0
TERRORISM or what passes for it is not going away in 2009. A good New Year resolve would be to look for an acceptable definition of the contagion, one that reconciles its origins, say, in the Reign of Terror of the French Revolution with the latest assault on Mumbai.
Most would not see a similarity. So what marks one from the other? In another raging context, is Hamas more terrorist than the Israeli state? The answers may hold the key to badly needed solutions.
Currently, there is no universally accepted legal definition of terrorism. This has led to serious problems. Senior and respected Indian journalists have hurled accusations at the BBC saying the British broadcaster uses double standards to report acts of violence in its own backyard as distinct from elsewhere. They have argued that the BBC would describe violent acts by the IRA as terrorism, to quote one example, but had preferred to use “gunmen” and “militants” to describe the 10 men who have been so far accused of carrying out unspeakable atrocities in Mumbai.
There is another side to the argument. Some people very legitimately see the unending saga of mass suicide by Indian farmers as a consequence of a kind of terror. The BBC never reports them. Is it not evident that the choice of stories itself is the first step in biased reporting, and that BBC is not alone in this? Just look around for the mushrooming CNN or Fox TV wannabes and their clones in South Asia?
To be factual about the appropriate use of the term, the Indian government too takes particular care to distinguish terrorism from extremism. So far, going by official fulminations, terrorism is nuanced to apply to Muslim groups, possibly unwittingly, and formations like the Naxalites carry out extremism.
The BBC says it has a clear drill on this. It would rather leave the listener or the viewer with a neutral description of the offender but not without describing the offence with all possible objectivity. The idea is to let the audience form their own judgment. In any case, as any neutral journalist would agree, the problem of the identity of the Mumbai terrorists has been complicated, certainly not eased, by India`s refusal to share its findings with the Interpol chief who visited New Delhi with the offer of help. This of course does not take away anything from the enormity of the massacre carried out by the alleged terrorists of Pakistani origin.
The old equation that one man`s terrorist is another`s freedom fighter is most likely to annoy a large number of countries today. President Ronald Reagan used to say such a formula was a delusion that “thwarted ... effective anti-terror action.”
As he explained “Freedom fighters do not need to terrorise a population into submission. Freedom fighters target the military forces and the organised instruments of repression keeping dictatorial regimes in power. Freedom fighters struggle to liberate their citizens from oppression and to establish a form of government that reflects the will of the people.”
In contrast, President Reagan said “Terrorists intentionally kill or maim unarmed civilians, often women and children, often third parties who are not in any way part of a dictatorial regime.” He especially admired the “Nicaraguan freedom fighters ... fighting to establish respect for human rights, for democracy, and for the rule of law within their own country.”
James Bovard is the author of Terrorism and Tyranny Trampling Freedom, Justice and Peace to Rid the World of Evil. He recorded a telling episode from the Reagan era. A few weeks before the 1984 presidential election, news came that the CIA had financed, produced and distributed an assassination manual for the Nicaraguan Contras fighting the Marxist Sandinista government.The manual, entitled Psychological Operations in Guerrilla War, recommended “selective use of violence for propagandistic effects” and to “neutralise” (i.e. kill) government officials. Nicaraguan Contras were advised to lead demonstrators into clashes with the authorities, to provoke riots or shootings, which lead to the killing of one or more persons, who will be seen as the martyrs; this situation should be taken advantage of immediately against the government to create even bigger conflicts.
The manual also recommended selective use of armed force for PSYOP [psychological operations] effect.... Carefully selected, planned targets — judges, police officials, tax collectors, etc. — may be removed for PSYOP effect in a UWOA [unconventional warfare operations area], but extensive precautions must ensure that the people “concur” in such an act by thorough explanatory canvassing among the affected populace before and after conduct of the mission.
Indian human rights lawyer Prashant Bhushan has drawn attention to another slippery aspect of terrorism in relation to India and the country`s dubious response to contain it. He takes to task the well-heeled Indians who have clamoured for “tougher laws” to prevent terrorism. “No law, however tough or draconian, can deter or deal with suicidal terrorists who are willing to die before they are caught,” Mr Bhushan wrote.
The prospect of no bail or the prospect of being convicted is hardly likely to scare or deter the kind of terrorists who attacked Mumbai. “In fact, in Iraq, the security forces or the army can detain or keep in detention indefinitely or even shoot down any person at will. The police or security forces cannot have more draconian powers than that. Yet, those powers, far from bringing down terrorism in Iraq, have only led to conditions which have created more terrorists who are blowing up themselves and hundreds of people every day.”
Mr Bhushan argues that existing laws in India are already too draconian and the objective of larding it with more stringent provisions was more likely meant to target India`s left-liberal soul than bringing any terrorist to justice. Take the case of Dr Binayak Sen, general secretary of the People`s Union of Civil Liberties. He is in jail in Chhattisgarh under the state`s Public Security Act.
Sen unquestionably one of the most selfless activists, spent a good part of his life in setting up public health clinics in remote areas of Chhattisgarh. He has been in detention for the last one and half years on the charge that he has `assisted` Maoists who were in jail by taking letters from them and giving them to their comrades.
“It matters not that these letters he is alleged to have carried did not contain anything subversive. The mere fact that he is alleged to have carried letters from an alleged Maoist is enough to charge him with `assisting` an unlawful (Maoist) organisation and thus a terrorist act.” If Binayak Sen is a terrorist then we all are. As Marcellus observed in Hamlet, not without a sense of foreboding “something is rotten in the state of Denmark”. Will the new year unravel its mysterious origins?
The writer is Dawn`s correspondent in Delhi.
