Lost in semantics

AS IF to reaffirm the stance of those critical of the Joint Mechanism Against Terrorism, Pakistan has taken its standard line over a list of wanted persons sent by India. In a statement on September 25, a Pakistani spokesperson asserted that some of those wanted by India have a “different” status in Pakistan because of their association with the “freedom struggle”, and that the joint mechanism is not “a plan to hand over wanted people”.

That one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter is a well-worn cliché. The international community has struggled for years to arrive at a consensus on the definition of ‘terrorism’. This failure has brought most efforts towards combatting the menace – including the half a dozen UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions – to a nought. While elaborate strategies have been planned to combat terrorism – the latest being the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy earlier this month – action on the ground remains limited because various States and non-State actors differ on what does or does not constitute terrorism. Defining terrorism is a contentious issue because it is a matter of moral judgment – in itself subjective – which, in the real world, is subject to political leanings and exigencies. For instance, while the Reagan White House called the Afghan mujahideen ‘freedom fighters’, the Bush White House calls the mujahideen’s successors terrorists. Similarly, Nelson Mandela went from being a ‘terrorist’ to a Nobel Peace Laureate. And so, those that India terms terrorists, Pakistan calls ‘freedom fighters’.

Internationally, the issue remains divisive due to the multiplicity of actors and interests involved. However, there is no reason why two countries which agree that they are both victims of terrorism and that they want to counter it, should not be able to agree to a mutually-acceptable definition. As far as India and Pakistan go, there should be no problem in accepting that killing, injuring or kidnapping of non-combatants for political reasons is terrorism, and a definition based on this principle should be arrived at. Unless that is done, all attempts to counter terrorism will amount to putting the cart before the horse.