The dictionary meaning of the word terrorism won’t take us anywhere. Instead of frittering away faculties on defining terrorism, let us examine two appropriate stories from the recent past for understanding the dreaded term. Both the stories have identical opening, but culminate differently.
Terrorism is a weapon in the hands of the oppressed against the oppressors, but in the ensuing conflict the ultimate sufferers are non-party innocent people
Little over ten years before Mukhtaran was dishonoured in rural Pakistan, a peasant women was gang raped by a landed aristocrat and his henchmen in rural India. She went to the police station to lodge her complaint. Not only was her complaint was turned down but she was also gang raped by the police. Knocking at the door of police high-ups and judiciary, she ran in vain from pillar to post seeking justice. Her tormentors jeered at her, laughed at her. They humiliated her. The villagers looked down upon her, and avoided her.
She felt helpless, alone, and frustrated. Restlessness did not let her sleep. And then, it so happened that at the peak of frustration anger within her erupted like volcanic lava, replacing feeling of her helplessness with vengeance. She joined the gang of a notorious bandit and unleashed fury on the society that had not come to her rescue when she was insulted and humiliated. The bandit on an eventful night betrayed her faith. She promptly killed him and became the bandit queen. Her name was Phulan Devi. She terrorized the entire jurisdiction, and eliminated her tormentors one by one. Having settled account with her oppressors, she took to robbing the rich and distributing the booty among the rural poor. She became popular among the downtrodden and the deprived communities. She spent a few years in prison, came out, and contested the elections and was elected. She sat in the Assembly for a few months, and then met with a violent death. She was gunned down.
What options were open to Phulan Devi other than resorting to terrorism for punishing her persecutors?
In identical circumstances, Mukhtaran Mai was recently gang rapped in rural Pakistan. She in vain ran from pillar to post seeking justice. Police did not entertain her complaint against the influential. Mukhtaran receded in the same state of mind Phulan Devi had prior to her becoming the bandit queen. Before Mukhtaran could take up arms against a callous society, a few journalists and human rights activists came to her rescue. Her story was elaborately published nationally and internationally in the newspapers. The callousness of executive and judiciary was exposed. The outmoded tribal system was put to axe. The reporting was so comprehensive that the Mukhtaran’s case jolted Islamabad. The President and the Prime Mister intervened. She now is a universal ‘celebrity’. Like Phulan Devi she did not have to resort to terrorism and unleash her anger on innocent people. Such is the effect when the hapless are rescued promptly and invincible villains are punished.
In the same context of what has gone in the preceding paragraphs, feeble communities have combated the mighty evildoers with violent acts throughout the ages. Terrorism is a weapon in the hands of the oppressed weak against their powerful oppressors. In the conflict between weak and the powerful, the ultimate sufferers are non-party innocent men, women and the children.
America, Britain, France and rest of the rich European countries are spending billions and trillions of dollars, pounds, and francs on combating terrorism in the world. Caught in the cobweb of preconceived and misplaced notions about terrorism, they are grappling with the problem in the dark. After annihilating Hitler and his terrorism, the allied consortium still believe that any catastrophic situation on the earth can be met with lethal weapons. They think the gun has the power to ward off lurking terror that frightens the world. How can a major member of the alliance, United States forget the humiliating withdrawal from and the defeat they swallowed in Vietnam! Unlike Hitler, the Vietnamese fought for a cause.
The United States and their partners in war against terrorism have never ever bothered to explore the root causes of terrorism. For them the causes for terrorism are of no consequence. It is the effect, outcome of a cause or causes that has to be tackled and eliminated. Only a novice doctor would treat carbuncles without patient’s laboratory tests. If money had the power, man would have put an end to earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, avalanches, and dreaded ailments like Aids and cancer. If money had power to eradicate evil from the earth, the world by now would have been a heaven for man.
To combat force with force sounds sensible only when two countries engage each other in warfare. From times immemorial kings, rulers and the commanders of the legions have fought gruelling battles for conquering countries and for maintaining military supremacy over one another. There is less likelihood that any military might has the potential to contain terrorism.
The terrorists, like guerrillas, do not operate in groups. They act individually, alone. I am not suggesting that you offer a rose to the man who aims a gun at you. My submission is that you must find out why does he intend to eliminate you? I am advocating serious research studies for scientific analysis of the causes of terrorism.
