July
28, 2006
Bombay
Blasts and Some Reflections on Terrorism
Rarely a day passes without
the media reporting on an act of terrorism occurring
in some part or the other of the world. The bomb
blasts that ripped through seven suburb-bound commuter
trains in Bombay on July 11 killing within 11 minutes
207 passengers and injuring some 800, are the latest
in the gory history of the havocs caused by terrorism
since the end of the cold war. Commuter transit
systems have been tempting targets for terrorists
in recent years, with bombers killing 191 in Madrid
in 2004 and 52 in London in 2005.
Failure of the intelligence agencies to detect and
checkmate even the highly sophisticated and meticulously
co-coordinated terrorist plots of 9/11, Madrid train
tragedy, London transit system and now the 7/11
of Bombay is the most notable common feature in
all these catastrophes. But, the concerned authorities
have usually shown considerable haste in pinning
blame on some target or another. That routine has
been followed after the Bombay blasts too, casting
a pall over the Indo-Pak peace process. The US State
Department has urged the parties to resume the dialogue
particularly as there was no concrete evidence to
support Pakistan’s involvement in the blasts.
American scholars, who have studied in depth the
phenomenon of terrorism and published voluminous
works on it, are agreed that it is not confined
to any particular area, ethnicity or creed. It would
therefore be a folly to think that only those few
states (mostly Muslim) that are on the US list of
terrorist states are usually the sponsors of such
acts.
Jafee Center of Strategic Studies of Tel Aviv University
lists more than 600 terrorist groups spread all
over the world. Prof. David Long, in his well-researched
book “The Anatomy of Terrorism” lists
over two dozen such setups in South America and
several separatist groups around the world.
Considering the dominating position of the US in
world affairs as the sole super power, considering
its ‘unique’ relations with Israel,
every time there is a terrorist act, it is attributed
largely as a knee-jerk reaction to an outfit in
one of the states on the US list.
For instance, the very first report on the bombing,
over a decade back, of a Federal building in Oklahoma
drew attention to a similar terrorist act of a Middle
Eastern group a few years earlier. Those who listened
to this report, including the present writer, were
thus led to believe that Islamic militants were
behind the act.
The real culprit, Tim McVeigh was, just by chance,
caught and a court of law subsequently convicted
him.
Osama bin Laden, his Al-Quaida band and Taliban
supporters are seen in every nook and corner of
the world plotting against Western democracies.
Osama is hiding in some bat cave on the Pak-Afghan
border, bulk of the Al-Quadia adherents have been
killed or confined in Guantenamo Bay or other prisons,
and Taliban have just started reemerging from their
underground hideouts owing to the limited writ and
competence of the Karzai government. All of these
obscurantist groups do not constitute a formidable
threat to any modern force. Yet, they are seen behind
all acts of terror in all parts of the world.
There is no consensus among thinkers and writers
as to what exactly is terrorism. A task force on
combating terrorism appointed in 1986 by the then
Vice-President, George Bush, has defined terrorism
as “the unlawful use or threat of violence
against persons or property to further political
or social objectives.”
Robin Wright, a scholar of substance and author
of a book on terrorism, “Sacred Rage”,
argues that terrorist attacks are “not from
love of violence, but from expression of rage and
frustration over an inability to achieve some form
of freedom or independence.”
Whereas a criminal, a murderer for instance, has
a personal gain or revenge in mind, a terrorist
resorts to his act in pursuance of a political goal.
In a murder there is almost always a link between
the criminal and the victim. But, in a terrorist
act there is seldom such a link. The objective of
terrorists is to get onlookers to see their actions
in motivational terms, to look at and be swayed
by the merit of their cases, rather than be turned
away by the brutality of their methods.
Carlos Marighella, the father of terrorism in South
America, once remarked: “The urban guerrilla
does have one enormous advantage over the conventional
soldier and the policeman: he is defending a just
cause, the cause of the people.”
To counter the possibility of such an interpretation,
the media managers in many advanced countries launch
campaigns tarnishing the image of guerilla groups.
The same media, when supporting the cause of the
anti-Soviet Afghan rebels, called them Mujahideen,
freedom fighters. At that time when Afghanistan’s
hard-line Islamists visited the White House, President
Ronad Reagan went to the extent of calling them
the Muslim world’s “moral equivalent
of our founding fathers”.
The intelligence agencies of the Western countries
successfully turned the Afghans’ struggle
into a pan-Islamic Jihad. Once the Soviet Union
decided to withdraw from a losing war, these very
Mujahideen, these very soldiers of Islam, came to
be called “rebels” and subsequently
“terrorists”.
As for the struggle in Kashmir, the freedom fighters
of that state are labeled by India as terrorists
sent there by Pakistan. The fact of the matter is
that the struggle of these Kashmiris has continued
unabated for almost two decades despite over 80,000
of them having been killed by the Indian forces
who number over 700,000 in the State.
To win the sympathy of the West, the US in particular,
it is contended that the fighters are the disciples
of Osama bin Laden and were trained in his camps
in Afghanistan. The fallacy of this contention is
self-evident. The struggle of this magnitude, that
an army of 700,000 is unable to control, cannot
be maintained for so many years by a handful of
guerillas trained in an alien land. It cannot but
be indigenous.
Fortunately, a conciliatory attitude had developed
on both sides of the border and direct talks between
India and Pakistan had commenced. The Bombay blasts
have derailed them on the suspicion that the terrorists
had the support of Pakistan. Why, one may ask. And,
even if that was so, would it not be all the more
pressing that the two parties move on with the peace
process to thwart the aim of the terrorists. Both
countries need peace for providing better living
conditions to their poverty stricken masses. Let
peace, mutual trust and friendship dominate the
atmosphere.
- arifhussaini@hotmail.com
