Open Forum
New
Delhi, 10 November 2017
Terrorism &
Extremism
KAMAL’S STRATEGIC ENTRY
By Dr S Saraswathi
(Former Director,
ICSSR, New Delhi)
The
entry of Kamal Haasan into politics, even before it actually takes place, has
raised heated debates over some observations attributed to him regarding “Hindu
extremism”. He was responding to a query from the Kerala Chief Minister in his
weekly column in a popular Tamil magazine in which he mentioned about the
existence of “Hindu terror”.
What
he actually said and what he meant, and the context of his remarks may be left
in the domain of his political supporters and opponents at various levels to
settle among themselves.
For
the general public, the advent of a famous film personality into active
politics in a State used to this kind of linkage politics is not any big
excitement by itself. But, its timing is significant as the State is undergoing
prolonged political uncertainties and awaiting court decisions on many crucial political
issues to decide the future of State politics. Haasan’s plunge into politics
with a big bang raising a storm over a loaded statement is bound to receive
nationwide reaction for some time.
The
controversy has brought out the need to understand the meaning and connotation
of the two terms “terrorism” and “extremism” along with associated term
“radicalism” which are in common use all over the world and bother governments and
people alike. Equivalent terms in Indian languages also need precise
definition.
For,
they are often used by speakers and writers not to speak of readers and
listeners thoughtlessly as synonyms to refer to any degree of disturbance to
prevailing thoughts and pattern of life with actual, potential or perceived
violence. Terrorism and extremism are different, but are considered as interrelated
concepts associated with violence. Loose usage of the terms creates panic and
needless exchanges among people. Secondary
reports of Haasan’s observation are not careful in reporting.
A
lawyer from Varanasi has filed a complaint in a local court against the actor
for hurting his religious sentiments by his comments linking Hindu religion and
terror. Strong reaction from some members of the Hindu Maha Sabha has added
substance to the issue which perhaps would have escaped discussion had it been
ignored.
The
situation has only pointed to existing political atmosphere and the urgency to
cleanse Indian party and electoral politics by wiping out the use of communal,
caste, religious, linguistic, ethnic and other such expressions indicating the
presence of narrow attachments in political speeches and actions which encourage
divisive politics. While real extremists, terrorists, and radicals may not
listen to the voice of democratic and peace-loving people, political organisations
eager to play a fair political game can join the cleansing operation.
Haasan
is reported to have stated that he was aware of the difference between
“extremist” and “terrorist” and that he deliberately did not use the latter
word. So much the better.
Extremism
literally means the quality or State of being extreme or the advocacy of
extreme measures or views. It is an ideology considered to be far beyond the
acceptable mainstream attitudes of majority of people. The term is usually
meant to be pejorative, i.e. to express strong disapproval. However, it can also be used in purely
descriptive sense without condemning anything. The term was popularised by
centrist sociologists in the 1960s and 70s.
Extremists
are usually contrasted with moderates or centrists. The first big split in the
Congress Party occurred between moderates and extremists. The
Freedom Movement in India included both moderates and extremists and not all
extremists believed in violence. Moderates believed in constitutional reforms
and gradual progress towards freedom while extremists wanted swaraj in one go.
Besides
political parties, several religions have split into sects due to differences
between staunch adherents to the original beliefs and reformers willing to
adjust to changes required.
Several
traits of political extremists have been identified from “name calling and
labeling” to “threat and intimidation”. They produce extremists in varying
degrees of conviction in their ideals.
Violent
extremism refers to use of ideologically motivated force to realise some
radical ideals. In 2015, the UN Secretary General’s Plan of Action to Prevent
Violent Extremism was launched. It emphasised the importance of education in
preventing violent extremism and radicalisation.
American
President Robert Kennedy once stated: “What is objectionable, what is dangerous
about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant.
The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their
opponents”.
In
these days, extremism is generally associated with uncompromising political
and/or religious beliefs. In this sense, it becomes inconsistent with
democratic principles though holding some extreme views by itself does not make
anybody undemocratic. When these views are sought to be advocated or forced on
others with violence or any undemocratic methods, extremism will undermine democracy.
Canadian government describes it as “violent extremism” which may become a
threat to national security.
Extremism
is vociferous or active opposition to a nation’s fundamental values expressing
intolerance of different views. It is considered as enemy of democratic
freedom, but sometimes extremists arise to establish a democratic system in
quick and drastic steps.
Extremists
can be found all across the world, but many of them have no capacity or will to
cause destruction to the society. Such extremists concentrate on converting
people to their convictions and cause. In this way, they become unacceptable
and targets for individual attack by their opponents, who may too be extremists
at another end.
The
menace of terrorism is widely recognized and felt. Its extreme form was
experienced in France after the French Revolution during 1793-94 – the period
known as the Reign of Terror.
In
the post-War world, until the destruction of the World Trade Centre in 2001,
there was no consensus on the meaning of terrorism. After this ghastly event,
it is widely agreed that use of force or violence to indulge in acts that cause
destruction of property and loss of innocent lives are acts of terrorism.
Historically,
terrorism is receiving support from organisations nurturing political ambitions
or promoting any cause(s) that requires political support. Such organizations need the wherewithal to
create terror in those sections considered enemies to the concerned group of
terrorists. They may be in active politics or remain an organised group with
strong conviction in some political ideology.
Terrorists
want to intimidate their opponents i.e. those obstructing their way. They are action-oriented group and need
publicity. They are totally opposed to moderation and generally resent
mediation as they are firm and uncompromising on their beliefs.
The
Terrorism Act 2000 adopted in the UK defines terrorism as “use of threat of
action designed to influence the government or intimidate the public which is
done for the pursuit of advancing a political, religious, or ideological cause
and which endangers or causes serious harm to people or property or seriously
disrupts or interferes with an electronic system”.
Democratic
governments and parties want to uproot terrorism. But, the story is different
with non-violent extremism that can be encountered without using force or hate
speech.
Meanwhile,
it is better to avoid using these controversial terms in normal political
speeches and election campaigns to malign opposition parties and legally
recognised organisations and confuse common people. ---INFA
(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)
|