A question of legitimacy
A question of legitimacy
A recent TDF seminar addressed the role played by governments in perpetrating or supporting acts of terror, the rationale behind this and its far-reaching consequences
In response, specifically, to the April 22nd massacre of 26 tourists at Pahalgam in Indian-administered Kashmir by militants linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba, and also more generally to the use of cross-border terrorism as a tactical military weapon by state actors, The Democracy Forum convened a panel of experts to discuss the crucial issue of state-sponsored terrorism and political legitimacy,
Clearly this is a crisis not only for peaceful coexistence on the Indian subcontinent but more widely in South Asia, said TDF President Lord Bruce. He quoted Indian PM Narendra Modi from a recent televised address, in which Modi directly accused Pakistan of colluding in the attack at Pahalgam, calling it an example of a ‘state sponsor of terror’, and insisting ‘terror and talks cannot go together’. There is little doubt , added Lord Bruce, that the current crisis has brought India and Pakistan closer to war that at any time since the July 1999 Kargil border conflict; but on this occasion Modi has taken the opportunity to emphasise that when defending itself against unprovoked aggression, India has the political legitimacy which Pakistan demonstrably lacks, and is now asserting a new paradigm: that ‘cross-border terrorism will be treated as war, and war will invite consequences’. Yet, although India has been keen to establish the moral high ground in reacting to an egregious terrorist incident, its military response of 7th May, ‘Operation Sindoor’, was tempered by a direct intervention from Washington. The speed of escalation has taken the world by surprise but, as commentators suggest, although ‘both countries had delivered heavy blows, Washington’s diplomatic intervention… rankled India by bracketing (it) with a terrorism-backing rogue state’, meaning that, as former Indian foreign secretary Shyan Saran observed, while the last several years have seen India manage to ‘de-hyphenate India and Pakistan and not to be seen as the bad twins constantly fighting each other…that hyphenation is now back, whether you like it or not’.
In response, specifically, to the April 22nd massacre of 26 tourists at Pahalgam in Indian-administered Kashmir by militants linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba, and also more generally to the use of cross-border terrorism as a tactical military weapon by state actors, The Democracy Forum convened a panel of experts to discuss the crucial issue of state-sponsored terrorism and political legitimacy,
Clearly this is a crisis not only for peaceful coexistence on the Indian subcontinent but more widely in South Asia, said TDF President Lord Bruce. He quoted Indian PM Narendra Modi from a recent televised address, in which Modi directly accused Pakistan of colluding in the attack at Pahalgam, calling it an example of a ‘state sponsor of terror’, and insisting ‘terror and talks cannot go together’. There is little doubt , added Lord Bruce, that the current crisis has brought India and Pakistan closer to war that at any time since the July 1999 Kargil border conflict; but on this occasion Modi has taken the opportunity to emphasise that when defending itself against unprovoked aggression, India has the political legitimacy which Pakistan demonstrably lacks, and is now asserting a new paradigm: that ‘cross-border terrorism will be treated as war, and war will invite consequences’. Yet, although India has been keen to establish the moral high ground in reacting to an egregious terrorist incident, its military response of 7th May, ‘Operation Sindoor’, was tempered by a direct intervention from Washington. The speed of escalation has taken the world by surprise but, as commentators suggest, although ‘both countries had delivered heavy blows, Washington’s diplomatic intervention… rankled India by bracketing (it) with a terrorism-backing rogue state’, meaning that, as former Indian foreign secretary Shyan Saran observed, while the last several years have seen India manage to ‘de-hyphenate India and Pakistan and not to be seen as the bad twins constantly fighting each other…that hyphenation is now back, whether you like it or not’.
America is poised to become the leading geopolitical disrupter, undermining global norms
On comparisons between Pakistan and Iran as two ‘terrorism-backing rogue states’, Lord Bruce cited a February briefing paper published by Brookings for the House Committee on Foreign Affairs – on the extent of Iran’s sponsorship of terrorist activity throughout the Middle East – which explains that ‘Iran with a nuclear weapon would become a more dangerous force in the region…(it) could become like Pakistan: after Islamabad acquired nuclear weapons it gained a shield from India’s conventional superiority and became more aggressive in backing anti-India substate groups’. In proposing a way forward, the Delhi-based Observer Research Foundation suggests that a long-term solution inevitably will require Pakistan either to ‘take direct responsibility for terror groups operating from its territory or credibly distance itself by assisting India and the international community in dismantling those very networks’.
‘India is the only country that believes in both a multipolar Asia and a multipolar world’
For Dr Harlan K Ullman, Senior Advisor at The Atlantic Council, the term ‘state-sponsored terrorism’ is overworked and misleading, though very understandable in the political debate. If we work our way through history, we can see that terror is a weapon that has been used plentifully.All countries rely on terrorism, he said, no matter what it’s called – eg the Mujahideen in Afghanistan; were they terrorists or not? So one has to be very sophisticated when one looks at this. If you take a look at the strategic balance, countries are going to be inferior to the US, and Ullman applied this directly to Russia, whose ‘active measures’, including sabotage and disinformation, represent a real immediate danger that conventional military spending isn’t addressing. While these measures are not necessarily a legitimate arm in the national arsenal of tools, they are things countries rely on, whether they’re great powers, as the US is, or smaller powers like Iran, which does not look at, for example, Hamas orHezbollah as terrorist organisations, but views the Israelis as terrorists.
The longer a country is a democracy, the better the democratic dividend
The point is that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. This is a critical issue, which Ullman felt there is no real way of dealing with, because how do you deal with the causes that could inspire terrorists?We have to understand that the use of terror is something that is going to be applied by most states – for instance, during World War II, the Allied bombings of Germany and Japan could have been seen as terror bombings. In conclusion, Ullman argued that, when we regard terror as being state-sponsored, we do so for reasons that are political and largely domestic. But we have to look more deeply as to why countries are doing this, whether it’s Iran, North Korea, Russia. We are applying our resources often in the wrong way; we need to take terrorism seriously, but as a weapon, much as a piece of artillery or even a nuclear weapon, and if we approach it from that group perspective, we’ll have better solutions to a problem that, over time, is going to be extremely difficult to solve.
Not fully agreeing with Dr Ullman’s views on the notion of state-sponsored terrorism, author and journalist MJ Akbar highlighted a recent speech by the Pakistan army chief General Munir, who, said Akbar, has been, remarkably silent for two and a half years but suddenly chose, a few days before the Pahalgam incident, to deliver a belligerent ideological speech. Which democracy allows its generals to invoke politics and ideology? asked Akbar. Yet we have this curious equation in Pakistan. State-sponsored modern terrorism was actually invented by Pakistan, argued Akbar, and there is a specific date: 22 October 1947, when the Pakistan intelligence and secret services sent 5,000 raiders to terrorise, pillage and loot Kashmir. To this day, the ISI’s support for these forces is hardly a secret. Even a former defence minister of Pakistan has said that Pakistan was involved in this dirty game. Akbar also spoke of the ISI’s involvement in Kargil as ‘a total Pakistan state operation’, and this, again, has been a continuation.
One definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and hope for different results, added Akbar. Since 1947 Pakistan has been involved, repeatedly, in provoking, sponsoring, financing, arming terrorists to create turbulence and to attack India. This time, barbaric communal terrorism was Pakistan’s ploy, and it’s a carbon copy of what they have done in the past. Indeed, it is becoming ever more dangerous because, since Pakistan became a nuclear power, its establishment has decided or believes that the nuclear cloak it wears gives it functional immunity from an appropriate Indian response to terrorism. If Operation Sindoor, which challenged and drove back the Pakistan attempt this time around, had one significant difference, it was the end of what PM Modi called, correctly,‘nuclear blackmail’. Maybe the Pakistanis were lulled into believing that India would not have an appropriate response because, in 2008, despite all the evidence of Pakistan’s collusion in the Mumbai attacks, the Manmohan Singh government did nothing. But after this latest military engagement, Akbar hoped that sense has now finally dawned in the Pakistan imentality, because that is what keeps it driving towards the edge of catastrophe.
Picking up on what had been said during the debate about legitimacy,TDF Chair Barry Gardiner MP said the word ‘legitimate’ goes against what we think of when we talk about terrorism.He questioned Pakistan’s claims of inability to control terrorist groups, stating that ‘the idea that nothing could be done is simply wrong’, while acknowledging the complex relationship between Pakistan’s intelligence services (ISI) and militant groups. He also addressed the ‘vein of terror’ running all the way from the Caucasus, and what is driving that forward, as well as how the whole global infrastructure – the UN, the WTO, NATO – has now cracked and is lying in chaos, which has been happening over a long period of time.
The participants shared concerns regarding the destruction of governance as a problem vis-à-vis terrorism, and in the absence of our once strong global institutions, we need a Plan B.Terrorism like the Kashmir attack leaves ‘deep psychological scars’ that destabilise society, and there were calls for collective action to prevent such horrors and their wide impact.
MJ Akbar is the author of several books, including Doolally Sahib and the Black Zamindar: Racism and Revenge in the British Raj, and Gandhi: A Life in Three Campaigns
To watch the full discussion, tune in to