Terrorism and our response

Statements of some of those arrested after the August 17 bombings reveal their training and participation in "jihad" in Afghanistan. It would be unwise to consider these elements as motley groups of disgruntled individuals, or as people exploited by the indigenous conditions in Bangladesh -- this is not the case, at least among those who are calling the shots. Their modus of action suggests a very well-entrenched bunch, capable of challenging the state apparatus.

So what do we do about it?
Response to terrorism normally follows the three strands of views that dominate the discourse on the means and methods of countering terrorism, i.e. the liberal, conservative, and the realist views. In the case of Bangladesh, the response has so far been primarily reactive, perfunctory, and palliative measures. This is an unwitting response brought about by the very nature of the state itself.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

A knee-jerk reaction by the government would be the least judicious act. On the contrary, the problem such as the one with which we are confronted calls for sober examination of the type of threat we are up against, thereafter formulation of appropriate responses. Nothing would benefit our enemies more than us going after red herrings; and going after terrorist can indeed be a long drawn affair that may turn out to be a wild goose chase should we fail to identify the people involved and devise appropriate strategy to tackle the problem.

Although one expects the government to initiate actions with promptitude, almost at par with a war footing, it must avoid falling into the trap of being at "war" with the extremists. Nothing will give them more comfort and validity than their being involved in a "war" with the state. Apart from that, the grave mistake, as one eminent expert on terrorism suggests, in using phrases like "war on terror" is, "it does create an expectation among some that there is a solution to terrorism that is entirely military."

Such attitude stems unfortunately from a misperception that terrorism can only be combated through the use of force. But while we should develop our own mechanism of physically nullifying terrorism and terrorists, our focus must also be on the causes of terrorism. Rise of terrorism in a particular country is primarily due to the interaction of local factors and internal sociopolitical and economic dynamics that will have to be identified and addressed.

Physical confrontation of terrorists is but one aspect of combating terrorism. Even more important is to thwart its spread in our soil since its germination could not be prevented in the first place. And this is where our riposte must take a holistic form rather than piecemeal approach. Our responses must be more proactive than reactive. Terrorism being multi-dimensional, the means of combating terrorism also need to be multi-focused. While legislation of appropriate laws to address terrorism must come into the reckoning of the government, other important measures as well as the impediments than are likely to crop up in the process of combating it, must also be seriously considered.

Two decisions of the government in the aftermath of August 17 bombings are worth a close look. First, its decision to enact new laws, and second, its plan to conduct motivation programmes to keep the potential extremists from swelling the terrorists ranks. These are what one might term indications of the government's action plan for tackling the issue. Although there is as yet no palpable indications of actions underway, one hopes that one would get to hear about these soon.

Without going into the general gamut of the issue of "motivating" -- suffice it to say that while doing so the target audience must be correctly identified. How and what to motivate is a matter that would require very deliberate consideration.

The intention of the government to legislate new law to combat terrorism merits more detailed deliberation; first and foremost one needs to ask whether we need new legislation at all to fight the trend that we are facing?

Apart from the relevant provisions of the criminal procedures and rules formulated by the British to combat indigenous terrorism in India that we have inherited, there is very little that is in our statutes that addresses the classical form of terrorism.

Even, the now expired Suppression of Terrorist Offences Act (1992) related to only law and order situation and societal violence, rather than the type of terrorism that we are now confronted with. The current law's efficacy to tackle the societal violence can be judged by the poor conviction rate of cases tried under these laws.

It may also be worth studying the laws in vogue in the US and the recent British enactment following the July London bombings. But while legislating new laws, it needs to be kept in mind that they must be relevant to the issue at hand, i.e. it should not only be adequate to tackle the crime, it must have adequate provisions to tackle the terrorists' strategy. We must address the phenomenon as a state of mind rather than as merely an activity. There is also a need to guard against the possible use of new legislation in a selective manner. In fact, one of the reasons why the latest ant-terrorism legislation in India had to be rescinded was because of the accusation by the opposition that it was being used very selectively

Although India, which has had to face terrorism in its most virulent form for the last three decades or so, and had as many as fourteen different pieces of legislation to deal with terrorism, it was compelled to go for TADA (Terrorist And Disruptive Activities Act, 1988) and POTA (The Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002).

Mere legislation to combat terrorism may not always pay dividends at least in the short-term. The Indian experience in this regard is worth studying. The fact that POTA replaced TADA, only to be scrapped after only two years, albeit by a new coalition in Delhi, who was opposed to its very introduction in the first place, is indicative of this.

While devising our response to the current spate of terrorism in Bangladesh, the government should incorporate in its strategy the liberal, conservative, and the realist views. The liberal prescription of fighting the root causes must go hand in hand with the conservative and realist prescription of confronting the terrorists head on.

The author is Editor, Defence and Strategic Affairs, The Daily Star.