Why must we pay attention to the definition of this term?
When we in the West think of terrorists, we think of them as people who are the bad guys or at the very least we think of them as misguided and brainwashed people, the kind who use little children as shields and who without hesitation would blow up bombs in bazaars full of innocent people, with all this violence aimed towards some ulterior political goal.
This term is negatively loaded to the point where ironically it is an effective way to dehumanize a body of people and delegitimize their cause. So, when the news reports that “security forces killed 15 terrorists in an engagement yesterday,” little explanation needs to be provided for the violence and few questions are raised. No one dares to ask things like “well why are those people fighting the forces in first place, what wrong was done to them?” because such questions would be seen by some people as an apology for terrorism.
While I am not arguing against the use of the term “terrorist”, I do believe there are circumstances where it does apply, I wish to urge readers to be critical of the usage of this term especially when it is used by totalitarian states or by media operating out of countries which lack freedom of press (like India which has no Constitutional provision providing any such freedom).
What is the definition?
Most people in India are familiar with this term, because it is used quite excessively both by the Media and by the State, however few would know that it was also defined by the Indian State in a legislation known as the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (referred to as UAPA 1967 going forward). I have been wanting to share this definition with others for a while but given the Indian State’s recent declaration of many Western Sikhs as terrorists, notable among whom is the Canadian Lawyer Gurpatwant Singh Pannu, I feel that this is an especially good opportunity.
The definition is provided in Section 15 of the UAPA 1967, a reproduction of which is as follows:
15. Terrorist act. — (1) Whoever does any act with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security, economic security, or sovereignty of India or with intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India or in any foreign country, —
(a) by using bombs, dynamite or other explosive substances or inflammable substances or firearms or other lethal weapons or poisonous or noxious gases or other chemicals or by any other substances (whether biological radioactive, nuclear or otherwise) of a hazardous nature or by any other means of whatever nature to cause or likely to cause —
(i) death of, or injuries to, any person or persons; or
(ii) loss of, or damage to, or destruction of, property; or
(iii) disruption of any supplies or services essential to the life of the community in India or in any foreign country; or
(iiia) damage to, the monetary stability of India by way of production or smuggling or circulation of high-quality counterfeit Indian paper currency, coin or of any other material; or
(iv) damage or destruction of any property in India or in a foreign country used or intended to be used for the defence of India or in connection with any other purposes of the Government of India, any State Government or any of their agencies; or
(b) overawes by means of criminal force or the show of criminal force or attempts to do so or causes death of any public functionary or attempts to cause death of any public functionary; or
(c) detains, kidnaps or abducts any person and threatens to kill or injure such person or does any other act in order to compel the Government of India, any State Government or the Government of a foreign country or an international or inter-governmental organisation or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act; or
commits a terrorist act.
Explanation. — For the purpose of this sub-section, —
(a) “public functionary” means the constitutional authorities or any other functionary notified in the Official Gazette by the Central Government as public functionary;
(b) “high quality counterfeit Indian currency” means the counterfeit currency as may be declared after examination by an authorised or notified forensic authority that such currency imitates or compromises with the key security features as specified in the Third Schedule.
(2) The terrorist act includes an act which constitutes an offence within the scope of, and as defined in any of the treaties specified in the Second Schedule.
Please read the above before we proceed. Now, the first thing I want you to pay attention is to the phrase in 15(1) which says: “whoever does any act with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security, economic security, sovereignty of India.” There is nothing here to indicate that the scope of this phrase is limited to violent acts. This means that even speech advocating the idea of peaceful secession or freedom from India would be considered as a terrorist act. While 15(1)(a) puts an emphasis on instruments of violence, it’s separated from 15(1) by a comma.
The above provides one category of actions that will make you a terrorist. Now, I want you to pay attention to 15(1)(a) (iiia) which notes “damage to, the monetary stability of India by way of production or smuggling or circulation of high-quality counterfeit Indian paper currency, coin or of any other material.” Now, we all would agree that printing counterfeit bills is a crime, but most if not, all would also agree that this is a crime of forgery and not of terrorism as claimed by the Indian State.
Finally, I want you to pay attention to 15(1)(c). Regarding “detains, kidnaps, or abducts any person and threatens to kill or injure such person”, it would be reasonable to consider these as acts of terrorism, however it’s the phrase that comes after it which you will find to be ludicrous. The passage goes on to say “or does any other act in order to compel the Government of India, any State Government or the Government of a foreign country or an international or inter-governmental organisation or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act.”
Acts to compel the “Government of India” would by definition include any protest ever organized against the Indian State. And as far as acts to compel “any other person to do or abstain from doing any act” are concerned, we have all at some point compelled someone (like a friend) to do something. I just last week compelled a friend to get an iPhone instead of an Android (by presenting a case of course). Does that make me a terrorist?
Also, you come to an interesting conclusion when you put this definition back on to the Indian State. By making this Legislation, the State is compelling individuals to not take partake in certain types of activities. Also, the Indian State is known for carrying out abductions, torture and disappearances. A notable person abducted and then murdered by the Indian State was the Sikh human rights activist Sardar Jaswant Singh Khalra who was picked up by Indian forces from outside his home in 1995, never to be seen again. This is just one but tens of thousands of examples can be provided. My own grandfather was at one point arrested by Indian police under false charges and tortured brutally for two months before being let go. So, by 15(1)(c), it would be fair to say that Indian State officials took part in a terrorist act and since it was the type of act encouraged by the Indian State (through legislation and financial rewards), it follows that the Indian State is a terrorist organization.
Conclusion:
Let me summarize the Indian State’s definition of a terrorist:
- Everyone who has social interactions with other people is a terrorist.
- The Indian State itself is a terrorist organization.
The argument I would like to conclude with is that the Indian State’s definition of terrorism is one which no sane person would find reasonable. Given that we must not take at face value any allegation of terrorism made by the Indian State or by media operating out of India under State influence.
If Gurpatwant Singh Pannu is indeed a terrorist (a sane definition of which is a person involved in the killing of civilians), I would like to encourage Indian State officials to provide evidence of any such criminal activity to the Canadian government which would be happy to detain and prosecute Pannu, that is only if any such evidence exists.
References
- Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 1967:
- Sardar Jaswant Singh Khalra:
- Recent list of people declared as terrorists by the Indian State:
AUTHOR: Anmol Singh (Software Engineer), Co-Author of “The Constitution of India Simplified“. You can reach him at: hundal.ias78@gmail.com
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this article are the personal views of the author and not necessarily the views of “Voice of Dissent”.
