The Maoist insurgency, which was once tagged as terrorism, is over now, and even the Maoists’ plea to be removed from the US list of terrorist organizations has been accepted. The Tamil insurgency in Sri Lanka is also over, after the death of 70,000 people. The insurgents’ leader Rajapaksa was victorious, with the same US which had termed our Maoists “terrorists” granting him impunity. Kashmir, a territory disputed between India and Pakistan, is relatively peaceful than in the past, and the Balochistan conflict is still not a big deal to the media. So, has terrorism in the SAARC region ended? And if there is no threat from terrorism, are we secure? This article aims to discuss the new dynamics of terrorism and security in the SAARC region.
The question of how terrorism is defined is itself an unending controversial debate among academics as well policymakers. The reason behind this lack of consensus is that the freedom fighter of one country may be viewed as a terrorist in another country, and vice versa. The Western concept of terrorism is 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” (as defined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), America).
PHOTO: TICKLETHEWIRE.COM
However, in the context of political dynamics of South Asia, this definition alone is insufficient to cover a wide range of activities including the past conflict in Nepal, the Kashmir conflict, and the Tamil conflict. These conflicts were not caused by the unlawful use of force, but more by the lawful use of force by the state against the people’s genuine demand for freedom and independence.
A basic tenet of governance is that the use of force by the state towards the people residing in its territory is warranted in certain cases, but law alone cannot be the only justification for the use of force. Instead, law should be complemented by the wisdom of the ruler as well. However, in case of South Asia, the political leaders have failed to apply their wisdom, though they have made commitments several times to do so in dealing with terrorism.
Another aspect of South Asian terrorism is the role of hegemony. India is a hegemonic power in the region. Apart from its obvious interest in its national security, India is also interested in regional security, but it has failed to deal with the two interests separately. Indian policymakers, who consider both these interests to be one and the same, have become dogmatic. Whether in dealing with Kashmir issue, or military intervention in Sri Lanka, or the Tamil separatist movement, or even with issues related to its small neighboring countries like Nepal, Bangladesh, and Bhutan, India has failed to play a positive role.
Its actions have instead created hatred towards the state of India, which in turn has helped breed terrorism in the region. If terrorism is to be defined as the unlawful use of force, then there is a list of many Indian activities targeted at its small neighbors which could be called terrorism. Such a definition of terrorism may apply in domestic politics, but it is too narrow a concept in international relations, where ethics and law are secondary to national interest. So, hegemony, which is the superiority of a certain military, cultural, or technical force, is rarely exercised with wisdom or caution in case of South Asia, which has led to terrorism in the region.
Further, the terrorism in the region is different from that of the West, because our terrorist groups have grown and flourished in our own land, whereas the West is more concerned with terrorists from foreign countries. Our terrorism is internal in the sense that it is a product of the increasing poverty and socio-economic deprivation, as well as the state’s brutality in dealing with internal conflicts. The military strategy that the western countries have applied towards terrorists may not be suitable in case of South Asia, because in this region the root cause of terrorism is the unwise application of hegemony. It is better for the regional hegemon of South Asia to either to give up its hegemonic influence, which is not very likely, or to exercise its influence not with a pride in its military and economic superiority, but with a wise acceptance of the fact that smaller countries also want to be dealt with on equal terms.
Security, however, is not just concerned with the absence of terrorist activities. It is not just a military protection from certain threats. The concept of security itself has become broad in today’s world. Though the military may secure the borders of a country, people cannot really be secure through arms and weapons. If that was the case, Delhi, the military as well as economic capital of a South Asian powerhouse, would not have experienced such a large number of rape cases as to be defamed as the rape capital of the country. Insecurity in the region also arises from the orthodox socio-cultural mindsets of people in general, and it is unfortunate that India, despite priding itself on its superior military strength and economy, lags behind in a ranking of socio-cultural mindsets of the people. It is a high time that India, as well as the entire south Asia, stopped blindly following the western focus on economic and military progress alone, and shifted their attention towards the socio-cultural progress of the nation, since just economic and political development that is not backed by socio-cultural development is unsustainable and elusive.
The author is a student of International Relations at South Asian University, New Delhi
dinesh_lamsal@hotmail.com
Related story
BRICS leaders single out terrorist groups in Pakistan for terro...
