Extreme Actions of Religious Hatred Is Terrorism
By
Muhammad Amir Rana
March 7,
2021
THE
Financial Action Task Force has announced that Pakistan would remain on its
grey list for further monitoring for another four months. In this period, the
country will have to improve its financial transaction mechanisms so that these
are not misused by terrorists and criminals. Apart from other measures related
to effective investigation and prosecution, and the implementation of eventual
sanctions, Pakistan would also have to make more laws in order to comply with the
mutually agreed action plan.
Pakistan
amended or made almost three dozen laws during the past year to meet the FATF
requirements. All these changes and new laws were essential to bring Pakistan
out of the FATF’s grey list in order to dispel the negative impression about
the country’s ‘soft stance’ towards certain militant groups. More than a year
ago, the Supreme Court had also recommended that parliament develop a new and
comprehensive legal definition of terrorism. Apparently, as the Supreme Court
judgment did not detail any punitive consequences, the government did not take
it seriously despite the fact that a clear definition of terrorism would have
not only brought clarity to counterterrorism functions but would also have
improved the government’s performance in implementing FATF-related measures.
The legal
community and law-enforcement agencies have been demanding an amendment to the
definition provided in Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) 1997, but the
state has been reluctant to touch it. Ironically, the persisting, decades-long
challenges of religiously motivated terrorism and violent extremism have failed
to ‘influence’ the policymakers for that.
In its
judgement, the Supreme Court had observed that the definition provided in
Section 6 of ATA 1997 had failed to capture the essence of terrorism and had
often been misused for multiple reasons. The court was in particular concerned
about the legality of the definition. In Pakistan’s legal or policy lexicon,
the term ‘terrorism’ is still defined in a vague and contradictory manner, to
the extent that it is not fully clear what ‘terrorism’ is and what
distinguishes it from other forms of political violence.
Since its
inception in 1947, the country has encountered several waves of political
agitation and violent movements, which have been ethnic, linguistic,
sub-national, communal and religious in nature. Violent religious, political
and ethno-national movements continued posing security threats throughout the
country’s history. Violent protests against religious communities, especially
the campaign against the Ahmadi community in Punjab in 1953, insurgencies in
Balochistan, ethnic and linguistic-based violence in Karachi, low-scale ethno-national
violent agitations in Sindh and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and sectarian conflict in
Gilgit-Baltistan shaped the security approach of the state.
Organised
religious movements for the enforcement of the Sharia, and sectarian
disagreements, both of which turned violent time and again, posed a more
complex security challenge for the state. Despite facing all these challenges,
it took Pakistan 50 years to define terrorism in 1997, and even so, the
ambiguities still surrounding the definition forced the Supreme Court to weigh
in. All through the various legal measures that Pakistan has taken to deal with
terrorism-related security challenges, the legal definition of terrorism has
remained vague. It is far from being comprehensive and criminalises expressions
of sectarian hatred and certain violent political acts, which are already
listed as punishable offences under the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC).
Pakistan
does not have any official definition of extremism either and usually, extreme
actions of religious hatred come under the PPC or ATA domain. Violence is an
integral part of terrorism, militancy or insurgency, whereas extremism may
employ persuasion manoeuvres to draw advantage. For example, the banned
sectarian outfit Sipah-i-Sahaba Pakistan has consistently claimed to be a
non-violent movement, but its leaders have often indulged in inciting violence
against another sect and yet got legal relief by not being found directly
engaged in perpetuating violent acts.
Nationalist
insurgents and religious militants use terrorism as a tactic to create chaos,
disorder, fear and to undermine the state’s authority. They also employ other
tactics to attract people and expand their support base, including via
provision of social services for locals, offering alternative delivery systems,
such as maintaining law and order and setting up informal courts as the Taliban
did in Afghanistan and the UNSC-designated terrorist group Tehreek-i-Taliban
Pakistan (TTP) did in Pakistani tribal areas.
They also
run their propaganda campaigns, and their activities other than violent actions
have similar objectives, but can these too be described as terrorism? Section 6
(5) of the ATA does say that any act undertaken for the benefit of a proscribed
organisation amounts to terrorism. When former TTP spokesperson Ehsanullah
Ehsan surrendered to the security forces in 2017, he claimed amnesty on the
ground that he had never been part of the TTP’s terrorist operations, rather
his task was confined to running its media affairs. Hence the question: who is
a terrorist? Are terrorists only combatant units or non-combatants as well? And
does every action of a terrorist, even if non-violent, automatically and always
amount to terrorism?
The
confusion deepens when one tries to distinguish between terrorism and
terrorists. Before his eventual indictment in a terrorism-financing case, the
legal advisers of Jamaatud Dawa chief Hafiz Saeed had pleaded in court that he
had never been found involved in any terrorist activity in Pakistan and he did
get relief from the courts every time. There have been many other examples of this
sort.
In a
nutshell, parliament has to develop a clear definition of terrorism. Causing
fear, violence, the deliberate nature of the act, targeting of civilians,
disturbing the domestic, regional and global order, issuing threats (all this
by non-state actors) are some common vital elements in every definition of
terrorism. However, all these expressions need to be defined as well. The task
is not beyond the capacity of parliament and it can restrict the meaning of
terrorism within the jurisdiction of the crime and political/ideological
motives, and avoid broad interpretations and political misuse.
----
Muhammad
Amir Rana is a security analyst.
Original
Headline: What is terrorism?
Source: The Dawn, Pakistan
URL: https://newageislam.com/radical-islamism-jihad/extreme-actions-religious-hatred-terrorism/d/124513