Terrorism to Extremism- A Paradigm shift?
The word terrorism indicates an ideology, a belief that aims to achieve its objective by spreading terror amongst the society. People who follow and practise this ideology are terrorists. The present day world has witnessed so many acts in recent times, which have shaken the belief of the civilisation in safety and security of their lives. Indeed, starting from acts of terror in India to the mother of all acts of terror, the blasting of twin towers in USA, numerous acts have made terrorism a very popular word in the vocabulary of the people world-over. Ever so frequently the word used to stare at you from the pages of the newspapers and from the television news channels that these words have become etched in the subconscious minds of the human population of today. As a result, we use this word loosely, many times to denote anything that is of suspicious nature and attracts our curiosity. The other day, I was hearing a jingle on the radio, in which someone describes a suspicious looking man (the kind who wears an overcoat, dark goggles and looks suspiciously over his shoulders) as a terrorist! In India, one should have seen the kind of coverage and the curiosity of the people when Mumbai was stormed by terrorist. People tiptoed out of their hiding places whenever possible to try and get a glimpse of the terrorist. It was as if every day use of the word and the repeated instance of terrorism in the country had robbed the fear out of the terrorist acts.
Under such a circumstance, comes the linguistic jugglery of the President of USA. His attempt to wipe out terrorism by replacing the word by extremism seems, at best, an attempt to dissipate the tension that has been building up during the last couple of years. It was probably an attempt to confuse the world which had grown used to linking terrorism with people of one particular community. One really wonders whether something good will happen by changing the labels. Its like the way one tends to give positive strokes by doing away with the practice of labelling people as 1st, 2nd or 3rd in any competition and instead announcing the 1st runner up and the 2nd runner up. Was Obama trying to do just that? Was he, by attempting to change the term, trying to break the stereotype associated with the word terrorist? I mean, terrorist has become a derogatory, much hated word these days and labelling someone thus means the person is immediately branded as someone baying for the blood of the innocents! The word terrorist has certainly been used by countries to their advantage and to classify people waging a war against the state. Any outfit waging a war against a particular country is immediately labelled a terrorist outfit. In contrast, a country that displays unwanted aggression and uses its armed forces to enforce its own views on people of another region/country is seldom labelled a terrorist state.
On the contrary, the term extremist seems to be a more generalised term and doesn’t immediately conjure up images of a bloodthirsty, destructive individual. One is a state of mind while the other describes an act. One would tend to associate extremism with some form of a right wing or left wing philosophy rather than an act to create terror in the minds of people. To put it more simply all extremists need not be terrorists but a terrorist definitely needs to believe in an extremist philosophy. By labelling the terror outfits as extremists, Mr. Obama may have tried to give such outfits a positive stroke and reduce a bit of negativity associated with such outfits.
In India, we are not new to the word extremist. In fact, one may recall the Punjab agitation, when the Indian papers defined the movement as an extremist movement. The Sikh outfits had engaged in several violent acts intended to cause terror like the bombing of the Air India’s Kanishka. However, they were branded as extremist whose sole aim was to fight for a separate motherland. The American President has also gone on to coin a new term “violent extremists”. By this he probably aims to drive a wedge between those who are moderates and may not always decide to choose the path of violence to put forward their message. It may be an attempt to try and empathise with a few followers of a moderate philosophy among the terrorist organisation. If he succeeds in bringing a few such people back to the mainstream, indeed it would be an attempt worthy of applause. After all, the world has seen enough of violence in the name of religion. Countering a terror strike by force may not always be the right solution. America may have succeeded in killing many terrorists during the last few years of their fight in Afghanistan. Yet, for the first time, there is probably an honest effort to understand the real problem. Labelling the terrorists as extremists, is like trying to turn the bad man into good by accepting that he is not bad. It is an honest attempt to send a message across that America is trying to understand the philosophy of the extremists and the reason behind their hatred.
One hopes that such a noble effort bears fruit in the long run.
Under such a circumstance, comes the linguistic jugglery of the President of USA. His attempt to wipe out terrorism by replacing the word by extremism seems, at best, an attempt to dissipate the tension that has been building up during the last couple of years. It was probably an attempt to confuse the world which had grown used to linking terrorism with people of one particular community. One really wonders whether something good will happen by changing the labels. Its like the way one tends to give positive strokes by doing away with the practice of labelling people as 1st, 2nd or 3rd in any competition and instead announcing the 1st runner up and the 2nd runner up. Was Obama trying to do just that? Was he, by attempting to change the term, trying to break the stereotype associated with the word terrorist? I mean, terrorist has become a derogatory, much hated word these days and labelling someone thus means the person is immediately branded as someone baying for the blood of the innocents! The word terrorist has certainly been used by countries to their advantage and to classify people waging a war against the state. Any outfit waging a war against a particular country is immediately labelled a terrorist outfit. In contrast, a country that displays unwanted aggression and uses its armed forces to enforce its own views on people of another region/country is seldom labelled a terrorist state.
On the contrary, the term extremist seems to be a more generalised term and doesn’t immediately conjure up images of a bloodthirsty, destructive individual. One is a state of mind while the other describes an act. One would tend to associate extremism with some form of a right wing or left wing philosophy rather than an act to create terror in the minds of people. To put it more simply all extremists need not be terrorists but a terrorist definitely needs to believe in an extremist philosophy. By labelling the terror outfits as extremists, Mr. Obama may have tried to give such outfits a positive stroke and reduce a bit of negativity associated with such outfits.
In India, we are not new to the word extremist. In fact, one may recall the Punjab agitation, when the Indian papers defined the movement as an extremist movement. The Sikh outfits had engaged in several violent acts intended to cause terror like the bombing of the Air India’s Kanishka. However, they were branded as extremist whose sole aim was to fight for a separate motherland. The American President has also gone on to coin a new term “violent extremists”. By this he probably aims to drive a wedge between those who are moderates and may not always decide to choose the path of violence to put forward their message. It may be an attempt to try and empathise with a few followers of a moderate philosophy among the terrorist organisation. If he succeeds in bringing a few such people back to the mainstream, indeed it would be an attempt worthy of applause. After all, the world has seen enough of violence in the name of religion. Countering a terror strike by force may not always be the right solution. America may have succeeded in killing many terrorists during the last few years of their fight in Afghanistan. Yet, for the first time, there is probably an honest effort to understand the real problem. Labelling the terrorists as extremists, is like trying to turn the bad man into good by accepting that he is not bad. It is an honest attempt to send a message across that America is trying to understand the philosophy of the extremists and the reason behind their hatred.
One hopes that such a noble effort bears fruit in the long run.
Comments
Post a Comment