Asia Times Online


	March 1, 2002	atimes.com

Front

Who are the terrorists, George?

By Marc Erikson

"The international community will not tolerate terrorism in support of political causes - even political causes whose strength and logic cannot be disputed and which must be settled," said British Prime Minister Tony Blair during a recent Pakistan visit.

On the face of it, this constitutes a fine policy precept. There's just one problem: What exactly is terrorism?

At an early February Munich security conference, Pakistani Foreign Minister Abdul Sattar, whose government is accused by India of supporting terrorist actions in India-controlled Kashmir, put the issue into sharp focus. In 1931, he said, a certain Bhagat Singh, who had shot to death a police inspector of the British colonial authority, was hanged, but was subsequently declared a "Great Martyr" in the cause of Indian freedom and independence. "What would Bhagat Singh be called these days?" Sattar asked his audience. He received but one evasive answer: "The concept of terrorism is in need of internationally binding definition," said former German defense minister and constitutional-law expert Rupert Scholz.

But first a closer look at the case of Bhagat Singh. He was born in 1907 in the Layalpur district (now in Pakistan) of Punjab into a Sikh family active in the fight against British colonial rule. As a student at a college founded by renowned freedom fighter Lala Lajpatrai, he was drawn into the anti-British movement. At a 1928 Lahore silent protest march against the Simon Commission, a British-members-only commission tasked to report on political unrest in India, he witnessed protest leader Lajpatrai being beaten to death by the local British police chief.

Bhagat Singh and some associates vowed to take revenge. But in a case of mistaken identity, they killed a junior police officer and fled Lahore. The following year, Singh and associate Batukeshwar Dutt threw leaflets and a bomb into the corridor of the Delhi Central Assembly to protest the repressive Defense of India Act and afterward courted arrest, shouting "Inquilab Zindabad" (Long Live Revolution).

They were arrested, and through the treachery of a former associate Singh was identified as the killer of the Lahore policeman. Tried and convicted for that offense, he (and two associates) died on the gallows on March 23, 1931.

On March 29, 1931, Mahatma Gandhi wrote of them in Young India: "Bhagat Singh and his two associates have been hanged ... Bhagat Singh did not wish to live. He refused to apologize, or even file an appeal. Bhagat Singh was not a devotee of non-violence, but he did not subscribe to the religion of violence. He took to violence due to helplessness and to defend his homeland. In his last letter, Bhagat Singh wrote 'I have been arrested while waging a war. For me there can be no gallows. Put me into the mouth of a cannon and blow me off.' These heroes had conquered the fear of death. Let us bow to them a thousand times for their heroism.

"But," added Gandhi, "we should not imitate their act ... If we take to the practice of seeking justice through murder, there will be a terrifying situation. Our poor people will become victims of our atrocities. By making a dharma of violence, we shall be reaping the fruit of our own actions. Hence, though we praise the courage of these brave men, we should never countenance their activities. Our dharma is to swallow our anger, abide by the discipline of non-violence and carry out our duty."

Now cut to a different place and time in history. At the close of a national prayer service at the National Cathedral in Washington, DC, on the first Friday after the September 11 terrorist attacks on the US, the congregation (which included President George W Bush and former presidents Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford) joined voices to sing The Battle Hymn of the Republic.

As they sang the defiant hymn with its stirring melody, "Let us die to make men free," how many of them knew that during the bloody American Civil War Union soldiers sang the tune to different words to commemorate a different event? Then they sang:
"John Brown's body lies a-mold'ring in the grave
... His soul goes marching on
He captured Harpers Ferry with his nineteen men so true
He frightened old Virginia till she trembled through and through
They hung him for a traitor, themselves the traitor crew
His soul is marching on
John Brown died that the slave might be free
... But his soul is marching on!" www.contemplator.com/folk2/johnbrown.html

On October 16, 1859, John Brown, a radical abolitionist imbued by uncompromising religious fervor, attacked the armory at Harpers Ferry (in what is now West Virginia) to arm a slave rebellion. Prior to that, he and his band of guerrillas had attacked and killed five pro-slavery settlers living along the Kansas border with Missouri. On November 2, 1859, a Virginia jury found John Brown guilty of murder, treason, and inciting a slave insurrection. On December 2, 1859, he was hanged.

A year and a few months later, the Civil War broke out. In the Union soldiers' song, John Brown became an inspirational hero. And, "Glory, glory, hallelujah," in 1865, the 13th amendment to the US constitution abolished slavery.

John Brown, years before war between the Union and Confederacy was formally declared, considered himself at war against slave-holders and the evil institution of slavery, doing battle on behalf of his nation's soul. Similarly, Bhagat Singh, decades before India and Pakistan became independent nations, considered himself at war against repressive British colonial rule. History vindicated their causes. Did it - or could it ever - vindicate their methods?

Not for Gandhi. He called Bhagat Singh a hero, but castigated his violent means. Not for the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). It looks to the Code of Federal Regulations (28 CFR Section 0.85), which defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives".

By that definition, John Brown and Singh surely were terrorists. Indeed, so were most, if not all, of the founding fathers of the American republic fighting British colonial rule.

As broad as the CFR definition of terrorism is, that of the United States Department of Defense describes it as "The calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."

By both definitions, even states could commit terrorist acts - which the US State Department, anxious not to see certain US allies or the US itself labeled terrorist states, finds unacceptable. Only subnational groups, says the department, can commit acts of terrorism.

The simple fact of the matter is that no one definition of terrorism has gained universal acceptance. At its core, the issue is whether terrorism is merely an illegal and unacceptable set of methods, or whether in assessing the legitimacy of individuals' or groups' actions an examination of its circumstances and goals is necessary as well. Whether, for example, certain forms of armed struggle ("liberation wars", etc) should be granted a blanket exemption from the stigmatizing label of terrorism. And then, of course, the debate simply shifts from legitimacy of methods to legitimacy of purposes and causes: one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

Are we reduced, then, to the I-give-up skepticism of Michael Kinsley, who wrote in a recent column in his Online magazine Slate: "The most accurate definition of terrorism may be the famous Potter Stewart [former US Supreme Court justice] standard of obscenity: 'I know it when I see it.'"

Not so. We should merely stop pretending and blithely and arrogantly acting as though there were a hard and fast and universally accepted norm of what constitutes terrorism, as though this were all an open-and-shut case. We should not fear, but actively seek debate on and openly state, motivate, and defend our conclusions on the legitimacy and moral validity of methods and goals.

George W Bush's and many Americans' absolutism and unquestioning righteousness are as terrifying and as potentially dangerous as much of what they now call terrorism without further ado.

((c)2002 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact ads@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication policies.)

back to the top

©2001 Asia Times Online Co., Ltd.

Building B - 5th Floor, 102/1 Phra Arthit Road, Chanasangkhram, Bangkok 10200, Thailand