Convenient untruths have persisted about terrorism and terrorist activities committed worldwide for too long. Most of them have been popularised by terrorist groups and organisations and their supporters because they have found it to be in their favour. While the community of strategic thinkers and analysts have found the explanations to be deceptions generated for convenience, people have been led to believe that the myths are sacrosanct, undeniable truths. Terrible and horrifying acts of violence have been committed and later justified on the basis of falsehoods.
The first myth is that there is no definition of terrorism. The truth is there are innumerable definitions of terrorism both in national legislations and international conventions—definitions that clearly underline certain common elements. The common denominator in all are the terms “use of force or threat of use of force” and “non-combatants” or “civilians”. The definitions also list various circumstances where force or threat of force is used. For example, the United Nations definition of terrorism alludes to the reasons being political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or of any other nature.
The definitions therefore, include not only the acts of international terrorist outfits but also religious groups and all civil movements that preach and support violence. The absence of an all-encompassing comprehensive definition does not mean that there are no working definitions of terrorism. Therefore, to accept that the absence of a perfect definition of terrorism allows all recognisable and reprehensible acts of terror to be subjective is unacceptable. It is true that an all-encompassing definition of terrorism that weaves all the varied elements of terror does not exist (more due to failure to reach an international consensus as a result of lack of political will than any other reason) but this does not mitigate the horror of terror.
The second myth that should be buried permanently is the oft-quoted but entirely out of place adage: one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist. This term was coined in the post-colonial era when countries fought for freedom from imperial masters. India, too, has a rich history of the sacrifices of freedom fighters who were called “terrorists” by the British government in the pre-independence era. The core difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is that those who fought their colonial masters to free their country from repressive regimes targeted symbols of such oppression. Those who commit terrible acts of terrorism and violence target ordinary people going about their daily lives. To talk of freedom fighters and terrorists in the same breath is truly reprehensible. Terrorists kidnap busloads of children, bomb malls and shopping districts killing people indiscriminately, most of the time causing the death of those very people whose cause they pretend to espouse. The numerous attacks in several Indian cities have killed innocent people with no regard to their religion or faith. In international law, wherein principles of conduct of war are laid down, the belligerents do not have unlimited freedom of use of violence. In countries like India with constitutional structures that protect and secure rights of people, resorting to terrorism has no justification. Even in countries where such access to legal recourses are denied and freedom and rights have to be wrested from the ruling powers, violent acts can be justified if they are concerted efforts to gain rights and not acts of terror against innocent civilians to attract national or global attention.
The third myth is that it is the poorest person of a marginalised section who has used violence and terrorism as the only possible means of getting anything for oneself. This romantic notion is paraded to make acts of violence more acceptable. Taking away the right to life of others cannot be justified as a means of securing right for oneself, in the same manner as an individual cannot secure his or her right by lopping off the head of another. Yet this seems to be a blind spot in most cases where the person committing the act of terror garners sympathy as someone who has been denied rights. This convoluted argument, preached in sermons, has recruited more foot soldiers for terrorism than any other.
The fourth myth often accepted by most is that good governance will lead to mitigation of terrorism. Based on this, an argument is made that the state, instead of dealing with domestic terrorism in an appropriate and strong manner, should concentrate on building infrastructure to deal with issues. While it is true that the state should restructure itself to address the core issues that have caused grave discontent, it is also true that “soft power” alone cannot deal with terrorism. Good governance is not the panacea for the scourge of domestic terrorism. In case of international terrorism, the terrorist organisations seek not to create any ideal governing system and are also are not fighting to seek better economic conditions but are more concerned with the destruction of existing systems.
The fifth myth is that all laws seeking to deal with terrorism are against individual rights. It is the fundamental duty of a state to protect its territorial integrity and to secure for its citizens safety and security and in that context a state enacts anti-terror laws. After the spate of hijackings in the 1970s, and especially after 9/11, airport security worldwide was tightened and restrictions placed on passengers. While no one protests these invasions into privacy, there is a strident group that refuses to accept that partial infringement of individual rights is required to ensure safety for all. Similarly, organisations that vociferously propagate violence or secessions need to be watched and monitored by intelligence agencies. Proscribing organisations that have clear agendas of terrorism is the prerogative of any state.
Terrorists are constantly jostling for space in the world theatre by unleashing terrible acts of terror. The leaders and harbingers of terrorism use religion, philosophy or ethnicity to appeal to their followers and fringe groups. Terrorism is not a profession, it is an aberration; it should be recognised and condemned. It is time for the international community to act in concert and debunk the myths as well as unmask and hold up the macabre face of terrorism to the world.
The writer is an expert in international law and founding member of Centre for Security Analysis, Chennai.
Email:dr.geetamadhavan@gmail.com