Beyond Defining Terror

Jaideep Saikia

Terrorism is obviously aimed at an audience. It does not take a lofty degree in rocket science to fathom such an unpretentious aspect. In my joint introduction to an edited book—along with the Russian “Czarina” of Counter-Terrorism, Ekaterina Stepanova—titled Terrorism: Patterns of Internationalisation (Sage Publications Pvt. Ltd, 22 April 2009), both of us were of the considered view that:

“(Our) understanding of terrorism is, first and foremost, that it is a tactic that involves the threat and use of violence in order to achieve a political goal. This goal may be formulated in ideological or religious terms, but it invariably retains a political element... One of the facets of terrorism is also that it needs to be visible: it has to showcase itself... Terrorists’ core message is always directed at someone far more important than their innocent, unarmed victims—elements that the terrorists cannot normally effectively challenge by using conventional military tactics.”

But it has been seen, in recent times, 16 years after Terrorism: Patterns of Internationalization was published, that there has been an attempt to re-explain just that meek preamble, perhaps in defense of some past confusion. Demonstration of an act that exemplifies terrorism in its most basic of nuances is, after all, nothing but exhibition.

An act of terror naturally has a political underpinning. Why else would Hamas or now the almost forgotten Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso, SL) take innocent lives or hostages? It is simply to announce their presence and provenance. Human lives are expendable, and terror actors know that they are the most indispensable of postage stamps.

Elementaries are all very well. But the most important aspect is that practitioners of theory—once they have comprehended the weighty nuances of terror—must calibrate their moves to the axiomatic aspects of a characterization. As aforesaid, terrorism has been clearly defined. A reinvention of the wheel is not necessary. This is particularly important when a nation is reeling under its ill effects.

I recall penning an article several years ago about the manner in which the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) was targeting Hindi-speaking people, primarily from Bihar. I understood that the ULFA was seeking to attract the attention of New Delhi, and I titled my over two decades-old write-up as “Mails by Bombings.” Cannily, the killings of the Bihari population in Assam by the ULFA not only attracted the attention of New Delhi but also brought several MPs from the Hindi heartland to Assam. The “posts” had quite clearly reached the intended addressees.

But terror and the attention that it seeks are as old as sin.  If men were being fed to the lions in a Roman colosseum, then it was not only because an emperor decreed it but also because there was an audience. If time, immortal time, has shifted dust, then it is only to replace lions for Kalashnikov-wielding inhumans.

Why should terrorism be defined again? Or, even be repeatedly explained? It is but gory death and a spectacle! The audiences have not changed. Not in the dust of the pitiless amphitheatres of Rome, in the Florida nightclub where the 9/11 hijacker Marwan al-Shehhi sat the night before sipping rum and coke, or, for that matter, in the YouTube blasphemies of Umar Un Nabi before he blew himself up in the precincts of the historic Red Fort.

Let us take a few examples from the continually preyed upon and beleaguered Indian bird. 

Cities, holidayers, and even a parliament have been targets of terror in Bharat, which is India. It does not quite matter whether the identities of the perpetrators have denominations that point to Pakistan, Bangladesh, or even shadowy extra-regional designers. 

On 26/11 Mumbai was under a siege that riveted world attention for several days. The intention of the attack by the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) was two-fold. One, it wanted to unleash terror on the most important economic hub of India, thereby holding a peaceful nation to ransom, and two, to showcase to the rest of the world how vulnerable a rising India is. It is to the credit of the Special Action Group-51, a force drawn primarily from the Indian army (and bravehearts like Maj. Sandeep Unnikrishnan), that saved the day. But one wonders whether the lessons learned from the horrific incident have been archived by the Indian state. Or, does the definitional dilemma about terror continue to persist?

The Parliament attack of 13 December 2001 by the Jaish-e-Mohammad was a high point. A few parallels exist in the world where terrorists took on a superstructure in a high-security zone. But that is precisely what the wardens of the terror actors were seeking to breach. Choice of high-level targets is done with deliberate care and precision with the singular objective of messaging not only to the targeted populace but also to the entire world. The terror actors were finally neutralized by the Indian security forces. The fidayeens and their planners knew that the perpetrators could never exit alive. The intention was only by way of the aforesaid demonstration. The anti-India chaperons achieved their objective. The attack on the Indian Parliament will remain in the pages of history until the end of time.

The Baisaran massacre of 22 April 2025 was no different. The manner in which terrorists belonging to The Resistance Force—just another silhouette fusion of the LeT—spared the women and children once again showcased that the killings were a missive, a communiqué. This time the audacity of the announcement was to Modi himself.

Acts such as the above will continue to imperil India until, as was prefaced in Terrorism: Patterns of Internationalization, it is understood that the “terrorists’ core message is always directed at someone far more important than their innocent, unarmed victims.” Business will continue to be as usual if the definition is not translated into proactive, decisive, and preemptive action.

It is in this context that one must felicitate Doval for the “refresher courses” that he has been of late providing to a nation that is gradually beginning to first unlearn and then learn that definition precedes sentence formation. Construction of a strategy is the only way to formulate the tactics that will defeat the odds, and strategy stems from a comprehension that has already internalized definition.

(Jaideep Saikia can be reached at jdpsaikia@gmail.com.)