Terrorism is talked about too much everywhere in the world but hardly people know what actually terrorism is. This is by confusion, because terrorism has been mixed up with ordinary law offences having semblance of terrorism and as there is no universal definition or norm to judge and distinguish it distinctly. Confusion can well arise from certain ordinary law heinous offences like brutal murders, broad-day robberies, rapes, kidnappings, etc. which often involve nearly the same terror and violence as are the features of the offence of terrorism.
In India, terrorism is understood in terms of possession or use of certain described weapons or objects in a certain manner with a certain consequence which is neither a definition nor a common norm to distinguish terrorism. As a general practice, an accused of terrorism is normally booked under Terrorists Act and Indian Panel Code for the same reason. It is not understandable why the principal offence of terrorism should be supplemented by adding up ordinary law offences of terror and violence when offence of terrorism is all comprehensive in itself to include the simple punishments of other offences in its harsh punishment up to death sentence or life imprisonment. Given this flawed system, the possible risks of dishonest misuse of these laws have often been seized upon as actualities with vested interests of helping a desired terrorist, or implicating a targeted person not actual terrorist. A brooding sense of such injustice can compel innocent victims to fight it with violence or terrorism.
Terrorism is, of course, a nebulous and complex phenomenon and cannot be defined exactly or precisely. Nevertheless, its significant features are not beyond a sense perception on the basis of which it can be broadly defined and its norms carved out accordingly. The present conventional terrorism is an institutionally indoctrinated notion of a coercive war technique involving use of intense terror and violence by repeated attacks of outlawed terrorists’ organisations in a sudden and hidden or challenged manner to press their just or unjust wish or demands that may relate to any political, geopolitical, sociological, psychological, racial, cultural or religious issue.
The necessary ingredients constituting common norms to distinguish terrorism can be these. One, the offence must involve a well considered intended terror and violence than by natural consequence without intention. Two, its intensity in all probability must exceed the gravity of all other existing terror-inspiring offences punishable under the ordinary law of the land with a definite potential to disturb the social equilibrium of society. Three, it must involve perpetrators’ mens rea to compel a state authority. Four, the object behind an act of terrorism must be to seek compelled acceptance of the terrorist organisation’s demands. Five, such demands or wish cannot possibly be compromised by the government in the substantive essential interests of the country. The underlying idea behind this ingredient is to ensure the government’s effort first to prevent the problem of terrorism through a solution, if possible, before calling it terrorism.
The basic root cause of terrorism quite often dramatically comes along through a situation of serious conflict on question of social right and social control in the political relationship between a state and its citizens, state and state or superpower state and weaker states. Practically, of course, there is always some specific cause behind an act of terrorism. The most sensitive specific cause, however, is an injustice of arbitrary suppression, deprivation, oppressive exploitation or discrimination of any people or nation which becomes the biggest fountainhead of terrorism. When cruel Master’s selfish trend towards doing repeated injustices and wrongs becomes an unchecked usual phenomenon, its natural consequence is manifested in the nascent spirit of victims’ acute rebellion that drives them to finish the evil at any cost. But, there is nothing they can do without resorting to terrorism as their only weapon to face down a strong rival. This way, conventional terrorism is born in the camp of the most deprived or aggrieved people or nations.
Next to injustice as major cause of terrorism, are the highly provocative causes at the base of which would lie a great terrible hell of revenging anger in reaction to the tyrant rulers’ terror of cruel victimisation. This was more realistically understood from the US-Britain attacks on Iraq particularly where these forces reportedly caused ruthless massacre of millions of Iraqis, destroyed their existing ruling regime and trampled on the concept of state sovereignty for nothing but seizing on governance and oil wells there which people compared with the medieval period’s anarchy. This provoked the victims to take to severe terrorism in revenging against their invading enemies and their Muslim supports in Muslim countries and elsewhere in the world by everyday bomb blasts. Another cause is the usual neglecting trend in not dealing with the sensitive issues in due time pending between a state and its people or any neighbouring state which encourages local or cross-border terrorism.
There are also counterproductive causes of severe terrorism. Torturing of hundreds of innocent persons in the name of investigations to nab few actual terrorists produces further hundreds of terrorists. Similarly, the communal mindset of ruling governments in giving support and free hand to private communal organisations within the country to carry out vote-bank mission or superimposing particular religious culture on others by constant teasing and harassment, riots, war of attrition or terroristic activism is bound to lead the sufferers towards terrorism. Indeed, the highly aggressive form of present global terrorism is nothing but an upshot of all these causes going together.
Undoubtedly, terrorism is the most contemptible crime against humanity and it injures so much of the moral sense about eternal human values as without which human society cannot afford its peaceful existence. Even so, the unfortunate fact remains that countless people are still killed almost every day in the world by militants’ terrorism and rulers’ military operations in terroristic manners. What surprises is that terrorism thrives unabatedly in all-around atmosphere of its universal condemnation. The reasons for this complex problem can well be analysed. First, terrorists have a deceitful modus operandi of sudden and hidden attacks which can hardly be countered face to face effectively and terrorism finds its easy way to continue. Secondly, the common measure to control terrorism is to catch and punish terrorists or even kill them in encounters many times but that is no solution since nobody can kill their ideology that produces them every time. Thirdly, fighting back terrorism by the same means and manner as used by terrorists themselves proves to be counterproductive of all the more terrorism. Fourthly, above all it is the big question of ruling superpowers’ own vested interests.
Some democratic nation states including superpowers think of terrorism as their indispensable need for achieving success in geopolitical selfish games. They even would not mind their own great tormenting dilemma when they openly condemn terrorism at the top of their voice and make its use as the only possible course of their action. The early-time Osama bin Laden’s terrorism which America is said to have once indirectly used and thereby broken the then Russia’s power pride by disintegrating its compact empire simply reflects this paradox. However, this trend now represents a highly dangerous advance and it is towards openly direct state terrorism, as evident from the invasions on Iraq and Afghanistan. America is fast emerging with its ambition to rule the world as an overlord. Its current mission in that direction seems to first possess control of petro-rich economy and territories of Arab world by diplomacy of providing succour or some punishment, even forcibly seizing on governance. Its further mission is to control Muslim fundamentalism which it perceives as a big threat to imperialism and its mission of world hegemony.
Ever since the 9/11 terror attack on the Trade Towers in America, looking like lamb slapping a lion, the notion of global terrorism was suddenly pushed through and publicised to receive its meaning only as Muslim terrorism. Side by side some political demonologies of the world threw up teasing phrases like Islamic terrorists or Jehadi militants which sent around a wrong impression that Islam religion is founded on the principle of violence and its followers are produced as terrorists. There cannot be Islamic terrorists nor Jehadi militants. Militants and Jehadis are two different species. The different is that a militant has no moral bounds in pursuit of his mission. But, a Jehadi can only hold sword as the last alternative when it is necessary to finish an evil or to defend Islam religion against some definite threat to it. There seems to be a mix of Jehadis and militants in the present scenario of global terrorism – Jehadis having a religious cause to fight against the deliberate insults thrown on Prophet Muhammad (may Allah bless and greet him) by certain elements and countries in quick succession.
Islamic terrorism is a misnomer. Indeed, terrorism finds no place in Islam religion. More so, as no religion of the world can survive with any of its religious tenets that cut at the root of some eternal human moral value. The truth, however, is that terrorists can belong to any religious community but terrorism cannot belong to any religion. All such biased propaganda by world media against Islam religion and Muslims has indeed developed a sort of paranoiac effect in world people who wrongly began to suspect all Muslims with an abhorrent character image of terrorists causing big dent on Muslim psyche. It seems any deliberate effort to cause humiliation with criminal mens rea to any community in the world may amount to a global offence.
Media makes others believe that it is Muslims and Muslims alone who are terrorists. But, such a blanket impression may not be wholly correct. It is unthinkable that for the involvement of certain Muslims in militancy, behind which they may have their own reasons, the entire Muslim community can be blamed and looked down upon as terrorists. It is also fairly understandable that Muslims as a whole are not temperamentally prone to violence nor their religion permits it unlawfully. Yet, they cannot be different to all others who can be influenced by the natural phenomenon of reactions to any arbitrary social injustice or cruelties against them. In fact, there are many outlawed organisations of non-Muslim terrorists in operation in the world locally or globally but they are not so much in the limelight of their universal condemnation. Muslims are because they are put to defend strong enemies and injustices at many places wherever they live in the world. That way, they seem to have a worldwide cause of action in self defence.
The big problem of world Muslims today is that they face a serious constant threat to their security and existence with due independence and dignity. They may have further problem that their struggle for genuine cause of survival is publicised by the committed media as terrorism. Here it would come to a million dollar question: can the moral justification for condemnation of terrorism be superimposed on the basic human rights of supreme value if they are arbitrarily denied and cannot be protected otherwise then by subvertive force and pressure? Indeed, condemnation of terrorism has its own premise but it cannot be an absolute proposition ever. In a situation where ‘terror condemnation’ and human rights protection, both equally important in their respective contexts, are pitted with each other then their over-reaching effect against the other would depend on the necessity of fighting for the cause of essential justice.
Moreover, people are mostly guided by their instinctive drive to protect their indispensable human rights at any cost and taking liberty to use force and pressure to any necessary extent which can hardly be controlled by any legal or moral bounds. Here, the question of terrorism would lose its real meaning and would amount to a ‘struggle’ in the same way as it is so believed in the fight for freedom. Terrorism has been openly tolerated in lawful wars between countries. It is because in certain areas of circumstances law of terrorism cannot be effectively implemented and there fiction of law can be said to operate which would mean what is illegal is illegally acceptable and practised in violation of actual law by the necessary implication of situation beyond control. As such the question of terrorism may not have much force against the effort to save some fundamental right.
By and large terrorism appears to be the result of abuse of state power due to which militant groups come into action just by reaction. The world authorities knowingly ignore this fact and bear the brunt of global terrorism. The supreme democratic institution UNO itself remained subservient to the US-Britain’s decision to go for an illegal war against the weaker nations like Iraq and Afghanistan which must have betrayed the confidence of many nations in it.
Unfortunately, the governing laws of UNO are not wholly democratic under the influence of big dominating ruling powers. It is exposed by certain most significant questions: How come in democracy only five big powers in Security Council individually have absolute power of veto by which any such single country can reject a collectively taken democratic decision by a majority vote in Security Council? Further, why should only few big countries be granted the right to enjoy the status of legal Masters of nuclear power to the exclusion of all other equally competent countries by discrimination? Again, why should developed countries manufacture dangerous weapons of war which they sell for economic gains to small nations to fight with in the name of self defence that encourages a war tendency than the desired world peace? Terrorism can, perhaps, be controlled if UNO is redressed to provide due justice for all equally and dominating nations observe self austerity against their own lust for power and selfish motives that thrive on injustices.
[The writer is Advocate Supreme Court of India.]