Terrorism: An accessory to power?

Terrorism with all its negative impacts has emerged to be one of the most troublesome hurdles that humanity has faced in its struggle towards a peaceful, prosperous and thereby happy society. Of course this has led to the problem being studied by different people holding views that range across the widest spectrum of socio-political and even economic ideologies on the nature and cause of terrorism. In this article I shall lay down a few of the ideas that I have garnered on the topic of terrorism from my understanding of the problem and by contemplating on it.

Terrorism is almost universally seen as an evil. I say almost universally because there is a group, albeit extremely small in number relative to the entire canvas of humanity, that live by the gun and are actively engaged in acts of terrorism that clearly see some benefit from the practice. It is only in understanding this benefit and destroying it that a lasting solution to the problem can be found. Terrorism can be seen as a form of warfare which departs to a great deal from traditional and conventional modes of warfare. Terrorism can be traced back to the French Revolution and ‘The age of terror’ that immediately followed it. It mainly involves carrying out kidnappings, bomb attacks, hijackings and other such crimes in order to instill terror in opponents. They differ from criminals in that they swear allegiance to a cause which is almost always political in nature. Acts of violence and the pursuit of power have been almost inextricably linked to each other since time immemorial. Like two sides of a coin one has always been considered essential for the other. It is only rarely as when Mahatma Gandhi led our national freedom struggle that alternative paths have been adopted but almost always these paths have been difficult and requisite of an immense patience and understanding from leaders which is rarely seen. Thus almost inevitably struggles for power tend towards the adoption of violent means.

At this point I would like to emphasize the fact that I am not weighing my opinion against the struggle for power. Power is required to make positive changes and minorities and oppressed peoples certainly have an inalienable right to power. While justifying this right to power, it is violence or in particular terrorism as a means to it that I oppose. I say terrorism in particular because armed revolutions have also been used in the ascent to power. In fact terrorists often latch on to the revolution bandwagon labeling themselves as bold revolutionaries working for a better future. But here I would like to showcase the primary difference between successful revolutions and a majority of modern terrorist movements. All successful revolutions in the history of human existence have been backed by an oppressed majority working against an oppressive minority. It may be the stories of the revolutionary soldiers and the generals that lead them that may have made it to the pages of the history book but it is in fact the support of the majority that led them to victory. No government no matter how total its control over the batons of political power namely the police and military can maintain its power when weighed against the will of the majority of the population that it governs. Terrorism on the other hand often entails the struggle fought for the rights of a minority against a bigger and stronger majority. Thus the factor that leads revolutions to victory i.e. the power of the masses cannot work in favour of terrorist movements.

The uplift and political empowerment of this often oppressed minority is essential but terrorism as a means to it is certainly untenable. This is so because of many factors. One of the primary causes for terrorist activities is the antagonism between groups of people. The militarily weaker/politically oppressed groups often try to catch the public eye by orchestrating strikes on militarily soft targets that carry symbolic weight. The attack at the Munich Olympics and the September 11 attacks are cases in point. But such strikes while indeed catching the public eye shift the attackers almost certainly further away from the intended solution. For such attacks only increase the antagonism between conflicting groups. The attacker gains nothing in terms of the main ideas of their struggle (no lasting political empowerment or gain) while on the other hand the victim of the terrorist attack moves further down the dark path of vengeance where no forgiveness or compromise can be seen and they become stronger in their resolve to totally vanquish their foe. Thus such strikes are strategically equally suicidal to the Pearl Harbour strikes. Temporary glory and worldwide attention is a large price to pay for final failure.

Today we live in a world that has grown weary of continuing feuds based on old rivalries. Today more than ever before people wish to have peace and hence a better time for compromise and amicable solutions has never before been seen. Moderate and visionary leaders on both sides of the argument should be ready to sit together and discuss a lasting solution to the problems that plague their communities. These discussions should be held with an open mind and a readiness to make compromises by both sides for lasting peace. People have undeniably grown tired of armed struggles in the face of increasing global economic problems and the still unaddressed demon of poverty. The futility of armed struggles in achieving a lasting solution is all too evident from the continued, decades long conflagrations in the Middle East, Kashmir etc.It is important that political leaders seize this opportune moment and time in history and shift towards a pragmatic, moderate and effective strategy of negotiation. It is only by this that our attention can shift to the real problems that plague humanity and work can be directed towards engineering a bright and safe future for our race.