Gandhi and Terrorism

2 Anurag Gangal, “Gandhi and Terrorism”

Anurag Gangal, “Gandhi and Terrorism” 3

Gandhi and Terrorism

Anurag Gangal Professor, Department of Political Science,

and Director, Gandhian Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies,

University of Jammu, Jammu - 180006

Gandhian Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies University of Jammu,

Jammu-180006, J&K, India.


About The Author

Professor, International Politics, Department of Political Science; Director, Gandhian Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies (GCPCS), University of Jammu. Earlier served Delhi University; Regular contributor to national and international media. Member, Advisory Board, Jury of Mahatma Gandhi Peace Prize; Visiting Professor in noted universities; Special invitee: University Grants Commission and other such institutions. Interested in Conflict Resolution and related issues. Published 04 books, 25 research articles, over 100 topical articles. Edited Research Journals.


About the Book

This book is about Gandhian view of the terrorist challenges

to life in a national and international scenario today. Despite

widespread massive violence and killings by United Jihad Council in

Pakistan, Gandhian values of nonviolence and truth still form the very

basis of human existence even in this world of fanatic and revengeful

violence and Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). These values

are further strengthened only when basic needs are fulfilled and the

daily fight for existence is no more there haunting everyone every

moment.

Politics without these twin values of truth, nonviolence and

judicious self-sacrifice is a perverted form of “Politics”. Politics, in

reality and essence, is entirely opposed to any kind of perversion. In

effect, the main task of politics is to set right all perversions and

disorders. This is what people like Gandhi were doing all their lives.

Answers to present day diversified terrorism lie in further

normalisation of the role and effectiveness of values and ethics in

society and international politics. It is not restlessness and frustration

but restful mind of every individual is needed alongside strong

political will and intent for going in the right direction.

Mahatma Gandhi has always been deeply involved in

tackling such issues of global, national and regional importance

relating to peace and development in an atmosphere otherwise

polluted with massacres and brutalities. The present work, therefore,

is an attempt to touch upon this issue of terrorism and its relevant

perspectives alongwith useful data and graphical presentations.


Preface

This work relates to a few aspects anent relevance of

the philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi or Mohandas

Karmchand Gandhi in the twenty-first century specially

relating to the menaces of massive violence, massacres,

terrorism, militancy and insurgency.

As regards Gandhi’s values of truth and nonviolence

– “as old as hills” -- they are entirely replete with moment to

moment practical utility in our day to day life. Humanity

cannot survive without these twin values even for an instant.

Even perpetrators of massive violence cannot go away from

this necessity of truth and nonviolence within their own

circle of networking and organisation. Otherwise, their

strategy and planning will go haywire.

Despite this self-evident facet of our lives, we

humans are akin to go for massive and diabolical violence

and ever new inventions towards creating newer weapons of

mass destruction on public fronts, and in national and

international politics. This is a great paradox. Human beings

tend to behave differently in interpersonal, national and

international perspectives. So do terrorists also behave!

Examples that numerous national and international

leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Patel, Maulana Azad,

10 Anurag Gangal, “Gandhi and Terrorism” Babasaheb Ambedkar, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther

King Jr. and others have set and values of selflessness that

they have put on rails are missing in the present-day national

and international politics. Once in a while a few sudden and

momentary sparks of altruism do emerge here and there. But

they do not last.

Politics without these values of truth, nonviolence

and judicious self-sacrifice is a perverted form of real

politics. Politics is entirely opposed to any kind of

perversion. In effect, the main task of politics is to set right

all perversions and disorders. This is what people like

Gandhi were doing all their lives. Answers to present day

diverse political and other dilemmas, indeed, lie in further

normalisation of the role and effectiveness of values and

ethics in society and international politics.

The philosophy and values of modern-day terrorists

are based more on an inherent, overt and covert conviction of

“revenge” in their general approach to formulation of their

principles and fundamental guidelines. That is why most of

the terrorist groups are having misplaced priorities. Such

perspectives to life and one’s world view can never succeed.

This always leads to high level of disgraceful destruction of

the group holding on to such a philosophy although initially


such acts based on this philosophy may achieve a few

apparent landmarks in their ‘fight to the last’.

History, even in terms of terrorism, has very clearly

given us at least five thousand years to keep remembering

our “golden” and “not so golden past”. We have nothing to

lose but our modern susceptible “captive minds” if we come

out of this “dynamic historicity” – where we believe that

history repeats itself always successfully for bringing about a

permanent revolution through bloody violence upon massive

violence and utter destruction.

Whatever I am saying here is coming out of my own

utterly captive mind. I do not possess any element of

originality. I am not a wise person. I owe all my ideas and

analyses and observations to Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj or

Indian Home Rule, Paramhansa Yoganand’s Autobiography

of a Yogi, George Orwell’s 1984 and other such writings.

There are so many other individuals who have

influenced me in diverse ways. Amitabh Mattoo, Savita

Singh, Priyankar Upadhyaya, Anjoo Upadhyaya and a few

others can be regarded as contemporary inclines or

influences upon me.

Above all others, my father S. C. Gangal; and my

versatile genius mentor Ram Dutt Magotra / friend Ashutosh

12 Anurag Gangal, “Gandhi and Terrorism” Magotra alias “Duwanee Wale Hakeem Ji” is among those

without whom my existence is worthless.

I have learnt a lot from Tushar Gandhi and Kiran

Bedi also. My various visits to villages around Delhi and

Jammu have all led me to think on the lines of the need for

moving beyond Gandhi’s time now. David Cortright has also

had an influence upon me specially through his book Gandhi

and Beyond.

There is an oft quoted saying of Gandhi: “There is no

way to peace. Peace is the only way.” However, Peace is not

what the term “peace” means in semantics. Peace is a

crusade. It is a movement – continuous and perennial –

bringing about so many conflicts enroute. Peace is not

realisable without conflicts. Highly interactive conflict

resolution attempts represent peace process only. What after

all is the place of ‘the permanent end of terrorism’ in this

peace process?

Answer to this question comprises a number of

concerns such as nature of democracy, political processes,

economic policies and processes, people’s participation in

social, political and economic activities. Political

development – as such – when observed and examined, takes

us to other related questions of international politics. These

are relating to impact of population growth, environmental


pollution, widespread poverty, unemployment, proliferation

of armaments, expanding terrorist mafia and network,

weapons of mass destruction and nature of conflicts in

different regions of the world. Such matters imprint upon our

mind diverse perils to world peace today.

Mahatma Gandhi has always been deeply involved in

tackling these issues of global, national and regional

importance relating to peace and development. The present

work, therefore, is an attempt to touch upon various current

issues and its relevant Gandhian concerns and explanations

based largely on how to go for establishing and enhancing

nonviolent truths and their efficacy in our life.

Several people and institutions have helped me in

writing this work or book in different ways. Apart from my

colleagues at the Department of Political Science and at the

Gandhian Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at

University of Jammu, I am specially indebted to Amitabh

Mattoo, Savita Singh, Priyankar Upadhyaya, Anjoo Sharan

Upadhyaya.

I also owe a lot to my students and researchers

working with me in the pursuance of their academic strides

into the world. David Cortright, Yunus Samad and

University of Tuft Group visiting our Gandhian Centre for

Peace and Conflict Studies in August 2007 have also added

14 Anurag Gangal, “Gandhi and Terrorism” in their own way to my understanding of realities of

international politics and peace and conflict studies. Sandhya

Gupta from Fletcher School of Law and Neeraj from

University of Boston have also brought me out from Platonic

shadows of the cave into the light of day.

My wife Renu Gangal and my son Purvansh Gangal

have put so much of efforts into my academic and every

other type of evolution that I cannot but express my utmost

sense of gratitude to them. Without them and their support, I

just cannot move even an inch forward. There are so many

others who have helped me differently in my extended

family of blood relations.

From a small little child to the eldest member of this

network, everyone, has helped me even at the cost of their

own physical and material loss while forgetting their all

other difficulties for my sake.

As such Surbhi Gupta, my sister and her husband

Atul Gupta, my brother-in-law; Rama Agarwal, my mother-

in-law; O.P. Agarwal, my father-in-law; Pradeep Agarwal,

Rajeev Agarwal and Sunil Agarwal – my brother-in-laws,

Alka Agarwal, Abha Agarwal and Kanchan Agarwal – my

sister-in-laws, Sanjeev Aggarwal, my very special brother-

in-law and his wife Rekha Aggarwal – my very special

sister-in-law; our children -- in the larger family -- Anant


Gupta, Ankita, Arush, Akshi, Anushka, Arnav, Aman,

Shivangi and Shreya -- I owe them, each one of them, so

much that I cannot really repay what they have done for me

despite my best of efforts in this direction.

My publisher, office and library persons of the

Department of Political Science and of the University of

Jammu have also extended full cooperation to me. I express

my heart felt thanks for all that they have showered upon me

from time to time.

Some of my colleagues have been of more help than

others, specially, Karuna Thakur, B. B. Anand, Yog Raj

Sharma, Kishor Sharma, Vishal Sharma, Ranjeet Kalra,

Kuldeep Raj Sharma and Karan Bir Singh. I owe them all a

lot for all the support coming from them throughout.

Despite all help from various quarters coming to me

in writing this book, I, alone, am responsible for my work

and any mistakes or anomalies that may appear in the book

in spite of all care that has gone into the final publishing of

the manuscript.

I am dedicating this book to my parents, namely, my

Father, Professor S. C. Gangal and my Mother, Mrs Saroj

Gangal and to my mentors Duwanee Wale Hakeem Ji Shri

Ram Dutt Magotra and Pundit Ashutosh Magotra. Without

16 Anurag Gangal, “Gandhi and Terrorism” their Blessings, I would not have been able to devote my life

to creative pursuits at all.

They are the doer(s) not “I”. Their will be done, not

mine.

Anurag Gangal


Content Chapters Pages About the Author About the Book Preface Content 1. Introduction: Gandhian Perception

2. Gandhi’s View of Conflict

3. Other Dynamics of Terrorism

4. Conclusion: Dealing with Terrorism Chapter-wise References Appendix – I Major Terrorist Groups: Text and Graphs Appendix – II Terrorism on the Rise: Graph and Text Appendix – III Defining Diversified Terrorism Select Bibliography


Chapter One

Introduction: Gandhian Perception


Chapter One


Mahatma Gandhi has zero tolerance for Terrorism.

No compromise with violence especially when it is

becoming like an Age of Overkill of Max Learner. Yet

Gandhi did try his best for saving the life of so-called

terrorists like Sardar Bhagat Singh and others. Why did he

do so? Was Gandhi following different policy for his theory

and practice? Was he a man full of contradictions? Can

terrorism be conceptualised? Is there a philosophy of

terrorism?

For trying to answer all above mentioned questions,

author of this research work is highly grateful to Mark

Juergensmeyer for his timely publication “Gandhi vs.

Terrorism” in Daedalus, Vol.136, No.1, 2007, pp. 30-41.1

But for the relatively negative approach of Juergensmeyer

when he reasons out his preference for Gandhian

nonviolence to deal with the menace of terrorism today, he

has written a bold piece in recognition of the power of

nonviolence in the modern world – specially for tackling the

challenge of terrorism after 9/11 attacks on New York Trade

Tower and the Pentagon.

24 Anurag Gangal, “Gandhi and Terrorism” His approach is highly relevant even in cases like the

terrorists’ attack on Mumbai, Jaipur, Ahmedabad, New

Delhi, Srinagar, Jammu and other places such as Lahore

Cricket match between Pakistan and Sri Lanka or the Swat

Valley occupation by Taliban terrorists etc.

Introduction:

Gandhi is known to have lived amidst violence and

terrorism quite like the type that we see in the world today.

India had come across a lot of violence when Gandhi

returned from South Africa in 1915. Before coming to India,

Gandhi had suffered from violence in South Africa. Yet he

never resorted to retort through violence. It is, indeed, in

historical records that Gandhi has always succeeded while

using his own precept and practice of nonviolence against

violence.

Gandhi’s views on violence lead us to think that

violence seldom succeeds. Gandhi, as such, has written and

debated widely on the themes of violence and terrorism. It

would be well to reproduce quite a few paragraphs from

Juergensmeyer’s above mentioned article here:

India was on the verge of a violent

confrontation with Britain when, in 1915, Gandhi

was brought into India's independence movement

from South Africa, where as a lawyer he had been a


leader in the struggle for social equality for

immigrant Indians. In India, as in South Africa, the

British had overwhelming military superiority and

were not afraid to use it. In 1919, in the North

Indian city of Amritsar, an irate British brigadier-

general slaughtered almost four hundred Indians

who had come to the plaza of Jallianwala Bagh to

protest peacefully.

But the nationalist side was countering with

violence of its own. In Bengal, [Subhash] Chandra

Bose organized an Indian National Army, and, in

Punjab, leaders of the Ghadar movement --

supported by immigrant Punjabis in California --

plotted a violent revolution that anticipated

boatloads of weapons and revolutionaries

transported to India from the United States. These

Indian anarchists and militant Hindi nationalists saw

violence as the only solution to break the power of

the British over India.

Terrorism versus Nonviolence Debate

Gandhi's views about violent struggle were

sharpened in response to Indian activists who had

defended a terrorist attack on a British official. The

incident occurred in London in 1909, shortly before

26 Anurag Gangal, “Gandhi and Terrorism” Gandhi arrived there to lobby the British Parliament

on behalf of South African Indian immigrants. An

Indian student in London, Madan Lal Dhingra, had

attacked an official in Britain's India office, Sir

William H. Curzon-Wylie, in protest against

Britain's colonial control over India. At a formal

function, Dhingra pulled out a gun and, at close

range, fired five shots in his face. The British

official died on the spot. Dhingra was immediately

apprehended by the police; when people in the

crowd called him a murderer, he said that he was

only fighting for India's freedom.

Several weeks after Gandhi arrived in

London, he was asked to debate this issue of

violence with several of London's expatriate Indian

nationalists. His chief opponent was Vinayak

Savarkar, a militant Hindu who would later found

the political movement known as the Hindu

Mahasabha, a precursor to the present-day Hindu

nationalist party, the Bharatiya Janata Party. At the

time of the 1909 assassination Savarkar was reputed

to have supplied the weapons and ammunition for

the act, and to have instructed the ardent Hindu

assassin in what to say in his final statement as he


was led to the gallows. The young killer said that he

was "prepared to die, glorying in martyrdom."2

Shortly before the debate, Gandhi wrote to a

friend that in London he had met practically no

Indian who believed "India can ever become free

without resorting to violence."3 He described the

position of the militant activists as one in which

terrorism would precede a general revolution: Their

plans were first to "assassinate a few Englishmen

and strike terror," after which "a few men who will

have been armed will fight openly." Then, they

calculated, eventually they might have to lose "a

quarter of a million men, more or less," but the

militant Indian nationalists thought this effort at

guerrilla warfare would "defeat the English" and

"regain our land." 4

During the debate, Gandhi challenged the

logic of the militants on the grounds of political

realism. They could hardly expect to defeat the

might of the British military through sporadic acts

of terrorism and guerrilla warfare. More important,

however, was the effect that violent tactics would

have on the emerging Indian nationalist movement.

He feared that the methods they used to combat the

28 Anurag Gangal, “Gandhi and Terrorism” British would become part of India's national

character.

Hind Swaraj

Several weeks later Gandhi was still

thinking about these things as he boarded a

steamship to return to South Africa. He penned his

response to the Indian activists in London in the

form of a book. In a preliminary way, this essay,

which Gandhi wrote hurriedly on the boat to

Durban in 1909 (writing first with one hand and

then the other to avoid getting cramps), set forth an

approach to conflict resolution that he would pursue

the rest of his life. The book, Hind Swaraj, or,

Indian Home Rule, went to some lengths to describe

both the goals of India's emerging independence

movement and the appropriate methods to achieve

it. He agreed with the Indian radicals in London that

Britain should have no place in ruling India and

exploiting its economy. Moreover, he thought that

India should not try to emulate the materialism of

Western civilization, which he described as a kind

of "sickness."

The thrust of the book, however, was to

counter terrorism. Gandhi sketched out a nonviolent


approach, beginning with an examination of the

nature of conflict. He insisted on looking beyond a

specific clash between individuals to the larger

issues for which they were fighting. Every conflict,

Gandhi reasoned, was a contestation on two levels--

between persons and between principles. Behind

every fighter was the issue for which the fighter was

fighting. Every fight, Gandhi explained in a later

essay, was on some level an encounter between

differing "angles of vision" illuminating the same

truth.5

It was this difference in positions--

sometimes even in worldviews--that needed to be

resolved in order for a fight to be finished and the

fighters reconciled. In that sense Gandhi's methods

were more than a way of confronting an enemy;

they were a way of dealing with conflict itself. For

this reason he grew unhappy with the label, 'passive

resistance,' that had been attached to the methods

used by his protest movement in South Africa.

There was nothing passive about it -- in fact,

Gandhi had led the movement into stormy

confrontations with government authorities -- and it

was more than just resistance. It was also a way of

30 Anurag Gangal, “Gandhi and Terrorism” searching for what was right and standing up for it,

of speaking truth to power.

In 1906 Gandhi decided to find a new term

for his method of engaging in conflict. He invited

readers of his journal, Indian Opinion, to offer

suggestions, and he offered a book prize for the

winning entry. The one that most intrigued him

came from his own cousin, Maganlal, which Gandhi

refined into the term, satyagraha. The neologism is

a conjunct of two Sanskrit words, satya, 'truth,' and

agraha, 'to grasp firmly.' Hence it could be

translated as 'grasping onto truth,' or as Gandhi

liked to call it, "truth force."

What Gandhi found appealing about the

winning phrase was its focus on truth. Gandhi

reasoned that no one possesses a complete view of

it. The very existence of a conflict indicates a deep

difference over what is right. The first task of a

conflict, then, is to try to see the conflict from both

sides of an issue. This requires an effort to

understand an opponent's position as well as one's

own--or, as former U.S. Secretary of Defence

Robert McNamara advised in the documentary film

The Fog of War, "Empathize with the enemy."


Chapter Two

Gandhi’s View of Conflict


Chapter Two


Mark Juergensmeyer says in his “Gandhi vs.

Terrorism” article that:

The ability to cast an empathetic eye was

central to Gandhi's view of conflict. It made it

possible to imagine a solution that both sides could

accept, at least in part -- though Gandhi also

recognized that sometimes the other side had very

little worth respecting. In his campaign for the

British to 'quit India,' for instance, he regarded the

only righteous place for the British to be was

Britain. Yet at the same time he openly appreciated

the many positive things that British rule had

brought to the Indian subcontinent, from roads to

administrative offices.

After a solution was imagined, the second

stage of a struggle was to achieve it. This meant

fighting--but in a way that was consistent with the

solution itself. Gandhi adamantly rejected the

notion that the goal justifies the means. Gandhi

argued that the ends and the means were ultimately

the same. If you fought violently you would

36 Anurag Gangal, “Gandhi and Terrorism” establish a pattern of violence that would be part of

any solution to the conflict, no matter how noble it

was supposed to be. Even if terrorists were

successful in ousting the British from India, Gandhi

asked, "Who will then rule in their place?" His

answer was that it would be the ones who had killed

in order to liberate India, adding, "India can gain

nothing from the rule of murderers."6

A struggle could be forceful--often it would

begin with a demonstration and "a refusal to

cooperate with anything humiliating." But it could

not be violent, Gandhi reasoned, for these

destructive means would negate any positive

benefits of a struggle's victory. If a fight is waged in

the right way it could enlarge one's vision of the

truth and enhance one's character in the process.

What Gandhi disdained was the notion that one had

to stoop to the lowest levels of human demeanour in

fighting for something worthwhile. This brings us to

the way that Gandhi would respond to terrorism. To

begin with, Gandhi insisted on some kind of

response. He never recommended doing nothing at

all. "Inaction at a time of conflagration is

inexcusable," he once wrote.7


Beneath Contempt

He regarded cowardice as beneath contempt.

Fighting -- if it is nonviolent--is "never

demoralizing," Gandhi said, while "cowardice

always is."8

And perhaps Gandhi's most memorable

statement against a tepid response: "Where there is

only a choice between cowardice and violence, I

would advise violence."9

Occasionally violence does indeed seem to

be the only response available. Gandhi provided

some examples. One was the mad dog. On

confronting a dog with rabies, one must stop it by

any means possible, including maiming or killing

it.10

Another case that Gandhi offered was a

brutal rapist caught in the act. To do nothing in that

situation, Gandhi said, makes the observer "a

partner in violence." Hence violence could be used

to counter it. Gandhi thus concluded, "Heroic

violence is less sinful than cowardly nonviolence."11

Gandhian Strategy

A Gandhian strategy for confronting

terrorism, therefore, would consist of the following:

38 Anurag Gangal, “Gandhi and Terrorism” Stop an act of violence in its tracks. The

effort to do so should be nonviolent but forceful.

Gandhi made a distinction between detentive force--

the use of physical control in order to halt violence

in progress--and coercive force. The latter is meant

to intimidate and destroy, and hinders a Gandhian

fight aimed at a resolution of principles at stake.

Address the issues behind the terrorism. To

focus solely on acts of terrorism, Gandhi argued,

would be like being concerned with weapons in an

effort to stop the spread of racial hatred. Gandhi

thought the sensible approach would be to confront

the ideas and alleviate the conditions that motivated

people to undertake such desperate operations in the

first place.

Maintain the moral high ground. A bellicose

stance, Gandhi thought, debased those who adopted

it. A violent posture adopted by public authorities

could lead to a civil order based on coercion. For

this reason Gandhi insisted on means consistent

with the moral goals of those engaged in the

conflict.

These are worthy principles, but do they

work? This question is often raised about


nonviolent methods as a response to terrorism--as if

the violent ones have been so effective. In Israel, a

harsh response to Palestinian violence has often led

to a surge of support for Hamas and an increase in

terrorist violence. The U.S. responses to jihadi

movements after the September 11 attacks have not

diminished support for the movements nor reduced

the number of terrorist incidents worldwide.

Militant responses to terrorism do not possess a

particularly good record of success.

Violence begets violence and absolute violence leads

to complete extinction. Nonviolence, on the other hand, cuts

at the roots of violence. Nonviolence paves the pathway to

peace and ultimate victory in which even the loser is not

hurt. Gandhi, therefore, even while dealing with state

“terrorism” of the British, always succeeded in his

nonviolent attempts to resolve numerous conflicts.12

Sometimes violence has to be used under certain

inevitable circumstances as already shown in this chapter

earlier. Yet violence is the way to self-destruction.

Nonviolence is an ever alive process – it never ends and it is

timeless. Violence kills and nonviolence never kills. That is

why vast international resources are being spent on

establishing the processes of nonviolence for resolving

40 Anurag Gangal, “Gandhi and Terrorism” conflicts and tensions through multi-track diplomacy and

instruments of institutions like the United Nations etc.

What is really required is also benevolent intent of

political will, determination, patience, perseverance and a

general belief in the force of nonviolence. Violence does not

succeed.13 However, State and inter-state use of force maybe

necessary now in view of the latest establishment of the

United Jihad Council (UJC) in Pakistan recently.

Modern terrorism is indeed not a random response of

an individual or a group of individuals. Terrorism has

become an army of disciplined and well trained soldiers

beyond national frontiers. They have their own philosophies,

morals and ethics. In addition to their networking and

armaments, their real strength comes from their philosophies

– ethically sound and morally soothing to them though

esoterically. Hence, the terrorists will have to be dealt with

nonviolently – with nonviolence providing the strong base

for confronting the terrorists ethically as well. Otherwise,

terrorism will flourish ever more. Terrorists go for massive

violence with ethical base beneath their act.

Terrorism Terrorises Terrorism, indeed, terrorizes. It has evolved into a

profession in rich and poor countries both. It denotes

instantaneous power not only for unemployed youth but also


for disgruntled rich and poor individuals, groups and

countries alike. It immediately provides liquid money, gun-

power, license to kill alongwith facilities of moving about

the world freely with easily obtainable passports and visas.

Definitions and Major Types:

There are, among several others, three major types of

terrorism such as ‘insurgency’, ‘militancy’ and ‘terrorism’.

"Insurgency" involves revolutionary and guerrilla

activities against the military force of a State.

"Militancy" is the more aggressive and even violent

wing of a political party. Prime target of militancy is also

military, para-military, armed soldiers and police forces of

the State machinery. However, they do not hesitate to go for

other destructive and absolutely violent acts when it is

required to attain their ends.

"Terrorism" is the violent act involving massacre and

indiscriminate killing of innocent people for the purpose of

drawing political attention by generating mass fear psychosis

to attain certain political and motivated ends or goals.

All three types of above mentioned activities involve

absolute and utterly destructive violence. These definitions

have emerged after prolonged years of interviews and

discussions with senior air force, army and police officers of

42 Anurag Gangal, “Gandhi and Terrorism” India and several other academics from various universities

in India and abroad.

Operations:

Terrorists today operate from the comfort of five star

hotels in general and not so much from dangerous jungles

and ravines. Police, Army, Air Force and intelligence

services all appear to have failed in dealing with the ever

growing menace of terrorism.

Federated Network:

Terrorist network appears to have become a

federation on global scale with well established branches and

centres operating from every country. Terrorists have their

own economy through counterfeit currency notes. They print

these currencies of United States dollars, Indian rupees,

British pounds and what not freely with the help of rouge

states.

Terror Islands:

Terrorists have now stopped using services of

national and international banking also. Terrorism is

emerging as a federal post-modern nation-state spread like

networked islands of power in a world full of terror from

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). Even WMDs are

also available to terrorists now!


Massive Destruction:

Terrorism is now evolving as a profession and

institution. Joseph Conard has pointed out its professional

commitment to utter destruction beyond all shades of doubt:

"A bomb outrage to have any influence on public

opinion now must go beyond the intention of vengeance or

terrorism. It must be purely destructive. It must be that and

only that, beyond the faintest suspicion of any other

object".14

Sheer irresponsibility of the modern State vis-à-vis

terrorists can be seen in the later acquiring nuclear weapons.

"The reality is that a number of terrorist groups have

already employed chemical [and nuclear] weapons, e.g.

Japan’s Aum Sinriklyo’s use of …in Tokyo subway system

in 1995, and …..Terrorism is widely believed to be a new

kind of warfare and the al Qaeda network and al Queda-

inspired groups its foremost exponents".15

The terrorists are now sharing their networked

information bank the world over. They have acquired a

hidden international identity nearly as powerful as the

institution of the State. It is the State and its sponsored

terrorism and counterterrorism that appear to have become

direct and indirect source of the strength of terrorist groups

the world over.

44 Anurag Gangal, “Gandhi and Terrorism” Terrorism will not end until there develops a strong

faith in the power of nonviolence on a larger general plane at

the behest of every individual and organization.

Real Danger:

The twenty-first century is replete with “floodgates”

of globalization and surging flames of terrorism. Events of

11 September 2001 are logical corollary of massive violence

and weapons of mass destruction available to the institution

of State. The trend is thus set and examples are then adopted

and followed. The trend-setters just do not appear to be

realizing this aspect. This violence is becoming not only

infectious but also professional to a great extent.

Indeed, terrorism, even for Mahatma Gandhi, can be

dealt with only through zero tolerance towards it. Otherwise,

it will go for ever more violence upon violence and

massacres after massacres, i.e. mass killings of innocent

masses in a ruthless fashion. This violence has to be taken

care of through an international collaborative effort.


Chapter Three

Other Dynamics of Terrorism


Chapter Three

Other Dynamics of Terrorism

Terrorist violence is becoming not only infectious but

also professional to a great extent. How this situation has

emerged? Why terrorism is still a continuously growing

phenomenon despite the so-called “war on terrorism” and

“zero tolerance to terrorism”? What after all terrorism is?

What are the different perspectives on terrorism? Are

terrorist having any special characteristics? Can terrorism be

defined? What are diverse and different views and analyses

in this matter?

Nassar presents an in depth picture on the real and

historic causes behind terrorism. For him, as it were, every

global citizen and leader in Parliament are, among others,

responsible for the current and widespread menace of

terrorism. That is why Nassar says:

Recently, a former student of mine wrote me

one of those rare but special notes that teachers

occasionally receive. Lynn Weddle of the class of

1985 wrote, “I often am reminded of the many

things I learned while in your class and how some

of the things you mentioned became truly

prophetic.” My former student went on to remind

50 Anurag Gangal, “Gandhi and Terrorism” me of a statement I had made in class arguing that

the Soviet Union was not the enemy we needed to

fear but rather “a Third World country that we

would never expect to wreak havoc on the US.” The

events of September 11, 2001, reminded her of that

statement. While the events of that dreadful day

were a wake-up call to most Americans, terror has

been a normal way of life for a long time to many

people around the world. It certainly has been a part

of my life since birth (Nassar i-iv).16

Terrorism is and terrorist incidents are on the

increase in Asia and Middle-East and West Asia while they

are on a decreasing trend in Europe and America. Terrorist

violence and incidents have led to thousands of death every

year from 700 to about 6000 in the world (Sengupta and

Cockburn 27 March 2007).17

Terrorism on the Rise:

This menace of terrorists’ violent and fatal incidents

is beyond human description and definition. Various

dictionaries and encyclopaedias define terrorism mainly in

terms of acts of fatal violence and attacks against established


and recognized institutions of State and its citizens

and forces.

International Terrorist Incidences 1968 to 2004

Source: Graph from MIPT database, http://www.tkb.org/Home.jsp


Academics and experts do not fully agree with such

simplistic meanings and definitions. For Jimmy Carter,

Palestinian people have always suffered at the hands of the

Israel’s policy of “Apartheid” against them.18 If this so then

what about Palestine’s’ sustained terrorists attacks not only

aimed at Israel but also the different countries of the entire

world. For Nassar Jamal, terrorism is use of excessive force,

fatal attacks with the intention to create terror and panic in

order to secure calculated political demands. He, however,

finds – quite like Bjorgo – institution of State more

responsible for present-day terrorism.19

Gurr and Cole believe that there are different levels

of terrorist attacks and violence – the conventional and non-

conventional. Terrorist groups are not gun-trotting

armatures. They have there aims and purposes. As such there

main objective is to accomplish their political aims through

effective means of massive violence. They even use weapons

of mass destruction especially nuclear, biological and

chemical weapons.20

Defining terrorism leads also to a major question. Are

terrorists normal human beings? Are they primarily

pathological cases? Yes, even terrorists of today are normal

beings and their global system and networking is running


parallel to governments all around the world. They are

certainly not pathological at all. They are die hard and

energetic persons living a normal life in this age of

information technology.

Terrorism is now evolving as a profession and

institution. Joseph Conard has pointed out its professional

commitment to utter destruction beyond all shades of doubt:

A bomb outrage to have any influence on

public opinion now must go beyond the intention of

vengeance or terrorism. It must be purely

destructive. It must be that and only that, beyond

the faintest suspicion of any other object.21

Sheer irresponsibility of the modern State vis-à-vis

terrorists can be seen in the later acquiring nuclear weapons.

The reality is that a number of terrorist

groups have already employed chemical [and

nuclear] weapons, e.g. Japan’s Aum Sinriklyo’s use

of …in Tokyo subway system in 1995, and

…..Terrorism is widely believed to be a new kind of

warfare and the al Qaeda network and al Queda-

inspired groups its foremost exponents.22

The terrorists are now sharing their networked

information bank the world over. They have acquired a

hidden international identity nearly as powerful as the

54 Anurag Gangal, “Gandhi and Terrorism” institution of the State. It is the State and its sponsored

terrorism and counterterrorism that appear to have become

direct and indirect source of the strength of terrorist groups

the world over.

Terrorism will not end until there develops a strong

faith in the power of nonviolence on a larger general plane at

the behest of every individual and organization. At times,

legal violence, against the perpetrators of widespread

massive satanic violence, is also to be regarded as

nonviolence only.


Chapter Four

Conclusion: Dealing with Terrorism


Chapter Four

Conclusion: Dealing with Terrorism

The Gandhian way to deal with terrorism is straight

forward and that is why it is difficult to follow in present-day

political complexities on national and international plain.

Immediate Steps:

1. Zero tolerance to terrorism perpetrating

massive violence and killings of officials and

innocent individuals is needed. Such killings

and massacres must not be allowed at any

cost – come what may.

2. Terrorists do not fall in the Rule of Law

purview and concept of democracy. They are

the Satanic forces. They must be crushed even

before they are able to raise their heads. This

will be an exercise in conflict “provention” of

John Burton.

3. Very Fast Track Trials(VFTT) are needed to

deal with terrorists. Even those who do not

indulge in direct violence of terrorism while

supporting terrorism indirectly and from a

clandestine distance must also be put behind

prison bars through life – until they breathe

60 Anurag Gangal, “Gandhi and Terrorism” their last breath. Killers of masses do not

deserve to be empathized for their sins until

they promise never to go for such acts in

future.

4. Every remnant of terrorism has to be done

away with permanently forever and for all

time to come.

5. The Governments of United States and Israel

must be extended all support to wipe out

terrorism from this spaceship Earth.

6. Not only official intelligence machinery but

also an informal intelligence authority must

also be established functioning on the lines of

nine tracks of diplomacy and methods of

conflict resolution in national and

international politics. Teachers in schools,

colleges and universities can be of real value

to providing useful information to

Governmental agencies.

7. Nexus between political leaders, mafia dons,

select local population, government officers

and terrorists must be exposed and broken

rightaway.


8. Once this nexus is exposed and broken, there

will be no more infiltration of terrorists in

India and other countries.

9. Pilot-less planes like the American ‘Drone’

must be obtained by Indian Ministry of

Defence.

10. General public must not be encouraged to

have a perception that indulging in violence,

looting, kidnapping, hijacking and using AK-

47 and AK-56 leads governments to succumb

to the wishes of those who wield weapons.

Modern governments, instead, are doing just

the opposite of this requirement.

Short Term Measures:

1. Find ways to provide for every genuine and

fundamental need, facility and comfort to

every citizen of a country – especially such

facilities which are enjoyed by the top

political stalwarts and prime ministers and

presidents of a State.

2. It means every citizen must be having suitable

jobs, pure drinking water, regular supply of

electricity, information technology network,

telecommunication facilities, a permanent

62 Anurag Gangal, “Gandhi and Terrorism” dwelling or home to live, proper clothing,

pure food to eat, at least one car per family

and near complete security to life, liberty and

property of every individual citizen.

3. If a citizen of a country cannot be endowed

with these modern basic needs then the

present day VVIP political leaders must not

also enjoy all such facilities until they are able

to provide all these to every common citizen

in the country. That is why Gandhi had started

wearing only a loin cloth on his person in

order to remind him what every citizen in

India needed at that time. Modern politicians,

therefore, actually cheat and misappropriate

funds from the public exchequer for purposes

of their own security and comforts. This is,

indeed, an example of highest degree of

‘shamelessness’ on the part of modern

politicians in modern democracies.

Long Term Strategy:

1. Setting examples of self-sacrifice like Sonia

Gandhi when she declined to be the Prime

Minister of India despite having the fulsome

opportunity in 2004. Instead, she opted to


serve people of her country as a real political

servant attending to her master citizens. How

well she has been able to perform this duty?

This is clearly a separate question to be dealt

with on some other occasion.

2. Removing the apparent distance and

difference between politicians in the corridors

of power and common citizens.

3. Otherwise, receiving the ‘shoe beating’

treatment from common citizens will become

a routine feature for politicians upon the

‘streets of time and space’ in the years to

come by.

Who is Responsible for the Rise of Terrorism?

Mainly the apparent nexus between politicians,

bureaucracy, officers, business and terrorism which is

responsible for the rise of terrorism not only in India but also

the entire world.

Short term vested interests and short sighted national

and personal though situational self-aggrandisement often

lead to evolving of a nexus. It is mainly for instantaneous

material, monetary and power oriented gains that present day

politicians land in the hands of terrorists, armaments and

drug mafia. That is how various Osama Bin Ladens,

64 Anurag Gangal, “Gandhi and Terrorism” Talibans, United Jihad Council and ‘D’ Company came into

existence.

Once coming into being leads them to become a

Frankenstein over the years.

Such modern trends towards self-destruction cannot

be reverted unless and until politics regains its original

momentum and meaning. This indeed is the need of time at

least for the sheer survival of humanity from this deadening

menace of ruthless terrorism.


Chapter-wise References and Notes

Chapter One


1 Mark Juergensmeyer, “Gandhi vs. Terrorism”, Daedalus, Vol. 136, No. 1, 2007, pp. 30-41. 2 James D. Hunt, Gandhi in London, (Promilla and Co. Publishers, New Delhi: 1973), p. 134. 3 Government of India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol. 9, (Publications Division, Delhi: 1958), p. 509. 4 M. K. Gandhi, Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule, 2nd ed., (Navajivan, Ahmedabad: 1938), p. 69. 5 Young India, 23 September 1926. See specially Mark Juergensmeyer, Gandhi's Way: A Handbook of Conflict Resolution, rev. ed., (University of California Press, Berkeley: 2005).

Chapter Two


6 Op cit. n. 1. 7 Harijan, April 7, 1946. 8 Young India, October 31, 1929. 9 Young India, August 11, 1920. 10 Gandhi, Collected Works, Vol. 14, 505. 11 Gandhi, Collected Works, Vol. 51, 17. References 1-10 in this chapter are almost wholly reproduced from Mark Juergensmeyer, “Gandhi vs. Terrorism” in Daedalus, Vol.136, No.1, 2007, pp. 30-41 with emphasis added in different ways. I express deep sense of gratitude to Mark for writing such a commendable piece on “Gandhi and Terrorism”. 12 Erik H. Erikson, Gandhi's Truth: On the Origins of Militant Nonviolence, (W. W. Norton, New York: 1993), pp. 413-416. 13 Michael J. Nojeim, Gandhi and King: The Power of Nonviolent Resistance, (Praeger, Westport, CT : 2004) pp. 91, 288. 14 Meghnad Desai, Rethinking Islamism: The Ideology of the New Terror, (I.B. Tauris, London: 2007), p.1.

68 Anurag Gangal, “Gandhi and Terrorism” 15 L. Weinberg, Global Terrorism, (Oneworld, Oxford: 2006), pp.131-132.

Chapter Three

Other Dynamics of Terrorism 16 Nassar, Jamal, R. Globalization and Terrorism: The Migration of Dreams and Nightmares, , Oxford, Rowman and Littlefield: 2005), pp. i-iv, 103. 17 Kim Sengupta, and Patrick, Cockburn, “How the War on Terror Made the World a More Terrifying Place”, The Independent, (London: 2007). See also http://www.tkb.org/Home.jsp 18 Jimmy, Carter, Palestine: Peace not Apartheid, (Simon & Schuster, New York: 2006), p. 176. 19 Bjorgo Tore, Root causes of Terrorism: Myths, Reality, and Ways Forward, Routledge: 2005), see especially the entire first Chapter. 20 N. Gurr, and B. Cole, The New Face of Terrorism: Threats form Weapons of Mass Destruction, (I.B. Tauris, London: 2002), pp. 1-22. 21 M.Desai, Rethinking Islamism: The Ideology of the New Terror, (I.B. Tauris, London: 2007), p.1. 22 L. Weinberg, Global Terrorism, (Oneworld, Oxford: 2006), pp. 131-132.


Appendices


Appendix – I

Major Terrorist Groups: Text and Graphs

Major terrorist groups operating in India

India lost over 53,000 lives to terrorism and

extremism over the last decade. This is certainly cause for

alarm, and creates an image of widespread breakdown of law

and order – and this is an accurate picture of at least some

parts of the country. Across most of its geographical

expanse, however, India has remained by and large free of

the modern-day scourge of terrorism, as of insurgency and

other patterns of extremist political violence (see map).

A review of data relating to civilian fatalities as a

result of social and political violence in the country over the

period September 1, 1999 – August 31, 2001, (Graph 1)

indicated that nearly 36 per cent of all such fatalities

occurred in parts of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) alone as a

result of the separatist proxy war in that State. Over 33 per

cent were accounted for by a range of insurgencies and

terrorist movements in India’s Northeast – and these were

overwhelmingly concentrated in a small number of districts

in four of the seven States in this region. A little less than 21

per cent of civilian fatalities resulted from Left Wing

72 Anurag Gangal, “Gandhi and Terrorism” Extremist (referred to as Naxalism in India) and retaliatory

violence in some areas of the States of Andhra Pradesh,

Maharashtra, Orissa, Chattisgarh, Jharkhand and Bihar.

Barely 10 per cent of the total civilian fatalities were spread

across the rest of the country, and only a small fraction of

these were concentrated in the economically vibrant

metropolis.

Separatism constitutes a primary demand of the

movement in J&K, and of many of the groups active in

India’s Northeast (some Northeast groups do not have

clearly defined separatist goals). There has been a

proliferation of militant groups in recent times, with as many

as 33 identified in J&K, and over 104 in India’s Northeast.

Most of these are insignificant gangs and some are now

dormant.

J&K is currently the most significant internal security

challenge faced by the country (Graph 2), and three Islamist

fundamentalist groups – all of them head-quartered in

Pakistan – constitute the gravest threat in the State: Lashkar-

e-Toiba (LeT), Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) and Hizb-ul-

Mujahiddeen (HuM). All three seek integration of J&K with

Pakistan, and they have entirely replaced groups, such as the

Jammu & Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF), that sought


Kashmiri Independence and who dominated the earlier phase

of the militancy. Intelligence sources estimate that 55 per

cent of the approximately 4,000 terrorists currently operating

in the State are foreigners, primarily Pakistanis, though

several other nationalities have also been identified.

The LeT is the terrorist arm of the Markaz-ud-Dawa-

Wal-Irshad (MDI), with its headquarters at Muridke in

Pakistan. Its entry into J&K was first recorded in 1993 but it

was after 1997 that it rose in the priorities of Pakistan’s Inter

Services Intelligence (ISI). The LeT has a specialised

‘suicide’ cadre, the fidayeen, who undertake high-risk

missions against security forces. The first of these attacks

targeted a residential complex of the Border Security Force

(BSF) in Bandipore near Srinagar on July 13, 1999. The

most spectacular of these missions was the attack on the

headquarters of the Special Operations Group (SOG) at

Srinagar on December 27, 1999. LeT operations are

characterised by a level of brutality that surpasses that of

other terrorist groups in the State. Cases include the cold

blooded murder of 23 people in Wandhama on January 23,

1988; the June 19, 1998, massacre of 25 members of a

wedding party in Doda, Jammu; and, during President

74 Anurag Gangal, “Gandhi and Terrorism” Clinton’s visit to South Asia, the Chattisinghpora massacre

of 35 Sikhs on March 20, 2000.

The JeM was set up in Pakistan in February 2000, by

Maulana Masood Azhar. Azhar is closely connected with the

Binori Seminary, the largest Deobandi madrassa in Pakistan,

and was released on December 31, 1999, from an Indian

prison in a hostage swap after the hijacking of the Indian

Airlines Flight IC 814 to Kandahar, Afghanistan. The rise of

the JeM has been rapid. The first of its more dramatic strikes

occurred on April 23, 2000, when a youth rammed a car

laden with explosives at the gates of the local army

headquarters at Badami Bagh in Srinagar. The attack was the

first suicide bomb attack in J&K. The Jaish has also claimed

credit for the rifle grenade attack on the J&K Secretariat

building in Srinagar on June 28, 2001; and the attack on the

State Legislative Assembly complex at Srinagar on October

1, 2001, using a car bomb – 38 people, including four

fidayeen were killed in the latter. The JeM and the LeT are

both closely connected with Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda.

The HuM is numerically the largest group in J&K,

accounting for up to 60 per cent of the total terrorist cadres

in the State, though Indian intelligence considers it to be

responsible for only about 10 to 20 per cent of current


terrorist strikes. The HuM was founded in 1989 as the

militant wing of the Jamaat-e-Islami on the prodding of the

ISI, as an Islamic counter to the relatively indigenous and

secular JKLF. The group is headed by Syed Salahuddin, who

is located at Islamabad, Pakistan. The HuM was responsible

for setting fire to the Muslim shrine of Charar-e-Sharif in

1995 and collaborated with the LeT in the Chattisinghpora

massacre. It has also killed several moderate Kashmiri

Muslims. The HuM has indicated a willingness to accept a

negotiated solution to the Kashmir problem, and had

declared a short-lived unilateral ‘ceasefire’ in J&K in July

2000. It has increasingly been marginalised in the terrorism

profile of the State.

Among the proliferation of terrorist organisations in

India’s troubled Northeast, two stand out in significance: the

United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) that seeks the

seccession of Assam, and the National Socialist Council of

Nagalim (Isak-Muivah) [NSCN-IM] that has taken over the

leadership of the longest insurgency in the region, seeking

Naga independence. While violence by both these groups has

seen a recent decline, their influence in the region is

overwhelming. They run widespread networks of extortion,

drug smuggling and other criminal activities, and also

76 Anurag Gangal, “Gandhi and Terrorism” control substantial ‘overground’ business operations. The

NSCN-IM has been engaged in negotiations with the Union

Government under a ceasefire agreement that has been in

place since August 1997. The ULFA has consistently

rejected possibilities of a negotiated settlement. The ULFA

and the NSCN-IM have, however, continued to extend their

spheres of influence in the Northeast region through low-

grade violence as well as by training and arming a large

number of other terrorist and proxy groups, and are

supported by the ISI in their activities. However, no

Northeastern terrorist organisation has, till now, sought to

extend its sphere of operations outside the region.

The Islamist groups operating with Pakistani support

in Kashmir, however, do have a clear pan-Islamist agenda,

and are known to have created a network of terrorist cells in

a number of other States in India. While an occasional and

dramatic strike has been engineered in various cities,

including notably, Delhi, Bombay, Coimbatore and

Hyderabad over the past decade, they are yet to secure any

noticeable and persistent impact on normal life in any of

these areas.

LeT, JeM, HuM, and ULFA were among the 23

organisations banned under the Prevention of Terrorism


Ordinance promulgated on October 24, 2001. The immediate

consequences of this Ordinance are expected to be

negligible. (Edited version published in Pinkerton Global

Intelligence Services, November 16, 2001.) Reproduced

fully for public information from following source:

http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/ajaisahni/Pink161101.htm

1. Conflict Areas Map -- Source:

http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/images/indiaconflict.jpg


2. Conflict Areas Infested with Terrorism and Violence. Source:

http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/ajaisahni/Pink161101.htm


3. Source: http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/sair/index.htm


Appendix – II

Terrorism on the Rise: Graph and Text

4. International Terrorist Incidences 1968 to 2004 Source: Graph from MIPT database, http://www.tkb.org/Home.jsp


5. List of Foreign Terrorist Organisations (FTOs)

Following is the list of FTOs (as of Dec. 30, 2002):

Abu Nidal Organization (ANO)

Abu Sayyaf Group

Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade

Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya (Islamic Group)

Armed Islamic Group (GIA)

Asbat al-Ansar

Aum Shinrikyo

Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA)

East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM)

HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement)

Harakat ul-Mujahidin (HUM)

Hizballah (Party of God)

Indian Mujahideen

Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU)

Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM) (Army of Mohammed)

al-Jihad (Egyptian Islamic Jihad)

Kahane Chai (Kach)

Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK)

Lashkar-e Tayyiba (LT) (Army of the Righteous)

Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)

Lashkar I Jhangvi (LIJ)

82 Anurag Gangal, “Gandhi and Terrorism” Moro Islamic Liberation Front

Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK)

National Liberation Army (ELN)

Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)

Palestine Liberation Front (PLF)

Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)

PFLP-General Command (PFLP-GC)

al Qaeda

Real IRA

Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)

Revolutionary Nuclei (formerly ELA)

Revolutionary Organization 17 November

Revolutionary People’s Liberation Front

Salafist Group for Call and Combat (GSPC)

Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso, SL)

Special Purpose Islamic Regiment (SPIR)

United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC)

Communist Party of the Philippines/New People's Army

Jemaah Islamiya organization (JI)

This list is based on the source:

http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/terrorist-pr.cfm


Appendix – III

Defining Diversified Terrorism

(Globally Understood Armed Forces’ View)

There are, among several others, three major types of

terrorism such as ‘insurgency’, ‘militancy’ and ‘terrorism’.

Insurgency:

"Insurgency" involves revolutionary and guerrilla

activities against the military force of a State.

Militancy:

"Militancy" is the more aggressive and even violent

wing of a political party. Prime target of militancy is also

military, para-military, armed soldiers and police forces of

the State machinery. However, they do not hesitate to go for

other destructive and absolutely violent acts when it is

required to attain their ends.

Terrorism:

"Terrorism" is the violent act involving massacre and

indiscriminate killing of innocent people for the purpose of

drawing political attention by generating mass fear psychosis

to attain certain political and motivated ends or goals.

Destructive Nature:

All three types of above mentioned activities involve

absolute and utterly destructive violence. These definitions

84 Anurag Gangal, “Gandhi and Terrorism” have emerged after prolonged years of interviews and

discussions with senior air force, army and police officers of

India and several other academics from various universities

in India and abroad.


Select Bibliography


Select Bibliography

Gandhi’s Select Books

All Men Are Brothers: Autobiographical Reflections,

edited by Krishna Kripalani, Continuum, 1980. Brief

passages from a wide range of Gandhi’s writings. This

UNESCO anthology is perhaps the best general introduction

to Gandhi’s ideas for the general reader.

The Gandhi Reader: A Sourcebook of His Life and

Writings, edited by Homer A. Jack, Grove/Atlantic, 1995.

The Essential Gandhi: An Anthology of His Writings

on His Life, Work and Ideas, edited by Louis Fischer,

Vintage, 1983.

An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with

Truth, Beacon, 1957. A selective account, up to the mid-

1920s. This book has inspired many, including Martin

Luther King, Jr.


Satyagraha in South Africa, Navajivan, 1950.

Gandhi’s impressive early campaigns. Fills in details left out

of his autobiography for the same period.

Non-Violence in Peace and War, 2 vols., Navajivan,

1948, 1949. Everything you wanted to know.

Non-Violent Resistance, Schocken, 1967. A more

manageable collection than Non-Violence in Peace and War.

Hind Swaraj, and Other Writings, edited by Anthony

J. Parel, Cambridge University, 1997. Hind Swaraj, or Indian

Home Rule, was an early work, showing Gandhi at his most

idealistic and utopian. A personal manifesto.

Economic and Industrial Life and Relations, 3 vols.,

edited by V. B. Kher, Navajivan, 1959 (revised edition).

Included here are Gandhi’s writings on small-scale,

decentralist economics. The ideas of Gandhi and his

followers helped shape much of today’s thinking about

effective economic development in the Third World and

were the biggest inspiration of the influential British

economist E. F. Schumacher.


Basic Education, Navajivan, 1956. On Gandhi’s own

philosophy of education, based on using practical handcrafts

as a springboard for academic study.

Other Books

Ahmed, Akbar S. Postmodernism and Islam: Predicament

and Promise. New York: Routledge, 1992.

Ardley, Jane. The Tibetan Independence Movement:

Political, Religious and Gandhian Perspective. New

York: Routledge, 2002.

Beckman, Peter R., and Francine D'Amico, eds. Women,

Gender, and World Politics: Perspectives, Policies,

and Prospects. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey

Publishers, 1994.

Bleiker, Roland. Popular Dissent, Human Agency, and

Global Politics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge

University Press, 2000.

Cassen, Robert. Does Aid Work? Report to an

Intergovernmental Task Force. 2nd ed. Oxford:


Clarendon Press, 1994.

Clark, Mary E. In Search of Human Nature. London:

Routledge, 2002.

A Comprehensive, Annotated Bibliography on Mahatma

Gandhi. Vol. 1. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press,

1995.

D'Amico, Francine, and Peter R. Beckman, eds. Women in

World Politics: An Introduction. Westport, CT:

Bergin & Garvey, 1995.

Deluca, Anthony R. Gandhi, Mao, Mandela, and Gorbachev:

Studies in Personality, Power, and Politics. Westport,

CT: Praeger Publishers, 2000.

Duncan, Ronald, and Mahatma Gandhi. Selected Writings of

Mahatma Gandhi. Boston: Beacon, 1951.

Ehrlich, Robert, ed. Perspectives on Nuclear War and Peace

Education. New York: Greenwood Press, 1987.

Erikson, Erik H. Gandhi's Truth: On the Origins of Militant


Nonviolence. New York: W. W. Norton, 1993.

Fetherling, George. The Book of Assassins: A Biographical

Dictionary from Ancient Times to the Present. New

York: Wiley, 2001.

Foot, Rosemary, John Gaddis, and Andrew Hurrell, eds.

Order and Justice in International Relations. Oxford,

England: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Freud, Sigmund. A General Introduction to Psychoanalysis..

Trans. G. Stanley Hall. New York: Horace Liveright,

1920.

Gandhi, M. K. Gandhi's Autobiography The Story of My

Experiments with Truth. Trans. Mahadev Desai.

Washington, DC: Public Affairs Press, 1948.

Gandhi, M. K. Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha). New

York: Schocken Books, 1961.

Gandhi, Mahatma. All Men Are Brothers: Life and Thoughts

of Mahatma Gandhi as Told in His Own Words.


Paris: UNESCO, 1958.

Gandhi, Mahatma, and Thomas Merton. Gandhi on Non-

Violence. New York: New Directions Pub, 1965.

Gopin, Marc. Between Eden and Armageddon: The Future

of World Religions, Violence, and Peacemaking.

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Honderich, Ted, ed. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy.

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.

Hoy, Paula. Players and Issues in International Aid. West

Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press,

Keene, Edward. Beyond the Anarchical Society: Grotius,

Colonialism and Order in World Politics. Cambridge,

England: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Khagram, Sanjeev, James V. Riker, and Kathryn Sikkink.

Restructuring World Politics: Transnational Social

Movements, Networks, and Norms. Minneapolis:

University of Minnesota Press, 2002.


Kull, Steven, and I. M. Destler. Misreading the Public: The

Myth of a New Isolationism. Washington, DC:

Brookings Institution, 1999.

Livingston, Marius H., Lee Bruce Kress, and Marie G.

Wanek, eds. International Terrorism in the

Contemporary World. Westport, CT: Greenwood

Press, 1978.

Merrill, Dennis. Bread and the Ballot: The United States and

India's Economic Development, 1947-1963. Chapel

Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1990.

Mitzman, Arthur. Prometheus Revisited: The Quest for

Global Justice in the Twenty-First Century. Amherst,

MA: University of Massachusetts Press, 2003.

American Foreign Policy Council. Modernizing Foreign

Assistance: Resource Management as an Instrument

of Foreign Policy. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers,

1992.

94 Anurag Gangal, “Gandhi and Terrorism” Parekh, Bhikhu. Gandhi: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford,

England: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Patomäki, Heikki. After International Relations: Critical

Realism and the (Re)Construction of World Politics.

London: Routledge, 2002.

Power, Paul F. Gandhi on World Affairs. Washington, DC:

Public Affairs Press, 1960.

Puri, Rashmi-Sudha. Gandhi on War and Peace. New York:

Praeger Publishers, 1987.

Rabie, Mohamed. The Politics of Foreign Aid: U.S. Foreign

Assistance and Aid to Israel. New York: Praeger,

1988.

Raviv, Amiram, Louis Oppenheimer, and Daniel Bar-Tal,

eds. How Children Understand War and Peace: A

Call for International Peace Education. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1999.

Robertson, Charles L. International Politics since World War


II: A Short History. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe,

1997.

Ronit, Karsten, and Volker Schneider, eds. Private

Organisations in Global Politics. New York:

Routledge, 2000.

Sprout, Harold Hance, and Margaret Sprout, eds.

Foundations of National Power: Readings on World

Politics and American Security. Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press, 1945.

Sprout, Harold Hance, and Margaret Tuttle Sprout.

Foundations of International Politics. Princeton, NJ:

Van Nostrand, 1962.

Stack, John F., and Lui Hebron, eds. The Ethnic

Entanglement Conflict and Intervention in World

Politics. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1999.

Stoll, Richard J., and Michael D. Ward, eds. Power in World

Politics. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publications,


1989.

Taylor, Ian, ed. Africa in International Politics: External

Involvement on the Continent. New York:

Routledge, 2004.

Thomas, Raju G. C., and Amit Gupta, eds. India's Nuclear

Security. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2000.

Tickner, J. Ann. Gendering World Politics: Issues and

Approaches in the Post-Cold War Era. New York:

Columbia University Press, 2001.

Van Belle, Douglas A. Press Freedom and Global Politics.

Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2000.

Wells, Donald A., ed. An Encyclopedia of War and Ethics.

Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1996.

Wetzel, David, and Theodore S. Hamerow, eds. International

Politics and German History: The Past Informs the

Present. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1997.

Wolpert, Stanley. Gandhi's Passion: The Life and Legacy of


Mahatma Gandhi. New York: Oxford University

Press, 2002.

Yahuda, Michael. The International Politics of the Asia-

Pacific: 1945-1995. London: Routledge, 1996.

Articles

"Anti-Terrorism Law: Urgent and Necessary." Manila

Bulletin 21 May 2006: NA.

Beichman, Arnold. "A War of Cultures." The Washington

Times 6 Sept. 2001: 15.

Bergesen, Albert J., and Yi Han. "New Directions for

Terrorism Research." International Journal of

Comparative Sociology 46.1-2, 2005: 133+.

Birdsall, Nancy. "Asymmetric Globalization: Global Markets

Require Good Global Politics." Brookings Review

Spring 2003: 22+.

Chabot, Sean. "A Culture of Peace in Motion: Transnational

Diffusion of the Gandhian Repertoire from India to


the U.S. Civil Rights Movement." International

Journal of Humanities and Peace 16.1 (2000): 63.

Clark, Thomas W. "Gandhi in Question." The Humanist

July-Aug. 2006: 45+.

"Terrorism." The Columbia Encyclopedia. 6th ed. 2004.

Crimm, Nina J. "High Alert: The Government's War on the

Financing of Terrorism and Its Implications for

Donors, Domestic Charitable Organizations, and

Global Philanthropy." William and Mary Law

Review 45.4 (2004): 1341+.

"Defining Terrorism; Conferences Produce Meager Results."

The Washington Times 2 Dec. 2005: A21.

Ediger, Marlow. "War and Peace in the Curriculum." Journal

of Instructional Psychology 30.4 (2003): 288+.

Falk, Richard. "Religion and Global Governance: Harmony

or Clash?" International Journal on World Peace 19.1

(2002): 3+.


"Fighting Terrorism - ASEAN Style." Manila Bulletin 21

Jan. 2007: NA.

Ford, Neil. "Indian Connection Gathers New Momentum:

With the Emergence of China and India, Africa's

Traditional Trading Patterns and Partners Are

Changing. India, with Long Established Cultural

Connections with South Africa, Is Becoming an

Increasingly Important Trade and Investment Partner

for the African Nation. Neil Ford Reports." African

Business Nov. 2006: 70+.

"G-8 Scoreboard." The Washington Times 20 July 2006:

A16.

"General Assembly Condemns Terrorism Wherever and by

Whomever Committed; Hostage-Taking and

Abduction Condemned by Security Council." UN

Chronicle Feb. 1986: 37+.

Gordon, Haim. "A Rejection of Spiritual Imperialism:


Reflections of Buber's Letter to Gandhi." Journal of

Ecumenical Studies , 1999: 470.

Graham, Carol. "Can Foreign Aid Help Stop Terrorism? Not

with Magic Bullets." Brookings Review Summer

2002: 28+.

Green, Nicole W. "International Politics." Foreign Policy

Winter 1998: 124+.

Gunnell, Yanni. "Comparative Regional Geography in India

and West Africa: Soils, Landforms and Economic

Theory in Agricultural Development Strategies." The

Geographical Journal 163.1, 1997: 38+.

Halwani, Raja. "Terrorism: Definition, Justification, and

Applications." Social Theory and Practice 32.2, 2006:

289+.

Hamill, James. "South Africa and the Commonwealth Part

One: The Years of Acrimony." Contemporary

Review July 1995: 13+.


"Human Security Act of 2007 Signed; Landmark Law a

Weapon to Fight Int'l Terrorism GMA Assures Law

Won't Be Used against Critics." Manila Bulletin 7

Mar. 2007: NA.

Hundt, David. "The New Global Politics of the Asia Pacific."

The Australian Journal of Politics and History 52.3,

2006: 513.

Ishii, Kazuya. "The Socioeconomic Thoughts of Mahatma

Gandhi: As an Origin of Alternative Development

[1]." Review of Social Economy 59.3 (2001): 297.

Jahanbegloo, Ramin. "Beyond Nationalism: The Universality

of Nonviolence." Futures 37.9 (2005): 1049+.

Juergensmeyer, Mark. "Gandhi vs. Terrorism." Daedalus

136.1 (2007): 30+.

Kaldor, Mary. "Wanted: Global Politics -- New Types of

Violence are on the Rise, and the only Exit Route is

Political." The Nation 5 Nov. 2001: 15.

102 Anurag Gangal, “Gandhi and Terrorism” "Let's Talk about It." The Washington Times 7 Feb. 2004:

A12.

Mohanty, Manoranjan. "Parties to Panchsheel: India-China

Relations and the Nuclear. Explosions in South

Asia." Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars 31.2

(1999): 58-64.

"Oil Boom, Global Politics Boon to Africa." Manila Bulletin

30 June 2007: NA.

Palti, Leslie. "Combating Terrorism While Protecting

Human Rights." UN Chronicle Dec. 2004: 27+.

Reisman, W. Michael. "International Legal Responses to

Terrorism." Houston Journal of International Law

22.1 (1999): 3.

Shuja, Sharif. "Terrorism in Southeast Asia: Australia's

Security Threat and Response." Contemporary

Review Winter 2006: 445+.

Smith, Anthony. "Religion in Global Politics." New Zealand


International Review 24.4 (1999): 30.

Suter, Keith. "Terrorism and International Law."

Contemporary Review Oct. 2005: 216+.

Wilson, James Soemijantoro. "Why Foreign Aid Fails;

Lessons from Indonesia's Economic Collapse." Law

and Policy in International Business 33.1 (2001):

145+.

Yesufu, Adenike. "Women and a Culture of Peace."

International Journal of Humanities and Peace 16.1

(2000): 19.

Gandhi and Terrorism

Documents

Transcript of Gandhi and Terrorism