CSE 2019   Attend 3 sessions on preparing for CSE 2019 , right from the right preparation strategy, reading the newspaper, making notes to how to write good answers. Orientation session is open to all and mandatory for all CGP Students. Click here for details.

What is Terrorism ?

We often come across the word terrorism. But we most often mean terrorism as Islamist Terrorism. Does Northeast insurgency and LWE also come under the definition of terrorism? Please answer from exam point of view.
and Drona asked,"what do you see?","the sparrow's eye!"......and Krishna replied,"Turning their discerning mind to That, directing their whole conscious being to That, making That their whole aim and the sole object of their devotion, they go whence there is no return"

Comments

  • AK_CS said:

    We often come across the word terrorism. But we most often mean terrorism as Islamist Terrorism. Does Northeast insurgency and LWE also come under the definition of terrorism? Please answer from exam point of view.

    Terrorism has been defined as the illegal use of force or violence against people to create a wave of terror with the intention of achieving certain political or sectarian objectives.
    According to the 2ndARC
  • As @SavingKhudko has already mentioned, that definition is the closest we can get to. However at the international level there is no such consensus as such.

    it depends on ones perspective. For eg the former farc rebels in Columbia were termed as terrorists, but in their own eyes they were jjust fighting for their rights. In Spain, the catalans have been called terrorists, but they are just fighting for Independence like we indians did. During the Indian Independence struggle, many of our leaders were called revolutionary terrorists. But that was from the perspective of British. To us it was a justified fight to end our slavery. There are many other wxamples like the arakan rebels of Burma, the ltte of Sri Lanka etc.

    The subjectivity of the entire subject matter makes it hard to define it in concrete terms.



    As far as lwe are concerned, in my opinion they can't be called terrorists, despite their use of gory violence. It because, they are not using violence for any kind of political or material or ideological gain. Yes thet do subscribe to the left but it's just a means to an end, they don't want to establish a communist empire in India nor are they propogating any religions or trying to usurp other people's territories or asking for Independence. The only solution to the lwe is mission mode development in these areas, availability of quality education, health, employment etc. opportunities and keeping the claws of the big corporate away from these mostly mineral rich areas. If these people have to take to violence just to ask for basic facilities, then the blame is on the state.


  • edited December 2017
    Rasputin said:

    As @SavingKhudko has already mentioned, that definition is the closest we can get to. However at the international level there is no such consensus as such.

    it depends on ones perspective. For eg the former farc rebels in Columbia were termed as terrorists, but in their own eyes they were jjust fighting for their rights. In Spain, the catalans have been called terrorists, but they are just fighting for Independence like we indians did. During the Indian Independence struggle, many of our leaders were called revolutionary terrorists. But that was from the perspective of British. To us it was a justified fight to end our slavery. There are many other wxamples like the arakan rebels of Burma, the ltte of Sri Lanka etc.

    The subjectivity of the entire subject matter makes it hard to define it in concrete terms.



    As far as lwe are concerned, in my opinion they can't be called terrorists, despite their use of gory violence. It because, they are not using violence for any kind of political or material or ideological gain. Yes thet do subscribe to the left but it's just a means to an end, they don't want to establish a communist empire in India nor are they propogating any religions or trying to usurp other people's territories or asking for Independence. The only solution to the lwe is mission mode development in these areas, availability of quality education, health, employment etc. opportunities and keeping the claws of the big corporate away from these mostly mineral rich areas. If these people have to take to violence just to ask for basic facilities, then the blame is on the state.

    Sorry for peeking in esp when i have no clear idea about this issue. Here are my two cents. Just man ki baat. Btw I agree with the first part of your comment.

    As far as LWE is concerned. They do ask for independence from Indian state- from Pashupati to Tirupati (red corridor and all)
    Ideology- Maoism.
    Fight is only for material gains only. They had their grievances which wasn't addressed and therefore they started following the means (ideology- Maoism, violence etc) to get the end (material gains- development and all).


    As far as terrorism is concerned. "I think" what differentiate terrorism from these insurgents is the basic motive behind their acts. Terrorism seeks to create a fear in the mind of civilians. It doesn't differentiate between civilians and state whereas these insurgent groups do differentiate between the two, barring few exceptions/ incidents.

    As far as "terrorism" in global politics is concerned, we see no consensus around its definition. For some organisations there are consensus among nations that these are terrorist orgs. And for some org, there are no consensus.

    Hamas is considered as a terroist organisation by US and Israel but it is not considered so by many other nations including India. Moreover, it is the part of Lebanon government. The paradox is that US recognises the Lebanon as a legitimate state and has good historical relations with it but it considers Hamas as terrorist due to Israel-Palastien politics.
    Similarly It was US who created the bunch of Mujahidins during Cold war period after Afghan invasion of USSR. US created these terrorists and then it started a war on them, that war on terror of Bush.
    Nelson Mandela was also designated as terrorist. There is this saying that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

    So here in all these instances, to protect self interest, these nations (mis)use the word of terrorism as per their own convinience.


    And then, there are consesus among nations (particulary United Nations) that some orgs are indeed terrorist orgs. ISIS, Al Qaida, Boko Haram, Jabhat Al Nusra etc are some.

    That's why nations around the world try to get pass a resolution at UN regarding designation of terrorist organisations/individuals if they think that these are fit to be One. Its like democratic election of terrorists by UN members. :D
    For example, In Indian perspective, Hafez Saeed is a terrorist and India try to get pass a resolution at UN regarding this. But China blocks this move as it "thinks" that Hafez Saeed is not qualified for getting the terrorist tag. Notwithstanding, the politics of the subcontinent plays a role here in this case.

    For exam point of view, we have to blindly trust some sources such as Ncerts, Governement websites, reports, SC rulings etc. 2nd ARC report is one among it. So there shouldn't be any doubt in our mind over its definition.
  • @NewArrival that's some good points man. Again I must admit my lack of knowledge on the matter too.

    So, regarding lwe, I was trying to suggest a politically correct answer, because I don't think we outrightly call maoists as terrorists in India. If such a question Is asked in the mains papers or interview, I think I would bend over backwards to avoid calling them terrorists. I feel a cs aspirant must always stick to the stance of the state. But that's just my opinion.

    Regarding, the consensus amongst nations on terrorism, I agree with u. Yes they do have to pass a resolution Everytime at the Un, which may or may not get blocked by one of the p5. By consensus I meant there is no consensus on one definition of terrorism. There is no definition of terrorism, wherein , if someone fits the criteria, they will be labelled as terrorists automatically. Who is a terrorist n who isn't is thus a subject to whims n fancies of the nations.


  • edited December 2017
    Different but closely related concepts. There are no concrete definitions for these. But there are few characteristic features for each (even some of those also disputed)
    * Differences to look for - purpose/ objective, public support, use of violence

    Terrorism:
    * (planned, organised, systematic) use of violence for some purpose (political, religious, ideological)
    * It's broader concept that include all other forms (insurgency, extremism, militancy are different forms of terrorism)
    * So strictly speaking most of the violent acts can be termed as terrorism.
    (Exceptions may be violence for economic purpose, violence against women etc)
    * But practically used only for violent actions by well organised groups which using violence for terrifying public/ creating panic.

    Insurgency:
    * Armed struggle/ rebellion by a section of a society to overthrow the government (for political purpose)
    * So difference is public support (section of society itself involved)
    * Purpose is political in nature

    Extremism:
    * Offshoot of extreme political, religious, ideological opinions
    * May be termed as milder form of terrorism because violence is not used as a primary tool for terrifying public as in hard-core terrorism.

    Militancy:
    * Almost similar to insurgency
    * I don't find any well defined feature that clearly differentiates these two. (If someone has any idea help me)

    Terms used in Indian context
    Naxalism/Maoism/LWE - as name suggests it's referred as extremism
    NE issue - referred as insurgency.
    J&K - referred as militancy
    (if u apply those concepts still you may find some issues with these terms)
    IMG_20171224_095248.jpg
    3120 x 2659 - 2M
    Hunt alone
  • Terrorism has been defined as the illegal use of force or violence against people to create a wave of terror with the intention of achieving certain political or sectarian objectives.
    According to the 2ndARC

    This sounds similar to Relatives calling continuously on the day of results. :tongue:
  • "Koi apne maa k pet se Terrorist ya militant paida nhi hotaa saab g..usko terrorist/militant bnaati ye duniyaa, yha k log, yhaa ki srkaarein !" :mrgreen:


    Sbke Objectives thode thode different hote h.. mean lgbhag sbka same h i.e. Violence..

    Terrorist- Political/Religious etc objectives hote h.. but fear jantaaa m paida kiya jaata h mainly

    Insurgency - Political motive h but support of jantaaa and by a large section of jantaa.. against State.. want Independence


    LWE- Political and ideological motive.. Against state as well as upper/elite sections of society.. egalitarian and devlopmental objectives.. want Communistic state kind setup establishment.


    Militancy- Insurgency/LWE/Terrorism k bich m ek undefined saa area h.. bss jo military type means of violence use kre.. AK 47 training leke chlaata ho.. skills gain kr le military waale or fir lde system k khilaf usko militant bolte h.. generally external support hoti h inko.. :)


    Mujhe to itna hi ptaa h..may be little bit wrong here and there because vague sa conceptual difference h inme ! :)
    Being IAS... 4 U Onlyyy... :-)


    " Woods are lovely dark and deep..
    But I have promises to keep..
    But I have promises to keep..
    And miles to go before I sleep.. before I sleep. " :)

    #HumHongeKamyaabEkDin :)
Sign In or Join to comment.

Welcome!

We are a secret self-moderated community for Civil Services preparation. Feel free to join, start a discussion, answer a question or just to say Thank you.

Just dont spread the word ;)

Sign in or join with Facebook or Google

Subscribe to ForumIAS Blog