Homeland Security

Tackling Terror – Is India Copycatting America?
Star Rating Loader Please wait...
Issue Net Edition | Date : 03 Nov , 2021

On March 17, 2005, a UN panel, described terrorism as any act “intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.” Same year, the UNGA meet termed terrorism as: “Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.”

In November 2010, the US Department of Defence  changed its earlier definition of terrorism to: “The unlawful use of violence or threat of violence to instill fear and coerce governments or societies. Terrorism is often motivated by religious, political, or other ideological beliefs and committed in the pursuit of goals that are usually political.” The new definition distinguished between motivations for terrorism (religion, ideology, etc.) and goals of terrorism (usually political); in contrast to the previous definition which stated that the goals could be religious in nature. In April 2014, CIA said that the term terrorism means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents.

From mid 2000s the term “violent terrorism” or “violent extremism” was the favoured term in America for countering “violent terrorism” – after the act was committed. In 2011, an Indian Army veteran made a presentation in an international seminar at the US Pacific Command in Hawaii pointing out pitfalls of such an approach, highlights of which are:

  • The Sarin Gas attack on the Tokyo Subway on March 20, 1995 was termed “violent extremism” by the Aum Shinrikyo cult killed 13, severely injured 50 and caused temporary loss of vision to some 1000 people. The Cult had two remote controlled helicopters and had  smuggled in a Russian Mi-8 helicopter part by part. Had they used aerial spraying, they had enough Sarin to kill one million people.
  • Could members of this cult be classified “non-violent terrorists” before the actual Sarin gas attack?
  • Are there ‘good’ (non-violent) and ‘bad’ (violent) terrorists?
  • The US Patriot Act defines domestic terrorism as an act of violence that is intended to “intimidate or coerce a civilian population, to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.”  The August 2012 shooting at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin killing six people was publicly described by the Attorney General as an act of terrorism motivated by hate
  • But the Fort Hood massacre in November 2009 killing 13 and injuring 30 wounded was never described officially as an “act of terrorism” even though the shooter shouted “Allahu Akbar” when he opened fire. 
  • Are cyber attacks ‘non-violent’ or ‘violent’ terrorism? How would you classify a cyber terrorist who attacks your power grid, nuclear reactor or any other essential services before and after such an attack?
  • Would it be prudent to assume terrorism is terrorism without the ambiguity of ‘violent’ and ‘non-violent’?

The irony is that despite two decades of extensive global counterterrorism law and cooperation (pseudo or otherwise) there is no agreement on a common definition of terrorism at the international level. In addition to the erstwhile practice of small nations using terrorism to bridge military asymmetry vis-à-vis adversaries, big powers are using terrorism to further their national interest.  Terrorism has become a ‘currency of power’ used by nations big and small.

Interestingly, the Office of Counter Terrorism of the United Nations has called for inputs from interested Civil Society Organizations for inputs by December 17, 2021 on the ‘Report of the Secretary General on the threat posed by terrorist attacks based on xenophobia, racism and other forms intolerance, or on the name of religion or belief.

US-NATO counterterrorism operations abroad and America’s Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) ended up in increasing radicalization and more terrorism. This suited them as long as the mainland remained safe. Even the 9/11 terror attacks were used to invade Afghanistan and Iraq on frivolous grounds. Terrorism aims at intimidation and coercion to further political, social, religious goals but does not always reflect objective social or economic deprivation as seen from the bombers during 9/11 – all well to do.  

America can get away with the ‘good and bad’ terrorists because it uses proxy forces to further its own national interests. Ted Gunderson, former FBI Station Chief, Los Angeles had said, “Most terror attacks are committed by our CIA and FBI.” On August 7, 2012, GlobalResearch.ca noted: “Terrorism is defined as the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. So McCord and Stieber are correct: this constitutes terrorism by American forces in Iraq. The US has been supporting Al Qaeda and other terrorists in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Libya, Syria and Iran.”

The cocktail of youth, illiteracy, unemployment, drugs and availability of weapons are a readymade prescription for terrorism particularly in developing countries where existing terrorist organizations lure youth on mere promise of employment.  The US has been using drones as part of homeland security on mainland America; are the targets only ‘bad terrorists’, who have committed “violent” terror acts – not exactly. But how can India tackle terrorism aided and supported by Pakistan and China for over three decades?

The twist in Pakistan’s proxy war in J&K is using more hybrid terrorists and extensive use of over ground workers (OGWs). The latter are not easily identifiable because of large numbers and some are maintained as ‘sleepers’ by their handlers based in Pakistan or the hybrid terrorist organizations in J&K which are fronts of Pakistan-based terrorist organizations and the ISI.  

In the above context, a Bench of the Supreme Court of India has recently ruled that mere association with a terrorist organization as a member or otherwise is not sufficient to attract an offence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) of 1967 and that association or support for a terror outfit should be accompanied with an intention to commit acts to further the activities of the terrorist organization. The court was dealing with Sections 38 (membership of terrorist organization and 39 (supporting terrorist organizations) of the UAPA. Both Sections attract imprisonment up to 10 years or both.

Interrogation of captured Pakistani terrorists in early 1990s revealed they were given weapons and ammunition, fake Indian currency, told to enjoy the girls in J&K and spread terror, and assured if they got caught, they will be kept in prisons within J&K, no lawyer will be prepared to prosecute them and Indian human rights organizations will raise merry hell to secure their release.  This narrative has changed since then although the radicalization and support to cross border terrorism by known J&K politicians and some others continues. In a country like Pakistan they would have been killed long ago while China would have made money harvesting their organs and possibly selling them to Pakistan.

The Court no doubt is right in its ruling because who can interpret the law better albeit some have opined in social that premises of the Courts should be moved into insurgency areas for the judges to understand the nuances of terrorism and what entails countering it? It is also the job of the Courts to ensure laws are not misused. This raises questions whether UAPA 1967 was worded correctly or deliberate were left for terrorism to continue because it is only the security forces and the general public that suffers. After all politicians keep changing political parties making crores of rupees in the process despite the anti-defection law. 

In 1985, the Supreme Court ruled that “stray slogans” like ‘Khalistan Zindabad’ and ‘Hindustan Murdabad’ even in public places do not attract action for sedition under 124-A and Section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Here too it is reiterated that no one can interpret the laws better than the Courts. But then are our laws adequate or are they assisting the ‘Tukde Tukde Gang’ types who are joining political parties across the board and facilitating infiltration of educational institutions like the JNU by Pakistan’s ISI.  

Governments are responsible for security of the nation including countering terrorism, not the Courts. So it is for the present government to decide how to counter terrorism with support to it remaining opaque other than the hardcore supporters who also can avoid the type of evidence that Courts want for prosecution under the UAPA. If this is not addressed we will continue to wallow in terrorism to the glee of our adversaries. 

Rate this Article
Star Rating Loader Please wait...
The views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily represent the opinions or policies of the Indian Defence Review.

About the Author

Lt Gen Prakash Katoch

is Former Director General of Information Systems and A Special Forces Veteran, Indian Army.

More by the same author

Post your Comment

2000characters left