Imsenperong
The recent terrorist attacks in India (not mentioning of terrorism in other parts of the world) especially in places like Bangalore, Jaipur, Delhi, Assam and Mumbai (as I write this article Mumbai is grappling with the worst terrorist attack in recent years) leaving hundreds of innocent people dead besides destroying properties worth thousands of rupees gives a clear signal that terrorism knows no boundary in its action. The Malegaon blast and subsequent arrest of some of the custodians of law gives a lucid indication that terrorism does not belong to one community but it breeds in all human communities. ‘There’- it could be Muslim Jihadist, ‘Here’- Hindu fundamentalist and ‘Somewhere’- it could be Christian Crusaders, with whatever name you call - Terrorism or Armed struggle or Insurgency.
The present decade’s history is so much occupied with “terrorist,” “terrorism” or “war on terror” and poses a major problem to the world. After the attack on the WTC (World Trade Centre) on September 11, 2001 (9/11) where more than 3000 innocent people, mostly who have never associated with the act of terrorism or plan against terrorist attacks, lost their lives. There have been a chain of attacks in different parts of the world. The Beslan School hostage in Russia by Chechen separatists (described in the media as the worst terrorist attack after 9/11) on September 3, 2004 ended up with the lost of more than 500 children who even do not know how to spell the word “terrorist” or “terrorism” became the victim of the world’s worst undeclared war. What about London bombing in 2005? The 7/7 bombing, as it is called, where a series of coordinate bomb blasts carried out by British Islamist extremists that hit the transport system in London, killing 52 commuter and injuring more than 700 is not a small story of the past but it is an unending story. What is more painful in our recent memories is the 11/7. The Mumbai bombing on July 11, 2006 that took only a period of little more than eleven minutes but killed more than 184 people and injured more than 714 people on the suburban railway in the country’s financial and entertainment capital. A cursory look on these few acts of terrorism not forgetting the serial bomb blast in Assam on October 30, 2008 that claimed 81 lives and over 470 injured, poses a dilemma.
All these acts of terrorism inject a dilemma of uncertainty, suspense and insecurity in the vein of our civil society. The terrorist attacks do not only appeal to us to think earnestly because of the loss of lives but more importantly the killing is deliberate. If we are to measure by “body count” in India, traffic kills far more than bombs that slip from the hands of terrorists. But we are outraged by what the terrorists do. It’s a deliberate act and the bombers want any one of us dead, or are at least prepared to kill any one of us, to show that they are able to make a political point. This is the point that arouses the resentful backlashes. Does civil society need to redefine its approach to terrorism? Or should we do nothing, leaving the violence accelerated? Civil society also needs to make some concession for a better and right response to terrorism. Terrorism is a part of a cycle of violence in which we are all involved, a cycle of potential war between civil society and the terrorists.
Is retaliation imperative and just in the context of terrorist attacks? Terrorism is an expression of anger generally against the civil society, the more civil society tries to fight it, the stronger it becomes. In the climate of terrorist attack on WTA (9/11) U.S. government declared “war on terrorism”- the phrase first coined by President Ronald Regan in 1980s during the U.S.-sponsored terrorist war against Central America, Middle East, and Africa. Regan’s Administration called terrorism a “plague spread by deprived opponents of civilization itself”. However the phrase became a more frequent and generic use as “war on terror” after 9/11. Though there is no common internationally agreed definition on terrorism, it includes acts which are intended to create fear (terror), perpetrated for an ideological goal and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants. The person who does either one or all these is a terrorist. As a result of this declaration today every country is negatively occupied by the phrase, that terrorist has become venomous (but more of psychological than social, more of religious than political, more of a single community than a state or a nation). As a right thinking member of a civil society, does this approach justify and yield result?
Ever since the declaration of “war on terror” all the countries furnished the earlier acts related to criminal acts or enacted a newer anti-terrorism laws that serve and suit best to the policy of the state. In the United States they have USA PATRIOT Act, which has become a blue print for anti-terrorism laws passed by governments around the world. UK has Terrorism Act 2006 and Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (UK) and the list goes on. In India we have POTA. Its unique character is, it’s versatile. It is ‘hold-all law’ that could apply anyone from an Al Qaeda operative to a disgruntled bus conductor. As with all anti-terrorism laws, the genius of POTA is that it can be whatever the government wants. With all these Anti-terrorism laws does the world see any result of minimizing terror attacks or is it injecting more fear in the society or its just a game play?
What is more surprising is that the terrorists killed only 3000 innocent people on 9/11. However, the immediate retaliation to this attack was occupation of Iraq where more than one lakh innocent Iraqis lost their lives since the 2003 invasion by US-led forces. Affecting 22% of Iraqi family to lose at least one house hold member, 43% died from gunshot wound, 20% from the impact of car bomb, 9% from aerial bombardment, 6% as a result of war related accident etc. This Iraq “adventure” cost US government no less than 550 billion dollars as of August 2008. Is retaliation against terrorism justified? In India only a few hundred or a thousand people died related with terror attack but how many people are detained, mentally tortured under terrorist law and the same is used exclusively against certain community? As of October 2004 in Jharkhand alone, 3200 people mostly poor Adivasis were accused of being Maoists and have been named in criminal complaints under POTA. The similar acts continue to take place in other Indian states. Under this law security is tightened up and more law keeping personnel are deployed, however, the presence of law keeping personnel becomes a problem for the innocent people. For instance, in Kashmir, roughly 3000-4000 militants (terrorists) are operating and to control these militants Indian government deploys no less than 4,50,000 soldiers which the local people see as occupation force. Some of the right thinking people and those who give importance to human values consider that the primary purpose of POTA is not to target terrorist but intimidate civil society. Is there any moral, ethical and social credibility in this approach? If this is the case the civil society should also know that the terrorists are somebody’s freedom fighters and heroes.
My simple rationale for discussing on terrorism ends with a question: Does beefing up security measure help in fighting and bringing down the scale of terrorist attacks? Along with anti-terrorist laws, sophisticated weapons and equipments are used. For instance installing Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) cameras in susceptible places like markets, shrines, hospitals and colleges can help garner information on terrorist attacks. This may either help in declining in the number of bombing or a greater incentive to go for one high-intensity blast at a strategic location. Does it poke down the motif and attitude of the terrorists? What about the suicide bombers? Do they need to be cautious of the presence of CCTV cameras? Britain had started using CCTV cameras during the 1970’s and today it has the highest number of camera surveillance in the world. In London alone there is a good chance that one will be captured by over 300 cameras in a single day. Albeit studies show a decline in vandalism but what happened even though they are equipped with CCTV cameras in London underground stations? Could these cameras prevent the bomber to carry out the mission? States may use more sophisticated wi-fi enabled camera but is it imperative? In a news article, it is predicted that by 2010 most towns in Haryana would come under hi-tech CCTV surveillance through wi-fi system covering all major sensitive locations. Can all these precautions put a stop to the terrorist attacks or will make the terrorists more sincere in carrying out their attacks? Whatever strategy civil society can make in retaliation to terrorism within a moment it is in everybody’s ear but the strategy of the terrorists is hidden till it is activated upon the civil society causing million dollar worth loss.
In human relationships we need social values and if we try to over power it, there will be backlash. Tit for tat theory doesn't give any positive outcome. Terrorists are humans and stand for their right from their perspective. They should be treated with human values. What is most vivid is that the President-elect Barak Obama after the election, told the media that his top priority is to stump out Al-Qaeda once and for all and the interesting instant reply from Al-Qaeda was that they will work for the removal of Obama. Should we allow the theory of retaliation that accelerates violence to rule between civil societies and the terrorist or needs a new approach?
The terrorists’ responses to the retaliation propel the war on terror. It seems terrorism has greater impact in response to the retaliation action by the civil society than the actually intended purpose. And it all go on in the cycle of violence. We have seen that in retaliation to the attack on WTC America went on occupying of Iraq and Afghanistan. Each killing is defended as retaliation for the last. Killing of innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan (both happened to be Muslim countries) by American sponsored war on terror aggravated fellow Muslims through out the world and retaliation followed against the states who are following the similar policy on terrorism. The cycle of violence goes on. For instance, Muslims retaliated to the war in defence of their comrades in faith in a Hindu dominated country like India, aggravating its people (Hindu) to retaliate in defence of their states. That’s how Hindus have now become to be associated with these terrorists by calling them “Hindu terrorists” (whether everyone agrees to that term or not is out of our purview). Will it happen in Christian dominated country or state and be called “Christian Terrorist (Crusader)”? These blocks may repeat the same cycle on a huge scale. There is a dangerous gulf between these blocks.
Taking retaliatory action to terrorist attacks as imperative could ruin our world. Everybody loves peace, freedom and justice. These values are curbed in the name of providing it by both sides. We should know that all those who were killed in America 9/11, London 7/7, Mumbai 11/7, Assam 30/10 and so on, are our sons, daughters, husbands, wives and parents but we should also know that each of them killed in the street of Iraq, Afghanistan, Kashmir and each of the prisoner tortured in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, detained and tortured under POTA are also our dear ones. Terrorism is vicious, ugly, and dehumanising for its perpetrators as well as for its victims. This should be wiped out from the face of social arena. Peace should reign in the context of terrorism. However, nothing can buy peace at the cost of justice.
The only option left for us is to break out the cycle of violence. Harmony in our existence depends so much on whether we can break the chain of violence through human values. This requires a serious dialogue between the civil society and the terrorists. This is the immediate response to the act of terrorism and unless we do it or change the approach irreversible mutual hatred will set in. Dialogue could be the option instead of trying to dominate the other by imperialistic fashion. We should remember that “terror only begets terror”.
“Dialogue” may sound vacuous but that is not true and misleading. “Listening” is imperative in the context of a struggle between “us” and “them”. The two key topics in this dialogue could be, one, learning from political and religious truth on each side and the other listening from different narratives of recent history. Listening is not easy as it sounds. There is psychological conflict involved in persuading group to listen to each other’s stories and to look for the possibility of a narrative that does justice to the truth of both side. In this there would be a question on moral credibility of bombs in the underground and the cluster-bombing civilian in an illegal war.
This is not an easy job as to have peace and justice is no easy job. It involves risk. While one side gains in its intellectual explanation one side may turn out to be less defensive too. We should not reward a terrorist by capitulating their demands. It is talking and listening. “Never talk to terrorist” is a bad slogan. Talk is not an answer to killing but it’s a beginning to acknowledge the truth in the story of both terrorist and civil society. Unless the civil society and the terrorists sit together and share each other’s point of view in an open and conducive atmosphere the world is bound to see more terror!
