Terrorism: An Epidemic of Today's World- Can there be a Solution

Email

Whatsapp

Facebook

Pinterest

Twitter

Copy link

We human beings exist in this world in a very special way, for unlike the inanimate table, chair, rocks etc. we are conscious beings. We think that we are more capable than those non-living entities. But however much we may take pride in this fact - if we are so powerful then, how is it that we timidly lead our lives in fear, being subject to several threats and terrorist activities day in and day out? We, rational human beings have invented several scientific devices for the welfare of the society; again we have also used our brains (the seat of all the vital functions of human beings) in several destructive activities. Bombs and missiles are often used to kill thousands of innocents. The rate of this arbitrary killing has increased with time; the world has become a turbulent place to live in and if this continues then very soon human race would be wiped out the cause of which would be none other than human beings themselves. Perhaps these would mark the advent of Armageddon. Of late one term that has been very prominent in the society; its meaning seems to be known by all - the intellectual, the road side dwellers, a small child and even by the illiterates. The tern is Terrorism'. This indicates the 'terror' which by certain groups performing anti-social activities, spread in the very society they live.

These groups perform this kind of activity to make their opponents hear their claims and to accede to them. Such a psychology is commonly found within a small child at home. When a child desperately wants something to which his parents strongly oppose, then the child becomes all the more stubborn and, finally, indulges into vandalism so that his parents are bound to fulfil his demands. Similarly through violent acts, the terrorists try to draw the attention of their opponents so that they are compelled to listen to them. In the present time terrorism seems almost as a natural phenomenon, for this is not anything new on this earth. Its means that tactics and strategies might have changed in recent times, but that such activities were also found in the primitive time, and have been gradually continuing through ages. The notion of terrorism has always brought in violent emotion and greatly divergent opinions and images of it. The popular image of terrorist some 80 years ago was that of a bomb-throwing alien anarchist, dishevelled, with a black beard and a satanic smile, fanatic, immoral, sinister and ridiculous at the same time. Dostoevsky in his book The Possessed and Conrad in his books The Secret Agent and A tale of ideology and terrorism provided more sophisticated but essentially similar descriptions. His present day image has been streamlined but not necessarily improved, it certainly has not been explained by political scientists or psychiatrists called in for rapid consultation.

Terrorists have found admirers and publicity agents in all ages. No words of praise are fulsome enough for these latter day saints and martyrs, as they feel. The terrorist (we are told) is the only one who really cares; he is a totally committed fighter for freedom and justice, a gentle human being forced by cruel circumstances and an indifferent majority to play heroic yet tragic roles: the Good Samaritan distributing poison or St. Francis with the borrib. Such a beautification of the terrorist is grotesque, but terrorism cannot be unconditionally rejected except on the basis of a total commitment to non-violence and non-resistance to evil. The meaning of the terms 'terrorist' and 'terrorism' was given in 1798 supplement of the Dictionaire of the Academic Francaise as 'systeme, regime de la terrur?. According to the French dictionary published in 1796, the Jacobin had on occasion used the term when speaking and writing about themselves in a positive sense; after the 911`Thermidor, 'terrorist' became a term of abuse with criminal implications. It did not take long for the term to reach Britain; Bruke, in a famous. passage written in 1795, wrote about "thousands of those hell hounds called terrorists", who were let loose on the people. Terrorism, at that time, referred to the period of French Revolution, that is between March 1793 and July 1794 and it was more or less a synonym for 'reign of terror'. We hold the terrorists at fault mostly because they kill innocents, but according to them, the common men are not innocents as they are indirectly involved in the terrorists' cause. In a democracy public opinion is an important feature, so they can at least stand by the underprivileged and make the Government hear their voice of protest.

Instead, they rest peacefully as if it is not their problem. The sociologists state that, in our society there are three types of 3 people, one who live for all, for both who do and do not live for him. The second category consists of those who live for them who live for him. The third category consists of those who would want that others would live for them, but they would not live for those others. This category would not exist as others would come to know about their attitude and discard them. Again, those who help others who do not help them in return, would also perish as they would fall short of their resources by helping others if they do not themselves receive help. Thus only those would survive who help those who help them. Hence on the basis of such a principle of reciprocal altruism the world moves on with its existence. But the terrorists claim that, the civilians die in terrorism because such a principle of survival is not maintained by them, and thus they ought to perish. In the course of our discussion we would see whether such a claim of the terrorists is tenable.

This work is basically a socio-philosophical study. I have tried to arrange the entire discussion into Eight Chapters and in the first Appendix; I hive delved with the comparative study of Nietzsche and Freud on violence. But it has to be noted that I have countered violence as a solution of terrorism, rather have talked of care and compassion to curb the phenomenon. So some might question then why have I brought about the idea of violence (of Nietzsche and Freud) in the first Appendix. I would retort that the violence which Friedrich Nietzsche talks about is that kind of violence which is required to do away with anarchy and other evils in the society in order to construct a benevolent system to provide maximum happiness to maximum number. There can be two different motives to apply knife onto someone's body. In surgery when it is applied the person is saved while he is killed, when applied with a motive of murder. Both are applications of violence but the motives differ. Thus the violence talked of by Nietzsche is constructive and neither destructive nor futile like the terrorists.

Again in case of Freud I have used the notion of 'internalization' as far as violence is concerned as Freud himself emphasized on. Thus I have showed that violence can be good as well as bad, the terrorists use it for a wrong reason. (Although there can be no substitute to love and compassion. But the problem is if a terrorist puts you at gun point then perhaps to defend yourself violence is the only spontaneous solution.) Then by bringing in violence, in Freud I have tried to explain that mild bickering of the kettle is fine but the rest of the aggression should better be internalized to sustain a civilization, a human-race. This is how in the Appendix I, I have tried to imply that although violence constitutes man's nature but it ought to be curbed, hence it can be curbed and should be used not to kill innocents or for any wrong reason but can be used in specific cases where it is absolutely necessary. Otherwise there is no alternative of love, care and compassion. I have also tried to deal with certain Frequently Asked Questions regarding the notion of terrorism, and this I have put in the chapter called Appendix 2. In the first chapter 'On Defining Terrorism', we notice the difficulty of giving a straight forward, unanimously accepted definition of terrorism. I have tried to give different working definitions mentioned by several philosophical, political and social thinkers, and have also considered the notion from different perspectives to clarify the nature of the phenomenon. In the process I have shown that terrorism cannot be loosely used to mean any kind of crime; war, guerrilla tactics, revolution of any kind or any form of violence. It is violence of a different nature and somewhat unique. In this Chapter I have also talked about the various kinds of terrorism found earlier and those found today.