Politics, religion and terrorism

[Last Hope]

Politics, religion and terrorism.​

One of the characterizations of term ‘terrorism’ defined by World English Dictionary says “systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal”. In the 21st Century, post-9/11 era, terrorism got a new form; any act of violence related or motivated by religion. Henceforth Islam was linked with ‘terrorism’ and global war on terror was initiated. Military operations were commenced in countries of who were thought to sponsor terrorists or shelter terrorist hideouts/bases, of those who have been involved in twin tower attacks. The countries in hit-list were not-surprisingly all Muslim governments, more or less of a coincidence. A decade later, one by one did they all fall, but the war on terror hardly brought any significant positive change. Why? Is it because the term ‘terrorism’ was given a wrong definition? Was the stance against Muslim-world the wrong direction to solve the global problem?

‘All Muslims aren't terrorists but all terrorists are Muslims’ is a widespread slogan which is to be heard while talking about the subject. Does the fault lie here, that the world fails to recognize anyone not a Muslim as a terrorist? Officials at Guantanamo Bay, a military-level jail for detained world’s most-wanted terrorists, are taught about the religion of Islam and given classes on Quran. They are assigned to mentally challenge and investigate the detainees, who are apparently expected to mostly be Muslims. However, no religion promotes terrorism and violence as a part of its preaching. Associating terrorism with any religion is a wrong viewpoint and a setback to eradicating this epidemic globally.

Another definition of terrorism found online says as ‘the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.’ Focusing on latter shall be a more sensible attitude. A person doesn't take up weapons [supplied by unknown] and enter public place to harm civilian or public property. The terrorist isn't to be benefit at all, but the powers above him in the delegation greatly do. He is given motivation through several means, of which one is false religious speeches, for a greater purpose. Focusing on the high-ups would serve as a better carriage in the decade-long war on terror. The political benefactors have been enjoying this [war] without being challenged, as the blame always goes upon someone deep inside Afghanistan.
Recent serial blasts in Bodh Gaya (Buddhist Shrine) in India were thought to be conducted by ‘Indian Mujahideen’, a banned Muslim outfit. It was backed with claims such as ‘revenge by Muslims for the war atrocities against Rohingya Muslims in Burma’ and was expected to raise tensions between Muslims and Buddhists in the region. It is now asserted, with prevailing evidences, that the bombings were related to recent strains within the Hindu fundamentalist political party BJP. Investigation continues as Indian General Elections come closer, and it is apparent that the attacks were part of foul play used for election campaign.

A terror organization is not a mere group of fighters, who took up arms for no cause and start engaging into attacks. The delegation is well-established and people at every level have their motivation and agenda. For the fighters or bombers, the sense of achievement is different than the sponsors and policy makers. Liquidating the low level fighters hasn't taken this war anywhere in the past decade. Unless the sponsors and top commanders are taken down, the fighters would keep emerging and no progress is made in the attempts in this war.

It becomes evident after studying into history of events that the standpoint to associate terrorism with religion, or a particular community, has failed to solve the issue. It is time to rethink the matter, as to liquidate terrorism and political violence, and change the course of decade-long ‘war on terror’.

July 2013.

The author is Chairman of the Junior Think Tank group of Pakistan Defence Forum [defence.pk].