|
Contemplations
on terrorism
Romeet
K WATT
Once
terrorism grows to be more than an annoyance, once the normal
functioning of society is affected, there will be an unbearable
pressure on the government to trounce the peril by all available
means. Hence the ironical deduction that the more successful the
terrorists, the closer their eventual defeat. A philosophical debate
seems to dictate the policy of democratic societies towards
terrorists. As long as terrorism is no more than an annoyance, a
democracy will correctly resist any effort to restrain traditional
freedoms.
The
followers of anarchism practise propaganda by deed. Terrorism - as the turn of events in the aftermath of 9/11,
have adequately demonstrated - is no longer an unprecedented
phenomenon, and if one takes into account its spectacular rise and
growth, the ramifications are far-reaching, which may seriously
impede the progress of human growth and development. Rule of law
comes under serious threat by this broadly acknowledged predicament.
The phenomenon had never assumed trans-national dimensions in the
past, as it has now, with the emergence of terror groups like Al
Qaeda, who have without doubt caused a substantial damage to the
concord of the world-order.
The
alarming rise of terrorism may singularly be attributed to
state-sponsorship, and many nations are squarely to be blamed, and
sooner or later, penalised in most strictest of terms. Should this
not have been the case, terrorism would never have been able to
assume such diabolic dimensions. And the lesson we have learnt (or
not learnt) is that at some point of time, the menace of state
sponsored terrorism, out grows its own benefactors, and at some
later juncture, the benefactors itself becomes a hapless spectator,
and in the long run ends up paying a price, one way or the other.
The Indian support to the Tamil rebels in Ceylon (now Sri lanka)
against the domination of Singhalese majority is a classic case of
point, where the country had to pay price - years down the line -
when the same Tamil rebels (now LTTE), brutally assassinated former
Indian Prime Minister, and then Leader of Opposition, Rajiv Gandhi.
What
is terrorism? Its motivation and rationale, its specific make-up,
its method of operation and long-term ramifications, are based on a
lucid, precise, and complete characterisation. Most experts concur
that terrorism is the use or intimidation by violence, a method of
combat or a subterfuge to accomplish certain goals, that it seeks to
induce a state of trepidation in the victim, that it is merciless
and does not kowtow to humanitarian traditions and that publicity is
an fundamental feature in terror strategy. In America – leader of
global war against terrorism - the number of citizens killed at home
in the pre-9/11 was insignificant compared to the killings that took
place abroad. It was only when terrorists - for the first time -
attacked American’s on their very own soil that the country
finally understood the real implications of what terrorism does to
your psyche! And the response was instantaneous and thundering, and
intended to be punitive.
Terrorism
has appeared in various modes out of inspiration as unlike as
political revolt, social uprising, and religious protest. The
present spate of violent activities unleashed by Al Qaeda has more
to do with its belief that stems from a blend of religo-political
issues. It sees America as its enemy number one, accusing US of A of
one-upmanship in the world order, and for these reasons desires to
polarise the world into Muslim and Non-Muslim blocks, something,
which they believe would act as a deterrent to the actions of the
lone super-power, America. While they might have achieved trivial
success in inculcating some level of sympathy from the Muslim
Diaspora world wide, which in some way ensures their longevity, at
least for the time being; nevertheless, at the same time it has been
unable to garner any effective support even from the Muslim
establishments. The reason: they have engaged themselves in the
killings of innocent civilians.
The
impact of terrorism is measured not only in the number of its
victims but in its attempts to destabilise democratic societies and
to show that their governments are impotent. This in some ways can
be counter-productive for the terror organisation as was amply
demonstrated in the elimination of Taliban, the last regime to have
openly supported Al Qaeda. It is true that the number of victims and
the amount of suffering caused by oppressive, tyrannical governments
have been infinitely greater than that caused by small group of
rebels, and in this context Taliban is an epitome, with which
comparisons are made.
But
there are basic differences in motives, function, and effect between
oppression by the state (or society or religion) and political
terrorism. To equate them, to obliterate the differences, is to
spread confusion. Pakistan, is one such state who have been
supporters of terrorism in various forms – from Mujahideen who
fought the Afghan war to the terrorists who are bleeding Indian
through cross-border terrorism – the country because of its
inherent fissures among its various sections of its society has
experimented with almost all forms of terrorism. Pakistan also
derives its importance from the very fact that it is the only
Islamic country that is in possession of nuclear arms, which to a
large extent, along with its strategic location and proximity to
Afghanistan makes it special, and is being dealt accordingly by
America. The tacit support by USA to Pakistan despite the obvious is
the primary cause of disenchantment of India, who has charged the
West of adopting double standards in its fight against terror.
Some
of the obfuscation concerning terrorism stems from the belief in
some circles that contemporary terrorism is basically revolutionary,
a reaction against social and national injustice, and therefore
worthy of support or at least understanding. It is in this context
that one should analyse the ideology and philosophy of terror groups
like Al Qaeda, who have primarily risen to the position opposing the
policies of America. There is without doubt a lot of resentment in
the Muslim world given America’s prejudiced role in south-Asian
crises involving Israel and Palestine, and her singular obsession in
going after Iraq, despite growing evidence that countries like North
Korea, and even Pakistan have assumed dimensions, which might have a
detrimental effect on the world-order, more far reaching, than the
weapons of Mass Destruction that Iraq is being alleged to be
possession.
How
to exterminate terrorism? Moralists accept as true that terrorism is
the natural reaction to discrimination, oppression, and persecution.
Hence their apparently obvious deduction: do away with the primary
cause and terrorism will shrivel away. The initiatives undertaken by
Mufti Sayeed - who assumed the mantle of governance in the Indian
state of J&K - as a part of its ‘healing touch’ policy has
the same underlying logic. It would be too premature to comment on
the success or failure of his holistic approach, though the writer
– taking into account all dimensions, internal and external –
has reasons to believe that Sayeed’s policy will in the long run,
achieve partial success.
The
correlation between grievance and terrorism in our day and age is
far less obvious. In a model world, each group of people, however
small, who claim the right to full independence and statehood,
should receive it. However, in some cases, given the lack of
national homogeneity and the intermingling of ethnic and religious
groups, no basic redress may be feasible. The Kashmir issue, which
with out doubt is one of the major problems that India faces stems
out of the belief that the grievances that the people of Kashmir had
since 1947, were never looked into by the subsequent regimes. And
this facilitated a section of hardliners to take to gun, and demand
a separate Independent country, which they believe is the optimum
way to mitigate their sufferings. However, a majority of the
populace still believes that given the precarious position of
Kashmir, any demand for cessation from India would not benefit
Kashmir in the long run.
On
the contrary, there could well be an escalation of struggle among
various terrorist groups, between moderates who want to proceed with
the business of statehood and radicals who claim that what has been
achieved is only the beginning and that the borders of the new state
should be expanded. Kashmir is by and large is facing this
predicament, where one section believes in adopting a more
conciliatory approach, and may settle for larger autonomy within the
dominion of India, while the other school though – the radicals
aided by Pakistan – refuse to budge from their known stand of
secession of Kashmir from India. With the successful elections, many
believe that the moderates have an upper hand, and in the long run,
they might prevail, but that does not mean that any negotiated
settlement with the moderates
will silence the last guns in Kashmir.
The
power of state is infinitely greater than that of terrorists, and
governments will always prevail, provided there is the determination
or the ruthlessness to do so. But can a democratic society subdue
terrorism without surrendering the values central to the system?
Again, experience shows it can be done but with great difficulty.
The Italian authorities defeated the Red Brigades, while acting
strictly within the law, by a mixture of political reform,
penetration of terrorist ranks and the promise of substantial
reduction in prison terms to the penitents. India, one of the
epitomes of parliamentary democracies has demonstrated this in the
past when she successfully eradicated the menace from its northern
state of Punjab, but since then doubts have been raised whether it
can do away with the threat of terrorism looming large in Kashmir
given the active support – covert and overt – that Pakistan has
been rendering.
Terrorist
movements do not have an unlimited life span. If terrorists realise
after few years that the murder of a few politicians and many
innocents has not brought them any nearer their goals, their resolve
weakens. Velupillai Prabhakaran, LTTE supremo, has after two decades
of civil war, paved the way for the talks by conceding that Tamil
aspirations could be met by self rule and regional autonomy. This is
a climb down from the known position of LTTE, who have in the past
maintained that nothing short of a separate homeland was acceptable
to them, an issue which led to a stalemate for over 19 years.
Nepal
the only Hindu country, which has been facing stiff resistance from
the Maoist guerrillas is making progress, and if reports are any
indication, may be moving towards a historical peace accord. The
President of the outlawed Communist party of Nepal, Pushpa Kamal
Dahal aka Prachanda has proposed peace talks with the government of
Lokendra Prasad Chand government, a development that has taken many
analysts by surprise. The rebels have formed a central level talks
committee for a “peaceful, positive and progressive political
outlet.”
State-sponsored
terrorism is primarily the mechanism of dictators with aspirations
far in excess of their sphere of influence. A protagonist of this
kind of terrorism in 80’s was General Zia-ul-Haq of Pakistan, who
used various groups of radical Islamic terrorists to destabilise
neighbouring countries such as India and Afghanistan, and in this
endeavour of his was supported by America, who had its own interests
to protect in south-Asia. And General Pervez Musharraf, the present
junta ruler is by and large, despite pressure from the West pursuing
the same policy.
Appeasement
of terrorists is not reprehensible per se; at one stage or another,
all countries have made concessions on terrorists. If appeasement
had worked, a good case could be made in its favour. The release of
five Islamic terrorists including the dreaded chief of Jaish-e-Mohammad,
Masood Azhar by the Indian establishment to facilitate the release
of passengers and crew of the hijacked Indian Airlines plane is a
classic case, when concessions were made, and the effects it has had
in boosting the morale of terrorists is clearly reflected in their
emboldened attacks in India. On the contrary the punitive action
taken by the Russian authorities against the Chechen rebels who had
taken over 700 people hostage in a Moscow theatre, despite
considerable casualties, has merit, which will go a long way in
establishing that authorities, if pushed against the wall, would pay
the terrorists in their own coin.
For
a country or a groups of countries under attacks by macro terrorism,
there are broadly speaking, three approach’s to respond and
counter. Given the torpor of democratic governments and the
complexities involved, the obvious reaction is to denounce the
attack but to desist from any physical act of retribution. So long
as these attacks happen seldom and if causality rate is not high,
this is a practicable guiding principle. On the other hand, lack of
response is more often than not construed as a symbol of
powerlessness, in which case the attacks will become more recurrent
and brutal. India, who has borne the brunt of cross-border terrorism
for over two decades has, despite and overwhelming domestic
pressure, chosen to condemn terrorism, but has stopped short of
taking any action against the fundamental source – the terrorist
infrastructure existing in Pakistan and Bangladesh.
If
an intensification in macro terrorism attacks does take place, the
palpable way to strike back is to pay back the benefactors in their
own coin. Democratic countries are by and large handicapped by its
limitation to undertake covert action. Even if they have a
wherewithal of this variety, they possibly will find it not easy to
use, because terrorists acts are much easier to carry out in open
societies than in dictatorships. The punitive action against Al
Qaeda and its terror network across the length and breadth of the
globe is a model case, wherein the international community have
joined hands to defeat the evil and nefarious designs of Al Qaeda
and its terror network.
On
the other hand in some case diplomatic action may have some success;
on the occasions sanctions may have a definite impact, but only if
there is a general consensus among the major countries. Of late
despite an overwhelming pressure on Pakistan to put an end to
cross-border terrorism by the Western countries including America
has had little or very marginal impact, as is evident from the
unrelenting attacks on Hindu temples, and scores of killings of
innocent civilians in India.
The
last resort – retaliation, takes in the form of military action.
Such escalation involves perils: innocent people are likely to get
killed, and those who strike back will be blamed for creating a new
dangerous situation. Those who retaliate become attackers, and there
will be a great deal of rhetoric’s and dire warnings. No
government will without due consideration take such a course of
action. It will do so only if it has reasons to believe that the
choice – refraining from counteraction – would have fateful
consequences and if public opinion at home is so strongly in favour
of retaliation that it cannot safely be ignored.
Thus
the preference would be to wait and watch. Terrorism may perhaps not
outgrow the annoyance phase, but if it does, a one-time, limited
application of military force may be sufficient to drive the lesson
home. In the aftermath of attack on the Indian Parliament last year
there was an overwhelming domestic pressure to strike the terrorist
infrastructure in Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir, but then Pakistan
engaged its state machinations in threatening with a nuclear
blackmail, something which eventually acted as a deterrent in the
whole scheme of things.
Unfortunately,
it is not certain that rational behaviour will always prevail on
part of terrorist organisations, and their think-tanks. In the
present context, the terror network of Al Qaeda have succeeded in
provoking democratic institutions, changing the political calculus,
and are certain to be defeated in a confrontation with a much more
powerful nation(s). The danger of terrorist provocation - leading
well beyond the confines of mere terrorism and counter terrorism –
has assumed diabolical dimensions, and will have unprecedented
ramifications for the world order, and in the aftermath of this
confrontation, the new order that may emerge will without doubt be
polarised, more or less on the religious lines. Terrorism, in other
words, may not have been very important, in the past, but as has the
turn of events established, it can have unpleasant and even
dangerous consequences if disregarded.
>>>
back |
