A discussion on Terrorism
Sometime back I got to exchange views on terrorism or islamic terrorism with a Pakistani as opinionated as me and thankfully articulate too. It led to some interesting conversation and was an eye-opener for me. That conversation did run very long. My contribs in black and his in blue.
--
"one man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter". this statement is used to justify terrorism the world over. to buttress this claim, people fall back to bhagat singh and the IRA.
there is however one important difference between islamic terrorism and the above scenarios. terrorism before had a nationalistic identity. if bhagat singh threw a bomb in the assembly, he was fighting for national independence. if che guevara and his insurgents fought, they were fighting to free cuba from its dictator. the IRA atleast initially targeted the british troops in ireland.
however islamic terrorism has no nationalistic identity. it is not about a group against one country. islamic terrorism itself is spread across groups in various nations, with each group aiding the other in terms of funds, intelligence and arms. hamas is not one group. neither is al-quaeeda. what is their aim? what/who are they waging war against? who's oppression are they fighting for? the answers to these questions are very different from bhagat singh's brand of terrorism.
let us see the situation at home.
one of the major operatives in kashmir today is the LeT. who started it? maulana mazood. where? in paksitan. of what nationality is masood? pakistani. the same guy indian authorities let go when the IA plane was hijacked to kandahar. we lost an indian civilian. was that not an act of terrorism? LeT attacked our parliament & red fort. is that freedom fighting? the main operatives of LeT are afghan fighters. an external group founded by an external fellow, funded & armed by external agencies fighting for the "freedom" of an indigenous people? carrying out attacks on foreign soil? that's freedom fighting? who's freedom for god's sake?
i heard the same arguments when punjab was in the throes of terrorism. yes terrorism. not freedom fighting. shopping areas, where people frequented every saturday being bombed, bombs in unattended objects, bomb hoaxes, office complexes brimming with security personnel with bomb squads standing by, sniffer dogs around; people in puja pandals(during durga puja) being gunned down(one happened not more than 5 km from our puja place). thats the "freedom fighting" i've seen. believe me, i didnt want any freedom. i just wanted to stop thinking about looking under the seat every time i stepped into a bus. stop looking at an unattended suitcase in a bus-stop. i just wanted the headlines, screaming of death and bomb blasts in all the hangout places for middle class families, to stop.
there is NO blurred line. there is no fine line. this is BS. plain and simple.
and whats the argument in the US bombing afghanistan and isrealis firing from gunships? you mean to say that US specifically targeted civilians through their bombs? or the isrealis fire shells at people standing outside a mosque? or put bombs in market places? all in all are they specifically targetting civilians? i am not trying to condone the deaths of innocent afghan civilians or palestines or whatever. there is a fault in policy here. surely we need to protest against that. but these do NOT blur what terrorism as we know it today is.
--
I haven't read the earlier posts ... so I'd be replying only to yours ... I've tried to explain the best I can ... hope you get the gist of it ...
terrorism before had a nationalistic identity. if bhagat singh threw a bomb in the assembly, he was fighting for national independence. if che guevara and his insurgents fought, they were fighting to free cuba from its dictator. the IRA atleast initially targeted the british troops in ireland.
Since you're terming these movements as terrorism yourself, do you think its justifiable when based on nationalistic identity?
islamic terrorism has no nationalistic identity
First of all, its not always terrorism ... how many Pakistanis have you ever come across who have claimed the killing of civilians or bombing of public buildings as justified and who do not condemn such activities?
Secondly, the nationality is Islam itself ... it might not make much sense to the secular Indians around here, but it does make sense to most of us ... forgetting about the new regime-inspired Pakistanis, whose new national anthem is Sab se pehlay Pakistan ... come to Pakistan and ask any common man on the street about his views on Afghanistan or Iraq and you'll find out ... and I can safely say that the mass of Pakistani public are not religious fanatics ...
external agent, external funding, external training. fighting against my country and my countrymen. that is a terrorist and NOT a freedom fighter.
Most Indians equate the Islamic Freedom Fighters quickly to Kashmir, or at best to Afghanistan and Iraq, and start pronouncing judgements ... these same people have fought in Bosnia and Chechnya ... do you think them terrorists? These people were external agents, had external training and were externally funded ...
The Bosnian war is a glaring example of international complacency ... the United Nations was not willing to take action ... all that the Islamic World came up with was to pass a belated resolution in OIC of sending 16000 troops ... which, by the way, never came into effect ... all of Nato's action came too late ... the Chechen war is another such example where the Russians were effectively given a free hand by the international community ... the case of Kashmir is worsened because of the involvement of the Pakistani government ... but should we label those handful of volunteers, primarily Afghans and Arabs, who risked and also gave their lives for another nation as terrorists? Probably you can ... I don't ...
If Kashmir is really a matter of terrorism,not freedom struggle, and the Kashmiris are really not interested in separation from India, why not have a plebescite and shut us up once and for all?
There is a good and a bad side to everything ... and while most of us would endorse the cause they're pursuing, we would not necessarily endorse all their means ...
For the past few years, and especially since the 9/11 incident, people who don't even have a point start chanting AlQaeda AlQaeda at the mention of Islam ... thats giving too much credit to AlQaeda ... everything done by any Muslim is NOT Islamic ... and any Muslim fighting any regime is NOT an Al Qaeda agent ... there is one no closely knit, well-organized, mercenary organization, master-minded by an evil genius hiding in some cave in Afghanistan/Pakistan, with the entire world, from USA around to the Philippines, woven in its web ... whose sole aim is to exterminate any infidels walking on the face of the earth ... I read This in Foreign Policy, but they have it under archived articles, so I've posted a mirror link ...
Its understandable that these organizations are not as structured or as disciplined as a regular army ... and are often manipulated for the worse for political gains by different governments ... some of them have contradictory aims ... few of them tend to take the easy way out ... gross mistakes, intentional or not, are bound to happen ... and most governments are blurring the divide between a terrorist and a freedom fighter on purpose to further their own political objectives ... but there IS a divide ...
What I'm trying to suggest is that most of these are reactionary organizations ... and while the intentions are genuine, the execution is not always perfect ... which is understandable for any armed rebellion ... if you think they can be curbed through power, the answer is NO ... violence will beget more violence ... if the world wants to end this cycle, it has to come up with political answers ... how many countries will the United States take over? They're already masters of the two supposed training grounds of Al Qaeda ... where are these people popping up now from?
I saw in the other thread you claimed that there were no Muslim volunteers fighting in the Bosnian and Chechen wars ... I'm not very good at googling, I always seem to choose the worst keywords, but here's what I came up with ... I'm sure if you try it, you'd come up with more results ...
Coming from primarily western, more importantly, west-oriented sources, they don't sound too flattering ... but they still provide a proof of my assertions ...
Arab 'Afghans' are in Bosnia helping fellow Muslims fight the Christian Serbs. Between 200 and 300 of these veterans, including non-Arab Muslims, are based in Zenica where they are widely feared. The number of non-Bosnian Muslims in the military is estimated at between 500 and 1000 from a dozen countries in the Middle East. From all accounts, they have fought with some distinction. Some 300 'Afghans', organized into a unit known as 'the Guerrillas', operate with the Bosnian 3rd Corps in Zenica. Algerian FIS leader Kamar Kharban, a veteran of the Afghan war, has visited Bosnia several times over the last two years.
- This is probably dated but somewhat relevant ...
Russia, of course, was only too happy to exploit both the presence of Arab volunteers in Chechen militias and the presence of Chechen volunteers in Afghanistan to have the whole place branded as a hub of international terrorism.
- About the Chechen war ...
Although I also found a counter-argument against the Afghan/Arab involvement in Chechnya here ...
Make up your own mind ...
--
thanks for your perspective and opinion.
Since you're terming these movements as terrorism yourself, do you think its justifiable when based on nationalistic identity?
does it help if i put terrorism in quotes? since we are debating what falls under freedom-fighting and what falls under terrorism, here is my take.
an indigenous people fighting with external/internal training, arms and funding, against its own rulers(democratically elected or otherwise) can be labelled as freedom fighting. but is the definition indeed so simple? we have to take into account the conflict zone. if the conflict zone is limited to the land in which these indigenous people reside, its freedom fighting. if it extends beyond it, they have crossed into terrorism. besides the conflict zone, we have to identify the targets of these indigenous freedom fighters. if their targets are confined to the instruments(belonging to the ruling entity) for exerting control(military, police) and their aides(informants) it's within the limits of freedom fighting. when they begin targeting non-indigenous civilians & indigenous civilians with a difference of opinion from theirs, they have crossed into terrorism.
now unless we agree on what we classify as terrorism and freedom fighting, there's no point giving examples. in any case since since you have taken the pains to put down examples, i'll go over them one by one.
chechnya: indigenous people fighting russian army. freedom fighting. jihadi fighters join in. still freedom fighting. massacre of school children. way , way, way into terrorism.
bosnia: this example is not relevant here, as bosnia was not fighting the croats and serbs to regain control but stop their advance into their own territory. and since the jihadi elements stayed within the above defined limits, they didnt cross the line into terrorism.
kashmir: crossed the line many many years ago, and many many times. whats more, the bulk of of what you call freedom fighters is external in today's times. what i fail to understand (i put this in the other thread), is how an external group funded & armed externally can claim to be fighting for the freedom of an indigenous people.
so whats the moral of the story? the moral is there's a thin line that separates jihadi style freedom fighting and islamic terrorism, and it doesnt take much for one thing to lead to the other. witness chechnya. witness kashmir. whats more, the same jehadi elements which joined forces with the chechens to fight their cause, and the jehadi elements who joined forces with the weak bosnians to fight the militarily stronger croats and serbs, and the jehadi elements wreaking terrorism in kashmir all are part of the larger problem of islamic miltancy. the same jehadi who fights the russian army because the russians were bombing chechen civilians, will have no qualms putting a bomb in a market place in srinagar and blowing kashmiri civilians to bits. so you shouldnt be saying that look the same jihadi elements that i call terrorists are fighting a just cause. because i too can say the same jehadis are blowing up civilians/soldiers in my country and i have rightly called them so.
now to pick your posts, and answer individual points.
First of all, its not always terrorism ... how many Pakistanis ... as justified and who do not condemn such activities?
so if you condem such activities, you will not say such activities always fall under terrorism? me unclear on your intent.
Secondly, the nationality is Islam itself ...
500 years ago, i would have clapped. today its an anachronism. just because you are a muslim does NOT give you any right to break the law of another sovereign land and go "help" muslims in another sovereign land purpotedly under "oppression" from their rulers. if you have a problem go tell your government. they can take it up at the international level diplomatically or wage a war. it doesnt mean that you insert jehadi elements in the sovereign country and start a bombing and killing civilians/army. forming an opinion is fine. we are all entitled to our opinions. but islamic militancy is no way to express it, not in the civilized world atleast.
The Bosnian war is a glaring example of international complacency
there are 52 muslim countries in the world(or so junaid told us). why couldnt they dispatch an allied force to bosnia? why must the jehadi be an answer? do you realise that the jehadi who went and fought was no better than a mercenary? and mercenaries do not come under the purview of geneva conventions on war. so they can be treated any way after capture. what would have bitten the arabic/islamic nations had they given sanctity to the same islamic support by sending regular troops?
violence will beget more violence
exactly. which is why the jehadi style fighting wont do.
if the world wants to end this cycle, it has to come up with political answers
it takes two to tango my friend. the islamic world must rise from its slumber and reign in these jihadi elements and do their bit. then only can a political solution be found. no govt is going to negotiate with a gun to its head and this is precisely what the jehadis are doing.
I saw in the other thread you claimed that there were no Muslim volunteers fighting in the Bosnian and Chechen wars
i meant the nature of the conflict is internal. i was not aware jihadi fighers were involved in the bosnian conflict. the chechen example had surprisingly slipped from my mind.
If Kashmir is really a matter of terrorism,not freedom struggle, and the Kashmiris are really not interested in separation from India, why not have a plebescite and shut us up once and for all?
here's the answer. consider a state where you have three groups of people: A, B, C. A wants independence, B wants to align with country X, and C wants to remain aligned to country Y. drive out C. terrorise A. hold plebiscite. result? "All people of the state have voted in favor of aligning with X".. hurrah!
and you must be incredibly naive if you think pakistan(at the govt level) supports the kashmir issue merely(or at all) because its "oh so concerned" about the welfare of the kashmiri people and wants their 'freedom'.
gawd.. gimme a break.. 8-|
--
In the sentence "one person's freedom-fighter is another's terrorist" the two words need not be taken literally. The former doesn't necessarily have to be actually fighting for freedom to be called a freedom-fighter. It is just that his idea behind the fight has to be good, whatever the fight be. So if there are people fighting for the "Will of Allah", though they aren't trying to liberate a piece of land or anything, they are still some people's "freedom-fighters" because in the eyes of those people the cause is noble and fully justfied. So the two words "terrorist" and "freedom-fighter", when used in conjuction are more likely to connote the idea of "good" and "bad" rather than their literal meanings. Therefore, if those defintions are kept in mind, it is hard to label these violent people either "terrorists" or "freedom-fighters" because it is hard to judge whether the cause they are furthering is good or bad. In case you consider "terrorist" and "freedom-fighter" for their literal meanings, then of course the distinction becomes very clear and in that case there indeed are no blurry lines. We must apprecite this semantic distinction.
--
If a Jehadi fights Indian armed forces in Kashmir, I'll have to look for the goal he's fighting for before calling him either a freedom-fighter or a terrorist
if the jehadi is an external agent, i'd have no problems in labelling him a terrorist in this case. some of these chaps are even sudanese!! :0
google for "kashmir sudanese jihadi". now what business does a sudanese national have in coming to india and attacking our armymen? when india is not at war with sudan. that is an illegal act.
and the most active groups in kashmir today, the Jaish-e-M & LeT, are not indigenous groups. neither in composition, funding, arms or training. agreed there must *some* kashmiri miltants too, but do these handful of people have a right to hold the entire state/nation to ransom for their exclusive demands? and its not as if i exonerate the GoI of any blame for whats going on. its squarely to blame for its flawed policies regarding kashmir that things have gotten so bad.
Therefore, if those defintions are kept in mind, it is hard to label these violent people either "terrorists" or "freedom-fighters" because it is hard to judge whether the cause they are furthering is good or bad.
in my opinion, its not the cause, but the means employed that merits the attention. OBL's cause is very just. he doesnt want americans interfering in arab policies. he doesnt want the house of saud to continously voilate islamic norms or the edicts of the Quoran. I am sure many people in the arab/islamic world feel the former rather strongly, if not the latter. but can we say the same abt OBL's means?
--
in my opinion, its not the cause, but the means employed that merits the attention. OBL's cause is very just. but can we say the same abt OBL's means?
In my opinion, it is both. I agree that in the case of Osama bhai one needn't look at the cause. The means are so unacceptable that they can't be used to justify almost any cause at all. But in some cases, when the means are not as heinous, the only way to decide between "terrorist" and "freedom-fighter" is to understand the cause for which the fight is being waged. An example of the latter case is a militant facing armed forces in Kashmir (and not killing regular folks on the street). In this case, you must know what he's fighting for and if that is justified or not before you can label him either a "freedom-dude" or a "terrorist". So here's the pseudo-code:
begin {
input (militant);
if (militant.means.heinousness >= HEINOUSNESS CEILING) {
output("TERRORIST");
}
else if (militant.cause.justified == TRUE) {
output ("FREEDOM-FIGHTER");
}
else {
output ("TERRORIST");
}
end.
--
So we're moving towards common ground ... or aren't we?
Firstly, nothing in politics is black and white ... you give me two inches, and I'll give you two as well ...
Secondly, I'm trying to talk in a global perspective ... not just limited to India and Kashmir ... India aur Kashmir say bahar bhi bari duniya hai meray bhai
...
Anyway ... what I was trying to say was much near to what Gurinder here said ... he is just better at expressing it ...
I agree with Wajid ... somewhat ... Jihadi is a much misused term ... both by the Muslims and the non-Muslims ...
To reply to your post ...
This is going to be long ...
I'll go through your definition so we can hopefully find more common ground ...
an indigenous people fighting with external/internal training, arms and funding, against its own rulers(democratically elected or otherwise) can be labelled as freedom fighting.
Why only indigenous? If you are accepting the right of an outside power to train, fund and arm your indigenous fighters, why should providing help in terms of fighting units be illegal? If, by that single addition, your freedom struggle turns into terrorism, then you're virtually labelling almost all freedom fighters throughout history as terrorists ... there is always an interested foreign power ... for me, as long as the foreign elements are supporting the indigenous ones, I deem it legal ...
if the conflict zone is limited to the land in which these indigenous people reside, its freedom fighting. if it extends beyond it, they have crossed into terrorism.
Again I differ ... somewhat ... would you count Udham Singh as a terrorist since he took the field of battle to London instead of keeping it confined to India?? or just a mere avenger? I know I won't ... How about IRA's assasination attempt against Margaret Thatcher ?? I hope you get what I'm trying to say?
we have to identify the targets of these indigenous freedom fighters. if their targets are confined to the instruments(belonging to the ruling entity) for exerting control(military, police) and their aides(informants) it's within the limits of freedom fighting.
Agreed. But would you like to add econmic interests in the list too? after all, thats what hurts most countries in this time ... but I'm 50-50 on this one ... not decided ... as this would give sanction to almost every type of aggression ... take your pick ...
when they begin targeting non-indigenous civilians & indigenous civilians with a difference of opinion from theirs, they have crossed into terrorism.
Agreed.
Regarding the examples...
You're limiting the definition of a fight for freedom to occupation ... to me anybody fighting for freedom, be it against aggression or occupation, counts as a fight for your freedom ... so yes ... I would still include Bosnia and Chechnya as valid examples ...
And of course, the most obvious of all examples ... which I forgot to mention ... from where this word Jihadi came into common usage ... Afghanistan ... all through the Afghan war it was these Jihadis, not all of them were indigenous, who fought the Russians ... not for the Americans (being used by the Americans? yes ... fighting for them? no) ... but under the banner of Islam ... and they were never labelled as terrorists ...
all are part of the larger problem of islamic miltancy.
In my opinion, Islamic militancy is not the problem ... it is a reaction to other problems ...
the same jehadi who fights the russian army because the russians were bombing chechen civilians, will have no qualms putting a bomb in a market place in srinagar and blowing kashmiri civilians to bits.
You are assuming too much ... I said it before, I'll say it again ... there is no single, structured Jihadi organization wreaking havoc in the entire world ... these are loose, mostly small pockets, largely unstructured organizations ... quite a few of which are rogue ... exploiting Islam's slogan for political and personal benefits ... involvement of political governments makes matters even worse, even for the well-meaning groups ... but that does not, and should not, take away anything from those who have fought and are fighting justly and valiantly ... if you keep tarring everybody with the same stick, then we'll get nowhere ...
To carry on...
500 years ago, i would have clapped. today its an anachronism.
If you are talking in terms of Muslim nationalism based on Khilafat, then even 500 years ago there was none ...
I am not talking about Muslim governments but the Muslim nation ... you cannot overlook the undercurrent that runs through the world among the Muslim populations by using difficult words, whose meanings I have to look up on m-w.com ... but yes ... this feeling of nationalism is real ... I would obviously feel more strongly towards any injustices in Pakistan itself ... but I would also feel more strongly against injustices towards other Muslims compared to other people ...
You can clap if you want to ... you won't need a time machine ...
if you have a problem go tell your government. they can take it up at the international level diplomatically or wage a war.
there are 52 muslim countries in the world(or so junaid told us). why couldnt they dispatch an allied force to bosnia? why must the jehadi be an answer?
I thought I had cleared the case of Bosnia ... the 52 Muslim countries in OIC did pass a resolution for sending a 16000 strong contingent of combined forces ... but that never materialised ... why? Because OIC doesn't have any legitimacy on the international level ... they still need the approval of the UN ... and need I mention, none was coming ... so even if a government was sincerely interested, it had to go through what you're terming illegal means ...
- violence will beget more violence
- exactly. which is why the jehadi style fighting wont do.
Which is also why an armed attempt to curb these movements forcefully won't do either ... you curb one and another two will pop up ...
And finally...
it takes two to tango my friend. the islamic world must rise from its slumber and reign in these jihadi elements and do their bit. then only can a political solution be found. no govt is going to negotiate with a gun to its head and this is precisely what the jehadis are doing.
That is what I meant by a political solution in any case ... a comprehensive political solution ... after all, these organizations are as much a product of oppression in the Islamic World itself as external ones ...
and you must be incredibly naive if you think pakistan(at the govt level) supports the kashmir issue merely(or at all) because its "oh so concerned" about the welfare of the kashmiri people and wants their 'freedom'.
Here's what I wrote:
Its understandable that these organizations are not as structured or as disciplined as a regular army ... and are often manipulated for the worse for political gains by different governments
Need I always mention Kashmir by name? Its not the only example in the world ... need I mention that again?
--
algorithm to sahi hai. but there's one glitch. militant.means.heinousness is not constant. if you look at examples all around the world, most often than not, it's an increasing function of time.
so as i said before, most often than not, it just spills into wrong from right, from just to unjust.
An example of the latter case is a militant facing armed forces in Kashmir (and not killing regular folks on the street)
does this example really exist? if it does, does it convey popular sentiment? if it doesnt, it can so easily be an anti-social element bent on his own agenda. if it does, it falls into the category of what i think is FF.
--
So we're moving towards common ground ... or aren't we? yea, somewhat.
back to the classifications.
Why only indigenous? If you are accepting the right of an outside power to train..
an outside power doesnt have a right to train. the indigenous people have a right to summon the resources to fight from wherever they please. and why only indigenous fighters? hmm... here's a slight modification. external fighters are alright if the indigenous people have faith in them and if these fighters reflect the popular sentiment of the people. but the problem with this is two-fold. firstly its difficult to ascertain the popular sentiment of the people, if others are doing the fighting for them. secondly, how can we be sure that the people were not coerced into acceptance by these external agents? just so that you dont think i am being a bloody academic dancing on theoretical mumbo-jumbo, i'd like to point out that in interviews of common kashmiri junta, people have complained of threats from afghan militants to kashmiri youths, to either join them or perish at their hands. i recommend you read up the south-asia section in www.bbc.co.uk, if you havent done so already. the interviews are there somewhere, not deeply hidden. shouldnt be very difficult to find. so in the end indigenous fighters lend much more credibility to the cause.
udham singh & margaret thachter: just coz i am indian doest mean i'll summarily classify all actions of our freedom fighters(fighting against the british raj) as just. what udham singh did was wrong. his motive was just, if personal vendetta is a just motive. part of his statement:
I did it because I had a grudge against him, he deserved it. I don't belong to any society or anything else.(source)
and IRA? the moment they started bombing london pubs they crossed the line. and you talk of assassination of a head of state!
so i stand by definition of limiting the conflict zone.
@afghan fighters: ofcourse they were not labelled terrorists. who were they fighting? their own president. where? in their own country. where does it go against my definition(s)?
not for the Americans
are u kidding me? when the conflict started, afghanistan was under a communist president. it was the height of the cold-war, and the US was increasinly concerned that the soviets were using afghanistan to increase their sphere of influence in the middle-east. the jehadi fighters borne out of those times, were solely a creation of the US. and in the end, was it good for afghanistan? the russians left behind a war-ravaged country & replete with armed-men who knew nothing better than to be used as mercenaries all around the world in the name of religion. it factored the country into groups, each of which competed with each other on how much cruelty they could inflict on the local populace. civil war, civil strife, one of the poorest countries of the world. what good was it in the end?
You are assuming too much
by the same jehadi i didnt mean the same person! i meant the same sentiment of fighting in the name of religion. thats what unites all the loose structured groups.
even for the well-meaning groups
give me one example of such a group.
I would also feel more strongly against injustices towards other Muslims compared to other people
did i say i had objections to that? feeling for your brothers is all fine and dandy, unless and until it translates into maiming the other people *and* their governments. and i can safely extrapolate this to other pan-xxx'isms(feeling of a global unity among any group).
Which is also why an armed attempt to curb these movements forcefully won't do either ... you curb one and another two will pop up ...
how else do you curb armed militants? atleast initially? and if you accept that no govt is going to negotiate with a gun to its head and this is precisely what the jehadis are doing, we have fallen into an evil cycle. jihad ->armed attempt to curb them->jihad. so whats the way out?
a comprehensive political solution.after all, these organizations are as much a product of oppression in the Islamic World itself as external ones
yea. but i am increasily inclined to believe that this comprehensive political solution analysts talk about is an utopian idea. more so since the means of oppression are internal. there is not one muslim democratic country(is there?) & the hotbeds of islamic militancy are countries with an autocracy.
i may be wrong, but instead of a comprehensive political solution, muslim nations should be looking at democracy and socio-economic development.
--
I've only read your posts, so I'll reply only to those quickly ...
external fighters are alright if the indigenous people have faith in them and if these fighters reflect the popular sentiment of the people.
Agreed, with the reservation that the assessment of popular sentiment is subjective.
just coz i am indian doest mean i'll summarily classify all actions of our freedom fighters(fighting against the british raj) as just. what udham singh did was wrong.
Ok ... my mistake ... bad example ... I always had the impression that Udham Singh's killing of O'Dwyer was based on nationalistic sentiments ... but in any case, that doesn't take away anything from the point I was trying to make ... that is, broadening the limits of the conflict zone, as defined by you ... to be extended to the territory of the usurper ...
Secondly, I did not quote Udham Singh's example to court your nationalistic sentiments ... this was just the first thing that popped into my head ...
and IRA? the moment they started bombing london pubs they crossed the line. and you talk of assassination of a head of state!
I was not discussing the legality of all of IRA's actions ... just the one instance ... the failed assassination attmept against Margaret Thatcher on English soil ... and that was a bold move ...
If a people are being suppressed, who else is more responsible than the head of the state of the oppressing country? To me, thats reason enough for an attempt at his/her life if that falls within the scheme of things ... often enough, it changes the political and/or military scenario completely ...
@afghan fighters:
where does it go against my definition(s)
I mentioned the Afghan war in context with the external fighters issue ... probably the largest instance of volunteers fighting, under the name of Islam, without the official consent of their respective governments ...
- not for the Americans
- are u kidding me?
Here's what I wrote:
not for the Americans (being used by the Americans? yes ... fighting for them? no)
I know the story of the Afghan War and its importance in the cold war ... but to say that those people's intentions were to help USA win the cold war, would be incorrect ... from the Muslim point of view ... first of all, they served to liberate Afghanistan from the Russians ... secondly they proved a strong line of defence towards possible Russian attempts at communizing/controlling other Muslim countries ... Afghanistan was not an end in itself, but a means to an end in the scheme of things for Soveit Union ...
what good was it in the end?
Afghanistan's civil strife in the post-Russian period was due to the manner the resistance was manipulated ... the Americans supported the resistance groups, through Pakistan of course ... armed them and trained them ... but they never bothered to create a unified resistance movement ... because the factions were serving their purposes very well ... and when you have so many armed and trained factions in a country without a government, anarchy is bound to be the rule of the day ...
Plus, the later civil war was a contest primarily between regional and tribal leaders ... people like Mulla Umar et all supposedly returned to their everyday businesses ... Taliban, who were the ones fighting in the name of Islam in this period, was only a reaction to the in-fighting ... but thats a different discussion altogether ...
feeling for your brothers is all fine and dandy, unless and until it translates into maiming the other people *and* their governments.
I thought I agreed to this? The only point I was making there was the existence of a nationalistic sentiment among the Muslims ...
so whats the way out?
There is no easy way out ... you have to tread carefully ... you cannot bully everybody into adopting a democratic system ... engagement, not military, but political and economic is the key ... the socio-economic development you talk of is definitely a part of the solution ...
A high-handed approach won't solve anything ... the USA took over Afghanistan to remove a government supposedly harbouring and actively supporting terrorists ... is Afghanistan free of any such elements now? Do you think it'll be free in the next five years? How many other countries would they take over to solve this issue?
--
@ahmed:
with the reservation that the assessment of popular sentiment is subjective.
meine bhi wohi kaha. see here..
firstly its difficult to ascertain the popular sentiment of the people
is it okay to target political figures? imo, not a good idea. take for example militants in kashmir targetting electoral candidates before the kashmir elections last yr(?), so as to distrupt the elections. quite a few were gunned down. then again militants killed abdul ghani lone, the hurriyat leader, when his peaceful means of struggle started going against their violent means. he was killed because he had a difference of opinion on the means, for the same cause. & lets say the IRA was successful in its attempt, would it have expediated their cause? ek PM gaya, tau doosra aa jaayega. and the brit troops would have hit the IRA even harder. it would have led to an increased conflict, and diminished the hope for a political solution. then take the example of the militant attack on the indian parliament. if i am not wrong, pakistanis think it was staged managed by the indian state to defame pak. could be. but for a while if we accept it were militants who attacked, and had they succeeded in bumping off a few, india and pak would be at war right now.
regarding the afghan fighters. my bad. what i should have written was "afghan conflict. it doesnt go against the classification(s) i made earlier".
The only point I was making there was the existence of a nationalistic sentiment among the Muslims
& extremism is a likely product of the same. will it succeed in its objective(s)? that the future will tell us.
what does the past tell us? militancy has not produced any solutions. kashmir, palestine, chechnya, afghanistan, sri-lanka are proof. the sein-fenn(sp?) disowned the IRA & entered into political negotiations, to find a solution.
in the end, the fact remains that extremists are not powerful enough to destabilize a nation. and the guerrilla tactics plus external support almost all militant groups enjoy, makes it very difficult if not impossible for a govt to suppress the militancy by force. so while a conflict ensues, no real solutions are found, because supremacy by force is not achieved. in the end, its a self-defeating move.
--
This is a mere excerpt out of the myraid threads this discussion went into, spread over quite a few days. :-)
--
"one man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter". this statement is used to justify terrorism the world over. to buttress this claim, people fall back to bhagat singh and the IRA.
there is however one important difference between islamic terrorism and the above scenarios. terrorism before had a nationalistic identity. if bhagat singh threw a bomb in the assembly, he was fighting for national independence. if che guevara and his insurgents fought, they were fighting to free cuba from its dictator. the IRA atleast initially targeted the british troops in ireland.
however islamic terrorism has no nationalistic identity. it is not about a group against one country. islamic terrorism itself is spread across groups in various nations, with each group aiding the other in terms of funds, intelligence and arms. hamas is not one group. neither is al-quaeeda. what is their aim? what/who are they waging war against? who's oppression are they fighting for? the answers to these questions are very different from bhagat singh's brand of terrorism.
let us see the situation at home.
one of the major operatives in kashmir today is the LeT. who started it? maulana mazood. where? in paksitan. of what nationality is masood? pakistani. the same guy indian authorities let go when the IA plane was hijacked to kandahar. we lost an indian civilian. was that not an act of terrorism? LeT attacked our parliament & red fort. is that freedom fighting? the main operatives of LeT are afghan fighters. an external group founded by an external fellow, funded & armed by external agencies fighting for the "freedom" of an indigenous people? carrying out attacks on foreign soil? that's freedom fighting? who's freedom for god's sake?
i heard the same arguments when punjab was in the throes of terrorism. yes terrorism. not freedom fighting. shopping areas, where people frequented every saturday being bombed, bombs in unattended objects, bomb hoaxes, office complexes brimming with security personnel with bomb squads standing by, sniffer dogs around; people in puja pandals(during durga puja) being gunned down(one happened not more than 5 km from our puja place). thats the "freedom fighting" i've seen. believe me, i didnt want any freedom. i just wanted to stop thinking about looking under the seat every time i stepped into a bus. stop looking at an unattended suitcase in a bus-stop. i just wanted the headlines, screaming of death and bomb blasts in all the hangout places for middle class families, to stop.
there is NO blurred line. there is no fine line. this is BS. plain and simple.
and whats the argument in the US bombing afghanistan and isrealis firing from gunships? you mean to say that US specifically targeted civilians through their bombs? or the isrealis fire shells at people standing outside a mosque? or put bombs in market places? all in all are they specifically targetting civilians? i am not trying to condone the deaths of innocent afghan civilians or palestines or whatever. there is a fault in policy here. surely we need to protest against that. but these do NOT blur what terrorism as we know it today is.
--
I haven't read the earlier posts ... so I'd be replying only to yours ... I've tried to explain the best I can ... hope you get the gist of it ...
terrorism before had a nationalistic identity. if bhagat singh threw a bomb in the assembly, he was fighting for national independence. if che guevara and his insurgents fought, they were fighting to free cuba from its dictator. the IRA atleast initially targeted the british troops in ireland.
Since you're terming these movements as terrorism yourself, do you think its justifiable when based on nationalistic identity?
islamic terrorism has no nationalistic identity
First of all, its not always terrorism ... how many Pakistanis have you ever come across who have claimed the killing of civilians or bombing of public buildings as justified and who do not condemn such activities?
Secondly, the nationality is Islam itself ... it might not make much sense to the secular Indians around here, but it does make sense to most of us ... forgetting about the new regime-inspired Pakistanis, whose new national anthem is Sab se pehlay Pakistan ... come to Pakistan and ask any common man on the street about his views on Afghanistan or Iraq and you'll find out ... and I can safely say that the mass of Pakistani public are not religious fanatics ...
external agent, external funding, external training. fighting against my country and my countrymen. that is a terrorist and NOT a freedom fighter.
Most Indians equate the Islamic Freedom Fighters quickly to Kashmir, or at best to Afghanistan and Iraq, and start pronouncing judgements ... these same people have fought in Bosnia and Chechnya ... do you think them terrorists? These people were external agents, had external training and were externally funded ...
The Bosnian war is a glaring example of international complacency ... the United Nations was not willing to take action ... all that the Islamic World came up with was to pass a belated resolution in OIC of sending 16000 troops ... which, by the way, never came into effect ... all of Nato's action came too late ... the Chechen war is another such example where the Russians were effectively given a free hand by the international community ... the case of Kashmir is worsened because of the involvement of the Pakistani government ... but should we label those handful of volunteers, primarily Afghans and Arabs, who risked and also gave their lives for another nation as terrorists? Probably you can ... I don't ...
If Kashmir is really a matter of terrorism,not freedom struggle, and the Kashmiris are really not interested in separation from India, why not have a plebescite and shut us up once and for all?
There is a good and a bad side to everything ... and while most of us would endorse the cause they're pursuing, we would not necessarily endorse all their means ...
For the past few years, and especially since the 9/11 incident, people who don't even have a point start chanting AlQaeda AlQaeda at the mention of Islam ... thats giving too much credit to AlQaeda ... everything done by any Muslim is NOT Islamic ... and any Muslim fighting any regime is NOT an Al Qaeda agent ... there is one no closely knit, well-organized, mercenary organization, master-minded by an evil genius hiding in some cave in Afghanistan/Pakistan, with the entire world, from USA around to the Philippines, woven in its web ... whose sole aim is to exterminate any infidels walking on the face of the earth ... I read This in Foreign Policy, but they have it under archived articles, so I've posted a mirror link ...
Its understandable that these organizations are not as structured or as disciplined as a regular army ... and are often manipulated for the worse for political gains by different governments ... some of them have contradictory aims ... few of them tend to take the easy way out ... gross mistakes, intentional or not, are bound to happen ... and most governments are blurring the divide between a terrorist and a freedom fighter on purpose to further their own political objectives ... but there IS a divide ...
What I'm trying to suggest is that most of these are reactionary organizations ... and while the intentions are genuine, the execution is not always perfect ... which is understandable for any armed rebellion ... if you think they can be curbed through power, the answer is NO ... violence will beget more violence ... if the world wants to end this cycle, it has to come up with political answers ... how many countries will the United States take over? They're already masters of the two supposed training grounds of Al Qaeda ... where are these people popping up now from?
I saw in the other thread you claimed that there were no Muslim volunteers fighting in the Bosnian and Chechen wars ... I'm not very good at googling, I always seem to choose the worst keywords, but here's what I came up with ... I'm sure if you try it, you'd come up with more results ...
Coming from primarily western, more importantly, west-oriented sources, they don't sound too flattering ... but they still provide a proof of my assertions ...
Arab 'Afghans' are in Bosnia helping fellow Muslims fight the Christian Serbs. Between 200 and 300 of these veterans, including non-Arab Muslims, are based in Zenica where they are widely feared. The number of non-Bosnian Muslims in the military is estimated at between 500 and 1000 from a dozen countries in the Middle East. From all accounts, they have fought with some distinction. Some 300 'Afghans', organized into a unit known as 'the Guerrillas', operate with the Bosnian 3rd Corps in Zenica. Algerian FIS leader Kamar Kharban, a veteran of the Afghan war, has visited Bosnia several times over the last two years.
- This is probably dated but somewhat relevant ...
Russia, of course, was only too happy to exploit both the presence of Arab volunteers in Chechen militias and the presence of Chechen volunteers in Afghanistan to have the whole place branded as a hub of international terrorism.
- About the Chechen war ...
Although I also found a counter-argument against the Afghan/Arab involvement in Chechnya here ...
Make up your own mind ...
--
thanks for your perspective and opinion.
Since you're terming these movements as terrorism yourself, do you think its justifiable when based on nationalistic identity?
does it help if i put terrorism in quotes? since we are debating what falls under freedom-fighting and what falls under terrorism, here is my take.
an indigenous people fighting with external/internal training, arms and funding, against its own rulers(democratically elected or otherwise) can be labelled as freedom fighting. but is the definition indeed so simple? we have to take into account the conflict zone. if the conflict zone is limited to the land in which these indigenous people reside, its freedom fighting. if it extends beyond it, they have crossed into terrorism. besides the conflict zone, we have to identify the targets of these indigenous freedom fighters. if their targets are confined to the instruments(belonging to the ruling entity) for exerting control(military, police) and their aides(informants) it's within the limits of freedom fighting. when they begin targeting non-indigenous civilians & indigenous civilians with a difference of opinion from theirs, they have crossed into terrorism.
now unless we agree on what we classify as terrorism and freedom fighting, there's no point giving examples. in any case since since you have taken the pains to put down examples, i'll go over them one by one.
chechnya: indigenous people fighting russian army. freedom fighting. jihadi fighters join in. still freedom fighting. massacre of school children. way , way, way into terrorism.
bosnia: this example is not relevant here, as bosnia was not fighting the croats and serbs to regain control but stop their advance into their own territory. and since the jihadi elements stayed within the above defined limits, they didnt cross the line into terrorism.
kashmir: crossed the line many many years ago, and many many times. whats more, the bulk of of what you call freedom fighters is external in today's times. what i fail to understand (i put this in the other thread), is how an external group funded & armed externally can claim to be fighting for the freedom of an indigenous people.
so whats the moral of the story? the moral is there's a thin line that separates jihadi style freedom fighting and islamic terrorism, and it doesnt take much for one thing to lead to the other. witness chechnya. witness kashmir. whats more, the same jehadi elements which joined forces with the chechens to fight their cause, and the jehadi elements who joined forces with the weak bosnians to fight the militarily stronger croats and serbs, and the jehadi elements wreaking terrorism in kashmir all are part of the larger problem of islamic miltancy. the same jehadi who fights the russian army because the russians were bombing chechen civilians, will have no qualms putting a bomb in a market place in srinagar and blowing kashmiri civilians to bits. so you shouldnt be saying that look the same jihadi elements that i call terrorists are fighting a just cause. because i too can say the same jehadis are blowing up civilians/soldiers in my country and i have rightly called them so.
now to pick your posts, and answer individual points.
First of all, its not always terrorism ... how many Pakistanis ... as justified and who do not condemn such activities?
so if you condem such activities, you will not say such activities always fall under terrorism? me unclear on your intent.
Secondly, the nationality is Islam itself ...
500 years ago, i would have clapped. today its an anachronism. just because you are a muslim does NOT give you any right to break the law of another sovereign land and go "help" muslims in another sovereign land purpotedly under "oppression" from their rulers. if you have a problem go tell your government. they can take it up at the international level diplomatically or wage a war. it doesnt mean that you insert jehadi elements in the sovereign country and start a bombing and killing civilians/army. forming an opinion is fine. we are all entitled to our opinions. but islamic militancy is no way to express it, not in the civilized world atleast.
The Bosnian war is a glaring example of international complacency
there are 52 muslim countries in the world(or so junaid told us). why couldnt they dispatch an allied force to bosnia? why must the jehadi be an answer? do you realise that the jehadi who went and fought was no better than a mercenary? and mercenaries do not come under the purview of geneva conventions on war. so they can be treated any way after capture. what would have bitten the arabic/islamic nations had they given sanctity to the same islamic support by sending regular troops?
violence will beget more violence
exactly. which is why the jehadi style fighting wont do.
if the world wants to end this cycle, it has to come up with political answers
it takes two to tango my friend. the islamic world must rise from its slumber and reign in these jihadi elements and do their bit. then only can a political solution be found. no govt is going to negotiate with a gun to its head and this is precisely what the jehadis are doing.
I saw in the other thread you claimed that there were no Muslim volunteers fighting in the Bosnian and Chechen wars
i meant the nature of the conflict is internal. i was not aware jihadi fighers were involved in the bosnian conflict. the chechen example had surprisingly slipped from my mind.
If Kashmir is really a matter of terrorism,not freedom struggle, and the Kashmiris are really not interested in separation from India, why not have a plebescite and shut us up once and for all?
here's the answer. consider a state where you have three groups of people: A, B, C. A wants independence, B wants to align with country X, and C wants to remain aligned to country Y. drive out C. terrorise A. hold plebiscite. result? "All people of the state have voted in favor of aligning with X".. hurrah!
and you must be incredibly naive if you think pakistan(at the govt level) supports the kashmir issue merely(or at all) because its "oh so concerned" about the welfare of the kashmiri people and wants their 'freedom'.
gawd.. gimme a break.. 8-|
--
In the sentence "one person's freedom-fighter is another's terrorist" the two words need not be taken literally. The former doesn't necessarily have to be actually fighting for freedom to be called a freedom-fighter. It is just that his idea behind the fight has to be good, whatever the fight be. So if there are people fighting for the "Will of Allah", though they aren't trying to liberate a piece of land or anything, they are still some people's "freedom-fighters" because in the eyes of those people the cause is noble and fully justfied. So the two words "terrorist" and "freedom-fighter", when used in conjuction are more likely to connote the idea of "good" and "bad" rather than their literal meanings. Therefore, if those defintions are kept in mind, it is hard to label these violent people either "terrorists" or "freedom-fighters" because it is hard to judge whether the cause they are furthering is good or bad. In case you consider "terrorist" and "freedom-fighter" for their literal meanings, then of course the distinction becomes very clear and in that case there indeed are no blurry lines. We must apprecite this semantic distinction.
--
If a Jehadi fights Indian armed forces in Kashmir, I'll have to look for the goal he's fighting for before calling him either a freedom-fighter or a terrorist
if the jehadi is an external agent, i'd have no problems in labelling him a terrorist in this case. some of these chaps are even sudanese!! :0
google for "kashmir sudanese jihadi". now what business does a sudanese national have in coming to india and attacking our armymen? when india is not at war with sudan. that is an illegal act.
and the most active groups in kashmir today, the Jaish-e-M & LeT, are not indigenous groups. neither in composition, funding, arms or training. agreed there must *some* kashmiri miltants too, but do these handful of people have a right to hold the entire state/nation to ransom for their exclusive demands? and its not as if i exonerate the GoI of any blame for whats going on. its squarely to blame for its flawed policies regarding kashmir that things have gotten so bad.
Therefore, if those defintions are kept in mind, it is hard to label these violent people either "terrorists" or "freedom-fighters" because it is hard to judge whether the cause they are furthering is good or bad.
in my opinion, its not the cause, but the means employed that merits the attention. OBL's cause is very just. he doesnt want americans interfering in arab policies. he doesnt want the house of saud to continously voilate islamic norms or the edicts of the Quoran. I am sure many people in the arab/islamic world feel the former rather strongly, if not the latter. but can we say the same abt OBL's means?
--
in my opinion, its not the cause, but the means employed that merits the attention. OBL's cause is very just. but can we say the same abt OBL's means?
In my opinion, it is both. I agree that in the case of Osama bhai one needn't look at the cause. The means are so unacceptable that they can't be used to justify almost any cause at all. But in some cases, when the means are not as heinous, the only way to decide between "terrorist" and "freedom-fighter" is to understand the cause for which the fight is being waged. An example of the latter case is a militant facing armed forces in Kashmir (and not killing regular folks on the street). In this case, you must know what he's fighting for and if that is justified or not before you can label him either a "freedom-dude" or a "terrorist". So here's the pseudo-code:
begin {
input (militant);
if (militant.means.heinousness >= HEINOUSNESS CEILING) {
output("TERRORIST");
}
else if (militant.cause.justified == TRUE) {
output ("FREEDOM-FIGHTER");
}
else {
output ("TERRORIST");
}
end.
--
So we're moving towards common ground ... or aren't we?
Firstly, nothing in politics is black and white ... you give me two inches, and I'll give you two as well ...
Secondly, I'm trying to talk in a global perspective ... not just limited to India and Kashmir ... India aur Kashmir say bahar bhi bari duniya hai meray bhai
...Anyway ... what I was trying to say was much near to what Gurinder here said ... he is just better at expressing it
...I agree with Wajid ... somewhat ... Jihadi is a much misused term ... both by the Muslims and the non-Muslims ...
To reply to your post ...
This is going to be long
...I'll go through your definition so we can hopefully find more common ground ...
an indigenous people fighting with external/internal training, arms and funding, against its own rulers(democratically elected or otherwise) can be labelled as freedom fighting.
Why only indigenous? If you are accepting the right of an outside power to train, fund and arm your indigenous fighters, why should providing help in terms of fighting units be illegal? If, by that single addition, your freedom struggle turns into terrorism, then you're virtually labelling almost all freedom fighters throughout history as terrorists ... there is always an interested foreign power ... for me, as long as the foreign elements are supporting the indigenous ones, I deem it legal ...
if the conflict zone is limited to the land in which these indigenous people reside, its freedom fighting. if it extends beyond it, they have crossed into terrorism.
Again I differ ... somewhat ... would you count Udham Singh as a terrorist since he took the field of battle to London instead of keeping it confined to India?? or just a mere avenger? I know I won't ... How about IRA's assasination attempt against Margaret Thatcher ?? I hope you get what I'm trying to say?
we have to identify the targets of these indigenous freedom fighters. if their targets are confined to the instruments(belonging to the ruling entity) for exerting control(military, police) and their aides(informants) it's within the limits of freedom fighting.
Agreed. But would you like to add econmic interests in the list too? after all, thats what hurts most countries in this time ... but I'm 50-50 on this one ... not decided ... as this would give sanction to almost every type of aggression ... take your pick ...
when they begin targeting non-indigenous civilians & indigenous civilians with a difference of opinion from theirs, they have crossed into terrorism.
Agreed.
Regarding the examples...
You're limiting the definition of a fight for freedom to occupation ... to me anybody fighting for freedom, be it against aggression or occupation, counts as a fight for your freedom ... so yes ... I would still include Bosnia and Chechnya as valid examples ...
And of course, the most obvious of all examples ... which I forgot to mention ... from where this word Jihadi came into common usage ... Afghanistan ... all through the Afghan war it was these Jihadis, not all of them were indigenous, who fought the Russians ... not for the Americans (being used by the Americans? yes ... fighting for them? no) ... but under the banner of Islam ... and they were never labelled as terrorists ...
all are part of the larger problem of islamic miltancy.
In my opinion, Islamic militancy is not the problem ... it is a reaction to other problems ...
the same jehadi who fights the russian army because the russians were bombing chechen civilians, will have no qualms putting a bomb in a market place in srinagar and blowing kashmiri civilians to bits.
You are assuming too much ... I said it before, I'll say it again ... there is no single, structured Jihadi organization wreaking havoc in the entire world ... these are loose, mostly small pockets, largely unstructured organizations ... quite a few of which are rogue ... exploiting Islam's slogan for political and personal benefits ... involvement of political governments makes matters even worse, even for the well-meaning groups ... but that does not, and should not, take away anything from those who have fought and are fighting justly and valiantly ... if you keep tarring everybody with the same stick, then we'll get nowhere ...
To carry on...
500 years ago, i would have clapped. today its an anachronism.
If you are talking in terms of Muslim nationalism based on Khilafat, then even 500 years ago there was none ...
I am not talking about Muslim governments but the Muslim nation ... you cannot overlook the undercurrent that runs through the world among the Muslim populations by using difficult words, whose meanings I have to look up on m-w.com ... but yes ... this feeling of nationalism is real ... I would obviously feel more strongly towards any injustices in Pakistan itself ... but I would also feel more strongly against injustices towards other Muslims compared to other people ...
You can clap if you want to ... you won't need a time machine ...
if you have a problem go tell your government. they can take it up at the international level diplomatically or wage a war.
there are 52 muslim countries in the world(or so junaid told us). why couldnt they dispatch an allied force to bosnia? why must the jehadi be an answer?
I thought I had cleared the case of Bosnia ... the 52 Muslim countries in OIC did pass a resolution for sending a 16000 strong contingent of combined forces ... but that never materialised ... why? Because OIC doesn't have any legitimacy on the international level ... they still need the approval of the UN ... and need I mention, none was coming ... so even if a government was sincerely interested, it had to go through what you're terming illegal means ...
- violence will beget more violence
- exactly. which is why the jehadi style fighting wont do.
Which is also why an armed attempt to curb these movements forcefully won't do either ... you curb one and another two will pop up ...
And finally...
it takes two to tango my friend. the islamic world must rise from its slumber and reign in these jihadi elements and do their bit. then only can a political solution be found. no govt is going to negotiate with a gun to its head and this is precisely what the jehadis are doing.
That is what I meant by a political solution in any case ... a comprehensive political solution ... after all, these organizations are as much a product of oppression in the Islamic World itself as external ones ...
and you must be incredibly naive if you think pakistan(at the govt level) supports the kashmir issue merely(or at all) because its "oh so concerned" about the welfare of the kashmiri people and wants their 'freedom'.
Here's what I wrote:
Its understandable that these organizations are not as structured or as disciplined as a regular army ... and are often manipulated for the worse for political gains by different governments
Need I always mention Kashmir by name? Its not the only example in the world ... need I mention that again?
--
algorithm to sahi hai. but there's one glitch. militant.means.heinousness is not constant. if you look at examples all around the world, most often than not, it's an increasing function of time.
so as i said before, most often than not, it just spills into wrong from right, from just to unjust.
An example of the latter case is a militant facing armed forces in Kashmir (and not killing regular folks on the street)
does this example really exist? if it does, does it convey popular sentiment? if it doesnt, it can so easily be an anti-social element bent on his own agenda. if it does, it falls into the category of what i think is FF.
--
So we're moving towards common ground ... or aren't we? yea, somewhat.
back to the classifications.
Why only indigenous? If you are accepting the right of an outside power to train..
an outside power doesnt have a right to train. the indigenous people have a right to summon the resources to fight from wherever they please. and why only indigenous fighters? hmm... here's a slight modification. external fighters are alright if the indigenous people have faith in them and if these fighters reflect the popular sentiment of the people. but the problem with this is two-fold. firstly its difficult to ascertain the popular sentiment of the people, if others are doing the fighting for them. secondly, how can we be sure that the people were not coerced into acceptance by these external agents? just so that you dont think i am being a bloody academic dancing on theoretical mumbo-jumbo, i'd like to point out that in interviews of common kashmiri junta, people have complained of threats from afghan militants to kashmiri youths, to either join them or perish at their hands. i recommend you read up the south-asia section in www.bbc.co.uk, if you havent done so already. the interviews are there somewhere, not deeply hidden. shouldnt be very difficult to find. so in the end indigenous fighters lend much more credibility to the cause.
udham singh & margaret thachter: just coz i am indian doest mean i'll summarily classify all actions of our freedom fighters(fighting against the british raj) as just. what udham singh did was wrong. his motive was just, if personal vendetta is a just motive. part of his statement:
I did it because I had a grudge against him, he deserved it. I don't belong to any society or anything else.(source)
and IRA? the moment they started bombing london pubs they crossed the line. and you talk of assassination of a head of state!
so i stand by definition of limiting the conflict zone.
@afghan fighters: ofcourse they were not labelled terrorists. who were they fighting? their own president. where? in their own country. where does it go against my definition(s)?
not for the Americans
are u kidding me? when the conflict started, afghanistan was under a communist president. it was the height of the cold-war, and the US was increasinly concerned that the soviets were using afghanistan to increase their sphere of influence in the middle-east. the jehadi fighters borne out of those times, were solely a creation of the US. and in the end, was it good for afghanistan? the russians left behind a war-ravaged country & replete with armed-men who knew nothing better than to be used as mercenaries all around the world in the name of religion. it factored the country into groups, each of which competed with each other on how much cruelty they could inflict on the local populace. civil war, civil strife, one of the poorest countries of the world. what good was it in the end?
You are assuming too much
by the same jehadi i didnt mean the same person! i meant the same sentiment of fighting in the name of religion. thats what unites all the loose structured groups.
even for the well-meaning groups
give me one example of such a group.
I would also feel more strongly against injustices towards other Muslims compared to other people
did i say i had objections to that? feeling for your brothers is all fine and dandy, unless and until it translates into maiming the other people *and* their governments. and i can safely extrapolate this to other pan-xxx'isms(feeling of a global unity among any group).
Which is also why an armed attempt to curb these movements forcefully won't do either ... you curb one and another two will pop up ...
how else do you curb armed militants? atleast initially? and if you accept that no govt is going to negotiate with a gun to its head and this is precisely what the jehadis are doing, we have fallen into an evil cycle. jihad ->armed attempt to curb them->jihad. so whats the way out?
a comprehensive political solution.after all, these organizations are as much a product of oppression in the Islamic World itself as external ones
yea. but i am increasily inclined to believe that this comprehensive political solution analysts talk about is an utopian idea. more so since the means of oppression are internal. there is not one muslim democratic country(is there?) & the hotbeds of islamic militancy are countries with an autocracy.
i may be wrong, but instead of a comprehensive political solution, muslim nations should be looking at democracy and socio-economic development.
--
I've only read your posts, so I'll reply only to those quickly ...
external fighters are alright if the indigenous people have faith in them and if these fighters reflect the popular sentiment of the people.
Agreed, with the reservation that the assessment of popular sentiment is subjective.
just coz i am indian doest mean i'll summarily classify all actions of our freedom fighters(fighting against the british raj) as just. what udham singh did was wrong.
Ok ... my mistake ... bad example ... I always had the impression that Udham Singh's killing of O'Dwyer was based on nationalistic sentiments ... but in any case, that doesn't take away anything from the point I was trying to make ... that is, broadening the limits of the conflict zone, as defined by you ... to be extended to the territory of the usurper ...
Secondly, I did not quote Udham Singh's example to court your nationalistic sentiments ... this was just the first thing that popped into my head ...
and IRA? the moment they started bombing london pubs they crossed the line. and you talk of assassination of a head of state!
I was not discussing the legality of all of IRA's actions ... just the one instance ... the failed assassination attmept against Margaret Thatcher on English soil ... and that was a bold move ...
If a people are being suppressed, who else is more responsible than the head of the state of the oppressing country? To me, thats reason enough for an attempt at his/her life if that falls within the scheme of things ... often enough, it changes the political and/or military scenario completely ...
@afghan fighters:
where does it go against my definition(s)
I mentioned the Afghan war in context with the external fighters issue ... probably the largest instance of volunteers fighting, under the name of Islam, without the official consent of their respective governments ...
- not for the Americans
- are u kidding me?
Here's what I wrote:
not for the Americans (being used by the Americans? yes ... fighting for them? no)
I know the story of the Afghan War and its importance in the cold war ... but to say that those people's intentions were to help USA win the cold war, would be incorrect ... from the Muslim point of view ... first of all, they served to liberate Afghanistan from the Russians ... secondly they proved a strong line of defence towards possible Russian attempts at communizing/controlling other Muslim countries ... Afghanistan was not an end in itself, but a means to an end in the scheme of things for Soveit Union ...
what good was it in the end?
Afghanistan's civil strife in the post-Russian period was due to the manner the resistance was manipulated ... the Americans supported the resistance groups, through Pakistan of course ... armed them and trained them ... but they never bothered to create a unified resistance movement ... because the factions were serving their purposes very well ... and when you have so many armed and trained factions in a country without a government, anarchy is bound to be the rule of the day ...
Plus, the later civil war was a contest primarily between regional and tribal leaders ... people like Mulla Umar et all supposedly returned to their everyday businesses ... Taliban, who were the ones fighting in the name of Islam in this period, was only a reaction to the in-fighting ... but thats a different discussion altogether ...
feeling for your brothers is all fine and dandy, unless and until it translates into maiming the other people *and* their governments.
I thought I agreed to this? The only point I was making there was the existence of a nationalistic sentiment among the Muslims ...
so whats the way out?
There is no easy way out ... you have to tread carefully ... you cannot bully everybody into adopting a democratic system ... engagement, not military, but political and economic is the key ... the socio-economic development you talk of is definitely a part of the solution ...
A high-handed approach won't solve anything ... the USA took over Afghanistan to remove a government supposedly harbouring and actively supporting terrorists ... is Afghanistan free of any such elements now? Do you think it'll be free in the next five years? How many other countries would they take over to solve this issue?
--
@ahmed:
with the reservation that the assessment of popular sentiment is subjective.
meine bhi wohi kaha. see here..
firstly its difficult to ascertain the popular sentiment of the people
is it okay to target political figures? imo, not a good idea. take for example militants in kashmir targetting electoral candidates before the kashmir elections last yr(?), so as to distrupt the elections. quite a few were gunned down. then again militants killed abdul ghani lone, the hurriyat leader, when his peaceful means of struggle started going against their violent means. he was killed because he had a difference of opinion on the means, for the same cause. & lets say the IRA was successful in its attempt, would it have expediated their cause? ek PM gaya, tau doosra aa jaayega. and the brit troops would have hit the IRA even harder. it would have led to an increased conflict, and diminished the hope for a political solution. then take the example of the militant attack on the indian parliament. if i am not wrong, pakistanis think it was staged managed by the indian state to defame pak. could be. but for a while if we accept it were militants who attacked, and had they succeeded in bumping off a few, india and pak would be at war right now.
regarding the afghan fighters. my bad. what i should have written was "afghan conflict. it doesnt go against the classification(s) i made earlier".
The only point I was making there was the existence of a nationalistic sentiment among the Muslims
& extremism is a likely product of the same. will it succeed in its objective(s)? that the future will tell us.
what does the past tell us? militancy has not produced any solutions. kashmir, palestine, chechnya, afghanistan, sri-lanka are proof. the sein-fenn(sp?) disowned the IRA & entered into political negotiations, to find a solution.
in the end, the fact remains that extremists are not powerful enough to destabilize a nation. and the guerrilla tactics plus external support almost all militant groups enjoy, makes it very difficult if not impossible for a govt to suppress the militancy by force. so while a conflict ensues, no real solutions are found, because supremacy by force is not achieved. in the end, its a self-defeating move.
--
This is a mere excerpt out of the myraid threads this discussion went into, spread over quite a few days. :-)
posted by Vasishtha | 5:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home