By : Shashi Kant (IPS) Courtesy: Ministry of Home Affairs

ABSTRACT

This paper deals with the divergent thematic perspectives on terrorismand argues distinctions of different schools of thoughts, regarding the conceptual ambiguities of terrorism. Simultaneously, it dealswith the different definitions given by the different organizations.

INTRODUCTION

Every country through the ages had its enemies. But, some enemies long last; terrorismis one of them. As the 19th century ended, terrorism made a heinous space in the hearts and the minds of the people. In 1894, an Italian anarchist2 assassinated FrenchPresident SadiCarnot. In 1897, anarchists deadly stabbedEmpressElizabeth of Australia and killed Antonio Canvas, the Spanish Prime Minister. In 1900,Umberto I, the Italian King, was the another victim of anarchist attack.3 In 1901, an American anarchist killed William Mc Kinley, President of the United States. During the First World War, fascistswere considered the villains.What, however, new today, is the phenomenon of “terrorism” that has acquired an international dimension.4As experts have commented that terrorism remains a complex phenomenon ofmix factors andmotivations, it has come to symbolize the scourge of themodern civilization.5 Scholars around the world have not always been able to answer this fundamental question. It has been commonly accepted that the definitions regarding the terrorism, as vague, confusing andambiguous.No scholar or country are agreed upon any single recognized universal definition. Affirming the above statement, noted scholar Hoffman opines that scholars are divided in terms of defining terrorismdue to its characteristics of being politically and emotionally charged. Cross-section of scholars, for example, Anthony Oberschall, are of the opinion that violence has been justified against tyrannical, oppressive corrupt rulers; for national self-determination; against exploitation and for instituting social justice and in the name of humanitarian intervention to save people from genocide. If we do talk about the ambiguity in terms of the understanding of terrorism, it comes similar to those words, i.e. democracy, power, class and so which have the same fate. Democracy for China is not what for US or UK have.

The article has been divided into four parts. It begins with the definitions of terrorism given by the scholars and various establishments, followed by the discussion on the common findings and interpretations as an analytical tool to understand the ‘phenomenon’ closely. This discussion continued up to the third part of the article, which positively argues different schools of thoughts, which see terrorism from their own perspectives and prisms. The last part of the article briefly discusses about Martha Crenshaw’s Instrumental and Organizational process approach, which eventually will be helpful for better understanding of menace.

CONCEPTUAL AMBIGUITY

To start in a conventionalway,my discussion goes on what precisely defines terrorism? Is terrorismthe same thing as guerrilla warfare? Can the termbe applied to a State’smethodical repression of its own citizens or as in the coldblooded purges of the Stalinist era? Does it include kidnapping and assassinations of political leaders?Does terrorismcharacterize only in case of transnational versions,where it originates in one countrywhile targets another as Andrew Pierre describes international terrorismas “an act of violence outside national boundaries, or with clear international repercussions”. Is there anything thatmake distinction between revolutionary or insurgent, a ‘freedom fighter’ a ‘martyr’ or an ‘ordinary criminal’? Laqueur in his book Terrorism held that ‘a comprehensive definition of terrorismdoes not exist notwill it be found. To argue that terrorismcannot be studied without such a definition ismanifested absurd.11 Broadly speaking, the contemporary breed of terrorismimplies organized use of violence for political ends and it is directed primarily atnoncombatants.There are few definitions, which will help to understand the basic themes and elements of terrorism:

Oxford English Dictionary gives two definitions for terrorism:

• “Government by the intimidation as directed and carried out by the party in France during the Revolution of 1789-1994.”
• “Policy intended to strikewith terror those against whomit is adopted.”12
• “Terrorismis the sub-state application of violence or threatened violence intended to sow panic in a society, toweaken or even overthrow the incumbents, and to bring about the political change.”
• “Terrorismis a premeditated, politicallymotivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.”
• “Terrorismis a deliberate creation and exploitation of fear through violence or the threat of violence in the pursuit of political change.”
• “Terrorism is a form of political behavior resulting from the deliberate choice of a rational actor, the terrorist organization.”
• “Terrorismis organized political violence, lethal or non-lethal, designed to deter opposition bymaximizing fear, specifically by randomtargeting of people or sites.”

• “Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi) clandestine individuals, groups or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to - assassination- the direct target of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of the violence are generally chosen randomly or secretively froma target population and serves asmessage generators.

Threat and violence-based communication process between terror victims and main targets are used to manipulate themain target [audience(s)] turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion or propaganda is primarily sought.”

— A.P. Schmid16

Theword ‘terror’ itself comes fromWest’spolitical vocabulary as name forFrench revolutionary’s action against their domestic enemies in 1793 and 1794. It is, here,meant by Government repression in the formof executions. Since French Revolution, Charles Tilly, precedes that theword ‘terror’ has expanded in the larger scope. Scholars on terror, continue to use it for Governmental intimidation of citizens, as in Joseph Stalin’s use of executions to eliminate dissent. Similarly, they use the termfrequently to designate clandestine attacks onGovernmental targets by domestic opponent, such as Basque separatists, the Irish Republican Anny and Sri Lanka’s LTTE.23 As the literature on the terrorismhas evolved, the definition of the termprogressively has come into existence. Wide range of scholarship attributes at least four distinctive characteristics of terrorism. First, terrorismis violence for political end asHoffman suggests (Hoffman, 1998: 38). Second, terrorismis a planned and calculated act. Third, there is no definite set of warfare for the said purpose. Fourth, it has far-reaching consequences.

FREEDOM FIGHTER VS. TERRORIST

If the variable ‘unlawful use of violence’ taken into consideration in terms of defining terrorism, it would essentially head towards into awrong conclusion.Applying the similarmeaning,would termAmericans and Indians, who fought against theBritishers in their colonial phase, as terrorists. Achin Vanaik defining the political terrorism as the calculated or premeditated use or threat of use of violence against an individual, group or larger collectivity in such amanner that the target is rendered physically defenceless against that attack or against the effect of that violence attributed the following characteristics of terrorismas:

1. It is organized intimidation;
2. Violence against civilians or noncombatants;
3. Indiscriminate use of violence; and
4. Fourth and the last, illegal use of violence.

At the same time, he suggests to get out of the relative trap of temptation by giving the example of Bhagat Singh, who fought against the British colonizers, towhomIndianmasses use to see as a heroic revolutionary and martyr. RajeshHarshe, on the other hand, concludes that State itself resorts to the terrorist tactics to fight nonstate insurgent outfits. It becomes paradoxical situationwhen the activities of the groups that resort to terrorist violence are dubbed as antinational or secessionist, while the peoplewho believe in the cause, glorify themas freedomfighters and perceive secessionismas struggle for self-determination. William F. Shughart traces the history ofmodern terrorismfromthe end of the SecondWorldWar, dividing the history of terrorisminto three waves: first, terrorism in the service of national liberation and ethnic separatism, second, left-wing terrorism and third, lslamist terrorism.26While analyzing the basic factors responsible for the emergence of terrorism, he adopts theConstitutional political economy approach and proceeds on arguing that terrorismis rooted in the artificial creation of Nation- States during the inter-war period.

He further goes on illustrating by giving the argument that the shrinking of the French and British empires, resulting in the emboldening of the self-determination language of the AtlanticCharter,was themain cause behind the origin of the first wave of terrorism. Second wave of terrorismbegins from, according to him, in the incident of hijacking of an EIAI flight fromRome to Tel Aviv, which was an act of revenge taken by the Palestinian terrorists for the defeat of Egypt in the 1967 Six-Day war. Second wave of terrorism was fuelled by the opposition of the VietnamWar, Anti-Americanismin general, carried on by the notorious groups, such as Red Brigades, the Red Army aided and abetted by PLO. Last wave which is still going on, Muslim in origin, was set in motion by the Iranian Revolution in 1979.

THEORETICAL PERCEPTIONS ON TERRORISM

The theories of terrorismhave tried genuinely, to explain the reasons and cause of terrorism. They concentrate mainly on the causes and remedies of terrorism. There are threemajor schools of thoughts: Liberals, Conservatives andRealists. Marxist too have their own perception on the same. These theories need to be discussed, so as to analyze the manner in which nations perceive and react to situations, where they are directly or indirectly inflicted by terrorism. In main, these views have some convergence and some conflicts. Amain study by an eminent scholar has detailed these approaches. The following section is drawn fromthis study and assumes that these classifications are the accurate explanation of the phenomenon of terrorism.

LIBERALS’ VIEW ON TERRORISM

According to this view, that terrorismis a response to economic, social and political deprivation as well as to bad Government. People, who harbor a sense of grievance, will turn to violence to dramatize their misery or to change the conditions that are responsible for it. Governmentsmay fail to provide basic amenities, and entitlements and opportunities. They may refuse, ormay be unable to correct social injustice. Terrorismmay not be a result ofresistance directed at Governments. It may also arise out of quarrels with other communities or groups. The Government may or may not support these groups. If it does, then Government becomes an accessory to injustice and target of terrorism. Following the Lockian tradition, which admits in the goodness of the people, DineshD’Suza writes: “Liberals believe that people, who fail or do bad things, are not acting out of laziness or wickedness; rather, society put themin this unfortunate position. Since people are innately good, Liberals hold, the great conflicts in theworld are not the result of good v. evil; rather, they arrive out of terriblemisunderstanding that can be corrected through ongoing conversation and through themediation of such groups asUnitedNations.

CONSERVATIVES’ VIEW ON TERRORISM

According to theConservative school of thought, terrorismarises fromthe process of nationbuilding through which all nations once have gone. As countries go through the process of unification under a common systemof rules and institutions, they encounter resistance fromwithin. New systemof laws and institutions backed by a newly-constitutedGovernmentwill inevitably frighten the authorities. In doing so, it may create resistance that may turn violent; the Statewill be considered to restore law and order andwill have to use violence in turn do so. As a result, a cycle of violence and counter-violence will then start.

REALISTS’ VIEW ON TERRORISM

School of Realists thought observes terrorismas rising of competition between States, in a world of Nation- State, in which there is no overarching authority. In other words, therewould be noGovernment that can enforce peace and justice. The only way of settling disputes and differences is through the threat or actual use of violence. In this view, power plays an important role. Themore powerful you are, themore capable of options available to States in their competition for power.

So, terrorismis considered a weapon in the hands of a rival State. Liberals, conservatives and realists also differ in how States and societies should respond to terrorism. For Liberals, the answer to terrorist violence is to the lives of the people, including thosewhomight bemoved to secede. In theLiberal view, theGovernment’s use of violence to curb terrorismshould be a subsidiary element of its policy. “Conservatives are of the viewthat improving the levels of citizens and giving thembetterGovernment, should be the aimof our authorities. The proper business of Government should be to govern well and wisely, at the same time, it is also the duty of Government to use violence to crush disorder.”30WhileLiberalwantsGovernments to be cautious in using violence against terrorists, Conservatives argue that the responsible State must use violence to end violence.

The Realist school is comparatively close to the Conservatives. They believe that no amount of economic development and goodGovernmentwill prevent a rival State frominstigating and sustaining violence; only the actual use of greater violence will do so. Since terrorism is another instrument in the hands of rival States, Governments are justified in using violence to put down insurgents and stop the terrorismfromintervening in their domestic affairs. The Liberals, Conservatives andRealists all agree thatGovernmentmust be prepared to use the violence to curb terrorism.However, Liberalswould use it as the last resort, while Conservatives and Realists would use itwithout any delay.

Since the Realists believe that international political systemexists in a State of Anarchy, in which distrust is a natural component, there is very little use of cooperative agreements, designed to deter terrorist warfare. The Liberal perspective recognizes the threat to national security imposed by terrorists throughwarfare. For Liberals, the international political systemis not as anarchic as it is for the Realists and it is possible to achieve consensus through cooperative politics. The Liberals pursue the following initiatives to achieve this end:

• Increased level of interdependence, recognizing interdependence as the greatest deterrent to information warfare, and
• Creating global institutions and international agreements.

MARXISTS’ VIEW ON TERRORISM

Marxists recognize that in certain circumstances, such aswar of national liberation andmass revolutionary struggles, violencemay be unavoidable, but terrorism, as in planting bombs on Government or civilian targets, or hijacking planes, or assassinations by the small groups acting independently of class struggle, has always been deemed unacceptable. This is because terrorism runs counter to the most basic principles ofMarxism.31Marx showed that the root cause of exploitation, oppression, tyranny andwar not bad individual rulers or badGovernments, but the division of society into classes, and the ownership and control of production by aminority class that live off the labour of themajority. The overthrow of the ruling class and the economic systemon which it rests cannot be achieved by killing or frightening even large numbers of individuals, but only by the struggle of a new class, which is bearer of new economic system. In thewords ofMarx, “The emancipation of the working classmust be conquered by theworking class itself.” This emphasis on the self-emancipation of theworking class is crucial not only for the overthrow of capitalism, but also for the achievement of the aim, establishment of socialism. Revolutions from the above, even by forces claiming to act on behalf of the working class, result only in replacement of one set of exploiters and oppressors by another (however good the intentions of revolutionaries). The method of struggle used by socialists fromissuing leaflets, collecting petitions, organizing trade unions and parties through the mass demonstrations, election campaigns and mass strikes - are all steps towards raising the consciousness, confidence and organization ofworkers to act on their own behalf. Terroristmethods contradict this whole perspective. Frequently, they are aimed at completely thewrong target, striking not at rulers or oppressors, but an ordinary working people. “Under the guise of ‘fighting terrorism’, civil libertieswill come under increased pressure at home, there will be a campaign for more cops and increased police powers and previously growing movement against the death penalty will operate in amuch less favourable environment.” Martha Crenshaw, an analyst on terrorismhas discussed two approaches, one, an ‘Instrumental Approach’ and another, ‘Organizational Process Approach’.However, both views are necessary to understand terrorism, its consequences and themanner in which nations have worked, both in regional and international sphere to check themenace of terrorism.

INSTRUMENTAL APPROACH ON TERRORISM

“The Instrumental Approach is based on the assumption that the act of terrorismis a deliberate choice by a political actor and violence is seen as intentional. Terrorismis ameans to political end.”33 The organizations act to achieve collective values, which involve radical changes in political conditions. The classic work on the strategy of conflict, such as those by Thomas P. Schelling suggests, “Terrorismis one of violent coercion, a bargaining process based on power to hurt and intimidate as a substitute for the use of overtmilitary force. Terrorismis par excellence a strategy of surprise, necessary for a small group, whomust thereby compensate for weakness in numbers and destructive capability.” Surprisemay simply be aggressive, aimed at winning quickly and cheaply. The actions of attacker are determined by perceptions of incentive and opportunity. Terrorism, frequently referred to as ‘a new mode of warfare’, is in itself such an innovation. Since the beginning ofmodem wave of terrorismaround 1968, terrorists have developed new and elaboratemethods of hostage taking, including aircraft hijacking, seizure of embassies or consulates, and kidnapping of diplomats and business executives. If terrorists are instrumental and calculating, itmeans they are logically related to their ends. The targets of terrorismare symbolically related to their organization’s belief. Therefore, terrorists’ ideologymust be taken seriously as guide to intention.

ORGANIZATIONAL PROCESS APPROACH ON TERRORISM

“Organizational Process Approach focuses on the internal politics of the organization. In suggesting that terrorism can become self-sustaining, regardless of its political consequences, this approach assumes that the fundamental purpose of any political organization is tomaintain itself.”35 According to this approach, terrorismis explained as a result of an organization’s struggle for survival, usually in competitive environment. Terrorist’s behaviour represents the outcome of the internal dynamics of the organization rather than strategic actions. The minimal goal of any organization is survival, but the goal of people occupying in the organization is notmerely survival. Its leaders ensure organizationalmaintenance by offering varied incentives to the followers. They seek to prevent, both defection and dissent by developing intense loyalties among groupmembers.The organization responds to pressure fromoutside by changing the incentives offered to themembers.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The paper traces and investigates the divergentThematic Perspectives on Terrorism. Evidently, it is seemed that still lots of ambiguity remained unnoticed by the wide range of scholarship. Different individuals, institutions and establishments conceive the definition of terrorism, which suits themclosely. Simultaneously, the nature of the terrorismitself has gotmultidimensional shape, which is aptly needed to understand to reach out a common universal and workable definition. In the absence of such understanding and definition, themenace will prove dangerous to the human being as a whole.Walter Laqueur finds terrorismas a sub-state application of the violence, directed against the incumbents. But, simultaneously, he is also not reluctant to accept the fact that the State too, could sponsor and harbour terrorism.With the going through various definitions, it gets clear that there are some basic tenets,which almost cover every definition or the understanding on terrorism, i.e. terrorismis violence, second, it has political effect, third, it has far-reaching psychological repercussions. For the victims of terrorism, and for the larger audience intimidated by terror, it is hard to understand how, after so many years of trying to define terrorism, the international community still has not managed to reach a minimal consensus. As long as “one man’s terrorist is the other man’s freedomfighter”, such a consensuswill be elusive. Yet, only if the terrorist act is narrowly defined, is there a chance to reach international consensus?

Courtesy: Ministry of Home Affairs

Author Name: Shashi Kant (IPS)