Building a stronger international mechanism to combat terrorism
The complexity of the issue and its various irritants were recently exhibited during the stand-off between India and Canada over the latter harbouring some elements bent upon a break-up of our country.
In an increasingly divided world, few topics ignite as much passion and debate as terrorism. The subject is intensely discussed in many academic forums but seldom conclusively.Very often, the debate becomes an exercise at lambasting an incumbent government or a law enforcement agency, as if an administrative machinery can, by itself, resolve this ever-burgeoning problem.
The complexity of the issue and its various irritants were recently exhibited during the stand-off between India and Canada over the latter harbouring some elements bent upon a break-up of our country. Ottawa’s unconcealed reluctance to act according to agreements between the two countries reflects a disturbing trend in international politics: The selective definition and tolerance of terrorism, often shaped by political expediency.
“One man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter,” an infamous adage goes. While this phrase is often invoked to justify or rationalise acts of terror, it dangerously oversimplifies the brutal reality that terrorists, regardless of their cause, inflict immense collateral damage on innocent lives. The 9/11 attack on the World Trade Centre in New York and the 2008 misadventure by Pakistan in Mumbai remain grim reminders of how misguided elements can wreck peace in society and within families. Democracies take pride in their commitment to human rights and justice, but when political motives cloud these values, they risk choices that destabilise international relations and corrode the very principles they claim to uphold.
One question that remains hazy is why terrorism still flourishes in some young minds.The phenomenon of recruitment to terror groups is complex. It has been found difficult to reduce the attraction that terror philosophy holds. Mere deterrence packed in legislation does not seem enough to change the trend.I believe that for every recruit who openly expresses his admiration for terror and chooses to walk into a terror camp, there are at least 10 who hide themselves from scrutiny by intelligence and police agencies. Deradicalisation endeavours by the police in the United Kingdom have brought in some dividends.But there is a lot more to be done to make the terror philosophy less attractive.
It has now been fairly well established that the lure of terrorism is not confined only to the youth from the lower economic strata. A substantial number from even the more affluent sections join terror groups consciously out of their own volition and with great fervour. We saw this happening more than a decade ago when ISIS became popular as a near successor to the much-dreaded al Qaeda.
The UK media recently highlighted the emotional outpourings of Katie Amess, the daughter of British MP David Amess, who was killed in October 2021 by Ali Harbi Ali, an ISIS sympathiser who targeted all those who backed airstrikes on Syria.Katie has now sued the Essex Police for its failure to protect her father. This reaction, three years after the crime, may seem to border on something irrational but it is utterly understandable from the perspective of a victim’s family. Closer home, the 1991 killing of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi – a cruel act that I witnessed with my own eyes at a distance of a few yards – and the 1984 assassination of.Indira Gandhi cannot justified by any political or human rights reasons.
These gruesome killings highlight how democracies do not prevent terrorism from sinking roots in their soil.On the contrary, a few democratically elected governments continue to shelter terrorism intentionally or unintentionally by giving safe haven to those who went astray. One can easily list any number of terrorist murders across the globe in the recent past. These irrational acts of madness were triggered by hatred and prejudice. The question that has to be posed to nations is why terrorism is still thriving in some regions of the world and not in others.The human psyche carries with it a propensity to violence that is hidden in most of us. Several factors help to mute it at childhood.These include a parental abhorrence of violence and a nurture of the value of tolerance that emphasises diversity,especially in religious beliefs.
The role that academia can play in promoting forbearance in human interactions is inestimable. Professor Jessica Stern is one eminent scholar whom I came across two decades ago at Harvard,and who impressed me with her original research on terrorism. She was courageous enough to visit jails across countries and physically interview a few interned terrorists in order to fathom what motivated them to take to violence. Her book, Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants Kill, is a classic in itself. Her findings confirmed the role of religious fanaticism in driving terror. Does this take us anywhere near detoxifying the air? I am not sanguine.
R.K.Raghavam is former director of the Central Bureau of Investigation. The views expressed are personal