Terrorism in modern times

In recent times terrorism has been committed by individuals and grows who attempt to destabilize or overthrow existing political institutions. It has been used in anti-colonial conflicts such as the one between Ireland and United Kingdom, Vietnam, France and USA etc. It is adopted by opposing religious groups such as Shia, Sunni, Catholic, and Protestant for sectarian reasons and by nationalists over the possession of a contested homeland as in case of Palestine and Israel. This 11 also used in internal conflicts between revolutionary forces and established government as in case of Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Iran, Nicaragua, Al-Salvador and Argentina. Such acts include kidnapping, assassination, hijacking, skyjacking and bombing.

Whatever the form and nature or terrorism, there has always been a reason and a cause behind it. It is an extreme act of desperation and frustration committed by an individual or a group of persons who do not care about their personal safety and are ready to sacrifice maximum to attain their objective. Behind an act of terrorism the motivating force could be poverty, ethnic rivalry, religious divide, personal and group feuds, political oppression, claim to the right of self- determination, economic exploitation etc. but as and when any of such acts is committed, there are always two opinions about it. It is supported by some and opposed by others. It is considered justified by those who indulge in it and by those who promote it. They come forward with highly convincing arguments to back up their claim. The victim, on the other hand, tries to win the sympathy of every one around and has enough to prove that he has been wronged for none of his fault. However, incidents of terrorism 2an never have a legal cover. It is often justified on moral and human grounds. It is often opposed as an act against the law of the land, state’s national policy, as the violation of human rights and against larger public interest. That is precisely the reason why the term ‘terrorism’ has defied all attempts at its definition.

The above observation, however, does not mean that terrorism cannot be defined. It surely has a definition which can be easily sifted from the study of the nature of the acts of terrorism, their causes and the climate in which they flourish. The unfortunate fact is that no one is interested in defining it. This is particularly true in case of the institutions that wield political power and the individuals and groups who dominate the economic means. It is their unjust behaviour that results in political oppression and economic exploitation that in turn precipitates terrorism. A clear definition would take away lot of initiative from their hands. They hive then to surrender a considerable part of their political and economic advantages in favour of the oppressed humanity. And that is what they abhor.

Pity is that International Law too does not define terrorism nor does the United Nations Charter cares to lay down its parameters. However, in his address to UN’s General Assembly, in Oct 2001, President of Pakistan asked the members of that august body a question which if answered honestly would provide a yard stick to assess whether an act of violence is in the nature of terrorism or a legitimate activity on the part of a wronged people, a group, a community or a nation. Referring to the questions of Palestine and Kashmir, he asked whether the terrorists were Kashmiris and Palestinians who were fighting for their rights of self-determination in accordance with the provisions of UN’s Resolutions or the real terrorist were Indians and Israelis who, in clear violation of UN’s Resolutions, were killing the innocent people with the help of their brute military might.

The question posed by the President of Pakistan was the starting point of the study to be carried out in search of a suitable definition of terrorism. Some of the common characteristics of the acts of terrorism committed worldwide are: Terrorism is, by and large, pre-meditated and is designed to create an atmosphere of fear and anxiety. It intends to address a much wider audience than the immediate victim. It hits random as well as specific targets. It violates social norms creating shock effect. Its aim is to influence political behaviour.

Muhammad Aziz Shukri, Dean of the Law School University of Damuscus, in his scholarly work ‘International Terrorism: A legal Critique’ writes: “Terrorism is a political weapon which is used randomly arbitrarily and selectively to influence the undesirable act of one’s opponents in the international arena. In view of this, International Terrorism could be defined as: it is the violence or the threat of violence exercised for political effect. He further observes that such acts are quite often, violent reaction of suppression, coercion, injustice, exploitation, cruelty etc. At times they are launched and financed by one state against the other to weaken it and secure political domination. State Terrorism is the starting point Individual and group terrorism is its consequence.