Talking To The Terrorist

“I can hear you and the rest of the world hears you and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!” proclaimed President George W Bush standing on the ashes of Ground Zero on September 14, 2001 - addressing rescue workers shouting ‘USA! USA! USA!

The United States is still in pursuit of the people responsible for having “knocked these buildings down” with the determination to eradicate and kill those leaders and followers that perpetuate terrorism.

Unfortunately recent reports raise concern that the ‘War on Terror’ is close to a dead end.

On November 27^th after completion of sanitising operations by the NSG at Nariman House in Mumbai, crowds screaming “Bharat Mata Ki Jai …Pakistan Murdabad” had to be dispersed by water cannon.

With the country seething in anger, in the aftermath of 26/11, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was measured in his response saying that the people of India “feel a sense of hurt and anger as never seen before.”

Amongst those goading the government into a war on terror is former union minister Arun Shourie exhorting “No more talk of ‘minimum force’. Its time to overwhelmingly crush the terrorist forces and repeatedly; It should be both eyes for an eye and a jaw for a tooth”

It is thus far and no further, agrees B. Raman, Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, advocating “a divided Pakistan, a bleeding Pakistan, a Pakistan ever on the verge of collapse without actually collapsing-that should be our objective till it stops using terrorism against India”

Devarchit Varma, a student of broadcast journalism in Bangalore thinks “Terrorism has now reached a point where it has to be dealt with mercilessly. There can be no space for any negotiation”

There is a strong and mounting demand for firm and decisive action exacerbated “by the warmongering and hysteria of the media and middle class in metros” a trend condemned by John Dayal, Member, National Integration Council.

Amidst the tom-tomming of jingoism and the fog of manufacturing consent clouding judgement ex-soldier, Srinath Raghavan presently a security analyst at the National Institute of Advanced Studies provides clarity saying “There are serious limits to India’s capacity to impose substantial costs on Pakistan. A limited strike would thus amount to little more than scratching the wound: it may make us feel momentarily better but will not address the underlying problem. To suggest that India can hold the initiative and can gradually turn the screw on Pakistan is either naïve or disingenuous”

Partho Datta, a strategy consultant from Bangalore reminds us “a military response is not on. A confrontation between two nuclear capable nations is too awful to contemplate”

“With the war on terror on one side and the proliferation of violent extremism on the other nothing is heard nor understood just like in an incessant shouting match” observes

Dr. Noa Zanolli, an international conflict resolution expert.

Expressing his anguish on condition of anonymity an IPS batch mate of Ashok Kamte killed in the Mumbai operations says “I expect the same stereotype stand from the political parties, same response from the media and the same anguish and feeling of helplessness from the public. The opposition parties will exploit the situation to say that the Government has been soft on terror, should invoke POTA, should hang Afzal Guru, etc. While legislations and awarding deterrent punishments are very essential in our fight against terror, then are by no means sufficient to put an end to terror”

Searching for simple explanations - and simple solutions- is an immediate repercussion of anger and fear. We ought not to forfeit our best weapon against terrorism, which is the ability to understand the seemingly incomprehensible.

Instead of seeking immediate answers, we need to frame the appropriate questions. Why did more than a dozen potential terrorists find each other in the first place? Why did they prepare elaborately to take the lives of hundreds as well as their own lives?” Why is the youth easy prey for recruiters who know how to manipulate them into finding heavenly fulfilment by their sacrifice? Until we understand the answers to these questions, we are in danger of retaliating wildly, like a fighter with a paper bag pulled over his head.

Some conflicts – that social scientists term ‘ontological’ - are highly resistant to the tools of diplomatic or military pressure that cannot entirely "resolve" them.

Herbert Kelman, professor of Social Ethics in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University notes: "Conflict is caused and escalated to a considerable degree by unfulfilled psychological needs as security, identity, self-esteem, recognition, autonomy and a sense of justice. The need to protect identities is so important that it will be pursued by individuals and groups regardless of the costs and sacrifices involved”

The next series of question we must therefore ask ourselves is: “What is the message of terrorism?” What are terrorists trying to communicate through dastardly deeds? What are the grievances - justified or otherwise – that these voices express? Is mutual mass murder the only viable means of communication? What does it mean when we simplistically interpret acts of terrorism as: “They hate us. They hate our way of life”?

Dr. Noa Zanolli urges us to listen to the voice of terrorism by inquiring “Is the violence a language conveying hopelessness of fulfilling one’s life dreams, a sense of deprivation, disenfranchisement and utter desperation?

The current circumstances of numerous ethnic groups around the world and particularly in India reflect a situation of relative deprivation and deep feelings of vulnerability. Extremists manipulate an alternative identity to find self-serving explanations for the humiliation in real or imaginary but always powerful enemies that unjustly have imposed these circumstances upon them. The sense of humiliation is transformed into anger and a sense of historical injustice, which is very difficult to resist in particular for young members of society.

Thus Hafeez Saaed of the LeT, fuels Ajmal Kasab employing vitriolic videos of Narendra Modi and Praveen Togadia decrying Islam while Balasaheb Thackeray exhorts the formation of Hindu suicide squads as a response to Islamic terrorism. Meanwhile, in the forests of Giridih away from police and public eye, the Maoists prepare a 300 strong Child Liberation Army as a terror platform of the future.

Isn't terrorism a emotional frustration caused by the unwillingness of those in power to engage in dialogue and correct injustice?

“In many cases it is not simple ideological fervour but real material--economic and political--factors that underlie terror. Hence, it cannot be countered simply through a law-and-order approach” explains sociologist Yoginder Sikand.

Wing Cmdr (Retd), Rakesh Sharma astronaut agrees “it should be a preferred, strategy because basically, this type of violence stems out of a (real or imagined) perception carried by the attackers, of being persecuted and taken advantage off”.

Academic and legal luminary Upendra Baxi describes present governance as “a politics of immunity and impunity, a situation where those in power can do as they want without any pull of accountability or tug of constitutionality”

Can we do something to halt terrorism without increasing the death toll of innocent victims and recruiting thousands of new terrorists?

“Listening to the voice of terrorism and interpreting its language is not to be mistaken for condoning it or, diminishing what democratic governments have to do to protect and police their citizens in accordance with their laws” says Dr Noa Zanolli.

There is almost always an opportunity to negotiate with a government who harbour criminals, and it would be unfortunate to squander such opportunities.

Srinath Raghavan of NIAS directs us to the case of Libya where “a state has been persuaded to forsake terrorism as an instrument of policy”. “The crucial turn came after America and Britain began secret negotiations with Libyan officials. The Anglo-American approach was to build reciprocity into the process: every positive step taken by Libya would be matched by concessions. Between 1999 and 2003 Libya expelled terrorist groups operating on its territory, closed down training camps, and extradited suspects to other West Asian countries”

Daniel Korski of the European Council on Foreign Relations urges the world community to read the writing on the wall. In his policy paper “Afghanistan: Europe’s Forgotten War” he concludes that “the continuing strength of the insurgency make Western and European defeat in Afghanistan a realistic prospect. The consequences would be disastrous. Afghanistan could once again serve as a base for fundamentalist Islamic terrorism”.

Korski nudges the EU towards an outreach programme to the Taliban “to engage mid-ranking, “moderate” insurgents, by developing a package of financial and other incentives which could encourage them to support the government rather than the Taliban”

Western diplomats consider this may well be the best opportunity to do the unthinkable and talk to the enemy. According to Tony Barber of the Financial Times, Brussels bureau, “In some quarters, the idea is mutating into something much more radical. In recent weeks I have heard at last one government expert pose an almost unthinkable question: "Why not talk with al-Qaeda itself?"

In addition, Korski suggests regional co-operation “Any stability achieved in Afghanistan will remain unacceptably fragile as long as neighbours such as Pakistan, India, Russia and Iran refuse to accept that stable governance in Afghanistan is in their own long-term interests”

If we are to weaken and eventually eliminate the soil where terror is born it is imperative to remove the source of Bin Laden & Co’s justifications and alliances, by participating in strengthening the web of regional relationships.

Of immediate importance feels sociologist Yoginder Sikand is that “India should rally international opinion to pressurise Pakistan till it takes effective action against groups like the LeT and rogue elements within the ISI”. As a complementary strategy, astronaut Rakesh Sharma is of the opinion that we should garner support from other countries, shamelessly leveraging our biggest strength - our market”

While considering options of ‘talking to the terrorist” it is also required that we set our own house in order.

“We need to rid ourselves of our 'chalta hai' attitude compounded by,' Its-ok-'as-long-as-I-get-what-I-want' approach to life, suggests Rakesh Sharma.

Rafiq Siddiqui from Mumbai believes “Violent individuals and groups are a minority. We need to replace that voice and not let the country being torn apart”. Supporting this opinion is John Dayal who remains confident “of the inherent wisdom, in the Indian electorate, to denounce efforts to sway public opinion by hyper-nationalist demagoguery”.

Sonali Mehta believes “we must stop the Raj Thackeray’s pitting Maharashtrians against non Maharashtrians, causing riots, getting people killed, and that worst crime: wasting the time of the police!”

Ashok Kamte’s IPS batchmate warns us that “as a nation we can expect more such carnage to happen in the days to come and all of us have to be prepared for it”. To allow a “first world reaction from a third world police force” he pleads that his brethren not be transferred like he has “transferred 27 times in 9 years of active policing!!. In order to effect change his plea is “because Police is hated, you don't keep yourself away from the malaise and refuse to raise a voice to improve it”

Across our borders, Srinath Raghavan is of the opinion that we must engage with the Pakistanis. “Unless we remain sensitive to the domestic currents in Pakistan, a breakthrough will be difficult” he adds.

He considers the “internal conditions in Pakistan are more suited to a turnaround in established policy than at any time in the recent past. The internal threat posed by radical groups is clear both to the people of Pakistan and a good number of the elected representatives”

Within Pakistan, the Mutahidda Ulema Council (MUC), a group of clerics best known for their hard line views on Islam’s role in society issued a fatwa rejecting suicide-bombing as ‘haram’ (forbidden) and ‘najaaiz’ (illegitimate). The statement further added: “It seems as if the government is covertly backing these attacks so that patriotic citizens may not assemble and launch a mass drive for the defence of the country” (The News [Islamabad], October 14).

Sociologist Yoginder Sikand urges “The Indian state and civil society must urgently acknowledge that Islamist and Hindutva terror only feed on each other. Presenting a joint front to work together for peace and security would be a fitting reply to both radical Islamist forces and Hindutva, whose very existence is based on the frighteningly Manichaean notion of perpetual antagonism between Hindus and Muslims”

By confronting these questions together, we may find ways to transcend the conditions that recreate terrorism every day, and live together with justice, and without war.

As a last resort, if power moves must be made (whether to raise consciousness, deliver punishment, or demonstrate our resolve), the goal should always be getting the other side to the negotiating table, not killing or beating them into submission.