. Therefore, each one means it differently. Every one conceptualizes terrorism differently as they do not have unanimous view or agreement on common interest due to their difference of opinion based on their self or national interest. Therefore, terrorism exists but its common meaning/definition for everyone does not exist. India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Myanmar and China are independent and sovereign nations and hence their national interest differ from each other and as such their views about terror, terror act, terrorist and terrorism cannot be the same despite the fact that terrorism is a reality for everyone of them. Even within the nation different interest groups or political parties may differ from each other in terms of meaning and definition of terrorism. The concept of Terror act conducted by Muslim or Hindu fanatic groups in India or elsewhere may not be the similar reaction of the Congress and BJP due to their different party interest based on their different source of vote-bank. Same is the fact about difference of opinion in this context for two main political parties in Bangladesh. In China the Communist Party, Budhists loyal to Dalai Lama and Uyghur militants may react differently on terror act due to their difference in political interest. This is true in almost all the south Asian countries. A few or more groups or nations may also have common concept of terrorism in case they have common national interest. For instance, India, Nepal and Bhutan hardly differ from each other on the concept of terrorism as well as the anti-terrorist policy due to their common strategic interest in the region. Within India the BJP, RSS and the Shiv Sena maintain almost similar view in case the Muslims are suspected to have done terror act due to their similar ideology. On the other hand if police or law enforcement authorities or investigation agencies suspect that the terror act is conducted by Hindu fanatic groups, all such Parties and groups react together against govt. So everyone, nation or party or group views terrorism as per its ideology and interest. Moreover, the concept of the govt. of Pakistan differs even on the same Muslim terrorist groups operates in Pakistan as well as Afghanistan (Pak .Taliban and Afghanistan Taliban) due to strategic pressures apart from differences of national interest. Besides, as and when Muslim terrorists groups operate in China and Russia, Pakistan either does not openly react or if it reacts, it attempts to please all – the govt. of China, Russia and such terror groups which have operated terror acts over there due to strategic reasons. Furthermore, a group of Muslim extremist operated against Soviet army in Afghanistan at the end of 20th century was called as Mujahidin (liberators) by USA and Pakistan, whereas the same groups now operate against them in the same country they call them a terrorist. Therefore, they call them as whatever is suited to them in the changing circumstances. Hence the world and the region comprising of various countries do not have common definition of the term terrorism due to differences in self interest as well as fast changing global and regional geo-political and strategic scenario. Moreover, for country like Pakistan, terrorism is the state policy being followed right from her birth as a nation based on two- nations theory so as to make Kashmir and other man made issues alive against India, despite the fact that Pakistan itself suffers much more than India from their own created terrorists groups. Bangladesh liberated from Pakistan emerged as democratic state in the beginning also suffered due to subsequent rise of terrorism/religious fanaticism. For long time the northeast insurgents of India used Bangladesh territory as their hideout. However, recently the judiciary in Bangladesh has awarded hanged till death to 150 persons involved in militancy. Myanmar, also the hideout for northeast insurgents, recently experienced the worst riot between Budhist and Muslims. On the other hand, Bhutan cooperated with India in wiping out of northeast insurgents from Bhutan and the similar cooperation is also given by Nepal time to time. Pakistan needs to upgrade itself and to cooperate accordingly in the interest of the peace of the region or at least in her own interest. Recently the terrorist attack at Tiananmen Square on 27 Oct. 2013 and at Shanxi on 6 Nov. 2013 in China has finally good sense prevails and China is opening her eyes for extending active cooperation to India – Russia as well as other global powers. Conceptual Framework According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary the word terror derives from the Latin verb terre meaning ‘to frighten’. It is akin to the Greek word trein which means ‘to be afraid’ or ‘to flee’. The similar Greek word ‘tremein’, which means ‘to tremble.’ This dictionary also refers several other meaning of terror like state of intense, fear, one that inspires fear, a scourge, a frightening aspect, a cause of anxiety, an appalling person or thing, a terrifying political state, a violent or destructive act committed by a group in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands. The Oxford English Dictionary also refers the meaning of terrorism as “government by intimidation as directed and carried out by the party in power in France during Revolution of 1789 – 94” as well as “policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it adopted.” The terror and terrorism began to emerge after Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo and the renewal of royalist regime in France under new situation and arrangement of Europe based on the agreement of the Congress of Vienna in 1814-1818. The word itself was coined during the terrible days of the French Revolution. The revolution was the product of class-ridden French society, which caused miserable poverty for the common people. Although ordinary people in 18 th century Europe lived in abject poverty, the lives of the poor in France were particularly miserable. On 14 th June 1789, the people of Paris stormed the most hated symbol of oppression, the Bastille prison, and destroyed it brick by brick. On 26 July 1794 the revolutionary leader Maximilien Robespierre announced to the National Convention that he had in his possession a list of names of traitors who were plotting to overthrow sthe revolutionary govt. That started the ‘Reign of Terror’ when nearly forty thousand men and women were publicly beheaded by the use of guillotine. These gruesome acts were carried out in order to instill fear in the minds of the ‘enemies’ of the revolution and to assure the common people that the old, unjust system of monarchy was not going to return. It is interesting to note that from inception, the connotation of the term, at least in the minds of general public has changed radically. In the early days it was equated with state repression, while these days the term is associated more with the acts of non-state actors, particularly those who target a civilian non-combatant population for political goals. Another instance of emergence of terrorism is marked in England even before French Revolution. In 1605, when a plot was hatched by a group of provincial English Catholic to kill King James I of England along with his family as well as Protestant aristocracy. The plotters tried to smuggle barrels of gunpowder into the vaults underneath Parliament House. The conspirators planned to blow it up during the State Opening, when the king was going to be in the House. The members of the ‘Gunpowder Plot’ had also plotted to abduct the royal children and incite a revolt in the Midlands. The enormity of the conspiracy left Edward Coke, The Chief Justice of Common Pleas, searching for an appropriate word to describe it. The ‘reign of terror’ (la terreur) following the French Revolution, which gave birth to the term ‘terrorism’ would have to wait for almost two hundred years to be coined. Coke was at a loss to find a suitable sobriquet, which would adequately capture the revulsion, scorn, and disgust the hatched plot evoked in him. He expressed his bewilderment by stating ‘the Treason doth want an apt name’. The original and the new forms of terrorism were applied especially in revolutions in 19 th and early 20 th century in colonial and civil wars of that time, and during and after world war I in a situation created by the Treaty of Versailles and some other international pacts. The word war II is seen as a biggest war between democratic forces and the extremist of racism and fascism which unleashed unprecedented cruelty, huge intensification and systematized terrorism across Europe Occupying troops intentionally plundered the conquered regions and whole countries. The resistance of the people against such behavior of the occupying forces was bestially suppressed on order discourage the successors. The revenge was extremely asymmetrical, several times exceeding the cruelty of the previous act of resistance. Though the fascist forces were defeated but the peace after the World War II was in fact not a peace. It was almost the same situation as prevailed after World War I. The history had repeated itself with a similar ugly face. The world war I created Hitler and Mussolini whereas world war II brought the expansion of communism and the bipolar global strategic scenario, the breeding base of terrorism. Simultaneously anti-colonial movement found favorable situation during and after World War II to speed up their activities when the colonial rulers were badly engaged to get recovered from impacts of war. They got engaged in violent activities so as to mentally and physically terrorize the colonial lords in order to snatch away freedom from them. Anti- colonial fighters were called as terrorist by the lords which they proudly wore the name of terrorist. However, subsequently they realized the need of new term to describe themselves because the term terrorist had accumulated negative connotation which adversely affected their political image. Perhaps the last self identified terrorist group in the history was Lehi, the Jewish extremist group operating in the British Mandate of Palestine fighting for the freedom of Israel. Menachem Begin, the leader of the Irgun gang, categorically rejected the label as terrorist and instead called the occupying British force the actual terrorist. This new self- description as ‘freedom fighter’ quickly received global acceptance and no group since the Lehi has called itself ‘terrorist’. A member of the IRA despite being convicted of several attempted murders, kidnapping, arm possession, vehemently denied the label, said “To me terrorist is a dirty word and I certainly do not ….nor have I ever considered myself to be one but ah I remain an active to this day”. Now no one likes to be known as terrorist. Then, which term should be used to identify the act of terror. Is it freedom fighter? No, not at all. Can we afford to call Osama bin Laden, a freedom fighter? No one, xcept the supporters of terror acts, can call him ‘shaheed’. In 1937, when the Nazi rulers of Germany practiced terror on their own people, which was alleged to have killed 3 million Jews, the League of Nations attempted to adopt this internationally acceptable convention: “All criminal acts directed against a state and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular person or group of persons or the general public.” This convention never came into existence. The UNO has since grappled with legal definition of terrorism. The UN Office of Drugs and Crime admitted that “the question of a definition of terrorism has haunted the debate among states for decades”. As its member states still have no agreed-upon definition, the UNO cannot formulate a universal convention on terrorism to supplant its twelve piecemeal conventions and protocols on the subject. The lack of agreement on a definition of terrorism has been a major obstacle to meaningful international conventional countermeasures. To solve this problem the UNO turned to Alex P. Schmid, a Dutch scholar in terrorism studies, who later became the head of the Terrorism Prevention Branch, the predecessor of the UN Office of Drugs and Crime, to define terrorism as the peacetime equivalent of war crime. Schmid said that if the core of war crimes were deliberate violent attack on civilians, hostage- taking, and the killing of prisoners in wartime, then the core of terrorism were the same criminal acts in peacetime. In this process Schimd examined 109 definitions offered by governmental agencies, think tanks and academic scholars and finally none of them was accepted unanimously. In 1998 Schmid formulated what he called the ‘academic consensus’ definition of terrorism. “Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby –in contrast to assassinations-the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat –and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperiled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought.” UN General Assembly resolved in 1999 that “ strongly condemns all acts, method and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever committed (and)reiterates that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular person for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them’’. Time to time different terms are used to identify the terror acts like suicide terrorist, suicide murderers, Islamic terrorist, Hindu terrorist, Jewish terrorists, Islamic fundamentalist etc. US State Dept. defines terrorism as “politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.” This definition appears quite neutral at first glance; there should be no doubt about its political and conceptual implications. This definition of terrorism rests on four factors, which relate to the acts themselves (violent), actors (non-state groups), the target (non-combatant) and motivation (political). This definition is significant not only in what it includes but also what it leaves out. To be considered as an act of terrorism there must be actual act of violence or its threat. For instance, if a bomb kills people and damages property it is clearly an act of terrorism. Similarly, if there is a specific threat, such as a phone call announcing the planting of a bomb, it will be considered terrorism by this definition. Thus a Gandhian Satyagraha or Civil Right Movement led by Martin Luther King does not quality as an act of terrorism. Neither will a group be considered as terrorist if it simply espouses a radical ideology but makes no specific threats. As regards another criteria, non-state actors is concerned it would leave out the handy work of many dictators around the world, where they suppressed political dissent through brutal acts of repression and gross violence of human rights. It would also not include the bombing of Dresden by the allied force during the World War I, or dropping of atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. By this definition, therefore, the’ reign of terror’ after the French Revolution, which gave terrorism its name, will not be considered as terrorism. This definition would, therefore, exclude by far the largest source of civilian death in the world. Regarding non-combatant, this definition makes it clear that we are not interested in acts of a single individual, the so called ‘lone wolves’. Although these individuals such as ‘Theodore Kaezynski (the Unabomber’), can cause a lot of damage and spread terror in a community or an entire nation, they are of less importance to us, since we are primarily interested in life cycle of terrorist organization and not of a single, disgruntled, often psychologically unstable person. Political, the US State dept. definition defines acts of terrorism by their selection of targets. This is the most ambiguous aspect of this definition. The term ‘non-combatant’ covers civilians but should it also include members of the armed forces not engaged in active combats? If we exclude targeting of military personnel and infrastructure, in the series of the 9/11 attack, we will have to classify crashing of the hijacked planes, United Airlines flight # 175 and the American Airlines flight # 11, which stuck the World Trade Center towers, and the United Airlines flight # 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania, clearly an acts of terrorism. However, what about the American Airlines flight #77 that hit the Pentagon Building? Since the Pentagon is the HQ of US Armed forces, this definition would not be regarded as terrorism. If we relax the definition of non-combatant a bit to include military personnel during periods of active hostility, targeting the US patrols by al-Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan should not be considered as terrorism, buts the attack on the USS Cole of the coast of Yemen will. In that case what about attacks by groups, such as Hamas, the Palestine Islamic Jihad, or al-Aqsa Martyr Brigade within Israel, which target off-duty members of the Israeli Defense Force? Since there is conscription in Israel any public place where young men and women congregate can be sent as a gathering place for active duty personnel of the IDF. It is therefore clear that any definition of target selection is going to be arbitrary. To call one attack terrorism and another guerrilla attack may serve political purposes, but such distinction does not offer any insight for policy-makers or add clarity to academic discourse. The final and perhaps foremost criterion for an act of violence to be considered as terrorism is that it must have a political aim. A politically motivated act is undertaken in the name of an entire community. Therefore, the instrumental goal of violent act of dissidence in a public good that must be shared with the entire community regardless of the level of participation by an individual member. The significance of public-good aspect of a terrorist organization’s motivation becomes abundantly clear when we compare their goals with those of organized-crime syndicates, or the motivations of a single person embarking on acts of violence for personal revenge. In contrast, a criminal gang does not operate out of any apparent higher calling. The predominant motivation is the provision of private and/or quasi-public goods, which are share only the immediate members of that group. Terrorism and other similar militant groups There has been a fierce debate about the definition of not only the term terrorism but also other closely related terms such as insurgency, civil war, guerrilla warfare, genocide, Naxalism, ethnic/extremist militants like LTTE etc. The fervor of the current debate clearly demonstrates that, in the final analysis, a name we attribute to an act reflects the political motives. Charles Tilly in this regards opines that “Some vivid terms serve political and normative ends admirably despite hindering description and explanation of the social phenomenon at which they point. Those double-edged terms include riot, injustice, and civil society, all of them politically powerful but analytically elusive.” However, the basic difference between terrorism and other aforesaid similar groups is based on the area limytation of operation. Terrorists operate at global level with global mechanism, resources, tactics, strategy etc as it is a global phenomenon. It is not merely limited to a particular location/area, country, region, continent, sub-continent etc. It operates all over the world, not only in India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, USA etc. Whereas insurgency is limited only in the region like Northeast of India, Civil war/ LTTE is only within Sri Lanka, Naxalism is only in a specific area in India. In other words terrorist organization is globally scattered which has no limited boundary or it has boundaryless territory of operation. Whereas other groups operate only within international boundary of a specific country. Insurgents of northeast region of India or naxalites operate only inside India, not even in any neighboring countries; leave aside other distant parts of the world. Civil war/LTTE is only within Sri Lanka. But al-Qaida operates almost every where in the world. As regards guerrilla warfare, it is not an ideology like terrorism, but one of the kinds of warfare which is adopted by almost all such aforesaid organizations including terrorist. Genocide is also not an ideology, but an extreme of cruelty which may be executed by all such aforesaid organizations. The relationship between terrorism and the other aforesaid militants group can also be understood in terms of means/methods adopted by them as well as their end/goal. Each one of them adopts all most similar means – violence, force, bombing, killing, blackmailing, hijacking, damaging and capturing properties, guerrilla tactics, genocide, rioting, communal acts etc. However, their end/objectives/goal/aims may be different from each other. Terrorism based on Islamic fundamentalism aims at Islamic rule at global level, insurgents fight for independence/autonomy of a region, civil war for freedom of state, Naxalism for leftist rule at national or even international level and LTTE for independent Tamil Elam. Sometimes it is also argued that the terrorist organizations have links with the other aforesaid militant organizations, particularly for supply of arms and exchange of arms - technology as well as local support amongst them. Even if it at all happens it does not make other organizations a global one like terrorist organizations. Because the area of operation of such organizations remains the same. LTTE or ULFA or Naxalites may buy arms from Taliban/al-Qaida, it does not change or extend the area of operation of these groups. They are still limited to a specific region/area and hence they cannot become terrorist organization like Taliban/al-Qaida as their operational area is not global but still local. Only the similar means of violent acts does not make them terrorist. Terrorism is a much bigger threat to the entire world. Insurgency, civil war, naxalism and Ethnic militants have impacts only on local level which can be easily tackled; on the other hand terror acts like Mumbai attack, 9/11 of USA etc. have global impacts. Moreover, some of the global terrorist groups are also active in a particular area or region or country like Pakistan Taliban, Afghanistan Taliban, Kashmiri Terrorists, Indian Mujahidin, Uyghur terrorist of Xinjiang in China, Chechnya terrorist of Russia etc. Though these groups may operate in a specific area but they cannot be called as insurgent or naxalite etc. as they are in fact various branches of global network of terrorism (al-Qaida). They are part of the same game plan of global Islamic terrorist organization. They are not regional organizations like LTTE, UlFA, Maoist-Naxalite, Nagas etc. At one time China was giving political, strategic and tactical support and also providing arms as well as training to the cadres of Naga insurgents. LTTE is getting support from Tamilnadu of India and also it is funded by Tamilians from all over the world. It does not mean that Nagas or LTTE is a global terrorist like al-Qaida due to the limitation of its network and the area of operation. In view of the above description, it can be summed up in the following points: a. Terrorism is a global phenomenon whereas other similar militant groups are regional or national. b. Terrorist’s area of operation is worldwide and other groups operate in a limited area of region or national boundary. c. Terrorism is an international network of terrorist group like al-Qaida unlike regional or national militants groups. d. Terrorism aims at global political control and command whereas goal of other groups is mere a freedom or autonomy of region or freedom of state etc. e. Despite mutual cooperation/support for several things between terrorists and other such organizations, they cannot be categorized/conceptualized/defined under a single term. f. Present days terrorist group operating worldwide is organized by the Islamic fundamentalist based on religious ideology unlike other militants groups like northeast insurgents, Naxalites, LTTE etc. as these are predominantly either ethnic group or poor tribals or regional/cultural group etc. comprising of various religions g. However, the means and methods (violence) adopted by all of them may be almost similar. Terrorism is a political term and hence it is complex as well as elusive which cannot be defined like constitutional terms. It is also taken in diplomatic context. Therefore each country, group, religion, region etc. defines it according to its policy, national interest and diplomacy. Breeding ground While conceptualizing terrorism in the regional context of South Asia, it needs to dig out deeper roots to examine seeds and other breeding components responsible for emergence of terrorism. According to Dipak K Gupta, four factors are significant in this regard: a. Poverty – Quoting Aristotle Dipak K Gupta accuses poverty as the most potent generator of sociopolitical violence. The link between poverty and terrorism seems almost self-evident. Like Aristotle, South Korean winner of Nobel Peace Prize, Kim Dae-Jung stated that “At the bottom of terrorism is poverty”. His view was widely accepted by other members of the exclusive community of Nobel Laureates. Some in the US, such as Laura Tyson, the former chief of Presidential Council of Economic Advisors at Berkley, even called for a new Marshal Plan as part of a frontal assault on terrorism. This argument of Gupta is particularly relevant in context with terrorism in South Asia, the well known region of poverty. However, poverty cannot be sole responsible as some part of Africa is worst affected by poverty where terrorism is not in sight. It is interesting to note that the more terror acts occur in those countries of Africa and South Asia as well where poverty is lesser. However, poverty, no doubt, is one of the important factors in this regard. b. Religious fanaticism - Religious fanaticism is another prime suspect for political violence and terrorism. Term ‘zealot’ originated with the incidents of terrorism carried out by the members of Jewish political movement of the first century AD against Roman forces. They must have sacrificed their lives for the glory of God and personal salvation. The same argument is valid for the suicide actors of modern Islamic terrorists who are inspired by religious reasons. However, the Hizbullah of Lebanon, LTTE of Sri Lanka, Kurdish of Workers Party and the Marxist Palestinian dissident, all these secular groups also used human bombs without any promise of eternal afterlife. Therefore, religious fanaticism, like poverty, alone is not a factor for terrorism; it may be one of the important other reasons. c. Lack of democratic freedom – The eminent scholar like Amartya Sen has argued that the lack of democracy is another breeding ground for rise of terrorism. Dictators and tyrants do not provide freedom of choice, expression of views, and free submission of demands and imputes to the people. As a result, frustrated and disgusted people are forced to resort to violence and terrorism. But it is not always true. After the war in Iraq election took place there. Democracy has also replaced communism in Russia. But terrorism is still there. Even deeply rooted democratic nations like India, USA, UK, Spain etc. spawned homegrown terrorists. Hence, lack of democracy is one of the causes of terrorism, but not alone responsible. d. Psychological disorder – Psychologist analyze individual personality to get a glimpse of their motivations for joining terrorist organizations. The early attempt at using psychodynamics to explain violent political behavior started with the famous scholar of psychology, Frued himself. All his life, he had studied the problem of individual patients. To Freud, the human mind shows the inter play between id, ego, and superego. In Feurdian psychology, each person is born with various instincts, which include the need to satisfy hunger and sexual urges. Hence human mind may attempt to satisfy by doing heroic activities including the act of terror. However, the psychologists and psychiatrists who have interviewed the terrorists, are nearly unanimous in their assertion that these people show no hint of psychosomatic disorder. Conclusion Terrorism may not be defined unanimously but the horrors created by it are felt unanimously. It may target a particular enemy, but its impact is realized by the whole innocent society for no fault of them. Whatever one can call it, terrorism or something else under any definition, the fact remains that it is a two edges game plan which does not spare anyone. It is, therefore, in the interest of everyone, the civilized global or regional community must find the way-out to defuse thdoes crisis at the earliest. Under the garb of religion/ethnicity/regional identity/language/culture etc., terrorism in fact is a political game plan of the weak and cowardice elements/group/nation/community which does not dare to fight face to face; they adopt unethical tactics to harm the mankind worldwide including themselves. In this kind of warfare, no one wins, everyone loses. Players of this dirty/cruel game suffer themselves more than others. It does not serve any purpose of anyone. Therefore, sooner it ends better for the entire human civilization. South Asia already suffered for centuries due to various unnecessary plights. It needs relief from such horrors so that it can invest for growth in the interest of all the people irrespective of religion, region, culture, nation etc. Hence, solution to the problem of terrorism is much more important than making of its definition. References