|
Terrorism and Justice
Justice (Retd.) Aziz M. Ahmadi
| |
In the wake of increasing state terror against the followers of
Islam, Muslim organizations are holding meets across the country
to raise awareness amongst opinion makers and other faith
followers including Sikhs about the plight of Muslims. WSN
presents the edited version of the text of the speech of Justice
Aziz Ahmadi while inaugurating the National Convention on
Terrorism and Justice organized by the All India Milli Council
at the Khalsa College Auditorium in New Delhi. |
|
 Acts of what are generally described as ‘terror’ were prevalent in
various parts of the world, particularly in the Middle-east but went
unnoticed till the 9/11 attacks on the Twin towers and the Pentagon
in the
USA.
Agonized and humiliated, the Bush administration declared, what it
described as a ‘War on terror’ and identified and targeted certain
countries and organizations as ‘axis of evil’. Thus began the
commencement of the search for a universally acceptable meaning and
definition of terrorism. Many moot questions were raised. What
constitutes terrorism? Who is a terrorist? What gives rise to
terrorism? How would society be able to get rid of the scourge of
this menace?
There are no easy answers. Unless law is able to answer these
queries with precision, it may be difficult to formulate a globally
acceptable definition as every violent act may not be an act of
terrorism; it may just be a crime or retaliation to unjust
oppression. Dictionaries too give different meanings. Even the
United Nations has struggled in vain to reach a consensus on the
definition of terrorism and related expressions.
 Unquestionably the most controversial and challenging issue is to
seek an answer to the moot questions. In the course of political
conflicts, different groups adopt diverse means to fight perceived
injustices. The weak may use means that the powerful may describe
as an act of terror and that may be used as a pretext to justify use
of brute force to suppress the agitation of the weak. For example,
the British described the Sepoy uprising as mutiny whereas the
Indian nationalists described it as the beginning of the freedom
movement. General Dyer’s massacre at Jallianwala Bagh in 1919 was
also sought to be brushed under the carpet by British rulers. The
weak may show their determination to struggle for a cause through
non-violence as Gandhi did as a matter of principle. Others may do
so because of their inability to match the strength of the
powerful. If they had other means, they may have used it, no matter
how uneven the fight. If anyone would have such means to fight,
would he be described as a terrorist?
It
is a matter of perception of the action of the parties involved. Can
one call Shaheed Bhagat Singh or Subash Chandra Bose a terrorist?
Yes, in the eyes of the British, No, in the eyes of the nationalist
Indians. This shows how difficult it is to define ‘terrorists’ or
‘terrorism’. This is not to say that violence should be condoned,
it may be punishable as a crime, but it may be difficult to brand it
as an act of terrorism.
 Leonard Weinber and Paul Davis have described terrorism as a weapon
of the weak, employed against the powerful, not intended to conjure
up to change the balance of power but an effort at being heard. In
other words, it is a voice of the voiceless, hoping to be heard by
the powerful. According to Grant Wardlaw, the use of terror in
itself does not constitute terrorism because terror may be employed
in the political arena as a weapon of psychological warfare.
It can be just a strategy to secure certain legitimate demands that
are being unjustly denied.
What can the weak do against the powerful that refuse to listen?
Grievances, if unresolved for long, can result in violent
responses. Terror violence can thus be the end product of the
weaker sections of society whose rights have been trampled or
suppressed and who is at their wits’ end to realize them.
| |
What constitutes terrorism? Who is a terrorist? What gives rise
to terrorism? How would society be able to get rid of the
scourge of this menace? There are no easy answers. |
|
In the lives of people, comes a time when they get tired of being
plunged into the abyss of humiliation, when they experience
bleakness of nagging despair; when they are extremely disgusted at
being pushed around, there comes a time when they get tired of being
lectured; there comes a time when they get tired of being patient
after showing staggering patience, there comes a time when they
realize they are left with no alternative but to protest to save
themselves from that which makes them patient; protest to save
themselves from indignities that are heaped upon them and to
ultimately raise their voice for justice. Tolerance gives way to
retaliation in whatever form it may come and this is sought to be
branded as terrorism.
In a democracy, governed by rule of law, it is all the more
frustrating and agonizing if those in power turn a Nelson’s eye and
do not show the will to act and resolve grievances of any section of
the peoples. There is no doubt that Indian governmental agencies
have not shown the sensitivity and impartial professionalism
expected of them in dealing with volatile communal conflicts. When
problems and circumstances are weighed not on merits and
justification but on the scale of vote-bank politics, it leaves the
victims with a deep feeling of inveterate rancor of injustice, which
in turn generates despair, anger and bitterness.
You must have read the story of the flock of sheep closeted in a
dingy room yearning for liberty. One sheep struggled to escape to
freedom, succeeded to break loose, but was immediately devoured by
the leopard hiding behind a bush. The other sheep saw the fate of
their colleague but undeterred they continued to struggle, losing
their lives in pursuit of liberty, howsoever momentary it was.
The current debate on terrorism can be divided into two parts
–domestic terrorism and global terrorism. Domestic terrorism may be
further classified as state-sponsored terrorism and terrorism by
private groups. Although Article 22 of the Indian constitution
offers protection against detention in custody, clause 3 thereof
exempts detention under any law providing for preventive detention.
| |
The convention saw the participation of Retd Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court of India -Justice G. B. Patnaik, Dr. Mohammad
Manzoor Alam, the General Secretary of the All India Milli
Council, Mr. John Dayal, Dr. J. K. Jain, Bhai Jasbir Singh Rode,
Bhai Mokham Singh, Kanwarpal Singh, Ravi Inder Singh, Gurdeep
Singh, Dalit leader -Dr. Prempati, Mr. Mukul Sharma, Director
Amnesty International India Section, Mr. Sukhjit Bagchi from
BBC, Father Dominique Emanuel, Mr. Aziz Burny, Chief editor,
Urdu Sahara and Jagmohan Singh as the WSN representative. |
|
India has a long history of preventive detention, during the British
rule and in the post-independence era. India has had preventive
detention laws like MISA -Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1975
TADA -Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention), Act, 1987,
POTA -Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002, besides MCOCA –Maharashtra
Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 in Maharashtra. Though TADA
and POTA have been repealed due to outcry against their misuse,
MCOCA in Maharashtra is still on the statute.
Certain self-appointed groups, masquerading as guardians of
so-called culture, sanguine in the belief that the party in power
will not take any action against them, nay, will in fact extend
protection against prosecution, violate the law of the land with
impunity and unabashedly commit violence. They attack Christians,
priests and vandalize churches. Victims of anti-Sikh violence of
November 1984 are still fighting for justice and so are the victims
of the killings of
Bombay
and Gujarat 2002.
A paradox can easily be seen. While the perpetrators of the serial
bomb blast case have been tried and convicted, those who have
indulged in wide-spread killings of Muslims in Mumbai are still at
large even though the Srikrishna Commission has identified and named
them. In Gujarat too, but for the pro-active role of the Supreme
Court, the State government would not have taken effective action
and had the sensitive cases not been transferred outside the state
of Gujarat, they too would have ended in easy acquittals. For the
victims and family members of mass violence, the feeling of
injustice continues to cause heart-burn and patience seems to be
running out as most of such grievances have not been promptly
addressed. No civilized country can afford to tolerate such grave
human rights violations.
 Unfortunately, in the last few decades, the focus of Indian politics
has deviated from principles and ideology to hate and expediency.
Sadly, the utilitarian principle of ‘the end justifies the means’
has sunk deeply into certain political groups and so-called cultural
outfits which has forced certain other political parties to counter
them, thereby allowing the same colour to stick to them. The entire
political environment of the country has been polluted. The
Bharatiya Janta Party is rightist, the Communists are leftists and
the Indian National Congress finds itself sandwiched between the
two, with its policies oscillating from the left to the right. The
hate campaign unleashed by communal forces, particularly the Sangh
Parivar outfits, against Muslims and Christians, has been largely
responsible for the lack of social harmony but those in power have
shown no will to suppress these activities.
The partisan role of the police during communal riots has been
adequately documented by various probe commissions and those set up
to suggest police reforms. Command responsibility, both in
administration and the police, has not been introduced despite
pressing demands from victim groups. Experience has shown that
those in power bank on public memory being short and hope that
everything will be forgotten with passage of time.
Thanks to the will of the Sikh community to fight for justice and
rights, the issue of justice to the Sikhs has not died down.
Christians and Muslims have to learn from the Sikhs the pursuit of
justice till its logical conclusion.
The role of the media in portraying ‘terror’ and the ‘pursuit of
justice’ is becoming increasingly significant. The ever-growing
media, particularly television channels must evolve a code and
assist victim-groups in their struggle for justice. If they do so,
they would be serving the cause of the constitution and rule of law
and busting impunity of police and administration. Some channels
have done excellent work. In sensitive matters, a consensus needs
to be evolved before the news and views are transmitted.
Soon after the 9/11 incidents, the Bush administration, in declaring
a war on terror, unwittingly gave the impression that it was a war
against Islam, the ummah, then followed the invasion of Iraq
and indiscriminate arrests and detentions of people belonging to
that faith. However, of late things have changed. Newspaper reports
suggest that the Bush administration has issued an advisory to avoid
the use of expressions such as Jehadist, Islamic fascism, ummah,
Wahabis, Sofis, etc. Dair Aye durast aye –better late than
never. Tainting an entire community, questioning Islam and looking
upon Muslims suspiciously was uncalled for. In the past too, Islam
had to weather such storms, but as the poet aptly puts it,
Yunan-o-misr-o-Roma sab mit gaye jehan se;
Baqi abhi talak hai nam-o-nihsan hamara;
Kuch baat hai ke hasti mitti nahi hamari
Sadio rahe hai dushman daur-e-zaman hamare.
The duty to protect Islam rests heavily on the shoulders of its true
believers. It is our duty to protect this country and the globe from
such misguided souls and to expose them. If we fail in this duty,
we will have failed Islam.
Note:
The views expressed in this article are those of the author.
Justice Aziz Mushabber Ahmadi, who hails from Surat, Gujarat
has served as a judge in the Gujarat High Court and the Supreme
Court of
India.
He was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India from 1994 to
1997. He has also worked as a Member of the Ravi & Beas Waters
Disputes Tribunal under the Rajiv-Longowal Accord.
30
April 2008
|
Read Also