Deconstruction Of Discourse On Terrorism
By M. Mohibul Haque
02 July, 2011
Countercurrents.org
The term “terrorism “is one about whose meaning the scholars in academia or officials in government circle have quarreled perhaps more than any other concept in the recent past. Indeed there are many other ideas and concepts upon which there is disagreement among the scholars and governments but the implications of that disagreement are not so dangerously felt. Terrorism has become a global scourge and there is a pressing need to formulate policies and programs to control its origin and growth. Under these circumstances, at least a universally acceptable working definition of terrorism is necessary. However, neither there is such a definition nor is likely to be in near future. In fact, the absence of an objective definition of terrorism is more by design than by accident. The intellectual dishonesty in the academic fraternity and the double standard of the national governments are responsible for this problem.
Terrorism is an act of politically or ideologically motivated violence against common men or women. It may be committed by an individual, group, organization or state. However, it is unfortunate that the discourse on terrorism has been hijacked by powerful nations of the world who never want that their acts of unwarranted violence should be discussed in the context of terrorism. This is more evident in the aftermath of September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States. The so- called global war on terror declared and being fought by the United States and handful of its allies has tried to mislead that in the present circumstances terrorism is the monopoly of non-state actors alone. Thus the killing of innocent people by the organizations like Al-Qaeda is terrorism and slaughter of innocent citizens of Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and Kosovo by imperialist alliance is not terrorism at all. It is unfortunate that without a modicum of remorse it is argued that if with the handful of terrorists, thousands of innocent citizens of sovereign nations die, it can be condoned as collateral damage. Ironically, USA-the mightiest power on earth with the help of its ambitious allies in imperialist plunder of the resources in militarily weak nations decides and determines the context and paradigm in which its foreign policy should be discussed. It is this double standard and flamboyant style of the major powers to approach terrorism that has prevented the international community from arriving on a universally accepted definition. In fact, assaulting innocent people from any nationality or belonging to any religious, ethnic or ideological persuasion either by the national armies wearing uniform and carrying flags or by clandestine organizations like Al-Qaeda must be treated as terrorism and accordingly dealt with.
The undeniable fact is that we do not have an officially adopted and universally accepted definition of terrorism yet the data and statistics on terrorism are prepared by states and generally accepted even by ‘ independent scholars’ in academic circles. This is the best example of intellectuals becoming “experts in legitimation” (using Gramsci’s term). The statistics on terrorism are hardly questioned and seldom scrutinized. In fact, the paradigm of approaching terrorism needs to be questioned first. For doing so the discourse on terrorism must be deconstructed. The undue emphasis given on non-state terrorism and almost completely ignoring the acts of terror committed by states is responsible for misleading data and statistics as well as the definitional dilemma relating to terrorism. Terrorism must be defined and determined on the basis of the acts committed rather than the actors involved. The crude fact about terrorism is that even the non-state terrorism cannot sustain without the support from the states. It is a well known fact that CIA, ISI, KGB, Mosad and several other agencies maintained by states have committed more acts of terror than those perpetrated by the dreaded terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda and LTTE etc. Moreover, the states are known to have indulged in committing acts of violence and intimidation against their own citizens. After all, the term terrorism originated from the French word “terrorisme” which was used to describe the acts of terror of the post revolution French state i.e. the ‘Reign of Terror’. To suspend the discussion it can be said that the discourse on terrorism is highly motivated and monopolistic in nature which needs to be deconstructed. The deconstruction of the discourse on terrorism is not possible unless it is liberated from the sinister grip of hegemons and imperialists.
M. Mohibul Haque is Assistant Professor Department of Political Science AMU Aligarh, U.P. India
Comments are not moderated. Please be responsible and civil in your postings and stay within the topic discussed in the article too. If you find inappropriate comments, just Flag (Report) them and they will move into moderation que.
