Deconstructing terrorism: In myriad political and regional equations, no single definition to define acts of terror

Terrorism is perhaps one of the most debated concepts. The manner it has manifested itself in the present day and age has furthered the debate. Indeed, the greater the sensitivity of the security threat that terrorism has been begetting, the more significant political, public confusion and speculation it has been generating. It has, therefore, become imperative to clarify its key trends and patterns. Poor and politically speculative analysis of this complex phenomenon leads to inaccurate and misguided policy decisions, poor threat assessment and incorrect public perception. Apart from subjective political interpretations and the high level of politicisation of the notion of “terrorism”, the main reason for the lack of agreement on its definition is the wide diversity and multiplicity of forms and manifestations of terrorism. To achieve the broadest destabilising political effect, terrorists seek to tailor, and time their actions as closely as possible to a certain political context, which makes the phenomenon extremely context-dependent and context-specific. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that, given the range of political contexts, terrorism can take various forms. This complicates the task of trying to fit all these different forms and manifestations of terrorism under one single, all-encompassing definition without running the risk of leaving some important aspect of terrorism aside. This also explains why the definition of terrorism is closely connected to its typology. In other words, while there are some general criteria that apply to all types of terrorism there may also be significant specifics of and variations between different types of terrorism. Terrorism is diverse in its manifestations and is spread across different political and regional dimensions and at different levels—local to global. The notion of “international terrorism” is particularly blurred and misleading. As this confusion is partly generated by a lack of clarity about the definition of terrorism and understanding of how it is different from other forms of violence, the sound way to begin the quest is to attempt to provide a definition. Unlike most sceptics who argue that terrorism as a term is so politically contested that it is almost impossible to come up with a clear definition, this author has a different point of view. This author’s understanding of terrorism is that it is primarily a tactic that involves the threat and use of violence in order to achieve a political goal. This goal may be formulated in ideological or religious terms, but it invariably retains a political element. However, the political motivation of terrorism can by no means justify the violence it perpetrates, but it helps to distinguish it—and, in fact, makes it more dangerous than—plain crime, motivated solely or primarily by material gain. To put it simply, if there is no political motivation behind an attack or threat of force, it can be stated that there is no terrorism involved. Terrorism is different from the classic guerrilla warfare in that it directly and explicitly targets non-combatants, or is intentionally indiscriminate in its method, causing civilian casualties. In contrast, rebel attacks against armed combatants—for instance, government forces—should be distinguished from terrorism and should be referred to as insurgency or “guerrilla warfare”. However, the same militant group can both target civilians and government forces as was the case in Dhemaji in 2004 and Churachandpur in 2021. Indeed, this author had earlier questioned whether countries such as India have deliberately kept a flexible anti-terrorism policy? According to him the dilemma that India is faced with also stems from the fact that there exists a non-articulated perception in policymaking circles that there is an inherent distinction between insurgencies such as National Socialist Council of Nagalim and United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) on the one hand and terrorist groups such as Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) and Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) on the other. Indeed, this is so despite the fact that—at times—the activities of ULFA approximate that of groups like LeT as was the case in Dhemaji in 2004 when it killed innocent women and children or for the matter when People’s Liberation Army (Manipur) killed the wife and five year old son of an Assam Rifles commanding officer in 2021. But the facts of the matter is that the Indian state—more often than not—treats such behaviour as aberration and have in the past shown willingness to pardon such acts. An act of “terror” perpetrated, therefore, by ULFA would normally not be equated with a similar act carried out by LET. If such features of Indian officialdom are any indication, then policy planners of the country do not seem to be suffering from a crisis of definition. It is quite clear in its understanding of the meaning of terrorism. Indeed, in the opinion of this author, it is in fact such an understanding that has led not only to the ambivalence that characterises India’s response to terrorism, but the non-articulated perception of what constitutes terrorism. It must also be noted that what distinguishes terrorists from other non-state actors—as well as states—who may use other forms of politically motivated violence against civilians, such as genocide, ethnic cleansing etc is, for terrorists, civilians are the immediate victims, but never the ultimate targets of violence. Terrorism is specifically designed to create a broader, political and psychological effect that goes beyond its direct affect and human costs among civilians. One of the facets of terrorism is also that it needs to be visible: it has to showcase itself—it is aimed at an audience. Civilians are terrorists’ cannon fodder, but not their main addressees. Terrorists’ core message is always directed at someone far more important than their innocent, unarmed victims, elements that the terrorists cannot normally effectively challenge by using conventional military tactics. Indeed, clearer the definition of terrorism as a certain tactic of political violence, the less space it leaves for political deception and blackmail on the part of terrorists themselves and for political speculations on the part of any other actors, including governments that may tend to interpret terrorism too broadly, on the basis of their political or counter-insurgency priorities. To say, for instance, that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” is to allow oneself to be dragged into a political maze. No matter how common this aphorism is and how well it underscores the highly politicised and politically speculative nature of terrorism, the fact of the matter is that it is quite misleading. For instance, the same ultimate political goal—the independence of India from British rule—can be shared by different groups who use different tactics: some of the more radical ones would employ terrorism, while others, as in the case of India’s struggle for independence led by Mahatma Gandhi may even opt for mass non-violent resistance. In other words, _freedom fighting as a goal—_whether it implies anti-colonial struggle, resistance against occupation, the fight for greater autonomy etc. and terrorism as a tactic are not mutually exclusive—terrorism may and has been used to augment freedom fighting in certain cases, and in the name of freedom fighting. It is in this interesting context that terrorism needs to be understood and correctly deconstructed. The writer is a conflict theorist and author. Views expressed are personal. Read all the Latest News , Trending News , Cricket News , Bollywood News , India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.