SO it appears the government is putting in place legislation intended to give state authority the upper hand against terrorist violence. Among other things, it will empower officials of the state security apparatus to act decisively and with necessary authority against threats of terrorist violence. This is a step in the right direction but only just a step in a 1,000-mile journey.

That terrorism is a contested concept is best illustrated by that old adage; one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. There is no generally accepted definition, and often the question of defining who is a terrorist becomes linked with the issue of de-legitimisation of certain groups and their politics. Therefore, without a working definition of terrorism, further powers for the security apparatus are prone to abuse. The label of ‘terrorist’ needs to be applied judiciously otherwise it risks becoming devalued and ultimately ‘demonetised’.

Three elementary concepts may help us build a more meaningful definition. 1) Terrorists are not ‘crazy’ nor are they solely the poor and dispossessed. 2) Often the direct targets are not the main target, the main target are those who continue to live. 3) Terrorists want a lot of people watching, not necessarily a lot of people dead. Abhorrent as they are, extortion, kidnapping and homicide are criminal, not terrorist acts.

For better vision and clarity we would need to un-bundle the criminal and separatist violence in Karachi and parts of Balochistan respectively and place them outside the realm of terrorism. Widespread confusion also continues to prevail as to the real threat that seeks at best, to change the character of the state and at worst, to destroy it.

Terrorism and, by extension, vigilantism, militancy, sectarian violence and violence against minorities are the different manifestations of the same ideological urge. At terrorism’s core lie the basic questions that are crying out to be dealt with. Who is an apostate in Islam? Can the state ascribe such a label to any citizen or group? Indeed, can one citizen or group label another citizen or group as kafir? And if it does, how should the state respond. What is the takfiri movement and how can a modern state like Pakistan restrain its violent urge? Do the present laws and enforcement mechanisms provide sufficient restraint? What is Salafi ideology and who are the Salafists in our society? What do they believe in and what do they preach? Has a census been conducted on their mosques and madressahs?

What are Al Qaeda’s ideological grievances and how does the organisation justify the use of violence to redress these? Why does this line of reasoning find traction amongst so many ordinary Pakistanis that are not yet radicalised, but can potentially become cannon fodder with very little effort? The Pakistani state must wake up to this ticking time bomb. Psychologists say that the human mind has a primitive ego defence mechanism that negates all realities that produce too much stress for the brain to handle. It’s called denial.

When we look around, we find the public and political discourse in Pakistan on such questions to be of very poor quality. Academic discourse is almost nonexistent. On any given day, one would seldom hear parliament taking up such questions. A case in point is the argument that acts of terrorism are a cause of drone strikes against militant hideouts. This is half-witted hearsay. There is no empirical evidence to support this contention or establish a causal connection.

To survey the post 9/11 work that has been done on understanding the causes, mechanisms and processes of terrorism I typed in “causes of terrorism” in Google Scholar. Gleaning through the first eight mind-boggling pages of search results you notice something.

Cutting edge work has been done and when you look at all the big names, the scholars, universities, think tanks and research institutes, the academic journals and the publications, and then you plot these results on a map, you notice that almost all this effort has come from the West, concentrated on both sides of the Atlantic.

You can find the odd twinkle in Israel, Singapore and Australia, while the rest of the world is fairly dark. Yet Western researchers decry the data being scattered, and the difficulty of gathering it from conflict zones. That the environment is ever changing. That intelligence agencies and terrorist organisations are shadowy and accessing people to interview is a challenge. Even if the researcher can gain access, they try to influence the researcher instead of assisting the research effort.

One piece stands out: Jessica Stern’s Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants Kill. A leading expert of terrorism, Dr Stern teaches at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. One of the reviews described her work as unusual because she is a trained social scientist who spent four years collecting primary data, in which she had first-hand contact with suspected terrorists, even if at great risk to her own life.

Usually one would find intelligence operatives or journalists in such roles but rarely somebody of her background and expertise. She finds religious terrorists to be the most dangerous in the world today. Her work is a gem, offering insights that get us to the heart of the matter in very little time. It should be required reading for our policymakers and security planners.

The study of terrorism (and its countering) brings multiple disciplines together. For the greater part the subject falls under political science but its study involves an understanding of war studies, communication studies, social psychology, criminology and law. The 1000-mile journey will require much more rigorous thinking and a far greater intellectual effort than has been managed so far. But for now, coining a definition for terrorism is the next step.

The writer is a strategist and entrepreneur

moazzamhusain.com