THE US has rejected the Taliban’s offer to talk. They are designated terrorists under resolutions 1267 and 1373. The US was the power behind these resolutions.

Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights Thomas Hammarberg (2008) observed that “arbitrary procedures for terrorist black-listing must now be changed”. There is no definition of terrorism.

Both India and the US appear to consider Hafiz Mohammad Saeed the mastermind of Mumbai attacks. Yet, a host of critics consider Mumbai trials lacked transparency.

According to principles of penology, an offence has to be first defined before it is made punishable. In the absence of a global, universally acceptable definition of the word ‘terrorism’, any figment of imagination could be stretched to mean terrorism.

Unless ‘terrorism is defined, it will not be possible to distinguish it from a freedom movement, protest, guerrilla warfare, subversion, criminal violence, para-militarism, communal violence or banditry. A nation cannot be punished for individual acts of terrorism, according to principles of natural justice and penology.

In the historical context, the term meant different things to different individuals and communities. The oldest ‘terrorists’ were holy warriors who killed civilians. Recent examples of religious terrorists are Aum Shinrikyo (Japanese), Rabbi Meir Kahane and Baruch Goldstein and Yigal Amir (Jews).

The Jewish-controlled media describes Hezbollah and Hamas as ‘religious terrorists’. In the first century A.D Palestine, the Jews publicly slit the Romans’ throats, in the seventh century India, the thugs strangulated gullible passersby to please the Hindu Devi Kali, and the 19th century adherents of Narodnaya Volya (People’s Will) mercilessly killed their pro-Tsar rivals.

Most historians believe that the term ‘terrorism’ received international publicity during the French reign of terror in 1793-94.

It is now common to dub one’s adversary a ‘terrorist’. Doing so forecloses possibility of political negotiation, and gives the powerful definer the right to eliminate the ‘terrorist’.

Saman Malik

Rawalpindi

Published in Dawn, February 28th, 2018

Opinion

Editorial

Quid pro quo
Updated 26 Jul, 2026

Quid pro quo

Accepting Israel would mean legitimising its violence against the Palestinians, as well as its neighbouring Arab states and Iran.
AI in government
26 Jul, 2026

AI in government

THE Prime Minister’s Office has announced the introduction of an AI-powered digital system and directed ministries...
Cautious optimism
26 Jul, 2026

Cautious optimism

THE latest polio surveillance figures offer some encouraging news regarding the difficult fight against polio. The...
Rampant lawlessness
Updated 25 Jul, 2026

Rampant lawlessness

THE brutal slaying of a judge and his guard in Mastung is the latest in a series of blood-drenched events that have...
Daily fuel pricing
25 Jul, 2026

Daily fuel pricing

THE government’s move to daily petroleum price adjustments should make fuel pricing more transparent and more...
The drug problem
25 Jul, 2026

The drug problem

WHILE Islamabad Police chase low-level peddlers, the capital’s kingpins have quietly taken their operations ...