Terrorism is a word that has become synonymous with violent acts perpetrated by Islamist groups in order to create a utopian world of the Caliphate where the Sharia laws will rule supreme and all other existing systems of governance will be declared inferior and therefore expunged from existence. The success of such a world in terms of basic human rights, women’s rights, the rights of citizens to adult franchise or not etc remains a debate for clerics and proponents of democracy and pluralism. Let us shelf that debate for now. But the general definition of terrorism covers a wider area. I glean from Wikipedia
“Terrorism is commonly defined as violent acts (or threat of violent acts) intended to create fear (terror), perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal, and which deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (eg, neutral military or civilians). Another common definition is political, ideological or religious violence by non-state actors. Some definitions now include acts of unlawful violence and war.
The use of similar tactics by criminal organisations for protection rackets or to enforce a code of silence is usually not labeled terrorism, though these same actions may be labeled terrorism when done by a politically motivated group. Usage of the term has also been criticised for its frequent undue equating with Islamism or jihadism, while ignoring non-Islamic organisations or individuals. In the international community, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition.”
The word terrorism often has a pejorative use. There is often a tendency of a ruling political party to use the words terrorism and terrorists to vilify opponents. “These terms are often used as political labels, to condemn violence or the threat of violence by certain actors as immoral, indiscriminate, unjustified or to condemn an entire segment of a population. Those labeled terrorists by their opponents rarely identify themselves as such, and typically use other terms or terms specific to their situation, such as separatist, freedom fighter, liberator, revolutionary, vigilante, militant, paramilitary, guerrilla, rebel, patriot, or any similar-meaning word.”
During our war of independence in 1971 the brutal Pakistani regime termed the heroic freedom fighters with words that are tantamount to calling them terrorists. But we know better as to which party was terrorising the people. The acts of “terrorism” wrought by Surjo Sen, Khudiram, Priti Lata et al were also condemned by the British as such but it was only a ploy to downplay or defame the urge of the people of the subcontinent, albeit with some exceptions, for emancipation from the British Raj.
The end sought, by the means adopted, in both cases, were what the people wished. It should be remembered that in the cases mentioned the targets of the attackers or freedom fighters were the occupation or imperial forces and any casualties that would fall in the category of innocent bystanders, were just that -- innocents who fell in the way and perished hence. The innocent parties were never targeted to gain political mileage.
Here we come to the crux of the matter in the political crisis of present day Bangladesh. To be more precise, the happenings since January 6 of the New Year, bus burnings, wanton use of petrol bombs and other heinous acts of violence. A high death toll has already resulted on the streets, scores dead from acts of arson. There have also been cases of “crossfire” or “encounter,” take your pick, deaths too.
The law enforcers are not only stretched to the end of their tethers but are at wits end too. Their neutrality is also being questioned. But the fact remains, that whatever the agitation program was on that day in January, you may call it political, it has fast descended into pit of sheer terrorism. Who would gain from this terrorism? In the context of Bangladesh, the people who opposed our independence from Pakistan in 1971 and who want their aging leaders to be released from prison. New elections for the parliament would be a by-product that they would present their main political ally.
This is a manifestation of the domestic terrorism that has been brewing since 1971 and has been a major threat in the new century. This terrorism has non-state players as we have seen recently from the activities of some officials of the Pakistan High-commission and the ever present clouds of al-Qaeda and IS. The activists of the main opposition party, some say the biggest political party in the country, have also joined the bandwagon and they are only looking at short-term political gains, overlooking the fact that the monster that is trying to usurp the current regime would also do these acts of hacking, killing and arson to topple the new regime, if there is a change in power.
They would not rest till their dream of a totalitarian state of terror is established. These terrorists need to be dealt with in the short term and also in the long. The main two political parties have always bickered so much that they have never made a united effort to face the looming danger posed by the fundamentalists. However, the process of eliminating the threat of these terrorists needs to be at full steam when the overall political situation is calm and decisions are made with calmer heads that do not have to deal with arson on a daily basis. All attempts at political dialog between the two major parties with the current acts of terrorism wreaking havoc are not acceptable. The violence must stop post haste.
There is a burning question whether we should give any quarter to the terrorists. Terrorists do not give any to people they blow up or burn to charcoal. We should shoot anyone whom we suspect as a possible terrorist, seems to be the general consensus among many. What questions? What human rights? Shoot first and ask questions later!
Well, we cannot. Stooping to the uncivilised levels of the terrorist will make us just as bad. We should always retain humanity, a rule of conscience, a lot of tolerance. Catch them and prosecute them to the full extent of the existing laws always, but to act as the judge, jury and executioner with a gun in hand! There seems to be something wrong with that.
We are going through tough times. Nerves are frayed. But we will never get peace, ever, by an attitude of “an eye for an eye.” We must remain at the higher ground compared to the fundamentalists who spew toxic ideology.
Rushdie wrote: “The fundamentalist seeks to bring down a great deal more than buildings. Such people are against, to offer just a brief list, freedom of speech, a multi-party political system, universal adult suffrage, accountable government, Jews, homosexuals, women’s rights, pluralism, secularism, short skirts, dancing, beardlessness, evolution theory, sex.”
It’s a rule of tyranny that they seek and we must always fight that with laws and actions that are civilised and never aim at eliminating, recklessly, someone we don’t like.
“Peace is not a season, it’s a way of life” I read online. I wonder if whoever thought of that line was watching events in Bangladesh for the last few decades and uttered them in wishful thinking.
Every few years we end up with this toxic mix of violence, blood and gore of our political battles, lives turned upside down, the country resembling hell. This status quo has been maintained while people work with resilience to bring prosperity to themselves and the country.
Enough of these periods of peace only to be followed by protracted periods of mindless political games (read battles)! There is a limit to all the hypocrisy in the name of nationalism or religion or the spirit of this and that. If the human wisdom is “summed up in two words -- wait and hope” then I am tired of waiting and sick of hoping for a bright future! I do not wish to be wise; I want peace in a congenial political atmosphere. Life will provide me enough sufferings as it is; no one needs to stoke the fire!
Let the people enjoy peace, they have trouble achieving that without any help from machinations that do not, in most cases, have anything to do with them. The country belongs to them, according to the constitution and common sense as well. Let them enjoy its prosperity without any gaps that result from the interests of a few. Anton Chekhov wrote the words:
“We shall find peace. We shall hear the angels, we shall see the sky sparkling with diamonds.”
Expecting too much? Why not? Are we so naive that we do not realise the actual agenda behind all the ostensible display of patriotism? Let us be and we SHALL dream of diamonds in the sky.