TERRORISM
JULIO RIBEIRO
Terrorism has been very aptly described as a low cost war. When internal dissent involves a minuscule minority which has no other means of asserting its presence and making known its demands except by a resort to force, terrorism has provided an alternative. When protestors are a sizeable number they rely on more democratic methods like morchas, demonstrations, bandhs. Sometimes these peaceful protests may end in street riots. Terrorism is an extreme and desperate step. It relies on lethal force and weapons to defy the State and undermine it. The Government and the terrorist take irreconcilable stand o the basic nature of the State. The terrorists refuse to recognize the very sovereignty of the State!
Terrorism is of two types, the nationalistic form of terrorism and ideological. The latter has been experienced in Italy with the Brigattisti Rosa and in Germany with the Beider – Meinhoff gang. The best examples of the nationalist form of terrorism are in Northern Ireland where the IRA has been batting the British Government for more than a century for the integration of the 6 provinces of Northern Ireland into the Irish Republic. Another such example is provided by ETA, the Basque Revolutionary Party, which has been demanding a separate homeland for the Basques in Spain. Closer home, we have the L.T.T.E. in
Sri Lanka.
Terrorism has to be distinguished from insurgency like the insurgencies that brought Castro into power in Cuba. Insurgencies have afflicted the North Eastern part of our country. They are more organized on military lines than terrorists, who are loosely grouped.
The principles of combat followed by the insurgents and the terrorist while taking on the might of the State are in some respects similar. Both believe in guerrilla tactics, hitting their opponents from behind and not facing them in battle like regular armies. The main difference between insurgency and terrorism is that insurgents target the security forces, the men in uniform, whereas terrorists create by killing civilians at random.
There is no better way of explaining terrorism than to cite the example of a
man – eater. The man – eating tiger or leopard strikes unsuspecting victims miles away from the scenes of its previous kills. Nobody knows when it will strike next or who will be its next victims, hence everybody lives in mortal fear of instant death and this built – up fear makes life in the surrounding areas extremely uncertain.
The terrorist does basically the same thing. His intention being to create panic and terror, he may strike at one village in district “A” on one day, at a town in district “B” after a few days and then even in a crowded place in city “C” after another few days, leaving sufficient time for the effect of the terror to sink into the consciousness of the population. It is easier to do this in the nationalist form of terrorism where even law – abiding and thinking members of the community to which the terrorists belong may sympathize with their cause. To add to this sympathy, comes the active support of half a percent (or less) of the community in the shape of money, safe houses, hide – outs, food and even weapons. In the ideological form of terrorism, the terrorist groups are confined to a few individuals, who are inspired by leftist ideology propagated by professors in the universities. Shelter for such hot heads is mostly available in university campuses and students dormitories. The great majority of the populations are not impressed with their activities. Lack of public sympathy gives the State freedom and ease to operate against them.
The nationalist form draws from the mass of the population belonging to the religion of the terrorists, like in Ireland where the Catholics provide the main support to the IRA, or from linguistic or regional compatriots as in the case of the Basques whose religion is the same as that of the Spaniards but speaks a different dialect. Since the appeal is on religious or regional affiliation, the attraction is far more powerful than appeals made on basis of ideology. It is obvious, therefore, that the fight against the nationalist form of terrorism is far more difficult to sustain because emotions are involved and not ideas. When emotions take precedence over reason, the trickle – down effect is distinctly more discernible. It persists sometimes for ages and is handed down from father to son, as has been the experience in Ireland.
In India, terrorist strikes have been recorded in West Bengal and Punjab during the country’s fight against colonial rule. They were confined to a few fighters and the incidents were not numerous. The first real test of terrorism that this country witnessed, terrorism of the nationalist variety in its classical form, was in Punjab after the death of Bhindernwala. Sikh separatists, fired by the call for a separate State of Khalistan and fed on stories of injustice against the Sikhs, attacked Hindus in different places at different times with the sole purpose of creating terror and forcing the Indian State to concede their demand. They pulled out people form buses and trains, segregated the women, then separated the men who had no beards and turbans and lined them up to shoot them with AK47 automatic weapons in cold blood. The weapons were mostly procured from across the border. When trains and buses began to be guarded they targeted the market places where mainly Hindus gathered or the open parks in cities where the RSS organized its parades or the Jagrans which only Hindus attend.
If reinforcements were poured into the affected districts, they shifted their area of operations to other districts forcing the authorities to extend their defence thinly so as to enable them to strike at will. It was basically a cat and mouse game which could not ensure a victory for either side since it did not involve
face – to – face combat. Mass migrations of Hindus from villages followed. They went to the towns where the population of the Hindus was sizeable. Some even fled the State in a desperate resolve to save their lives.
This led to immense anger against the Government. The importance and inability of the State to protect life and property was highlighted and condemned. Police Officers hesitated to visit the scenes of the killings because public anger invariably translated itself into attacks on the police with stones and other missiles. The Police were accused, wrongly as it was later proved, of sympathizing and collaborating with the terrorists. In their desperation, the people made such allegations and suggestions, which in their turn did not help matters as their only result was to demoralize the Police.
One of these suggestions was to hand over the State to the army. The army, of course, resisted attempts to involve them. They knew that terrorists do not fight conventional wars with troops, tanks, artillery and mortar. They strike from behind when it is least expected, a type of war in which the army is certainly not trained. Also, the people they are called upon to fight are not enemies but their own countrymen who have been led astray. Incidentally, the internal security forces i.e. the Police and the paramilitary found themselves in a situation where they were fighting unconventional criminals who were motivated by factors other than gain or pelf.
The predominantly Sikh police force of the Punjab was confused. Terrorism was not a familiar phenomenon. The force had never confronted law breakers who were convinced that they had a moral right to kill. They had never confronted law breakers who when caught were not repentant and who before being caught were not afraid of losing their lives.
For such is the nature of terrorism. If follows its own rules which have no relevance to the law and statute books. It is not concerned about breaking the law. It does not accept the legitimacy of the State and hence it holds that the law itself is not legitimate. Ordinary criminals have an inbuilt fear of the police. Organised crime subverts the Police and judicial system through bribery. Terrorists never bribe. They have no respect for the uniform or for politicians. or for judges for that matter. They put a bullet through those who dare to oppose them. Their motivation is something beyond the imagination of ordinary policemen. Hence the confusion in the minds of the law enforces.
Conventional warfare requires money, an unlimited number of volunteers to fight and sophisticated weapons of destruction. When men, money and weapons of this magnitude are not available to the malcontents, a ready solution can be found by resorting to terrorism. In this form of warfare the enemy relies on only a few chosen leaders and a slightly larger numbers of followers, who are available from among the ranks of ordinary criminals. In fact, terrorism would be more difficult to sustain if the volunteers were too many because then the secrecy of operations would be difficult to ensure. Logistical support for larger bodies of men would also be difficult. In any case since finances are limited and the weaponry consequently confined to the basics, this type of warfare relies on guerilla tactics with innocent and unarmed civilians as the cannon fodder. It should be emphasized here again that their intention is to cause maximum terror in short span of time to unnerve the population and the State so as to nudge the State to concede unrealistic demands.
If a country neighbouring the one in which terrorism has erupted is inimical and is ready to provide training camps, sanctuaries and safe passage for arms and money, terrorist operations become easier. This has happened in Punjab and is happening now in Kashmir with Pakistan helping the terrorists with sanctuary, free passage of men and arms, facilities for training and facilities for terrorist leaders and their expatriate supporters to meet and guide their operatives.
From Pakistan’s point of view, it is much easier for an enemy State to support terrorist activity across the border rather than a risk a conventional was with a bigger neighbour where the outcome is bound to go against them and where the economic and political costs are bound to be daunting.
The classical method of fighting the nationalist form of terrorism is to appeal to the minds and hearts of the affected community, the co – religionists of the terrorists, who form the natural constituency and recruiting ground for new volunteers. Since the common Sikh wanted peace and the two communities had lived in harmony for centuries, it was essential to appeal to their sentiments and emotions in order to ensure that they distanced themselves from the separatists. At the same time, it was necessary to identify and neutralize the brainwashed cadres of the underground network. By experience it was seen that these cadres reformed or relented only in the rarest of cases. Hence, the security forces had to concentrate on gathering information about their identity, their hide – outs, their supporters and the source of their arms and ammunitions, including the places where these were stored.
In terrorist situations, the main problem faced by the police is that of obtaining information about the identity and the movements of the terrorists, their logistical support and sanctuaries. The population is either afraid to give such information for fear of reprisals or they themselves have sneaking sympathies on religious or community grounds. The police are then forced to adopt other methods to obtain the information they require in order to neutralize the gangs. One of these methods, which had been used from times immemorial, is to infiltrate the gangs. This is not easy because the type of individuals who would be willing to carry out this extremely risky operation have themselves to be criminally inclined besides being sufficiently bold. This is the tragedy of anti – terrorist operations. You have to rely for help on individuals who are willing to live on the edge of death, just like the terrorists themselves do. To motivate them to do so is a Herculean Task.
The police are often not able to identify even the leaders of the terrorists, leave alone the minor followers. The work of compiling information and dossiers is always slow and frustrating. Informers have to be recruited form among the ranks of terrorist themselves, the minor followers who after capture are willing to risk the wrath of their friends in return for their freedom. In Punjab, the local Officers had devised a method of using these repentant terrorists to help the police in identifying the main culprits.
A major problems faced by the police was of strict compliance with the law. It is ironic that people who do not acknowledge the legitimacy of the State and its laws, who say that such laws do not apply to them, want the police to be particular about compliance with those very same laws. The Chief Minister of Punjab, Sardar Surjit Barnala, once complained that the police had developed cold feet and were not moving out to patrol at night. He said that the terrorists ruled the countryside from dusk to dawn and that was unacceptable. Enquiries with the Officers at the grass roots revealed that the policemen were reluctant to patrol at night in uniform. The terrorists moved in the normal garb of villages. When they spied policeman they opened up their AK47s. The police were at a distinct disadvantage in such a situation as it was not legal nor advisable for the police to open fire on a group of people who may turn out to be ordinary villages and not terrorists at all.
A problem, which troubled the senior ranks more than the grass roots policemen, was the incessant propaganda of Human Rights Groups against what was termed as “State Terrorism”. Human Rights propaganda usually took the form of alleging that terrorists were shot in cold blood after capture.
Secondly, the judicial system had broken down completely. And it was not merely the ravages of corruption that had caused the system to crack. The terrorists had succeeded in frightening the judiciary, the jailors and the witnesses by shooting all who opposed them. Even the children and parents of judges were targeted. If a judge dared to remand a terrorist in police custody for investigations, he would soon find other terrorist gunning for him or, worse still, gunning for his school going sons.
If Police operations were difficult, an even more difficult job was to win over the hearts and minds of the people. By people, I mean the Sikh peasants of the villages of the Punjab. They were not basically separatists and they were not in favour of living in disturbed conditions for prolonged periods. They had sneaking sympathies for the terrorists who belonged to their community and professed their religion and who they felt were fighting not for their own selfish ends, but for he community as a whole. Sacrifices has always been admired in the Indian ethos. These terrorists, these young men who had become examples of sacrifice according to conventional rustic wisdom.
Soon, the Sikh peasantry found two seats of predators sponging off them. One, of course, was the terrorist who wanted money, food, shelter. The second was the police who came usually during the day and threatened to arrest farmers and landlords for harbouring the terrorists. The question then, before the people, who which was greater evil? Which group was more troublesome – the terrorist or the police? When the scale tilted against the terrorists the people turned them. This happened especially when the criminal component in he terrorist ranks went beyond the demand of money and shelter to the demand for sex. When their wives and daughters were raped, the Sikh peasantry decided to provide information of their movements to he police. This led to the decimation of terrorist cadres.
A third type of terrorism that is attracting attention today is what is incorrectly termed as Islamic or Jihadi terrorism. It is not correct to call it Islam or Jihadi because most Muslims do not believe in violence and Jihad has been wrongly interpreted by some fanatics who do not understand the essence of religion. Unfortunately, they fanatics have been able to terrorize even the most powerful countries of the world. In Islam there is the concept of “Ummah” or universal brotherhood based on shared religious beliefs. Leaning on such concepts. Muslims fanatics living in different parts of the world have carried out suicide attacks on innocent civilians, the worst example being the 11th September attacks in he USA.
Because these terrorists do not respect State boundaries and their quarrel is not with any particular State but against Christians and Jews and Hindus the response had also to be in global terms. The modalities of this response are being worked out by the US and India and other countries that are affected. However, the principles of fighting this type of global terrorism will remain the same. No quarter can be shown to brainwashed terrorists and killers but special efforts have to be made to win over the hearts and minds of he great majority of Muslims who are not at all in agreement with the perpetrators of such mindless violence.
In all of recorded history terrorism has never succeeded. It had not succeeded even where the targeted countries are small or weak. In big countries like ours terrorism will be defeated. It is a duty of each and every one of us to face up to and fight this menace.