Table of Contents

Defining Terrorism .......................................................................................................3 Dictionary definitions ................................................................................................4 Official Definitions: ...................................................................................................5 Academic Definitions: ...............................................................................................7 Common Characteristics: ..........................................................................................9 Difference between War and Terrorism: ......................................................................10 Difference between terrorism and guerrilla warfare: ...................................................12 Difference between assassination and terrorism: ........................................................12 Origin of Term and its Changing Meaning: .................................................................13 History of terrorism:...................................................................................................14 Religious Roots .......................................................................................................14 Nationalists and Anarchists .....................................................................................15 Terrorism and the State ..........................................................................................17 Terrorism Since World War II: ..................................................................................18 Contemporary Terrorism .........................................................................................20 Typologies of Terrorism: ............................................................................................20 Terrorism in India: .....................................................................................................21 Western India ..........................................................................................................22 Maharashtra.........................................................................................................22 Jammu and Kashmir ................................................................................................22 Northern and Northwestern India ............................................................................23 Bihar ....................................................................................................................23 Punjab .................................................................................................................24 Northeastern India ..................................................................................................25

Nagaland .............................................................................................................26 Assam .................................................................................................................26 Tripura ................................................................................................................28 Manipur ...............................................................................................................28 Mizoram ..............................................................................................................28 Anti-Terror Laws In India: ..........................................................................................29 National Security Act: ..............................................................................................29 POTA: .....................................................................................................................29 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act: ........................................................................30 International conventions related to terrorism and counter-terrorism cases ...............31 Conclusion: ................................................................................................................32

It all started with 9/11. I might have heard the words terror or terrorist before that but it never looked so fascinating, so horrible and dreadful. And very frankly I never bothered to understand these terms till this day because I already have my own perception about the word- a tall fair man with beard wearing a pathani suit and turban, chanting some Arabic words and other men of same texture and posture with guns in their hands running about and doing things which army personnel are made to do to prepare them for wars in future. These people are worse than demons I thought who shed innocent blood for reasons unknown to me and must be hanged publicly. And this anger was evoked not because of any person in particular but because of the label tagged to their names. But one question kept haunted me that why someone would want to kill hundreds and thousands of others just for the sake of killing them ? what do they want exactly? These questions led me choosing this very topic for the moot court seminar i.e. TERRORISM , NATIONAL SECURITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS . Terrorizing people in this or that way is one of the methods a human mind employs to accomplish and fulfill its desires. Fear is there in every sphere of our life we can sense it. But here we are talking about something different and on much bigger scale like when people fear getting out of their houses for days, fear of being killed brutally at any moment or time, fear that this night may be the last night of their lives, fear increasing with every knock at the door, fear which cannot be expressed in words, fear that can be seen only in eyes, fear that one keeps to himself but is shared by society.

Defining Terrorism
Definition is a very important part of understanding a term. This leads us very core and basic question i.e. What is terrorism? Few words have so insidiously worked their way into our everyday vocabulary. Like 'Internet' -- another grossly over-used term that has similarly become an indispensable part of the argot of the late twentieth century - most people have a vague idea or impression of what terrorism is, but lack a more precise, concrete and truly explanatory definition of the word. This imprecision has been abetted partly by the modern media, whose efforts to communicate an often complex and convoluted message in the briefest amount of air- time or print space possible have led to the promiscuous labeling of a range of violent acts as 'terrorism'. Pick up a newspaper or turn on the television and -- even within the same broadcast

or on the same page -- one can find such disparate acts as the bombing of a building, the assassination of a head of state, the massacre of civilians by a military unit, the poisoning of produce on supermarket shelves or the deliberate contamination of overthe-counter medication in a chemist's shop all described as incidents of terrorism. Indeed, virtually any especially abhorrent act of violence that is perceived as directed against society -- whether it involves the activities of anti-government dissidents or governments themselves, organized crime syndicates or common criminals, rioting mobs or persons engaged in militant protest, individual psychotics or lone extortionists -- is often labeled 'terrorism'.

Dictionary definitions are of little help. The pre-eminent authority on the English
language, the much-venerated Oxford English Dictionary, is disappointingly unobliging when it comes to providing edification on this subject, its interpretation at once too literal and too historical to be of much contemporary use:

Terrorism: A system of terror. 1. Government by intimidation as directed and carried out by the party in power in France during the revolution of 1789-94; the system of 'Terror'. 2. gen. A policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation; the fact of terrorizing or condition of being terrorized.
These definitions are wholly unsatisfying. Rather than learning what terrorism is, one instead finds, in the first instance, a somewhat potted historical -- and, in respect of the modern accepted usage of the term, a uselessly anachronistic -- description. The second definition offered is only slightly more helpful. While accurately communicating the fear- inducing quality of terrorism, the definition is still so broad as to apply to almost any action that scares ('terrorizes') us. Though an integral part of 'terrorism', this definition is still insufficient for the purpose of accurately defining the phenomenon that is today called 'terrorism'. A slightly more satisfying elucidation may be found in the OED's definition of the perpetrator of the act than in its efforts to come to grips with the act itself. In this respect, a 'terrorist' is defined thus:

1. As a political term: a. Applied to the Jacobins and their agents and partisans in the French Revolution, esp. to those connected with the Revolutionary tribunals during the 'Reign of Terror'. b. Anyone who attempts to further his views by a system of coercive intimidation; spec. applied to members of one of the extreme revolutionary societies in Russia.
This is appreciably more helpful. First, it immediately introduces the reader to the notion of terrorism as a political concept. Terrorism, in the most widely accepted contemporary usage of the term, is fundamentally and inherently political.

Official Definitions:
According to Sec 4 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2008 for section 15 of the principal Act, the following section shall be substituted, namely

15. Whoever does any act with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of India or with intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India or in any foreign country, (a) by using bombs, dynamite or other explosive substances or inflammable substances or firearms or other lethal weapons or poisons or noxious gases or other chemicals or by any other substances (whether biological radioactive, nuclear or otherwise) of a hazardous nature or by any other means of whatever nature to cause or likely to cause (i) death of, or injuries to, any person or persons; or (ii) loss of, or damage to, or destruction of, property; or (iii) disruption of any supplies or services essential to the life of the community in India or in any foreign country; or (iv) damage or destruction of any property in India or in a foreign country used or intended to be used for the defence of India or in connection with any other purposes of the Government of India, any State Government or any of their agencies; or

(b) overawes by means of criminal force or the show of criminal force or attempts to do so or causes death of any public functionary or attempts to cause death of any public functionary; or (c) detains, kidnaps or abducts any person and threatens to kill or injure such person or does any other act in order to compel the Government of India, any State Government or the Government of a foreign country or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act, commits a terrorist act. Explanation For the purpose of this section, public functionary means the constitutional authorities and any other functionary notified in the Official Gazette by the Central Government as public functionary.
League of Nations Convention (1937):

"All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public".
The current U.S. national security strategy defines terrorism as simply

premeditated, politically motivated violence against innocents.

This definition, however, begs the question of who is innocent and by what standards is innocence determined. The U.S. firebombing of Japanese cities in 1945 certainly terrified their inhabitants, many of whom were women and children who had nothing to do with Japans war effort. And what about threatened as opposed to actual violence? Is not the inducement of fear a major object of terrorism, and is not threatened action a way of inducing fear? Is not the very threat of terrorist attack terrorism? The Defense Department officially defines terrorism as the

calculated use of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.
The U.S. National Strategy for Combating Terrorism places similar emphasis on terrorism as a nonstate phenomenon directed against the state and society; terrorism is

premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.
The problem with both these definitions is that they exclude state terrorism, which since the French Revolution has claimed far more victims--in the tens of millions-than terrorism perpetrated by non-state actors. The lethality of the likes of al-Qaeda, the Tamil Tigers, and Sendero Luminoso pales before the governmental terrorism of Stalinist Russia, Maos China, Pol Pots Cambodia, and of course Saddam Husseins Iraq. By excluding state terrorism these definitions moreover give states facing violent internal challenges, even challenges based on legitimate grievances (e.g., Kurdish and Shiite uprisings against Saddam Hussein), the benefit of the moral doubt, and in so doing invite such states to label their internal challenges terrorism and to employ whatever means they deem necessary, including the terrorism of counterterrorist operations of the kind practiced by the French in Algeria and the Russians in Chechnya.

Academic Definitions:
In the first edition of his book A. Schmid devoted more than one hundred pages to conceptual questions of terrorism, citing and discussing more than one hundred definitions. At the end of this exercise he volunteered the following definition:

Terrorism is a method of combat in which random or symbolic victims serve as an instrumental targets of violence. These instrumental victims share group or class characteristics which form the basis for their selection (or victimization. Through previous use of violence or the credible threat of violence other members of that group or Class are put in a stoic of chronic fear (terror). This group or class, whose members sense of security is purposefully undermined, is the target of terror. The victimization of the target of violence is considered extranormal by most observers from the witnessing audience on the basis of its atrocity, the time (e.g., peacetime) or place (not a battlefield) of victimization, or the disregard for rules of combat accepted in conventional warfare. The norm violation creates an attentive audience beyond the target of terror; sectors of this audience might in turn form the main object of

manipulation. The purpose of this indirect method of combat is either to immobilize the target of terror in order to produce disorientation and/or compliance, or to mobilize secondary targets of demands (e.g.. a government) or targets of attention (e.g., public opinion) to changes of attitude or behaviour favouring the short or longterm interests of the users of this method of combat.
A universal definition of terrorism has been offered by R. P. Hoffman who dedicated an entire doctoral desertion to this problem. His proposed definition:

Terrorism is a purposeful human political activity which directed toward the creation of a general climate of fear, and is designed to influence, In ways desired by the protagonist, other human beings and, through them, some course of events.
His definition is too broad and vague but considering the fact that terrorism is simply a method of combat which can be employed by either state or non sate agents, this definition seems to suffice the purpose. It defines terrorism as a unitary concept. Vesser in his definition of terrorism defines it as a

political-military strategy or tactic.least costly form which organized political violence can assume.

R.D. Crelisnton:
.terrorism is conceived as form of political communication"
M.Crenshaw(1983) defines it as following

..a basic definition would include the following attributes. The systematic use of unorthodox violence by small conspirational groups with the purpose of manipulating political attitudes rather than physical defeating an enemy. The intent of terrorists violence is premeditated or purposeful violence, employed in a struggle for the political power.
Harold Lasswell has went to extent of saying that terrorists are participants in the

political process who strive for political results by arousing acute anxieties.

None of the above mentioned definitions have universal acceptance. The international community has never succeeded in developing an accepted comprehensive definition of terrorism. During the 1970s and 1980s, the United Nations attempts to define the term foundered mainly due to differences of opinion between various members about the use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and selfdetermination. A first attempt to arrive at an internationally acceptable definition was made under the League of Nations, but the convention drafted in 1937 never came into existence. The UN Member States still have no agreed-upon definition. Both political and academic efforts to get to grips with terrorism have repeatedly been hung up on the issue of definition, of distinguishing terrorism from criminal violence or military action. Most writers have no trouble compiling a list of legal or other definitions running into dozens, and then adding their own to it. One well-known survey opens with a whole chapter on the issue; another managed to amass over a hundred definitions before concluding that the search for an adequate definition was still on. Why the difficulty? In a word, it is labeling, because terrorist is a description that has almost never been voluntarily adopted by any individual or group. It is applied to them by others, first and foremost by the governments of the states they attack. States have not been slow to brand violent opponents with this title, with its clear implications of inhumanity, criminality and - perhaps most crucially lack of real political support. Equally, states find it quite easy to produce definitions of terrorism. Any usable definition must have value neutrality. Indeed. This approach has long been espoused by analysts such as Jenkins who argue that terrorism should be defined by the nature of the act, not by the

identity of the perpetrator or the nature of their cause.

Common Characteristics:
But there are certain common factors which define terrorism which are as under Act is usually organized and planned Conducted in clandestine manner Deliberate use of violence and threat of violence to evoke a state of fear Political in nature Victim target differentiation

Method of combat, strategy, tactic Manipulative Symbolic

Difference between War and Terrorism:

American political discourse over the past several decades has embraced war as a metaphor for dealing with all kinds of enemies, domestic and foreign. One cannot, it seems, be serious about dealing with this or that problem short of making war on it. Political administrations accordingly have declared war on poverty, illiteracy, crime, drugs--and now terrorism. War is perhaps the most overused metaphor in America. Traditionally, however, war has involved military operations between states or between a state and an insurgent enemy for ultimate control of that state. In both cases the primary medium for war has been combat between fielded military forces, be they regular (state) or irregular (non-state) forces. Yet terrorist organizations do not field

military forces as such.

Traditionally, most wars, especially those waged in the European tradition, have also

had clear beginnings and endings. On a certain day hostilities were declared or
initiated, and on another certain day one side agreed to stop fighting. But the line between war and peace was never as clear in the non-European world, and has been steadily blurring for the United States since the end of the Cold War in part because it

is difficult to obtain conclusive military victories against irregular enemies who refuse to quit precisely because they cannot be decisively defeated. Thus even though the
Taliban and Saddam Hussein regimes were militarily smashed, combat continues, even escalates, in Afghanistan and Iraq. Traditional wars also provided clear standards of measuring success in the form of territory gained and enemy forces destroyed or otherwise removed from combat. But these standards were always of limited utility against irregular enemies that fought to different standards of success, and they are of practically no use in gauging success against a terrorist threat like al-Qaeda. Terrorism expert Bruce Hoffman notes that terrorists do not function in the open as armed units, generally do not attempt to

seize or hold territory, deliberately avoid engaging enemy military forces in combat

and rarely exercise any direct control or sovereignty over either territory or population.
According to Bruce There is a fundamental qualitative difference between the two types of violence. Even in war there are rules and accepted norms of behavior that prohibits

the use of certain types of weapons (for example. hollow- point or dum.dum bullets,
CS tear gas, chemical and biological warfare agents) and proscribe various tactics and outlaw attacks on specific categories of targets. Accordingly, in theory, if not always in practice the rules of waras observed from the early seventeenth century when they were first proposed by the Dutch jurist Hugo Grotious and subsequently codified in the famous Geneva and Hague Conventions on Warfare of the 1860 s, 1907 and 1949not only grant civilian noncombatants immunity from attack but also prohibit taking civilians as hostages; impose regulations governing the treatment of captured or surrendered soldiers (POWs); Outlaw reprisals against either civilians or POWs Recognize neutral territory and the rights of citizens of neutral states and; Uphold the inviolability of diplomats and other accredited representatives.

Even the most cursory view of terrorist tactics and targets over the past quarter century reveals that terrorists have violated all these rules. Though in reality during war also civilians are targeted deliberately but these killings have been described as war crimes by Hoffman.

Thus, It is one of the outstanding features of terrorism that there is no battle, that one armed organization commits atrocities against unarmed, unprepared civilians who offer no resistance, against neutrals and mere bystanders. The war metaphor creates a mental Image of two armed force, geared for combat, of soldiers in uniform with professional standards of honor fighting each other according to the rules of war, showing restraint toward the non belligerents and those taken prisoner.

Difference between terrorism and guerrilla warfare:

The Guerrillero is exclusively or at least primarily fighting an armed adversary ( the official army and police), even if he does do by unconventional means, while the terrorist attack is fundamentally directed against civilian targets.

Difference between assassination and terrorism:

Franklin L. Ford defined assassination as the intentional killing or a specified victim or group of victims, perpetrated for reasons related to his (her, their) public prominence and undertaken with a political purpose in view.
In contrast to assassination victims, the victims of terrorism are often not specified and also lack political prominence- -at least until the moment they become victims of violence. While assassination aims at having the victim dead, terrorism does not care about the victim itself-- indeed, the prospective kidnap victim might be released for a price. The behavioral outcome in the aftermath of an assassination is likely to be anger or sadness rather than terror. Thus, while both the assassin and the terrorist commit homicide, the intent is different.

On the basis of such observations, one could conclude that one reason why terrorist violence is different from other political violence directed against a government or by a government ii that it is widely perceived as more inhuman. The victims guilt or

innocence is immaterial to the pure terrorist. Targets of bombings and abductions are
generally unable to influence their destiny by a change of attitude or behavior. They are offered no chance to surrender and thereby have their lives spared. People are killed not because they deserve it or happen to be in the wrong place, but to make a point with one or another audience. It is violence for effect, in which the victims do not matter as individuals. The particular effect of the terrorist message results from the fact that it is written, as it were, with the blood of people who matter to the addressee, but not to the sender.

Origin of Term and its Changing Meaning:

The word terror have come from Latin verb terrere meaning to frighten.
The word 'terrorism' was first popularized during the French Revolution. In contrast to its contemporary usage, at that time terrorism had a decidedly positive connotation. The system or rgime de la terreur of 1793-4 -- from which the English word came -was adopted as a means to establish order during the transient anarchical period of turmoil and upheaval that followed the uprisings of 1789, Hence, unlike terrorism as it is commonly understood today, to mean a revolutionary or anti-government activity undertaken by non-state or subnational entities, the rgime de la terreur was an instrument of governance wielded by the recently established revolutionary state. It was designed to consolidate the new government's power by intimidating counterrevolutionaries, subversives and all other dissidents whom the new regime regarded as 'enemies of the people'. The Committee of General Security and the Revolutionary

Tribunal ('People's Court' in the modern vernacular) were thus accorded wide powers of
arrest and judgement, publicly putting to death by guillotine persons convicted of treasonous (i.e. reactionary) crimes. In this manner, a powerful lesson was conveyed to any and all who might oppose the revolution or grow nostalgic for the ancien rgime.

Ironically, perhaps, terrorism in its original context was also closely associated with the ideals of virtue and democracy. The revolutionary
leader Maximilien Robespierre firmly believed that virtue was the mainspring of a popular government at peace, but that during the time of revolution must be allied

with terror in order for democracy to triumph. He appealed famously to 'virtue, without
which terror is evil; terror, without which virtue is helpless', and proclaimed: 'Terror

is nothing but justice, prompt, severe and inflexible; it is therefore an emanation of virtue.' Despite this divergence from its subsequent meaning, the French Revolution's
'terrorism' still shared at least two key characteristics in common with its modern-day variant. First, the rgime de la terreur was neither random nor indiscriminate, as terrorism is often portrayed today, but was organized, deliberate and systematic. Second, its goal and its very justification -- like that of contemporary terrorism -- was the creation of a 'new and better society' in place of a fundamentally corrupt and undemocratic political system.

History of terrorism:
One point is less debatable: terrorism is not new. Indeed, in some respects, that what is today known as terrorism predates by millennia the modern term used to describe it. While it is impossible to definitively ascertain when it was first used, that which we today call terrorism traces its roots back at least some 2,000 years.

Religious Roots
Among the earliest such examples were the Sicari and the Zealots, Jewish groups active during the Roman occupation of the first century Middle East. The favored weapon of the Sicari was the sica (the short dagger which gave them their name, which literally means dagger men), which they used these to murder those (mainly Jews) they deemed apostate and thus selected for execution. The Zealots, who generally targeted Romans and Greeks, give us the modern term Zealot, one translation of which is a fanatical partisan. Such killings usually took place in daylight and in front of witnesses, with the perpetrators using such acts to send a message to the Roman authorities and those Jews who collaborated with them a tactic that would also be used by subsequent generations of what would become known as terrorists. According to Josephus, the Sicarii would hide short daggers under their cloaks, mingle with crowds at large festivals, murder their victims, and then disappear into the panicked crowds. Adherents of other religions also resorted to methods which might today be termed terrorism, such as the Assassins an 11th century offshoot of a Shia Muslim sect known as the Ismailis. Like the Zealots-Sicari, the Assassins were also given to stabbing their victims (generally politicians or clerics who refused to adopt the purified version of Islam they were forcibly spreading) in broad daylight. The Assassins - whose name gave us the modern term but literally meant hashish-eater - a reference to the ritualistic drug-taking they were (perhaps falsely) rumored to indulge in prior to undertaking missions also used their actions to send a message. Often, the Assassins deeds were carried out at religious sites on holy days a tactic intended to publicize their cause and incite others to it. Like many religiously inspired terrorists today, they also viewed their deaths on such operations as sacrificial and a guarantor that they would enter paradise. Sacrifice was also a central element of the killings carried out by the Thugees (who bequeathed us the word thug) an Indian religious cult who ritually strangled their victims (usually travelers chosen at random) as an offering to the Hindu goddess of

terror and destruction, Kali. In this case, the intent was to terrify the victim (a vital consideration in the Thugee ritual) rather than influence any external audience. The Spanish Inquisition and British Gunpowder Plot are some other examples of violent acts having moral justification of religion. Active from the seventh until the mid-19th centuries, the Thugees are reputed to be responsible for as many as 1 million murders. They were perhaps the last example of religiously-inspired terrorism until the phenomenon reemerged a little over 20 years ago. As David Rapport puts it: Before the 19th century, religion provided the only

acceptable justifications for terror. More secularized motivations for such actions did
not emerge until the French Revolution, as did the first usage of the term now used to describe them.

Nationalists and Anarchists

The English word terrorism comes from the regime de la terreur that prevailed in France from 1793-1794. Originally an instrument of the state, the regime was designed to consolidate the power of the newly-installed revolutionary government, protecting it from elements considered subversive. Always value-laden, terrorism was, initially, a positive term. The French revolutionary leader, Maximilien Robespierre, viewed it as vital if the new French Republic was to survive its infancy, proclaiming in 1794 that: Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is therefore an emanation of virtue; it is not so much a special principle as it is a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to our country's most urgent needs. Under such justification, some 40,000 people were executed by guillotine - a fate Robespierre and his top lieutenants would themselves suffer when later that same year, his announcement of a new list of subversives led to a counter-inquisition by some in the Revolutionary government who feared their names might be on the latest roll of traitors. Before long, the Revolution devoured itself in an orgy of paranoiac bloodletting. Meanwhile, terrorism itself began taking on the negative connotations it carries today (terrorists do not generally tend to describe themselves thus), helped initially by the writings of those like the British political philosopher Edmund Burke,

who popularized the term terrorism in English while demonizing its French revolutionary practitioners.

The newly defined notions of nationalism and citizenship, which both caused and were a result of the French Revolution, also saw the emergence of a new predominantly secular terrorism. The appearance of political ideologies such as Marxism also created a fertile sense of unrest at the existing order, with terrorism offering a means for change. The Italian revolutionary Carlo Pisacanes theory of the propaganda of the deed ("ideas spring from deeds and not the other way around... The use of the bayonet in Milan has produced a more effective propaganda than a thousand books") which recognized the utility of terrorism to deliver a message to an audience other than the target and draw attention and support to a cause typified this new form of
terrorism. Pisacanes thesis which was not in itself new and would probably have been recognizable to the Zealots-Sicari and the Assassins - was first put into practice by the Narodnaya Volya (NV). A Russian Populist group (whose name translates as the Peoples Will) formed in 1878 to oppose the Tsarist regime. The groups most famous deed, the assassination of Alexander II on March 1, 1881, also effectively sealed their fate by incurring the full wrath of the Tsarist regime. Unlike most other terrorist groups, the NV went to great lengths to avoid innocent deaths, carefully choosing their targets usually state officials who symbolized the regime and often compromising operations rather than causing what would today be termed collateral damage. During the reign of Czar Alexander II (1855-81), when the Russian populist movement arose, hundreds of students were arrested and prosecuted, prompting radicals to use terrorist tactics. The Peoples Will, an offshoot of the populist movement created 1879, advocated socialism and overthrow of autocracy. It called for creation of a new constitution and concentrated on murdering the czar even though he freed the serfs in 1861 and instituted several other reforms. But when the czars authority was challenged, he turned repressive and vehemently opposed political reform. So the terrorists put Nobels invention to use and made numerous attempts to kill Alexander II.

The NVs actions inspired radicals elsewhere. Anarchist terrorist groups were
particularly enamored of the example set by the Russian Populists (although not, it must be noted, their keenness to avoid casualties among bystanders). Nationalist groups such as those in Irelandand the Balkans adopted terrorism as a means towards their desired ends. As the 19th century gave way to the 20th, terrorists attacks were

carried out as far a field as India, Japan, and the Ottoman empire, with two U.S. presidents and a succession of other world leaders victims of assassination by various anarchists and other malcontents - often affiliated to groups but operating without their explicit knowledge or support. As with Europe, terrorism arrived on Americas shores before the 20th century. Not
only were Anarchists active in America throughout the 1880s, but the countrys recent Civil War had seen acts deserving of the name committed on both sides as well as the formation of the Ku Klux Klan to fight the Reconstruction effort which followed.

Terrorism and the State

Long before the outbreak of Word War I in Europe in 1914, what would later be termed state-sponsored terrorism had already started to manifest itself. For instance, many
officials in the Serbian government and military were involved (albeit unofficially) in

supporting, training and arming the various Balkan groups which were active prior to the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand on June 28, 1914 in Sarajevo an act carried out by an activist from one such group, the Young Bosnians and credited with setting in progress the chain of events which led to the war itself. Similarly, the
IMRO (Macedonian Revolutionary Organization) survived largely because [as Walter Laqueur reminds us] it became for all intents and purposes a tool of the Bulgarian government, and was used mainly against Yugoslavia and well as against domestic enemies. As such examples illustrate, state-sponsored terrorism is not a new phenomenon. The 1930s saw a fresh wave of political assassinations deserving of the word terrorism. This led to proposals at the League of Nations for conventions to prevent and punish

terrorism as well as the establishment of an international criminal court (neither of which came to aught as they were overshadowed by the events which eventually led to World War II). Despite this, during the interwar years, terrorism increasingly referred to

the oppressive measures imposed by various totalitarian regimes, most notably those

in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Stalinist Russia. More recently, other governments,
such as those military dictatorships which ruled some South American countries in recent years, or the current regime in Zimbabwe, have also been open to charges of using such methods as a tool of state. Such considerations notwithstanding, some

commentators, such as Bruce Hoffman, argue that such usages are generally termed terror in order to distinguish that phenomenon from terrorism, which is understood to be violence committed by non-state entities. However not everyone agrees that terrorism should be considered a non-governmental undertaking. For instance, Jessica
Stern insists that in deliberately bombarding civilians as a means of attacking enemy morale, states have indeed resorted to terrorism.

Terrorism Since World War II:

By contrast, the preponderance of non-state groups in the terrorism that emerged in the wake of World War II is less debatable. The immediate focus for such activity

mainly shifted from Europe itself to that continents various colonies. Across the Middle East Asia and Africa, nascent nationalist movements resisted European attempts to resume colonial business as usual after the defeat of the Axis powers. That the colonialists had been so recently expelled from or subjugated in their overseas empires by the Japanese provided psychological succor to such
indigenous uprisings by dispelling the myth of European invincibility Often, these nationalist and anti-colonial groups conducted guerilla warfare, which differed from terrorism mainly in that it tended towards larger bodies of irregulars operating along more military lines than their terrorist cousins, and often in the open from a defined geographical area over which they held sway. Such was the case in China and Indochina, where such forces conducted insurgencies against the Kuomintang regime and the French colonial government respectively. Elsewhere, such as with the fight against French rule in Algeria, these campaigns were fought in both rural and urban areas and by terrorist and guerilla means. Still other such struggles like those in Kenya, Malaysia, Cyprus and Palestine (all involving the British who, along with the French, bore the brunt of this new wave of terrorism a corollary of their large pre-war empires) were fought by groups who can

more readily be described as terrorist. These groups quickly learned to exploit the burgeoning globalization of the worlds media. As Hoffman puts it: They were the first to recognize the publicity value inherent in terrorism and to choreograph their violence for an audience far beyond the immediate geographical loci of their respective struggles. Moreover, in some cases (such as inAlgeria, Cyprus, Kenya and Israel)

terrorism arguably helped such organizations in the successful realization of their goals. As such these nationalist and anti-colonial groups are of note in any wider
understanding of terrorism. Through the 1960s and 1970s, the numbers of those groups that might be described as terrorist swelled to include not only nationalists, but those motivated by ethnic and ideological considerations. The former included groups such as the Palestinian Liberation Organization (and its many affiliates), the Basque ETA, and the Provisional Irish Republican Army, while the latter comprised organizations such as the Red Army Faction (in what was then West Germany) and the Italian Red Brigades. As with the emergence of modern terrorism almost a century earlier, the United States was not immune from this latest wave, although there the identity-crisis-driven motivations of the white middle-class Weathermen starkly contrasted with the ghetto-bred malcontent of the Black Panther movement. Like their anti-colonialist predecessors of the immediate post-war era, many of the terrorist groups of this period readily appreciated and adopted methods that would allow them to publicize their goals and accomplishments internationally. Forerunners in this were the Palestinian groups who pioneered the hijacking of a chief symbol and means of the new age of globalization the jet airliner as a mode of operation and publicity. One such group, Black September, staged what was (until the attacks on America of Sept. 11, 2001) perhaps the greatest terrorist publicity coup then seen, with the seizure and murder of 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympic Games. Such incidents resulted in the Palestinian groups providing the inspiration (and in some cases mentorship and training) for many of the new generation of terrorists organizations.

Many of these organizations have today declined or ceased to exist altogether, while others, such as the Palestinian, Northern Irish and Spanish Basque

groups, motivated by more enduring causes, remain active today although some now have made moves towards political rather than terrorist methods. Meanwhile, by the
mid-1980s, state-sponsored terrorism reemerged - the catalyst for the series of attacks against American and other Western targets in the Middle East. Countries such as Iran, Iraq, Libya and Syria came to the fore as the principle such sponsors of terrorism. Falling into a related category were those countries, such as North Korea, who directly participated in coverts acts of what could be described as terrorism.[ Such state-sponsored terrorism remains a concern of the international community today (especially its Western constituents), although it has been somewhat overshadowed in recent times by the reemergence of the religiously inspired terrorist. The latest manifestation of this trend began in 1979, when the revolution

that transformed Iran into an Islamic republic led it to use and support terrorism as a means of propagating its ideals beyond its own border.
Before long, the trend had spread beyond Iran to places as far a field as Japan and the United States, and beyond Islam to ever major world religion as well as many minor cults. From the Sarin attack on the Tokyo subway by the Aum Shinrikyo in 1995 to the Oklahoma bombing the same year, religion was again added to the complex mix of

motivations that led to acts of terrorism. The al Qaeda attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, brought home to the world, and most particularly the United States, just how dangerous this latest mutation of terrorism is.

Contemporary Terrorism
Today, terrorism influences events on the international stage to a degree hitherto unachieved. Largely, this is due to the attacks of September 2001. Since then, in the United States at least, terrorism has largely been equated to the threat posed by al Qaeda - a threat inflamed not only by the spectacular and deadly nature of the Sept. 11 attacks themselves, but by the fear that future strikes might be even more deadly and employ weapons of mass destruction.

Typologies of Terrorism:
Some common bases for classification

Actor based- state and non-state agents. State terrorism:-Those seeking and holding power are both involved in a struggle for legitimacy..when the state does not punish those who violate a law, but punishes some people(guilty or not) so that others are deterred to violate repressive laws, then we enter the field of terrorism, because where law has become unpredictable in its application, because individual guilt is less important to the regime than collective obedience we are clearly no longer dealing with a legitimate monopoly of violence but with state terrorism

Political orientation based-national or anti colonial, regional- separation movements, social- revolutionary movements, defensive associations of protective group, opposition movements in dictatorial systems

Purpose based- morale building, advertizing, disorientation, elimination of opposite forces

Victim based Cause based Environment-based Means based Motivation based Demand based Target based

Terrorism in India:
Terrorism in India is primarily attributable to religious communities and Naxaliteradical

movements.
The regions with long term terrorist activities today are Jammu and Kashmir, Mumbai,Central India (Naxalism) and the Seven Sister States (independence and autonomy movements). As of 2006, at least 232 of the countrys 608 districts were afflicted, at differing intensities, by various insurgent and terrorist

movements.[1] In August 2008, National Security Advisor M K Narayanan has said that

there are as many as 800 terrorist cells operating in the country.

Western India
Maharashtra Mumbai has been the most preferred target for most terrorist organizations, primarily the separatist forces from Pakistan. Over the past few years there have been a series of attacks, including explosions in local trains in July 2006, and the most recent and unprecedented attacks of 26 November 2008, when two of the prime hotels, a landmark train station, and a Jewish Chabad house, in South Mumbai, were attacked and sieged.
Terrorist attacks in Mumbai include:

12 March 1993 - Series of 13 bombs go off, killing 257 6 December 2002 - Bomb goes off in a bus in Ghatkopar, killing 2 27 January 2003 - Bomb goes off on a bicycle in Vile Parle, killing 1 14 March 2003 - Bomb goes off in a train in Mulund, killing 10 28 July 2003 - Bomb goes off in a bus in Ghatkopar, killing 4 25 August 2003 - Two Bombs go off in cars near the Gateway of India and Zaveri Bazaar, killing 50 11 July 2006 - Series of seven bombs go off in trains, killing 209 26 November 2008 to 29 November 2008 - Coordinated series of attacks, killing at least 172. On 13 February 2010, a bomb explosion at the German Bakery in Pune killed fourteen people, and injured at least 60 more.

Jammu and Kashmir

Armed insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir has killed tens of thousands to date.

Northern and Northwestern India

Bihar The existence of certain insurgent groups, like the CPI-ML, Peoples war, and MCC, is a major concern, as they frequently attack local police and politicians. Poor governance and the law and order system in Bihar have helped increase the menace caused by the militias. The State has witnessed many massacres by these groups. The main victims of the violence by these groups are helpless people (including women, children, and the elderly) who are killed in massacres. The state police is ill-equipped to take on the AK47s and AK-56s of the militants with their vintage 303 rifles. The militants have also used landmines to kill ambush police parties. The root cause of the militant activities in the state is huge disparity between the caste groups. After Independence, land reforms were supposed to be implemented, thereby giving the low caste and the poor a share in the lands, which was until then held mostly by high caste people. However, due to caste based divisive politics in the state, land reforms were never implemented properly. This led to a growing sense of alienation among the low caste. Communist groups like CPI-ML, MCC, and People's War took advantage of this and instigated the low caste people to take up arms against establishment, which was seen as a tool in the hands of rich. They started taking up lands of the rich by force, killing the high caste people. The high caste people resorted to use of force by forming their own army, Ranvir Sena, to take on the naxalites. The State witnessed a bloody period in which the groups tried to prove their supremacy through mass killings. The police remained a mute witness to these killings, as they lacked the means to take any action. The Ranvir Sena has now significantly weakened with the arrest of its top brass. The other groups are still active. There have been arrests in various parts of the country, particularly those made by the Delhi and Mumbai police in the recent past, indicating that extremist/terrorist outfits have been spreading their networks in this state. There is a strong suspicion that Bihar is also being used as a transit point by the small-arms, fake currency and drug dealers entering from Nepal and terrorists reportedly infiltrating through Nepal and Bangladesh. In recent years, these attacks by various caste groups have come down with better government being practised.

Punjab The Sikhs form a majority in the Indian state of Punjab. During the 1970s, a section of Sikh leaders cited various political, social, and cultural issues to allege that the Sikhs were being cornered and ignored in Indian Society, and Sikhism was being absorbed into the Hindu fold. This gradually led to an armed movement in the Punjab, led by some key figures demanding a separate state for Sikhs. The insurgency intensified during the 1980s, when the movement turned violent and the name Khalistan resurfaced and sought independence from the Indian Union. Led by Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale who, though not in favour in the creation of Khalistan, was also not against it, they began using militancy to stress the movement's demands. Soon things turned extreme with India alleging that neighbouring Pakistansupported these militants, who, by 1983-84, had begun to enjoy widespread support among Sikhs. In 1984, Operation Blue Star was conducted by the Indian government to stem out the movement. It involved an assault on the Golden Temple complex, which Sant Bhindranwale had fortified in preparation of an army assault. Indira Gandhi, India's then prime minister, ordered the military to storm the temple, who eventually had to use tanks. After a 74 hour firefight, the army successfully took control of the temple. In doing so, it damaged some portions of the Akal Takht, the Sikh Reference Library, and the Golden Temple itself. According to Indian government sources, 83 army personnel were killed and 249 were injured. Militant casualties were 493 killed and 86 injured. During the same year, the assassination of Indira Gandhi by two Sikh bodyguards, believed to be driven by the Golden Temple affair, resulted in widespread anti-Sikh riots, especially in New Delhi. Following Operation Black Thunder in 1988, Punjab Police, first under Julio Ribeiro and then under KPS Gill, together with the Indian Army, eventually succeeded in pushing the movement underground. In 1985, Sikh terrorists bombed an Air India flight from Canada to India, killing all 329 people on board Air India Flight 182. It was the worst terrorist act in Canada's history. The ending of Sikh militancy and the desire for a Khalistan catalyzed when the thenPrime Minister of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto, handed all intelligence material concerning Punjab militancy to the Indian government, as a goodwill gesture. The Indian

government used that intelligence to put an end to those who were behind attacks in India and militancy. The ending of overt Sikh militancy in 1993 led to a period of relative calm, punctuated by militant acts (for example, the assassination of Punjab CM, Beant Singh, in 1995) attributed to half a dozen or so operating Sikh militant organisations. These organisations include Babbar Khalsa International, Khalistan Commando Force, Khalistan Liberation Force, and Khalistan Zindabad Force.

Attack on Indian parliament

Terrorists on 13 December 2001 attacked the Parliament of India, resulting in a 45minute gun battle in which 9 policemen and parliament staff were killed. All five terrorists were also killed by the security forces and were identified as Pakistani nationals. The attack took place around 11:40 am (IST), minutes after both Houses of Parliament had adjourned for the day. The suspected terrorists dressed in commando fatigues entered Parliament in a car through the VIP gate of the building. Displaying Parliament and Home Ministry security stickers, the vehicle entered the Parliament premises. The terrorists set off massive blasts and used AK-47 rifles, explosives, and grenades for the attack. Senior Ministers and over 200 Members of Parliament were inside the Central Hall of Parliament when the attack took place. Security personnel sealed the entire premises, which saved many lives

Northeastern India
Northeastern India consists of seven states (also known as the seven

sisters): Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram,Manipur,

and Nagaland. Tensions exists between these states and the central government, as well as amongst the tribal people, who are natives of these states, and migrant peoples from other parts of India. The states have accused New Delhi of ignoring the issues concerning them. It is this feeling which has led the natives of these states to seek greater participation in selfgovernance. There are existing territorial disputes between Manipur and Nagaland. There is a rise of insurgent activities and regional movements in the northeast, especially in the states of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, andTripura. Most of these organisations demand independent state status or increased regional autonomy and sovereignty.

Northeastern regional tension has eased of late with Indian and state governments' concerted effort to raise the living standards of the people in these regions. However, militancy still exists in this region of India supported by external sources. Nagaland The first and perhaps the most significant insurgency was in Nagaland from the early 1950s until it was finally quelled in the early 1980s through a mixture of repression and co-optation. The National Socialist Council of Nagaland-Isak-Muivah (NSCN-IM), demands an independent Nagaland and has carried out several attacks on Indian military installations in the region. According to government officials, 599 civilians, 235 security forces, and 862 terrorists have lost their lives between 1992 and 2000. On 14 June 2001, a ceasefire agreement was signed between the government of India and the NSCN-IM, which had received widespread approval and support in Nagaland. Terrorist outfits such as the Naga National Council-Federal (NNC-F) and the National Council of Nagaland-Khaplang (NSCN-K) also welcomed the development. Certain neighbouring states, especially Manipur, raised serious concerns over the ceasefire. They feared that NSCN would continue insurgent activities in its state and demanded New Delhi scrap the ceasefire deal and renew military action. Despite the ceasefire, the NSCN has continued its insurgency] Assam After Nagaland, Assam is the most volatile state in the region. Beginning in 1979, the indigenous people of Assam demanded that the illegal immigrants who had emigrated from Bangladesh to Assam be detected and deported. The movement led by All Assam Students Unionbegan non-violently with satyagraha, boycotts, picketing, and courting arrests. Those protesting frequently came under police action. In 1983 an election was conducted, which was opposed by the movement leaders. The election led to widespread violence. The movement finally ended after the movement leaders signed an agreement (called the Assam Accord) with the central government on 15 August 1985. Under the provisions of this accord, anyone who entered the state illegally between January 1966 and March 1971 was allowed to remain but was disenfranchised for ten

years, while those who entered after 1971 faced expulsion. A November 1985 amendment to the Indian citizenship law allows non-citizens who entered Assam between 1961 and 1971 to have all the rights of citizenship except the right to vote for a period of ten years. New Delhi also gave special administration autonomy to the Bodos in the state. However, the Bodos demanded a separate Bodoland, which led to a clash between the Bengalis, the Bodos, and the Indian military resulting in hundreds of deaths. There are several organisations that advocate the independence of Assam. The most prominent of these is the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA). Formed in 1979, the ULFA has two main goals: the independence of Assam and the establishment of a socialist government. The ULFA has carried out several terrorist attacks in the region targeting the Indian Military and non-combatants. The group assassinates political opponents, attacks police and other security forces, blasts railroad tracks, and attacks other infrastructure facilities. The ULFA is believed to have strong links with the Nationalist Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN), Maoists, and the Naxalites. It is also believed that they carry out most of their operations from the Kingdom of Bhutan. Because of ULFA's increased visibility, the Indian government outlawed the group in 1986 and declared Assam a troubled area. Under pressure from New Delhi, Bhutan carried a massive operation to drive out the ULFA militants from its territory. Backed by the Indian Army, Thimphu was successful in killing more than a thousand terrorists and extraditing many more to India while sustaining only 120 casualties. The Indian military undertook several successful operations aimed at countering future ULFA terrorist attacks, but the ULFA continues to be active in the region. In 2004, the ULFA targeted a public school in Assam, killing 19 children and 5 adults. Assam remains the only state in the northeast where terrorism is still a major issue. The Indian Military was successful in dismantling terrorist outfits in other areas, but have been criticised by human rights groups for allegedly using harsh methods when dealing with terrorists. On 18 September 2005, a soldier was killed in Jiribam, Manipur, near the ManipurAssam border, by members of the ULFA.

On 14th march 2011 militants of the Ranjan Daimary-led faction ambushed patrolling troop of BSF when on way from Bangladoba in Chirang district of Assam to Ultapani in Kokrajhar killing 8 jawans. Tripura Tripura witnessed a surge in terrorist activities in the 1990s. New Delhi blamed Bangladesh for providing a safe haven to the insurgents operating from its territory. The area under control of the Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council was increased after a tripartite agreement between New Delhi, the state government of Tripura, and the Council. The government has since brought the movement under control, and the government of Tripura has so far succeeded to limit the terrorist activities. Manipur In Manipur, militants formed an organisation known as the People's Liberation Army. Their main goal was to unite the Meitei tribes of Burmaand establish an independent state of Manipur. However, the movement was thought to have been suppressed after a fierce clash with Indian security forces in the mid 1990s. On 18 September 2005, six separatist rebels were killed in fighting between the Zomi Revolutionary Army and the Zomi Revolutionary Front in the Churachandpur District. On 20 September 2005, 14 Indian soldiers were ambushed and killed by 20 rebels from the Kanglei Yawol Kanna Lup (KYKL) terrorist organization, armed with AK-56 rifles, in the village of Nariang, 22 miles southwest of Manipur's capital Imphal. "Unidentified rebels using automatic weapons ambushed a road patrol of the army's Gorkha Rifles killing eight on the spot," said a spokesman for the Indian government. Mizoram The Mizo National Front fought for over two decades with the Indian Military in an effort to gain independence. As in neighbouring states the insurgency was quelled by force.

Anti-Terror Laws In India:

National Security Act:
Indias National Security Act (1984) permits the detention of persons without charge or trial for up to one year. Under the act, the government may detain persons engaged in behavior "prejudicial to the defence of India, the relations of India with foreign powers, or the security of India." The original Act of 1980 provided for an advisory committee, made up of persons who had been, or were qualified to be, judges of a high court, all of whom were to be appointed by the government. In most cases, the National Security Act of 1984 grants officials four months and two weeks before they are required to notify the advisory board of the grounds for detention. After reviewing the case, the board is to determine whether there is sufficient cause for the person to remain in detention. The National Security (Amendment) Act of 1984 extended to five months and three weeks the period before which the board is required to report to the government its opinion as to whether there is sufficient cause for continued detention. If the board finds the grounds for detention insufficient, the government is to revoke the detention orders and release the detainee "forthwith." Even so, a person may have been detained under the act for nearly six months before that decision is reached. Furthermore, the detainee has no right to appear before the advisory board, and the findings of the advisory board are confidential. A detainee held under the act has virtually no opportunity to file a habeas corpus petition until the grounds for detention are communicated to him. Because the amended Act extends the period before which a detainee must be informed of the grounds for his detention from ten to fifteen days, it effectively prolongs the period before which a detainee has recourse to habeas corpus.

POTA:
The 2001 tragedy in the US brought the world into new security angst. Governments of the world came together to join the US led War Against Terrorism. But as there is no universal understanding of the term terrorism13, some governments are using this as a pretext to aggressively push their own agenda in a highly self-serving and politically motivated fashion. In India the heightened national security mania finds its expression in the enactment of the dreaded Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002.1 Under Section 15
1

POTA: Lessons Learned From Indias Anti-Terror Act

of the Ordinance, as with POTA, the definition of a terrorist act is so broad that ordinary cases of murder, robbery, and theft might be included. Only four months after its effective date, state law enforcement officers had arrested 250 people nationwide under the Act, and the number was steadily increasing.72 A mere eight months later, , the seven states applying POTA had arrested over 940 people2 According to the POTA Review Committee's database of cases and complaints, as on January 12 there were as many as 1,376 detainees in 10 States. Jharkhand registered the highest number of arrests under POTA, with 745 accused having been lodged in jail. It was followed by Jammu and Kashmir (181), Gujarat (158), Maharashtra (87), Delhi (66), Tamil Nadu (50), Uttar Pradesh (44) and Andhra Pradesh (36).

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act:

The National Integration Council appointed a Committee on National Integration and Regionalization to look into, inter alia, the aspect of putting reasonable restrictions in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India. Pursuant to the acceptance of recommendations of the Committee, the Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Act, 1963 was enacted to impose, by law, reasonable restrictions in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India. In order to implement the provisions of 1963 Act, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Bill was introduced in the Parliament. When POTA was repealed in 2004 by UPA Govt. the UAPA was amended most of provisions of POTA were incorporated, thus making it equally draconian. In 2008, after Mumbai attacks, it was further strengthened. On 14 May 2007, prominent doctor and human rights defender Dr Binayak Sen was arrested under this act by the Chhattisgarh government. This raised a lot of criticism of this act again and 22 Nobel Prize winners wrote to the Indian Government in response for the release of Dr. Sen.

The Reincarnation Of POTA: Human Rights Feature

International conventions related to terrorism and counter-terrorism cases

Terrorism has been on the international agenda since 1934, when the League of Nations, predecessor of the United Nations, began the elaboration of a convention for the prevention and punishment of terrorism.[4] Although the Convention was eventually adopted in 1937, it never came into force. Today, there are thirteen counter-terrorism international conventions in force. They were developed under the auspices of the United Nations and its specialized agencies and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Moreover, on 8 September 2006, the UN General Assembly adopted a "Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy"[5] Conventions open to all states

1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963 Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed On Board Aircraft (Tokyo Convention, agreed 9/63safety of aviation) 1970 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft (Hague Convention) 1971 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation (Montreal Convention) 1979 Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material (Nuclear Materials Convention) 1988 Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988 Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf 1991 Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Identification 1997 International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings. 1999 International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism 2005 International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism

A 14th international convention, a proposed Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism, is currently under negotiations.

Conclusion:
Terrorism is never easy to understand and least of all in the aftermath of a terrorist

attack. When society feels under threat, attempts at rational analysis are often openly resisted as giving aid and comfort to, or even sympathizing with, the enemy. By
Charles Townshend

Perhaps inadvertently, the contemporary language on terrorism has become, as Conor Gearty puts it, the rhetorical servant of the established order, whatever and however heinous its own activities are. Because the administration has cast terrorism and terrorists as always the evilest of evils, what the terrorist does is always wrong [and] what the counter-terrorist has to do to defeat them is therefore invariably, necessarily right. It is easy for the politically satisfied and militarily powerful to pronounce all terrorism evil regardless of circumstance, but, like it or not, those at the other end of the spectrum are bound to see things differently. Condemning all terrorism as unconditionally evil strips it of political context and ignores its inherent attraction to the militarily helpless. This is not to condone terrorism; it is simply to recognize that it canrefl ect rational policy choice. Absent any prospect of a political solution, what options other than irregular warfare, including terrorism (often a companion of guerrilla warfare), are available to the politically desperate and militarily helpless? Was Jewish terrorism against British rule in

Palestine, such as the 1946 Irgun bombing attack (led by future Nobel Peace Prize Winner Menachem Begin) on the King David Hotel in Jerusalem (killing 93, including 17 Jews),19 justified as a means of securing an independent Jewish state? Terrorism may be the only feasible means of overthrowing a cruel dictatorship, the last resort of free men and women facing intolerable persecution, argues Laqueur. In such conditions, terrorism could be a moral imperative rather than a crime--the killing of Hitler or Stalin early on in his career would have saved the lives of millions of people. One mans terrorist can in fact be anothers patriot. Is an armed Kurd a freedom fighter in Iraq but a terrorist in Turkey? asks Tony Judt. Were al-Qaeda volunteers terrorists when they joined the U.S. financed war [against the Soviets] in Afghanistan?21 Bruce Hoffman observes that terrorists perceive themselves as reluctant warriors, driven by desperation--and lacking any viable alternative--to violence against a repressive state, a predatory rival ethnic or nationalist group, or an unresponsive international order. For the Hamas suicide bomber, no Israeli is innocent; all Israelis are enemies, and to blow them up in buses and discos is an heroic act of war against a hated oppressor. As long as irregular warfare, including terrorism, remains the only avenue of action open to the politically despondent and the militarily impotent, it will continue to be practiced regardless of how many governments view it as illegitimate. Terrorism can be a logical strategic choice for those who have no attractive alternatives. but however holy the cause may be, terrorism still can not be justified because it is morally wrong to kill another man to accomplish ones own desires. It is a tool of weak man who may look most powerful accampined by armies running into hundreds.
As

Gandhi put it The science of war leads one to dictatorship, pure and simple. The

science of non-violence alone can lead one to pure democracy...Power based on love is thousand times more effective and permanent than power derived from fear of punishment....It is a blasphemy to say non-violence can be practiced only by individuals and never by nations which are composed of individuals...The nearest approach to purest anarchy would be a democracy based on non-violence...A society organised and run on the basis of complete non-violence would be the purest anarchy