Define the enemy

It took the moral integrity of a Mahatma Gandhi to condemn violence even if it were committed in the name of winning freedom for India. The Father of the Nation was widely criticised seventy-five years ago because he, supposedly, didn8217;t intercede to save Bhagat Singh. To be honest, I am not sure whom I would have rooted for, Mahatma Gandhi or Bhagat Singh. But once on the slippery slope of moral relativism it is hard to get back on the firm ground of absolutes. That is why so many fight shy of the word 8216;8216;terrorist8217;8217;, substituting it with a softer alternative such as 8216;8216;militant8217;8217;.

Kofi Annan insists that the time has come to reclaim the moral clarity of the Mahatma. He says he plans to ask the assembled heads of government to agree on a clear definition of 8216;8216;terrorism8217;8217; when they meet in September in New York. 8220;The simple definition we are asking the Member States to embrace is that, regardless of your cause, you cannot kill or maim innocent civilians and non-combatants. That is terrorism, pure and simple.8221;

The gathering in September is meant to mark the sixtieth anniversary of the founding of the United Nations. As such, it is expected to see the head of state or government of every major nation on this planet. The secretary-general hopes that he can convince the august gathering to sign on the dotted line, not least because of all the media coverage of the London blasts. Cynics will point out, of course, that even the September 11 events 8212; far more cataclysmic than anything in the British capital 8212; could not inspire the leaders who gathered in New York a month later for United Nations Day. But Kofi Annan is hoping that humanity8217;s leaders have gained a little wisdom in the four years since then.

It may be a mistake to have too negative an outlook. The point is that such a resolution will, technically, empower the United Nations to define a group, perhaps even a state, as 8216;8216;terrorist8217;8217;. It is fashionable to decry the United Nations as 8220;toothless8221; but let us not forget that even the Bush administration sought the approval of that body before the first bombs fell in Iraq, nor that the United States is now trying desperately for some sort of United Nations approval to blanket its actions in the Middle East.

Let us assume, however, that the assembled dignitaries agree with Kofi Annan on this point. What happens when the presidents, prime ministers, and foreign ministers return home? Can the leaders of a Pakistan that has just allowed terrorist camps to re-establish themselves admit that the Lashkar-e-Tayiba or the Jaish-e-Mohammad are 8216;8216;terrorists8217;8217;? I fear that it is much more likely that they shall applaud Kofi Annan in September, then return to Islamabad to talk about 8216;8216;state terrorism8217;8217; in Kashmir, or Israel8217;s West Bank, or wherever.

Terrorism is now a global phenomenon, almost an industry. 8216;8216;Al Qaeda8217;8217; means 8216;8216;Foundation8217;8217;; think of it not so much as a group as the terrorist equivalent of a Harvard Business School, sending out its graduates once they have been completely immersed in its techniques. Or if that sounds too far-fetched, consider it analogous to the international drug mafia 8212; something that every nation must combat simultaneously if it is to be defeated. If even one country is permitted to give sanctuary to a drug cartel 8212; or a terrorist cabal 8212; it spells curtains for the whole effort.

It would be easy for us in India to climb the moral high horse and to point fingers at the Pakistani establishment. But this, I am afraid, falls well short of the absolutes treasured by the Mahatma. To cite an example at random: would the Indian Foreign Office roundly condemn a suicide attack on a mall in Jerusalem without drawing in a moral equivalence by talking of the Israeli 8220;occupation8221;? If not, then we have stumbled at the first hurdle.

Fourteen years down the line from Rajiv Gandhi8217;s assassination, we have chosen to forget our role in providing training, equipment, and safe haven to the LTTE and their like. On the moral scale it is hard to see the difference between India8217;s winking at the Tigers and Pakistan8217;s handling of the Lashkar-e-Tayiba. I am sure a Sri Lankan mother who saw her son gunned down grieved just as much as a Kashmiri Pandit mother who sees her child8217;s corpse.

Defining 8216;8216;terrorism8217;8217; is scarcely going to remove the cancer. But every doctor worth the name would tell you that a disease needs to be identified properly before medicine or surgery is prescribed. Let us hope Kofi Annan succeeds in taking that first, modest step.