Good semantics

While elaborate strategies have been planned to combat terrorism but action on the ground remains limited because various States and non-State actors differ on what does and what does not constitute terrorism.

As if to reaffirm the stance of those critical of the new joint mechanism against terrorism, Pakistan has reiterated its standard line over a list of wanted persons sent by India. A Pakistani spokesperson asserted earlier this week that some of those wanted by India have a “different” status in Pakistan because of their association with “the freedom struggle”, and that the joint mechanism is not “a plan to hand over wanted people”.

HT Image

That one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter is a well-worn cliché, repeated most recently by Pervez Musharraf in his memoir. The international community has struggled in vain to arrive at a consensus on the definition of ‘terrorism’. This failure has brought most efforts towards combating the menace — including half a dozen UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions — to nought. While elaborate strategies have been planned to combat terrorism — the latest being the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy adopted by the world body earlier this month — action on the ground remains limited because various States and non-State actors differ on what does and what does not constitute terrorism. Defining terrorism is a contentious issue because it is a matter of moral judgment that is subject to political leanings and exigencies. For instance, while the Reagan White House called the Afghan mujahideen ‘freedom fighters’, the Bush White House calls their successors ‘terrorists’.