By Makhsudul Islam Words frequently used in the media and now a recurrent theme in politics, the vibration in our ear-drum of the words conjures up thoughts and images, when you first read this title you thought Al-Qaeda, Hamas or Tamil Tigers or you may even have thought bearded men with fundamental or extreme views. But have you ever stopped to think - what terrorism actually means? Whether that bearded man is actually a fundamentalist or a terrorist? What is ‘Terrorism’ and what are the aims or objectives of the terrorists? If you did not know, then pay close attention to this article because it is going to give you a breakdown of where to draw the margin between fundamentalism and terrorism. The Oxford dictionary states that the meaning of terrorism is: “the use of violent action in order to achieve political aims or to force a government to act.” The definition is quite clear and succinct; those that are terrorists have an inner motive of gaining political aim which they carry out via the use of unprecedented violence. But let us clarify this further – Do terrorists actually have a political aim or are they just criminals without a just cause? Terrorists should be condemned, regardless of whether they carry out their political motives or their criminal objectives, they are not to be condoned or encouraged in any way whatsoever. They are called terrorists for a reason – ‘a person who strikes fear into another.’ The question still remains – if a person that did have political or sociological aims would they really pursue those aims using guns and bombs? The answer to that question is no, there are greater methods in this era of expressing your political views with the invention of democracy and the electoral system. If a certain method of running a country or a certain institution had remarkable benefits, it is more than likely that public support would follow. However trying to introduce ‘the new crusade’ by Al-Qaeda or converting every non-Muslim into a Muslim is somewhat out of that box known as moderation. But countries such as Palestine have extreme or fundamental views, but this is their fundamental right or to those in the west basic human right, this being the case since the welfare of their country and the forthcoming generation are at stake. So you may still ask what the actual point of this article is. Well the answer is that it will open your eyes to the shadow that remains over fundamentalism and terrorism. Let us pander into some history before breaking into why the media has caused such chaos in distinguishing terrorism and fundamentalism. Maoists are now a communist group and the most historical reformist of a country’s constitution in the 21st century. Its greatest accomplishment includes eradicating the monarchy system and brought forward the use of absolute parliamentary democratic system. This changed the outlook of Nepal but the our focus is - Did it start off as a terror group trying to force through political objectives or a fundamental political group striving for their basic human right? Who are Maoists? The Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (CPN-M), currently a proscribed outfit, was formed in 1995 following a split in the Communist Party of Nepal-Unity Centre. A radical faction led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal alias Comrade Prachanda and Baburam Bhattarai set up the CPN-Maoist and denounced the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninists) or the CPN (UML) and other mainstream communist factions as 'renegades’ and 'revisionists’ due to their participation in the parliamentary process. It resorted to an armed struggle on February 13, 1996, by attacking police stations in the Rukum and Rolpa districts in northwestern Nepal and thereby declaring a ‘People’s War’ in Nepal. Earlier, various communist groups had actively participated in the People’s Movement of 1989-90 operating under the umbrella organisation of United National People’s Movement (UNPM). However, after the conclusion of the People’s Movement, these groups were not satisfied with the multi-party democratic system under constitutional monarchy. In order to contest the May 1991 elections, they formed a two-tier organisation, revolutionary front and political front, known as the Communist Party of Nepal-Unity Centre and United People’s Front of Nepal (UPFN) respectively. The UPFN emerged as the third largest group in the Parliament and also performed well in the local bodies’ elections of 1992. Gradually, however, ideological and personality clashes led to the disintegration of Unity Centre and the UPFN split into two factions, led by Nirmal Lama and Niranjan Govind Vaidiya at one end and Comrade Prachanda and Bhattarai on the other end. Subsequently, the decision by Prachanda not to participate in the 1994 elections led to the creation of CPN-M in 1995 as an underground outfit. What are the objectives of Maoists? The Maoists announced a ‘People's War’ on February 13, 1996, with the slogan "let us march ahead on the path of struggle towards establishing the people's rule by wreaking the reactionary ruling system of state." They strongly believe in the philosophy of Mao Tsetung that "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." They also draw inspiration from the ‘Revolutionary Internationalist Movement’ and Peru's left wing extremist guerilla movement, the Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path). The radical communist parties from different parts of the world have provided ideological sustenance for the Nepali Maoists. The ‘People's War’ aims to establish a ‘New Democracy’ in Nepal and constitutes an "historical revolt against feudalism, imperialism and so-called reformists." The immediate reason given by the Maoists for declaring the ‘People's War’ was the failure of the Nepalese Government to respond to a memorandum presented by its representatives to Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba on February 4, 1996. The memorandum listed related to "nationalism, democracy and livelihood". These included among others the abolition of royal privileges and the promulgation of a new constitution, and the abrogation of the Mahakali treaty with India on the distribution of water and electricity and the delineation of the border between the two countries. After reading the above extract – does one still think that they are a terrorist group or a political activist fighting for their right? – A question to ponder. Putting this into perspective, a country’s main ammunition is its people, if the majority of electorates want something done that will transpire to parliament and the Law Commissions in place to carry out the necessary changes, if it does not occur then the current governments period of term would come to an end. So if the current Labour government in the UK were to introduce a new tax levy, which would ensure that all the middle-class citizens in the country earning above £60,000 would be levied a heavier income tax than the working class, it possibly would not fail since this would be deemed proportional and justified, however if the tables were turned and a heavier tax burden were to be placed on the working class, there would be a rebellion and the working class would demand a reversal of the proposal. Thereafter, if the Labour government did not do so it would mean at the next general election there would be reduced votes from the working class which constitutes a high proportion of the country. Meaning Labour would no longer be in government and their term of reign would expire. Going back to focussing on our point about fundamentalists and terrorism, it is safe to say that the Maoists are mere activists fighting for their right, they formed their own constitution and with that new rule of law for a country. So does one still think they are terrorists? - Hopefully that will not be the case by the end of this article. Moving on to a slightly more household name that we are used to hearing on the news – Al Qaeda. Some may say they hold the same values as Maoists but others will tend to disagree and state they are nothing but mere criminals - But how do we distinguish between the two?- This is where this article displays its credentials. Al-Qaeda ‘claim’ to be a political activist group vis á vis another Maoist. But let us look at some of their main arguments in being political activists: “To create a world of Muslims, to eradicate all kafirs (non-Muslims) and thereby establish the law of Shari’ah.” Out of all those arguments it cannot be finger pointed that any of them are democratic rather they are criminal, forceful and this is against all religions of this world. There is a method of implementing those measures, the method known as democracy, by transpiring their views to the rest of the world via politics and the media. This however is contrary to the Al-Qaeda view. Now contrast this with that of Hamas, many would find them to be terrorists. The reason why it is to be exemplified that Hamas is not a terrorist group is because they are fighting for a successive right to land, to a cause of necessity and for the protection for the people of their country. That is how to distinguish between fundamentals and terrorists, by primarily looking at intention and motive. Al-Qaeda clearly wants to impose their own religious views on others by force distinguished to Hamas who want to fight for a righteous cause. In conclusion, it is to be rounded up that fundamentalism and terrorism are two separate categories and fall into different classes, although the media has somewhat made those classes rather gray and overlapping, this however to us reading this article should now be black and white. One needs to look at it literally, fundamentalism is to hold fundamental views and fight for a fundamental cause, fundamental meaning something which is of great value to a person, be it country, religion or moral values whereas terrorism is the striking of fear, without a doubt there is a clear distinction between the two. So the answer to the question in the title of this article is - yes there is a margin of appreciation between both fundamentalism and terrorism.
Makhsudul Islam a student of law.
Rate this Article:
0 / 5 stars - 0 vote(s)
About the Author:
Makhsudul Islam a student of law. |
