Terrorism Is The Fruit Of Anger

GOA, May 28, 2010, 14:00 Hrs (Averthanus L. D’Souza):

The increase in the level of violence and the spread of organized violence in the form of terrorism is causing serious concern to the men and women of our times. We were quite used to sporadic incidents of individual violence, including that of students who gunned down their teachers and fellow students because of perceived injustices done to them. In most such cases, social psychologists looked for psychological causes in the individual and in his family and immediate social environment. More often than not they attributed such violence to broken families, to early childhood abuses, to lack of adequate inter-personal relationships and other similar causes. Among the measures recommended to minimize and to prevent similar violent incidents, were the administrative ones to prevent minors from getting possession of weapons belonging to their fathers and stricter legal gun control laws. Psychologists recommended greater family interactions to counter feelings of isolation, of alienation and of neglect. Many social psychologists clearly said that the growth in the extent of teenage violence was due to the increase in the breakdown of families. Psychobiologists looked for biological clues to the violent behaviour of individuals.

In any case, the concentration of attention was on individual cases of violence, which was agreed to be socially unacceptable. Educationists, psychologists and sociologists went into high gear to identify the causes of violent behaviour in teenage individuals and to provide remedial measures to prevent recurrence of such violence in schools, colleges and other public places.

Terrorism however is quite another kettle of fish. Acts of terrorist violence are not merely individual acts provoked by psychological dysfunctions in individuals. Terrorism is seen to be a calculated weapon devised by groups of highly disgruntled people who want to dismantle institutions which are perceived to be unjust and undesirable. Terrorism is a violent form of protest which is resorted to by groups which do not see any other means of redress of their grievances – whether real or imagined. Terrorism is a relatively recent phenomenon. It is a form of warfare that does not follow traditional rules of combat. There is no formal declaration of war; there is no proclaimed ‘enemy’ to be fought; there is no territory declared to be ‘enemy territory.’ The enemy is not a clearly identified government or institution. The objective is not clearly defined. The closest that has appeared to governments is the declaration that they should change their style of governance and pay more attention to the needs of the poor and the socially marginalized.

Terrorism has taken many forms in different places. In parts of India, for example, terrorist movements have been established to gain ‘independence’ for ethnic groups from the mainland. The north-eastern hill areas are typical of this kind of rebellion – calls for a separate Nagaland, a separate Bodoland, a separate Asom, et cetera. The ‘naxalite’ areas in Andhra Pradesh, in Orissa, West Bengal, Jharkhand, Chhatisgarh and so forth are rebellions to establish separate administrations for the tribals of these areas. The demands of these tribals are complex. They are aggrieved that they have been deprived of their rights to live off the products of the forests. They resent that widespread deforestation is underway to make way for mining or setting up of industries.

On the international front, the terrorism is of a different kind. It has both ideological and religious components. Because of the confusion surrounding the reasons for that kind of terrorism, it has mistakenly been labelled as Islamic terrorism. This is clearly unfair and inaccurate because Islam does not teach the overthrow of legitimate governments by sheer violence. In fact the very word Islam means Peace. Unfortunately, because of miscommunications and misinterpretations of what constitutes ‘jihad’ this form of terrorism is associated with the religion of Islam. The distinctions may be blurred but the division of the world is, unfortunately, more recognizable – between Muslim fundamentalism and the ‘Christian west.’ Some people have even ventured to categorize this as a conflict of civilizations.

What emerges from a closer study of the nature of the conflicts is that those who have resorted to violence to achieve their objectives are generally motivated by a sense of deep-seated anger. They are angry because they sense that their convictions are not understood and not respected. Furthermore, they do not appear to have avenues of dialogue to make their positions clear. The situation is not very unlike that of Marxism-Leninism in which the clash between ‘capitalism’ and ‘socialism’ was seen to be inevitable, with final victory going to the proletariat with the emergence of a classless society. Unfortunately the physical violence which accompanied the movement to change the existing system was considered to be inevitable. It is not clear at this time whether the clash between established governments and terrorist organizations is also considered to be, somehow, inevitable.

The problem has become even more complicated with the progress of globalization which is largely an economic and commercial process which has not taken care to ensure that the political institutions support this process. There is a clear disconnect between economic activities and the political structures which remain anachronistic and fossilized. Many people rightly perceive globalization to be a further enrichment of those who have and a further dispossessing of those who do not have. Notwithstanding all the claims made by economists, the poor are becoming poorer while the rich are becoming richer. It is this growing disparity between the rich and the poor that is partly fuelling the anger and resentment, which then manifests itself in violence against big businesses and the governments which promote big business. The tribals and the marginalized are inexorably being deprived of their only sources of livelihood and are being inducted as slaves into the big business enterprises. Much of the so-called Naxalite or Maoist violence is a symptom of the anger of the poor and marginal land holders.

The obvious response of governments should be to ensure that the rights of the poor and the marginalized are respected by legal provisions; that they are helped to improve their economic and social status through a more equitable distribution of resources. The problem is one of social justice – not one of law and order. The response of governments is totally misplaced. They only increase the violence of the police and law-and-order machinery to the existing structural injustice under which the poor suffer. Violence can only be eliminated by readjusting the unjust economic structures which are the cause of violence. Military might and police repression will never succeed in dousing the anger which is the result of social injustice.