Terrorism (noun): The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
(Source: American Heritage Dictionary)
Terrorism is constantly in the news nowadays. Sometimes it seems as if the world is being overrun by anarchic (read terrorist) forces that are beyond the control of any individual or any government. Terrorism is increasingly resembling an elemental force of nature which strikes at random, without warning, without mercy and for obscure reasons that seem to hark back to medieval times.
The American Heritage Dictionary quoted above (definition taken from Dictionary.com) defines terrorism in a fashion that implies that only the nation state has a legitimate monopoly on violence. Indeed, this has been one of the defining characteristic of all empires and nations down the ages. Without a monopoly on violence, no empire/kingdom/nation can survive for long. Once the state loses the monopoly on violence, then internal disorder starts to overwhelm its smooth functioning. This is a major reason why terrorism is so strongly denounced by all governments no matter their ideology.
Terrorism often seems to be a uniquely modern and since 9/11 a specifically Muslim phenomenon. This impression is reinforced for a large number of people by the many pseudo-experts who pontificate on the genetic and cultural shortcomings of Muslims as a people and Islam as a religion. However, terrorism is by no means a modern phenomenon. A large number of actions can be identified throughout history which fulfill the definition of terrorism quoted above. Many of these actions are usually not viewed as terrorist activities. Some examples:
The Revolt of the 13 Colonies Against the British
The American revolution is generally viewed by Americans as the start of a grand experiment in modern democratic values. In the traditional history, this is portrayed as a significant, history changing event which served to put the old European monarchies with their class distinctions on notice that a new fresh force has erupted in the world. A force whose values were decreed to be universal and eternal; values which will sweep the world and move the old world into a new egalitarian phase. Yet this brave new world (no pun on Aldous Huxley intended) started out with an action that fulfills the definition of terrorism. The Boston Tea Party was an unlawful use of force against property which had the intention of forcing the Imperial government to repeal the tax on tea which the British parliament using its legitimate authority had imposed. (It is somewhat ironic that tea is not a popular drink in the US today having long been supplanted by coffee). After the British tried to restore order (from their point of view), there were acts of resistance and violence by many (but not all) colonists. Again we have unlawful use of force against a legitimate authority trying to restore order. So the American revolution was rooted in terrorism. Since history is written and disseminated by the victors, this view of those events is never propagated.
The Russian Revolution
A seminal event of the 20th century, the Russian revolution eventually resulted in the polarization of the world into two hostile camps. Europe was effectively partitioned into two parts for more than 40 years. At least once, the world came to the brink of destruction through nuclear war. This event too started from acts of terrorism. The Bolsheviks (who became the Communists) came to power through acts of violence against the legitimate government which had come to power after the last Tsar Nicholas II abdicated.
The Indian Mutiny of 1857
This is an interesting case. I have deliberately included this because the act of terrorism was not committed by the obvious candidate. For those who do not know, a short background to the Indian mutiny of 1857. The British East India Company was formed in 1600 and given a charter by the British government granting it a trading monopoly with respects to the East Indies (what is now called South Asia and South East Asia). In 1617, the company was given trading rights by the Mughal Empire which ruled most of India at the time. The company's activities were restricted to trading throughout the 1600s. In the next century, with the gradual erosion of Mughal authority, the company's activities started to extend beyond mere trading. At that time, other European powers were also trying to establish themselves exclusively in India; the most prominent European threat being the French. The French challenge was successfully seen off and in 1757, the company acquired territorial control over Bengal after the Battle of Plassey. By 1857, the company had extended its rule over virtually all of India. In that year, the company's native army revolted for a variety of reasons which cannot be enumerated here because of lack of space. The revolt was in the name of the Mughal emperor who at that time was a pensioner of the company. After the revolt was rather brutally put down, the Mughal emperor was put on trial for rebelling against the authority of the company.
Now, in this particular case, there was a legitimate authority and there was an act of violence against that authority. The interesting point is that the legitimate authority was not the East India Company as most people would assume. The company ruled its territory in the name of the Emperor. Its legitimacy stemmed from the permission granted by the Mughal emperor. When the native army revolted in the name of the emperor and were not repudiated by him, the company's legitimacy was legally revoked. Thus the company in restoring its rule was engaged in an act of violence against the legitimate authority (in this case the Mughal emperor). Therefore the company's actions were those of a terrorist!
As these examples show, many actions through history which traditionally are not seen as acts of terrorism easily fit the dictionary definition of the same. Another point about the dictionary definition of terrorism: These are acts of violence which are deemed to be unlawful by a state. Same acts of violence perpetrated by agents of the state (police, paramilitary forces, army etc.) are not deemed to be acts of terrorism.
The most pertinent question to ask about terrorism is why do such acts occur in the first place? What compels people to take their own lives and the lives of others in a fairly dramatic fashion? Although the ostensible causes of terrorism can be many, ultimately nearly all such acts have at their base the exercise of power.
The American Heritage Dictionary quoted above (definition taken from Dictionary.com) defines terrorism in a fashion that implies that only the nation state has a legitimate monopoly on violence. Indeed, this has been one of the defining characteristic of all empires and nations down the ages. Without a monopoly on violence, no empire/kingdom/nation can survive for long. Once the state loses the monopoly on violence, then internal disorder starts to overwhelm its smooth functioning. This is a major reason why terrorism is so strongly denounced by all governments no matter their ideology.
Terrorism often seems to be a uniquely modern and since 9/11 a specifically Muslim phenomenon. This impression is reinforced for a large number of people by the many pseudo-experts who pontificate on the genetic and cultural shortcomings of Muslims as a people and Islam as a religion. However, terrorism is by no means a modern phenomenon. A large number of actions can be identified throughout history which fulfill the definition of terrorism quoted above. Many of these actions are usually not viewed as terrorist activities. Some examples:
The Revolt of the 13 Colonies Against the British
The American revolution is generally viewed by Americans as the start of a grand experiment in modern democratic values. In the traditional history, this is portrayed as a significant, history changing event which served to put the old European monarchies with their class distinctions on notice that a new fresh force has erupted in the world. A force whose values were decreed to be universal and eternal; values which will sweep the world and move the old world into a new egalitarian phase. Yet this brave new world (no pun on Aldous Huxley intended) started out with an action that fulfills the definition of terrorism. The Boston Tea Party was an unlawful use of force against property which had the intention of forcing the Imperial government to repeal the tax on tea which the British parliament using its legitimate authority had imposed. (It is somewhat ironic that tea is not a popular drink in the US today having long been supplanted by coffee). After the British tried to restore order (from their point of view), there were acts of resistance and violence by many (but not all) colonists. Again we have unlawful use of force against a legitimate authority trying to restore order. So the American revolution was rooted in terrorism. Since history is written and disseminated by the victors, this view of those events is never propagated.
The Russian Revolution
A seminal event of the 20th century, the Russian revolution eventually resulted in the polarization of the world into two hostile camps. Europe was effectively partitioned into two parts for more than 40 years. At least once, the world came to the brink of destruction through nuclear war. This event too started from acts of terrorism. The Bolsheviks (who became the Communists) came to power through acts of violence against the legitimate government which had come to power after the last Tsar Nicholas II abdicated.
The Indian Mutiny of 1857
This is an interesting case. I have deliberately included this because the act of terrorism was not committed by the obvious candidate. For those who do not know, a short background to the Indian mutiny of 1857. The British East India Company was formed in 1600 and given a charter by the British government granting it a trading monopoly with respects to the East Indies (what is now called South Asia and South East Asia). In 1617, the company was given trading rights by the Mughal Empire which ruled most of India at the time. The company's activities were restricted to trading throughout the 1600s. In the next century, with the gradual erosion of Mughal authority, the company's activities started to extend beyond mere trading. At that time, other European powers were also trying to establish themselves exclusively in India; the most prominent European threat being the French. The French challenge was successfully seen off and in 1757, the company acquired territorial control over Bengal after the Battle of Plassey. By 1857, the company had extended its rule over virtually all of India. In that year, the company's native army revolted for a variety of reasons which cannot be enumerated here because of lack of space. The revolt was in the name of the Mughal emperor who at that time was a pensioner of the company. After the revolt was rather brutally put down, the Mughal emperor was put on trial for rebelling against the authority of the company.
Now, in this particular case, there was a legitimate authority and there was an act of violence against that authority. The interesting point is that the legitimate authority was not the East India Company as most people would assume. The company ruled its territory in the name of the Emperor. Its legitimacy stemmed from the permission granted by the Mughal emperor. When the native army revolted in the name of the emperor and were not repudiated by him, the company's legitimacy was legally revoked. Thus the company in restoring its rule was engaged in an act of violence against the legitimate authority (in this case the Mughal emperor). Therefore the company's actions were those of a terrorist!
As these examples show, many actions through history which traditionally are not seen as acts of terrorism easily fit the dictionary definition of the same. Another point about the dictionary definition of terrorism: These are acts of violence which are deemed to be unlawful by a state. Same acts of violence perpetrated by agents of the state (police, paramilitary forces, army etc.) are not deemed to be acts of terrorism.
The most pertinent question to ask about terrorism is why do such acts occur in the first place? What compels people to take their own lives and the lives of others in a fairly dramatic fashion? Although the ostensible causes of terrorism can be many, ultimately nearly all such acts have at their base the exercise of power.
No comments:
Post a Comment