Terrorism

By: Zaheer Ali***

Introduction: Terrorism is perhaps the most ruthless challenge threatening international peace in the contemporary world and the worst thing is that it is spreading in different parts of the globe with alarming rapidity. At the conclusion of the World War II, the statesmen of the world had created the United Nations with International Court of Justice as its judicial organ to resolve the serious conflicts peacefully and thus avoid the possibility of a third world war. Nevertheless, the International Court can resolve a dispute only if it falls within the parameters of International Law. Terrorism unfortunately does not have an internationally acceptable definition that could have assisted the peace loving populace of the world to fasten this scourge to the structure of international criminal law. It is obvious that terrorism thrives on violence and for that reason the scholars and the activists engaged in either studying or confronting the menace make attempts to define it as deliberate and well-planned violent exploits of a distinct group or community to generate an environment of fear in the setting of its real or perceived enemy and thus seek out its ideological purpose. Though this seemingly value-free definition relies majorly on the connotation of the word terror which plainly means fear or fright, it may still get embroiled in controversies if applied to an actual act of violence. The passionate ideological conflicts that are innately entrenched in the word terrorism make it a thoroughly complex notion that defies conceptualization in absolute terms. Tempers run high and passions get generated when a particular side labels its adversaries as terrorists because there is no consensus on the issue of use of legitimate violence for a just cause by an organised group; also the controversial subject of state terrorism makes it a thorny issue. Quite often the so-called security agencies of a state brand their political and ideological adversaries as terrorists to delegitimize their activities even if they are just. Definition of Terrorism: Terrorism as a rule is classified into two categories. On is usually called political terrorism that aims at achieving political objectives by generating an atmosphere of terror with the unbridled use of violence. The other type is usually labelled as criminal terrorism which also produces a reign of terror by excessive violent means but its objectives are criminal like drug peddling, kidnapping, looting, arson, extortion etc mostly for monetary gains. The second kind of terrorism in reality belongs to criminology and, therefore, is beyond the purview of present discussion. It is terrorism that seeks to achieve political aims by indiscriminate use of violence that has emerged as a daunting challenge to the civilized world in recent times and it is this phenomenon with which we are concerned. Terrorism, according to Oxford University Dictionary, is the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuits of political aims. Let us analyze
1

this purportedly unbiased definition. The keyword violence is very much their which emphasizes that terrorist acts are in reality violent acts but they are known as acts of terrorism for two reasonsone, the use of violence is unofficial or unauthorized and two, the use of violence is a strategy to achieve political aims. The second implication is universally accepted. However, there appears a serious problem regarding the first inference that draws attention to the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence. Who decides the legitimacy of violence? Should we condone the horrifying acts of violence of some dictators, monarchs, military junta and even the elected rulers against their own people to remain in power? Since these rulers are the governments their use of violence against their people can legally be interpreted as official and authorized. Though there are myriad examples that can be cited in the context, it is enough to make a mention of what is currently happening in Syria. The overwhelming majority of the Syrian are opposed to the despotic and tyrannical rule of Basharul Assad and they are agitating for a free, fair and democratic polity. In response to peoples just agitation, Assad has unleashed a series of terrorist actions against the agitators. The troops loyal to him are bombing cities, firing indiscriminately on unarmed people including women and children, maiming and ultimately killing the political opponents by torturing them and showing absolute contempt to the prevailing world opinion that has censured his violent actions on account of absolute violation of human rights. Should we then call Assads horrendous use of violence non-terrorist actions because he being the government, the use of violence is official and authorized? Obviously, no sane person would agree to that. The definition of the OED is, therefore, not a comprehensive one because it does not include state terrorism in its ambit. According to a study conducted in 1988, by the US Army, there are more than a hundred definitions of terrorism. Another difficulty in describing terrorism is its changing facets. It is a very old phenomenon and over the centuries its nature has undergone changes. So, it is a complex issue to make distinction between terrorism, reign of terror, war crimes, crimes against humanity and state terrorism. In spite of this, most countries subscribe to the definition of terrorism stated in a United Nations report entitled Larger Freedom that was released on March 17, 2005. It defines terrorism as (any action) intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians and non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or international organization to do or abstain from doing any act. Most people seem to conform to the UN definition. Features of Terrorism and its Causes: It is also necessary to make a distinction between terrorism and other violent crimes. In order to do so we must keep in mind certain characteristics of terrorism. Firstly, terrorism is essentially a political act. An organised group committed to an ideology adopts it as a strategy to accomplish its objective. It must be pointed out that beside politicized religious groups the Rightists and the Leftists have resorted to terrorism at different points of time in world history, Secondly, the terrorist acts are planned in such manner that they should create a long-lasting impact both in political and psychological terms. For this the terrorists attempt to cause the maximum damage to human lives and properties so that the people are traumatised and the targeted group or the state is forced to make a retreat. Thirdly, a terrorist group has a hierarchal structure and resembles any normal organisation with its chain of command from the chief to the foot soldiers. Fourthly, Terrorists dont always attack their real or perceived adversaries. In most cases their victims happen to be innocent people who might not have any specific stance either in
2

favour or against the terrorists. The indiscriminate killings of innocent people obviously instill fear in the hearts of common people and that is one of the objectives of the terrorists. Fifthly, though terrorist acts are believed to be performed mostly by non-state actors, the state actors too occasionally resort to terrorism. Lastly, a significant feature of state terrorism is to make a dubious distinction between an act of terror carried out by non-state actors and the one executed by the state agencies. The former is treated as unlawful and therefore terrorist act while the latter is considered legitimate even if it unabashedly violates all civil liberties, human rights and norms of a civilised polity. For instance bombing cities, torturing and maiming people are acts of barbarism and prohibited by international and domestic laws. The state-sponsored terrorism, however, legitimises such heinous acts. In the context the observation of the former Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan is significant. He said, regardless of the differences between governments on the question of definition of terrorism, what is clear and what we can all agree on is any deliberate attack on innocent civilians, regardless of one's cause, is unacceptable and fits into the definition of terrorism. One of the most controversial aspects of terrorism relates to its causes. The states that are guilty of committing terrorist acts vehemently denounce any attempt by anyone to address the causes of different hues of terrorism. The champions of civil liberties and human rights, on the hand, argue that unless the genuine grievances of the insurgents are given a serious consideration the terrorist violence will not subside. Theoretically speaking there are quite a few causes of terrorism that may be enlisted. First, in the contemporary scenario religious fanaticism is the most talked about cause of terrorism. The prominent example is of course Islamic fanaticism to which I shall return in a short while. Second, imposition of a particular form of political order is loosely related to religious fanaticism particularly in case of Islamic terrorism. The well-known examples are Afghanistan and Pakistan. Third, separatist tendencies that instigate a distinct group to employ terrorist strategies and secede a territory to form an independent sovereign state fall in the category of terrorism. The major examples from India are Jammu and Kashmir and the North East that consists of 7 states also known as seven sisters viz. Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Manipur and Nagaland. The relations between these states and the Centre are far from friendly. Ill feelings between the native tribal people and migrant people from different parts of India constantly pose serious threats to law and order in the area. Earlier Khalistan movement was also a noteworthy example. From abroad, the recently crushed movement of the LTTE of Sri Lanka, Chechnya, and IRA are relevant cases of the contemporary world. Fourth, resistance to the existing governments primarily dominated or run by the occupying armed forces might motivate the politically active segments of the local population to get drawn to terrorism. The noteworthy examples are Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan. Fifth, economic deprivation of an overwhelmingly large population might stir up the natives of a region to opt for violent means that may be construed as terrorism. The most significant example is the Maoist-Naxalite resistance mostly in parts of the states of West Bengal, Bihar, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Orissa, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh.

Terrorism in India: In India terrorism has made its fearsome appearance because of international politics, religious antagonism and economic deprivation of large sections of Indian society. India has been a target of terrorist attacks for almost two decades from foreign terrorist outfits mainly
3

because of its dispute with Pakistan on the issue of Kashmir. These terrorist attacks take root because of a longstanding international dispute that, according to many observers, is one of the flashpoints in contemporary world. Then there is one area in India where terrorist violence was once threatening the unity and integrity of India because of religious antagonism viz. Punjab. The Sikh community forms the majority in Punjab and an extremist section of the Sikhs made attempts to establishing Khalistan by breaking away Punjab from India. In late 1960s and 1970s the militant of Khalistan had carried out quite a few terrorist acts against the Indian state. The religious and ethnic antagonism is also a major problem in North-East India where certain terrorist groups have been challenging the sovereign power of India in a couple of states. The third kind of terrorism that exists in large parts of India which comprise dense forest is made popular by the government and media as Naxalite terrorism. The tribal people who are usually described as Naxalites or Maoists in official bulletins and mainstream media constitute perhaps the poorest section of Indian society. In order to understand the severity of terrorist challenge to India, it is better to discuss the three types of terrorist threats mentioned above. Kashmir-linked Terrorism: The dispute over Kashmir between India and Pakistan is fairly well-known because it is as old as the emergence of an independent-democratic India and the birth of Pakistan as an independent Islamic state. It is relevant, however, to briefly regurgitate the basic facts involved in the dispute. At the time of independence, India was divided into British India and the Indian States. British India comprised the provinces which were directly ruled by the British. Indian States, which were more than 500, were ruled by the native rulers under the tutelage of the British. The Indian Independence Act of 1947 divided British India into two separate countries viz. India and Pakistan. So far as Indian States were concerned it was left to the wish of the rulers to join the country of their choice or remain independent. Almost all the rulers of native states were persuaded to join the Indian Union except the three viz. Hyderabad, Junagadh and Kashmir. The first two states ultimately became parts of Indian Union because of police action and threats. Kashmir, however, proved a thorny issue. The Muslim majority population of Kashmir was ruled by a Hindu Maharaja. The Maharaja had fantastic ambition of ruling over an independent Kashmir and for that reason he refused to make an option either to join India or Pakistan. The dilly-dallying posture of the Maharajah gave Pakistan a chance to invade Kashmir and seized about 57% territory of the state of Jammu and Kashmir in 1948. When the Pakistan invaders were about to usurp the whole state, the Maharajah appealed to Indian government for help. The government of India first made the Maharajah to sign the Instrument of Accession and then stopped the advance of Pakistani forces. Pakistan, in 1960s handed over the control of some areas of J&K to China. Therefore, presently India controls 43% of the state while the territory of Pakistan occupied Kashmir is 37 % of the total land of the state. The remaining 20 % territory is controlled by China. It was India that took the case of J&K to the United Nations Security Council. In fact, Sheikh Abdullah, the popular leader of the Kashmiris was not in favour of government of Indias decision to go to the Union. He was convinced that the Indian military could push back the Pakistani invaders and could get control of the entire state. The UN passed resolutions for setting up a monitoring agency viz. the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNCIP). As per UN Security Councils Resolution 47, which was passed on April 21, 1948, an immediate cease-fire was imposed and the Pakistan was asked to withdraw its forces from the
4

territory of J&K. India was asked to retain minimum military presence in the state while the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations. India and Pakistan pledged themselves to abide by the terms and conditions of Security Councils resolution and hold a plebiscite but Pakistan never withdrew its forces from Kashmir. Consequently, the plebiscite has not been held till date. Gradually, the Indian position also changed on the issue of holding a plebiscite. Thereafter the Security Council passed another resolution that directed for the simultaneous withdrawal of Indian and Pakistani armies from Kashmir. In this regard the UN intermediaries passed about a dozen proposals to demilitarize the region. All the proposals were accepted by Pakistan while India rejected all of them because of the altered geopolitical realities. Since the Security Council resolutions were passed under Chapter VI and not under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, they were non-binding on the parties concerned. Nonetheless, the UN regards the state of J&K (presently under the control of India, Pakistan and China) a disputed territory. Pakistan fought four wars with India to seize Kashmir by force but in all the wars it was thrashed squarely by Indian forces. Consequently, Pakistan adopted terrorist tactics first to create mayhem in Kashmir and since the last two decades in rest of India. Pakistans Inter-Services Intelligence, a department under the control of Pakistani military extends every type of support to the terrorist groups which have mushroomed in that country. Since 1990, the US has fought to Wars in Iraq and after 9/11 in Afghanistan that one is still on. These developments have created an impression in most of the Muslim-majority countries that the Western nations in general and the USA in particular are anti-Islam and by use of their superior military might have decided to decimate Muslim countries. This feeling is very intense in Pakistan where the mullahs in collaboration with the ISI constantly propagate that India is very much a part of anti-Muslim agenda of the USA. According to Rohan Gunaratna, Head of the International Center for Political Violence and Terrorism Research at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore There is a common belief that India is a part of the enemy with the West and that India must be attacked for harming Muslims and Muslim interests. Pakistan has also given asylum to a few Indian fugitives who run international crime syndicates and are wanted in India for various serious crimes including the series of bomb blasts in Mumbai in 1993 that killed 250 people while 700 were injured. Properties worth billions of rupees were destroyed in 13 blasts at various sites in a span of few hours. Though the attacks were directly linked to the Kashmir issue but Pakistan has been spreading the stories of persecution of Muslims in India. The communal riots immediately after the demolition of Babri Masjid in various parts of India including Mumbai gave a believable handle to Pakistan that mingled the plight of Indian Muslims with its agenda on Kashmir and carry on its anti-India propaganda. An American scholar, Christina Fair, has commented that Pakistan has shrewdly linked the issue of Kashmir with overall backwardness and deprivation of the Muslims in India. As a result, for Pakistan, the issue of Kashmir is no more an issue of gaining control of a Muslim majority state but the complete failure of the Indian state to improve the lot of the Indian Muslims. There are quite a few terrorist organizations in Pakistan that intermittently carry out terrorist attacks in different parts of the world but mostly in India. The prominent among these organizations that get covert official support are Lashkar-e-Toiba (Army of the Pure), Harkat-ulMujahideen (Movement of the Gods Soldiers) and Jaish-e-Muhammad (Army of Muhammad).
5

Of these the first one has been the most dangerous and zealously anti-India. Its founder and head Hafiz Sayeed is a religious fanatic and obsessively anti-India. The name of the organization is immaterial. In the aftermath of 9/11 when there was lot of American pressure on the military dictator Parvez Musharrf, he banned it. Nonetheless, Hafiz Sayeed and his soldiers of death became active again with a new name viz. Jamat-ud-Dawa (Party that Appeals) There is reliable data in possession of Indian and international security agencies that it was involved in various anti-Hindu attacks in J&K, attack on Indian Parliament in 2001, synchronized series of attacks at various places in Mumbai in November 2008 in which 172 people were killed and a bomb attack on German Bakery in Pune in February 2010 killing 14 people. The recent arrest of a LeT operative of Indian origin, Zabihuddin Ansari and his revelations are, in fact, the clinching evidence that the LeT and its head Hafiz Sayeed were directly responsible for these attacks on Indian soil. Pakistan has, however, doggedly refused to give credence to the evidences collected by the Indian investigative agencies. Despite Indian and American pressure, the Pakistani government refuses to take any tangible action against Hafiz Sayeed. The other terrorist groups operating from Pakistan have also carried out various terrorist attacks in India. Thus, the Kashmir-related terrorism has assumed ominous mode and has spread all across India. Ethnicity and Religion/Ideology-linked Terrorism: (A) Punjab Sikhism, which is perhaps the latest of the major religions of the world, is an Indian religion and has most of its followers in North-Western India. In the State of present day Punjab, the Sikhs constitute a majority. They are comparatively better off than most religious communities in India. Most of the Sikhs, thanks to their Punjabi roots, are physically robust that accounts for their large presence in Indian defence forces. Nonetheless, in the 1970s, a motivated section of the Sikh leadership began a campaign against the Union government and the Hindu minority of Punjab citing various political, social, religious and ethnic reasons that were responsible for the injustice and discrimination against the Sikhs in India. The extremist faction of the Sikh leadership launched a campaign for the creation of a separate homeland for the Sikhs viz. Khalistan. By the 1980s, communal and sectarian violence erupted in Punjab and gradually turned into terrorism. The Congress, under Mrs. Indira Gandhi, resorted to similar tactics of divide and rule that the British used in undivided India. In order to settle score with one faction of the Akali leadership, Mrs. Gandhi sided with Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. In the process she created a Frankensteins monster as Bhindranwale stockpiled a huge cache of arms in the Golden Temple, the most sacred place of the Sikhs, and then challenged the authority of the state with an objective to create Khalistan. The Operation Blue Star followed that eliminated the threat of Bhindranwale and his supporters but also damaged the Golden Temple. The military action within the precincts of the Temple was considered to be a blasphemous act and most Sikhs turned avowed enemies of Mrs. Gandhi and the Congress. Consequently, two Sikh security guards of Mrs. Gandhi assassinated her in 1984 and in the subsequent anti-Sikh riots in Delhi and its suburbs more than five thousand Sikhs were brutally murdered by the marauding hordes of Hindus who were purportedly the supporters of the Congress. A year later, the foreign based Sikh terrorists bombed an Air India flight from Canada to India, killing all 329 people.

Since Punjab shares its border with Pakistan, the ISI had been helping the Sikh terrorists by allowing them to have training camps inside Pakistan and sheltering some dreaded Sikhs who had committed terrorist acts on Indian soil. This situation posed a serious problem in dealing with the menace of Sikh terrorism. It must, however, be put on record that Benazir Bhutto, in the capacity of the Prime Minister of Pakistan had come to the rescue of India. She shared all the intelligence data pertaining to terrorist activities in Punjab with the Indian government that enabled Indian security forces to curb Sikh militancy. Additionally, the deft handling of the issue by the late Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi also helped substantially improve the situation in Punjab. The agreement signed between Rajiv Gandhi and Sant Longowal was the major reason that dealt a heavy blow to Sikh terrorism. Unfortunately the terrorists assassinated Sant Longowal for making peace with the Union government but his sacrifice has led to the containment of terrorist violence. Currently, the law and order situation in Punjab is under control and it seems that the Akali hardliners who aspire to create Khalistan are in a minority in the Akali Dal. However, Sikh militancy has become a political force in the politics of Punjab and may become a serious threat to national security if it is allowed to go unchecked for too long. There are many separatist Sikh groups that have sought asylums in countries like Canada, England and Pakistan. They openly work for the establishment of Khalistan. Pakistans complicity in the issue is also a matter of serious concern. To put it briefly Sikh militancy is not exactly directed against the majority community of India; it is directed against India itself. (B) North-eastern India: It is a strange fact that the socio-political realities of North-eastern part of India rarely get discussed in the mainstream media in rest of India. Actually, most Indians barely know about the region and its people. The geographical area which is referred to as Northeastern India comprises seven states of Indian Union. They are: Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur and Nagaland. There are issues between the Union government and some of these states that, from time to time, flare up. There also exist some terrorist organizations in some of these states that keep attacking innocent people and damaging public properties. In fact, over one state i.e. Arunachal Pradesh, there exists an unresolved dispute between India and China. Arunachal Pradesh is an integral part of India but the government of China refuses to acknowledge the fact by claiming its right over the state. Most people of the North-eastern regions are tribal. It is one of the least developed areas of India. The guarantees that are promised in the Indian Constitution to the tribal regions and tribal people are not usually adhered to. Almost all the seven states often accuse the Union government of ignoring the interests of their region and its people. Then, there are some intrastate problems in the region that often lead to the outbreak of violence. For instance, there exists a territorial dispute between Manipur and Nagaland. Besides, insurgency is a major area of concern. There are quite a few influential regional movements in some states that, off and on, get transformed into secessionist movements. Such ultra-regional outfits dominate the politics of Nagaland, Mizoram, Tripura and Assam. The Union government, of late, has started addressing the problems of the North-east that resulted in the containment of insurgency. Yet the region is far from violence free. So long as reason for violence and insurgency exist, the possibility of terrorist activities too exists. The earliest cases of insurgency in the region were reported from Nagaland where a powerful organisation, the Nationalist Council of Nagaland wanted the state to secede from India
7

to become an Independent country for the Naga people. The movement had been violent from the beginning and it armed volunteers would carry out brutal attacks on Indian army and Union government installations. The militancy in Nagaland continued uninterrupted until 1980s. thereafter, government efforts comprising repression and persuasion started yielding fruits and by the end of the twentieth century the Naga separatists had realised the futility of waging war against the Government of India. They showed the signs of laying down weapons because of which the government too responded favourably to make peace with the erstwhile renegades. Consequently, both the sides entered into a cease-fire agreement that was signed on June 14, 2001. Currently, terrorist activities are suspended but the Indian security agencies have not entered into a complacent mode. Assam is another state in the region from where the incidents of terrorists activities have been reported off and on. A part of the state viz. Kokrajhar even presently i.e. in July 2012, is the scene of one of the worst communal riots of recent times in India. There is a sizable Muslim presence in the state because of which even in British India it was not counted as the Hindu majority province but was kept in the C category of mixed population. In fact, the Muslim percentage in Assam is next only to Jammu and Kashmir. Since the creation of Bangladesh, the majority community of indigenous people who are mostly tribal have been complaining of infiltration of people from across the border and in protest against this purported immigration they have been staging violent demonstration since mid 1970s. The driving force of the antiMuslim movement was the All Assam Students Union, which had originally started as nonviolent organisation but over the years had turned extremely violent. The Government of India had signed an agreement on August 15, 1985, known as the Assam Accord as per which the volunteers of the AASU had given an undertaking of staying away from violent agitation. The government on its part agreed to identify the illegal immigrants and would grant the permit of stay to those who crossed over the border between January 1961 and March 1971, albeit sans franchise for ten years while those entered the state after 1971 were to be expelled. Accordingly, in 1985 an amendment was carried out by the Parliament in the citizenship law that reiterated government of Indias commitment that the outsiders who entered Assam between 1961 and 1971 would enjoy all the rights available to the citizens save right to vote for a period of ten years. The government had also recognised the predominant position of the Bodos (tribal community) by giving them administrative autonomy in the areas of their dominance. Nonetheless the Bodos political ambitions were not satisfied just with the administrative autonomy. They have been demanding for a separate Bodoland and there agitations often led to violent clashes with non-Bodo population of the state and also with Indian army resulting in hundreds of deaths. In addition to this, there is another protest movement known as the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) that was established in 1979, and since then has been carrying out a separatist movement. The core of ULFAs agitation comprises two pointsone, the establishment of an independent Assam and two, setting up a socialist form of government in independent Assam. The ULFA is a terrorist and outlawed outfit. It has been carrying out violent assaults on its political opponents, on police and Indian army. According to the reports of the intelligence agencies, ULFA was carrying out its terrorist activities from the safe haven of Bhutan. Acting on the reports the Union government put diplomatic pressure on the Kingdom of Bhutan that responded positively. Joining hands with the Indian army, the Bhutanese security forces killed thousands of ULFA terrorists and handed over those who were caught alive in the

operations to Indian security agencies. Despite these successes, terrorist activities continue to thrive in Assam separatist elements, though subdued, still have their presence in the state. Terrorist incidents were also reported from Tripura during 1990s, for which the Government of India held Bangladesh responsible for conniving with the terrorists. The local militancy was spearheaded by the disgruntled tribal groups. The government showed the administrative sagacity by agreeing to enlarge the area under the control of Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council that ensured the climate of peace. In Mizoram, a separatist outfit, the Mizo National Front had been in conflict with Indian security forces. It agenda was to establish an independent state of Mizoram by breaking away from Indian Union. The violent movement could only be crushed by force. The separatist movement is present in Manipur as well. There exists a militant-separatist organisation in the state, the Peoples Liberation Army, which aims at joining hands with Meitei tribal people of Myanmar for the establishment of an independent state of Manipur. The outfit has been carrying out various terrorist attacks on India army and government installations. Though, it was almost crushed in 1990s, it still carries out terrorist attacks intermittently. (C) Naxalites: Naxalbari is the name of a village in Paschim Banga where a workers movement had finally turned into a militant uprising in 1967. The rebellion purportedly had its ideological roots that were variedly defined as Marxist or Maoists. Since the most the workers associated with Naxalite movement were illiterate, it was always doubtful whether they could comprehend ideological distinction between Marxism and Maoism. Nonetheless, most of the leaders of the movement were certainly Left-oriented activists who would, off and on, issue statements to completely dismantle the capitalist-rich peasant foundation of Indian economy. It is the mass poverty and domineering nexus between rich land owners-politicians and bureaucrats in rural India that provided justification for the Naxalite uprising. Stephen P. Cohen, an expert in South Asian issues associated with the Brookings Institution, says that it is the inequitable distribution of wealth produced by Indias promising economy that has given the reason for Naxal movement to emerge. He further adds: Indian society has educated young men and young women to the point where they no longer fit into traditional society, but modern society has not been able to incorporate them. The Indian government responded to the challenge of the Naxalites on war footing in the literal sense and the uprising was almost wiped out in the 1970s. Thereafter, the splinter groups of the movement appeared in different states in varied modes adopting various names. These groups were not exclusively constituted of workers. Some of the militants could be landless peasants but bulk of them comprised the tribal population. The most prominent of these groups is known as the Peoples War Group (PWG) having its branches in quite a few states. In 2004, the PWG joined hands with another group, the Maoist Communist Centre (MCC) to establish the Communist Party of India (Maoist). Consequently, what is referred to as Naxalite group today is, in fact, the MCC, which in itself is a combination of assorted bands of rural confrontationists who invariably use violent methods for helping the landless agriculture workers, tribal population and the persecuted members of the lower castes. Most of the Naxalite militants, therefore, come from these victimized sections of rural India. They usually use small are and indigenously made fire arms. According to a report of the Human Rights Watch, in recent times they have also started using landmines. In order to finance the movement the Naxalites who
9

almost run a parallel government in the thickly forested tribal areas collect taxes, occasionally resort to extortion from the rich farmers and businessmen residing on the periphery of their area of control. Since the inception of the MCC, the area of its activities has expanded significantly. Presently, the so-called red corridor is spread over thirteen states of India. Its North-eastern end begins from the border of Nepal and passes through the forests of Central India reaching to the southern tip in Andhra Pradesh. The Naxalite activities are usually reported more frequently from the states of Paschim Banga, Bihar, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Orissa, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh. The areas under Naxalite influence are those which have sizable tribal population who constitute the poorest segment of Indian society. A few significant projects and development schemes have been designed and believed to be implemented by the Union Government for the socio-economic uplift of the tribal people but most tribal people have not been benefited by them. According to a scholar, The problem is the delivery system. Theyre throwing money at it but the delivery system is corrupt. The Union government or the governments of the states concerned have hardly taken appropriate measure to improve the delivery system. The rampant corruption is a major stumbling block that impedes the fruits of developmental schemes reaching the targeted beneficiaries. Instead of concentrating on finding ways and means of effective delivery system, the Union and state governments treat the Naxalite issue majorly as law and order problem. In this context we may quote the famous statement of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh made in April 2006 wherein he called the Naxalite menace as the biggest internal security challenge ever faced by our country. Thereafter, the Home Minister, P. Chidambaram raised a special counterinsurgency force to launch an anti-Naxalite offensive that was named as Operation Green Hunt. The violent clashes between the security forces and the Naxalite militants claim hundreds of life every year. The worth of counterinsurgency measures can hardly be minimized however, the measures that might bring about long lasting peace in the Naxalite dominated areas would be putting an end to the glaring disparity between the rich and poor, ensuring the payment of minimum wages to the landless agriculture workers in rural India, doing away with the atrocities committed by the police and security forces against the poor, tribal and lower caste people, eradicating corruption to improve the delivery system and above all treating the Naxalite militants as the misguided section of our people and not as vicious foreign mercenaries. Measures to Restrain Terrorism: The most favoured strategy of the Government of India and almost all the Indian states is to treat it primarily as a law and order issue and therefore, arm themselves with greater powers to deal with the menace. In India, the governments both at the centre and state levels have been framing special powers laws at the cost of the democratic rights of the people either to deal with organized crimes, caste-communal-ethnic violence, insurgency and terrorism. Indian politicians and security personnel seem to have absolute faith in deterrent and punitive laws rather than attempting to eradicate the causes that breed terrorism. It must, however, be pointed out that in selected cases the governments have also adopted a policy of repression and negotiation. An expert comments that sometimes Indian governments approach appears to be, You hit them over the head and then you teach them how to play the piano.

10

Nonetheless, the possibility of violation of human rights is always there when the government arms itself with extraordinary powers under the stringent special laws made in the name of countering terrorism. On a number of occasions, the Indian as well as international groups committed to monitor human rights and their violations by the rulers have condemned the anti-people laws and their implementation. For instance, Human Rights Watch has often reported that Indian security forces deployed in Kashmir frequently violate the state laws allowing excessive force. Various rights groups have also reported that in many cases the security forces killed the innocent people. The Indian police and military forces have often resort to the third or fourth degree torture while dealing with the offenders and terrorists in custody and many people in India consider this practice as routine. Amnesty International team is usually not allowed to visit Kashmir but this highly respected international group has documented many instances of torture and abuse of power by Indian security personnel in Assam and some other states of the Northeast India. According to a report filed by the New Delhi-based Asian Center for Human Rights our security forces and a state-backed paramilitary group killed 330 people during 2006 anti-Naxalite campaigns. It must be stated in clear terms by all the peace loving people that terrorist acts for whatever the causes and under whatever the circumstances must not be condoned by anyone. Having said this, it is equally important that the Indian state should address to the genuine grievances of the aggrieved people whether they are Kashmiris, Sikhs, Northeastern people or Naxalites. Terrorism is a global phenomenon that cannot be curbed by the punitive/ special power laws or the agencies that heavily rely on such laws. More than the Western world, Asian countries like Iraq, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and others continue to bear the brunt of terrorist attacks. Terrorism is a scourge of the contemporary world. It is a crime against entire humanity and it should be firmly dealt with by international community. Terrorism plays havoc both at national and international levels. So far India is concerned the areas worst affected by terrorism are Jammu and Kashmir and the North East. Earlier, Punjab too witnessed terrorist violence. The Indian security agencies maintain that almost all the terrorist attacks at different places in India were planned and executed by the jihadi groups which get the active support of government agencies of Pakistan and Bangladesh. On their part, both Pakistan and Bangladesh deny the charge. Now, this is a demanding situation that calls for sagacity and resolve on the part of the political leadership of the subcontinent. Instead of looking towards the US to help us dealing the terrorist menace, the policy makers in South Asia must invigorate South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) and make sincere efforts to settle the conflicting issues. This, of course, is a tall order. However, instead of becoming a junior partner in the strategic alliance led by the US, if the leaders of South Asia commit themselves to redefine the international priorities and transform the region into an area of peace and harmony, SAARC too can prove to be as successful as European Union (EU). The global war on terrorism led by the US can only be won if the causes of terrorism are not swept under the carpet. The US and the Western European countries need to address to the legitimate grievances of the terrorists, most of them are no doubt Muslims. In response to terrorist attacks on twin towers, pentagon and some other targets, the US was in a sense justified to bombard Afghanistan because as per the American intelligence reports Al Qaida carried out the heinous acts. At the same time it must be made clear that there was no justification for the invasion of Iraq. Initially the US claimed that Iraq was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. When no such weapons were found, the tune changed and the Americans began claiming that

11

they attacked Iraq to dislodge a dictator and establish democracy in the oil rich state. There are end numbers of arguments against the position of the US which is hardly defensible. 14.9 Summary: Terrorism is without doubt a serious and sinister threat to world peace. In the contemporary world it has emerged as a global threat that has challenged the survival of humanity. Despite the current concerns about terrorism, the menace does not have a solitary definition that can be universally acceptable to all. The US military forces have pointed out that there exists more than a hundred definitions of terrorism. In spite of this, most countries subscribe to the definition of terrorism stated in a United Nations report entitled Larger Freedom that was released on March 17, 2005. It defines terrorism as (any action) intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians and non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or international organization to do or abstain from doing any act. It is also necessary to make a distinction between terrorism and other violent crimes. In order to do so we must keep in mind certain characteristics of terrorism. There are certain features of terrorism which distinguish this menace from other crimes. They are: firstly, terrorism is essentially a political act; secondly, terrorist actions are always well planned to create maximum political and psychological impact; thirdly, terrorist groups are hierarchal; fourthly, terrorists do not always attack their adversaries and lastly, there are state actors involved in terrorism. Some causes of terrorism can be identified as religious fanaticism, imposition of a particular type of political order, separatist politics, resistance against foreign occupation, economic deprivation etc. Historically speaking, terrorism is a very old phenomenon. In India the acts of terrorism are usually reported from Kashmir, Punjab, the Northeast, Maharashtra and many of the states where Naxalites are active. Indian government usually favours repressive measures with special power laws to deal with terrorism. However, an approach of repression combined with negotiation can yield better results. ______________________________________________________________________________ *The writer is a former professor of Political Science. Currently, he is a human rights activist, a political commentator and a freelance journalist. He is heads the Centre for Democracy and Secularism.

12