Since September 11th, we have had a glut of commentaries on why Afghanistan must be attacked, Taleban must be destroyed, and how terrorism must be ended. The commentators and leaders have often called upon the patriotism, the nobility or the goodness of people to justify these arguments. It does not matter who we are, what we do or where we live, it is time to question for our selves why this is the only action open to us – ‘the civilized world’. Phrases such as ‘terrorism’, ‘evil versus good’, ‘war against liberty’ have all been bandied around. It is important that we – the people who are supposed to form the foundation of democratic bases – critically question various facets of the actions since September 11th, trying to understand what the act of terrorism was meant to achieve and what it has achieved, how communities should react to limit and counter terrorism and to understand terrorism if we mean to end it – as opposed to reactively ‘hunting and eliminating’ terrorists (which, as history has shown us, will NOT end terrorism).

When the sky scrapers were destroyed in New York – as when a car bomb goes of in Israel, a building is blown up in Ireland or a device is exploded in a train in India –common civilians, who were going about their own lives and who had no direct understanding of ‘WHY?’, were attacked. Such action gives rise to panic, and creates insecurity among people that something of this nature can happen to them. These attacks are usually planned to achieve widespread ‘publicity’, grab the horror of the community and spread fear. Terrorism is not about missing football games, being more careful of how you live or where you go or having to spend more time going through security checks at airports. These inconveniences are trivial. Terrorism is about how you look at another human – with suspicion. It is how you react to fellow human beings. In that sense, the terrorists have largely been successful. When you look at a fellow human being with brown skin and a beard and wonder if he is going to do you harm, when you shout invectives or not let him board a plane because of how he looks, terrorism has succeeded. When people speaking of peace are shouted down, beaten up or harassed by other people or by the police, terrorism has succeeded. Terrorism is about hatred, fear and panic. It is about breaking down the basic premises of human dignity, civil liberties and equality that make democracy work. The terrorists have succeeded if they have managed to place fear in the minds of the masses. Terrorism has succeeded when fear and insecurity manifests in us the basest of our emotions.

Terrorism is described by Webster dictionary as the systematic use of terror (a state of intense fear) especially as a means of coercion. Notice, it does not say anything about the perpetrator. In any state, when people live under intense fear of their lives, their futures and have no security; they are in a state of terror. It will be simplistic to focus on only one side of the picture. When the World Trade Center was blown up, it was terrorism. The magnitude of the attack shocked the United States into fear, into insecurity. This was terrorism. When US warplanes have carpet-bombed large parts of Iraq or Afghanistan, it was terrorism. When the Taleban introduced hegemonic laws to oppress women and limit their rights, it was terrorism. When people live in constant insecurity owing to fighting between two factions – whether that is connected to the mafia or political or religious factions – it is terrorism. When a car bomb is exploded near the Jammu and Kashmir legislative assembly, it is terrorism. When women are forced to wear certain kinds of clothes in Kashmir under the feat of acid being thrown at their faces, it is terrorism. When thousands are killed by chemical mismanagement and negligence, it is terrorism. When the Indian state has implicitly abetted those who have incited mobs to attack minorities, it is terrorism. When members of gay communities or racially and ethnically minority groups are attacked anywhere in the world, it is terrorism. When gun ships commandeered by oil companies destroy Nigerian Villages, it is terrorism. Those perpetrating terrorism have often justified these actions to their own constituents in a caricature of good versus evil. Thus, the evil forces of Al Qaeda have attacked the liberty and freedom of USA and the forces of freedom all around the world should come together to deliver the civilized world from the dark forces. Or, the dark American forces along with the evil state of Israel are trying to bring an end to Islam and the Islamic nations must rise to resist these forces. It is unfortunate the common people have taken these daily doses of propaganda and believe that this is indeed the whole truth.

Terrorism is not a new beast. It existed in Nazi Germany, in Siberian concentration camps and in areas in the United States where citizens of Asian origin were ‘secured’ during the world wars. It existed during the inquisitions in Spain, in the decimation of natives in South and North America. It existed in the colonies of Britain and in Apartheid South Africa. It existed in the activities of slave traders in Africa. It existed as piracy in the high seas and as robbers and highwaymen. It existed as hordes of plundering armies in unstable states that existed at different times in Europe and Asia. Even today, terrorism has gone unnoticed in the villages in Nigeria where gun ships of oil companies gunned down hundreds. The difference is that today media has brought it into every home. The scale of the act on September 11th and the location of the act brought it to the media’s attention in a way that few other such acts have.

There is no doubt in the collective minds of any community that the perpetrators of the world trade center bombings – as with any other act of terror – must be brought to justice. The reaction of the government of United States to the act of terror in New York is reminiscent of a medieval society where a dictum of a ‘tooth for a tooth’ prevailed rather than a modern society that is supposed to be founded on law. The reaction is necessarily extra-legal. When there are guidelines for international law, all signatory countries – including the United States – are bound to abide by them. The purpose of these laws is to ensure that the innocent are not harmed. However, United States has (as in the past) disregarded these laws to take unilateral action. In the past – as in the bombing of Sudan – United States has made mistakes; there seems to be evidence that the building was not an arms factory but a pharmaceutical factory. The action of the United States suggests an attitude that laws are only for others – the government of United States can do what it pleases. It also is based on an attitude that one people are more important – have greater ‘worth’ – than another. Such actions have added to a perception of United States as the international bully. Is it to be understood that only the weak may obey laws? Why should India, which has been claiming that Pakistan has harbored terrorists it wants, not charge into Pakistan and attempt to grab the terrorists? Clearly, that is not the way to proceed for it will take us to the dark ages of ravaging armies and unstable communities.

While the United States has demanded the extradition of individuals wanted by the courts of law in that country, it has denied the same requests by other nations. For example, Warren Anderson, who was the head of Union Carbide’s Indian operations, is wanted in India. Is it then to be understood that grievances of one people are more justified than another?

A number of ‘civilized’ nations have come together to form a coalition against terrorism. This is really a dangerous game that is in fact going to hurt the interests of people. Now China can declare the Tibetan movement for freedom a terrorist movement and justify crack down on these people affecting their already limited human rights. Pakistan – one of the partners in the coalition – has been pulled up time and again for major human rights violations – an instrument of state terror – within its borders. The Indian state under various governments has abetted different kinds of human rights violations and state brutality against certain marginalized communities. Amnesty International has presented evidence of such violations within the borders of the member nations of this coalition. Clearly then, the governments of these nations are not interested in end of terrorism but rather of subjugation of forces that are inimical to the interests of these governments. The result will be that every people’s movement that is gasping for freedom will be throttled under the agenda of eradication of terrorism. Those who are fighting state subjugation will be eliminated under this mandate of ‘War Against Terrorism’ that seems to have been claimed by the coalition.

Russian President Putin and Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee signed an agreement that claimed that there is no good terrorism. All terrorism is bad. On the face of it, this seems just. However, these ‘statesmen’ were not discussing how they could prevent all terrorism. President Putin has little interest in going after the Russian Mafia that has become powerful. Prime Minister Vajpayee is not interested in going after known terrorists who wear the garb of politicians and religious leaders who murdered common people during the communal riots and incited rioting. They were trying to see how they could ensure that their agendas are included in this war against terrorism. They would like to have the mandate to go after the ‘terrorists’ in Chechnya and Kashmir. There is a real fear that indigenous people fighting for their rights in India will be labeled as terrorist organizations so that the state machinery can be used to crush these groups.

Fear is a dangerous – and easy – thing to exploit. Fear and insecurity have been historically used to rouse negative sentiments. The Nazi party was based on such fears, as is the Ku Klux Klan. A large number of states have used – in fact hyped up – fear and hysteria to make draconian laws that would have not been accepted otherwise. In the United States, right wing political groups have already made into law edicts that are draconian against immigrants. Individuals – who are not citizens – can be arrested without warrants, tried by military courts and put into prison without a real trial. In India, the central government has brought into ordinance a set of laws that are even more draconian. With these laws, the state machinery can pick up any individual and put them in prison without any court proceedings for an extended period of time. These can be used to shut up all groups dissenting against government policies rather effectively. Thankfully, the opposition has blocked them from becoming laws up till now.

Thus, the hysteria against terrorism is being used by forces in power to accumulate power and to stamp out all dissent or opposition to the policies or programs of the powers that be. In India, it is feared that activists from minority groups will be put in prison based on these draconian laws. In a similar fashion, those opposing certain ‘development’ programs of the government or those opposing forces that want to forcibly displace indigenous peoples may become targets under this new set of draconian measures. Effectively, power to make decisions at the community level – which includes dissenting or disagreeing with decisions made by central powers – is being limited. Clearly, these changes further limit a democratic set up. Yet, it is ironic that these laws that limit the power of the people are being promulgated behind a war cry that claims to protect the liberties of the people. By reducing the voices and scope for dissent, I fear that we are making the situation more prone to terrorism.

A large number of people’s groups and progressive thinkers across the world have questioned the activities that are being planned and perpetrated behind the façade of ‘War Against Terrorism’. Large demonstrations across the ‘civilized’ world have questioned the imperious commentary on the need for war and the hasty commandeering of public sentiments to justify the use of force. In cities across the world, various groups have demonstrated against this war on Afghanistan. Watch groups around the United States have been warning that draconian laws that severely infringe on human rights and civil liberties will be promulgated, and they have been. Despite the paucity in numbers, these groups have done well to voice these opinions. Unfortunately, the mainstream media has completely ignored this voice of reason.

Extreme measures need extreme caution. When risks are that tens of thousands will be killed as a direct result of fighting and millions of civilians will be killed by starvation, disease and the cold of the winter, the statesmen who claim to have the welfare of civilization at heart need to be very careful. Unfortunately, the statesmen as well as mainstream media have already defined the death of a million people as collateral damage thereby making them numbers to thrown out by television presenters, not living people with children and with emotions who are looking for a better life just as we are. And yet, we – the people that make the democracies – either hide behind garbs of insecurity and paranoia or flex our manhood with jingoism.

Intimidation has been an instrument used to keep in control communities that disagree with policies of the central powers. That is terrorism. On the other hand, groups disagreeing with these central powers have attempted to disrupt (through guerrilla type warfare or constant violent intrusions) communities that politically, economically or religiously actively agree with or by not dissenting, support the powers that be. This is terrorism as well. It is worth noting here that being neutral usually results in implicit support to the dominant powers against those that are marginalized or oppressed. The second kind of terrorism can often be linked – directly or indirectly – to the first. It seems unusual to me that any human - leave alone a community – would WANT to live a life where every breath is spent waiting for death, for reprisals. Such actions are usually the result of every other way of dissent being shut off, a result of oppression – real or perceived – where the oppressed feels backed to the wall with nothing to lose. Communities that have been severely marginalized, politically and economically oppressed, and have little say in their own growth and development have become hotbeds of hatred and subsequently of separatist, militant and terrorist activities. The LTTE is perhaps the most vicious group in South Asia if not the world. The Hamas in Palestine, ULFA in India, groups in Chechniya, are all examples of groups that grew of out marginalized and oppressed communities. Very quickly, in each of these cases, the moderate voice of the oppressed communities fighting for justice was eliminated by more extremist groups. In each of these cases, terrorism grew out of years of oppression. It is important to ask ‘Why?’. If there is a real interest in ending terrorism, the focus has to be in understanding the conditions that foster terrorism and ending these conditions. Killing a few terrorists will serve nothing.

Vengeful action has always been a vicious, never ending cycle and is not founded on law. The actions by United States on Afghanistan will not solve the menace of terrorism. The bombing of this ravaged nation will only hurt the people. Osama bin Laden may die, but it will not end terrorism. With thousands dying or having little access to basic amenities for humanly respectably life, the only hope for survival and respect for those living in such conditions is to join certain groups that have been formed by certain political forces. Within these groups, a certain worldview is espoused and individuals are indoctrinated. As long as these conditions remain, thousands will be driven by hatred to fulfill a self-serving prediction of destruction. Around the world – from the Deep South in the United States, to refugee camps in Palestine to Afghanistan – the frustration, anger and hatred of marginalized communities have been funneled at another community. In some cases, this other community may not be directly responsible, in others they may be. However, all that matters is how those that are marginalized perceive – or are led to perceive – these inequalities. In all these cases, the feed back mechanisms that are the basis of democratic functioning have been choked or broken. These communities are not able to get their choices or express their needs to those making policies at the center and owing to policies beyond their control are not able to bring about a change in their own lives and in the conditions around them. Terrorism, thus, has its foundations in severe inequality, oppression and exploitation.

Killing a few people – as examples to the rest – will not end terrorism. These draconian laws – whether in USA, India, the Arab world or the Middle East – will not limit terrorism. It will only foster more terrorism. It is indeed ironic that we have not learnt from the experiences in Israel, India or elsewhere. Some of these areas that are the hotbeds of terrorism are a result of decades of bad policies. Why then must we believe of even expect that the solution will be achieved in months or even a couple of years. The solution will have to be long term and will have to look at ways of greater equality, of greater power to communities to be able to change their own lives, or conditions around themselves.

Some of the arguments against war on Afghanistan – or on Iraq – have been self-destructive. These arguments are either based on lionizing Saddam Hussein, the Taleban or some other dictatorial power that the ‘War against Terrorism’ is targeting. It has to be understood that humongous violations of human rights and intimidation of sections of the population has occurred in these countries. They cannot be condoned under any circumstance. Though this does not justify the United States – or any other nation – bombing these countries, it does justify that pressure be brought to bear on these countries irrespective of their political or economic leanings so that such egregious violations be ended. The other members of the coalition against terrorism have cried against terrorism – or human rights violations – only when it has suited them politically. Thus, the violation of rights of women became a reason to bomb the Taleban only after September 11th, 2001. The Northern Alliance is guilty of human rights violations just like the Taleban. However, these violations are now being overlooked for political reasons. Human rights violations in Pakistan or in Saudi Arabia have been constantly overlooked. Similarly, no opposition was voiced to the killing of Kurds in Iraq till Saddam Hussein stopped being ‘our kind of man’ to the west. Such policies have gone a long way in fostering hatred and fomenting terrorism. These ‘progressive’ voices that are standing up for all these cases of human rights violations when it has suited them, need to stand up unequivocally irrespective of political affiliations and interests.

What then is the solution? There is no doubt that those responsible for terrorist actions of any kind must be brought to book. However, international guidelines will have to be followed. The United States policy of proceeding with a multilateral mandate when it can and unilaterally when it must will come back to haunt it. In the current misadventure in Afghanistan, the United States has decided to align itself with the Northern Alliance – an entity known for its human right violations and for terrorizing dissenting communities – in bringing down the Taleban. It is creating a monster that will come back to haunt the region and possibly the United States – just as the Taleban has today. In the long run, terrorism will end only when powerful entities stop pushing communities to the edge of survival, oppressing and exploiting them for their own interests. In the case of Afghanistan, then, it would mean stopping the flow of ammunitions and money for weapons into the country, pulling out all foreign entities after the setup of an interim body that is representative of Afghan interests. In central Africa, it would mean global pressure to limit the powers of multinational organizations so that governments are not constantly overthrown based on the economic interests of these multinationals. These are obviously simplistic suggestions and the reality will have to include a large number of factors. The bottom line, however, has to be human life and dignity, not political or economic gains by any entity.

If certain nations are looking at ways to protect their interests even at the cost of significant exploitation and oppression of other communities, they can choose the path they are on. These communities can be called terrorist groups and placed under even greater constraints and controls. For in the absence of such controls and as long as exploitation continues, these communities will react. And they will react violently. I cannot see this strategy being a possible long-term solution. More constraints and more oppression will necessarily make things worse. If indeed the world is looking at a long-term solution for terrorism, one will have to look at issues of equality and justice, exploitation and oppression. The world will have to sincerely find ways to prevent exploitation of ‘undeveloped’ communities for minerals, wood, labor, chemical dumping sites, and markets. Some of us will have to give in a little, allow for ‘lower standards of living’, so that resources can be distributed more evenly. Are we willing to find ways of achieving equality? That is the real question.

In this era of globalization with cause and effects spanning the whole world and actions by communities in one part drastically impacting another, it is important that people become aware of actions and activities at the global setting. It is important for example to for a community in England, for example, to know how its patterns of consumption affect the forests in central Africa and communities living off those forests. It is important for communities using products from a certain corporation know the conditions of work in which the products are produce, the manner of extraction of raw materials and how it affects communities in those regions. For example, if Shell attacks and destroys villages in Nigeria to procure oil, consumers buying those products are implicitly condoning methods employed by Shell. Thus, they are indirectly responsible for that kind of terrorism. It is important for consumers to pressure the oil company to behave ethically. Similarly citizens have to become aware of the foreign policies of their own nations. If taxpayers’ money is going to fund weapons for a regime that oppresses it women, the taxpayers should know and demand better foreign policy from their government. It rests with us, the people who form the basis of democracy that we regulate how our governments behave to ensure less oppression in other parts of the world. It becomes imperative that we the people become more proactive in understanding implications of foreign policy vis a vis exploitation and oppression since it is we the people who become targets of terrorism.

The end to terrorism cannot be piecemeal. It cannot exist as bubbles of security for only a few. It cannot be defined only for ourselves. Peace has to be for all – for ‘us’ and for ‘them’. Terrorism cannot be defined only as actions that hurt ‘us’. They also include ‘our’ actions that hurt ‘them’. It is not enough to hold candles and sing for peace. They are but palliatives. An end to terrorism requires our active participation to influence policies against oppression, against exploitation, for equality and justice for all. It requires an understanding of how fulfillment of our needs might result in oppression of another community. The next time one demands that terrorists be brought to justice and peace prevail, or is outraged be how one has been hurt, it is perhaps time to remember that the coin has another side. One might implicitly be part of that other side.