The discourse on terrorism has largely been a transatlantic affair, paying little attention to other cultures beyond the Atlantic which is only one of the seven oceans of the globe.

In an article in International Affairs, Wyn Rees and Richard J. Aldrich (Wyn Rees and Richard J. Aldrich, 2005, Contenting cultures of counterterrorism: transatlantic divergence or convergence? In: International Affairs 81, 5 (2005), 905-923 (http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/people/aldrich/publications/fulltext.pdf)

argue: “’Strategic culture’ remains an ill-defined and under-used concept…Strategic culture is based on the understanding that states are predisposed by their historical experiences, political systems and cultures to deal with security issues in a particular way. Other factors, such as its level of technological development, may influence a state’s strategic choices, but its preferences will be shaped most strongly by its past. These institutional memories will help to determine how threats are perceived as well as by conditioning the likely responses…First, international terrorism blurs the boundaries between external security and internal security: the perpetrators may originate abroad but commit acts of violence against citizens in the homelands of their targets. Second, state responses are likely to be mixed, ranging from the use of force against the sources of terrorism to increasing internal security measures such as law enforcement and judicial action…Traditional ways of addressing terrorism might be grouped into three broad categories: first, military-led approaches focused on a mixture of pre-emption, deterrence and retribution; second, regulatory or legal-judicial responses that seek to enhance the criminal penalties for terrorist activities and improve civil-police cooperation; and third, appeasing options, ranging from accommodation to concession. ” (ibid., pp. 906-908).

The chances of success of security agenda of transatlantic states are bleak because they have chosen to ignore the strategic cultures beyond the Atlantic, say the cultures of China or India or Indian Ocean Community of 59 states along the 63,000-mile Indian Ocean Rim.

The blind-sided approach governed by euro-centric or racist legacies of the colonial past leads the strategic analysts to ignore over two-thirds of the world population in the discourse on terrorism.

Take for instance, the dialectical differences even in agreeing on the definition of the term ‘terrorism’. A good referenced summary is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism

The international community has adopted the following sectoral counter-terrorism conventions, open to the ratification of all states:
The 1963 Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed On Board Aircraft
The 1970 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft
The 1971 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation
The 1979 Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material
The 1988 Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation
The 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation
The 1988 Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf
The 1991 Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Identification
The 1997 International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.
The 1999 International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism
The 2005 International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism
· Analyzing these treaties, Andrew Byrnes observed that:
· These conventions – all of which are described by the United Nations as part of its panoply of anti-terrorist measures – share three principal characteristics:
· (a) they all adopted an "operational definition" of a specific type of terrorist act that was defined without reference to the underlying political or ideological purpose or motivation of the perpetrator of the act - this reflected a consensus that there were some acts that were such a serious threat to the interests of all that they could not be justified by reference to such motives;
· (b) they all focused on actions by non-State actors (individuals and organisations) and the State was seen as an active ally in the struggle against terrorism - the question of the State itself as terrorist actor was left largely to one side; and
· (c) they all adopted a criminal law enforcement model to address the problem, under which States would cooperate in the apprehension and prosecution of those alleged to have committed these crimes. (Byrnes, Andrew (2002). Apocalyptic Visions and the Law: The Legacy of September 11 A professorial address by Andrew Byrnes at the ANU Law School for the Faculty's 'Inaugural and Valedictory Lecture Series', May 30, 2002.2002, p. 11).
Terrorism is the deliberate use of violence aimed against civilians in order to achieve political ends. (Boaz Ganor, 2005, The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, "The Relationship Between International and Localized Terrorism", Vol. 4, No. 26, 28 June 2005).

A specific example of terrorism is proselytization indulged in by Christian faithful is use of violence against civilians in order to achieve the political end of Dominus Jesus (Dominion of Jesus). Proselytization is the perpetration of a new war for souls.

One fails to understand why such a straightforward definition is not agreed upon by the international community. Unless the term ‘terrorism’ is so defined and an international convention against proselytization is adopted, the struggles of the combatants fighting to retain their strategic cultural identities will continue. These struggles are a continuation of the struggles marked by liberation movements seeking an end to colonial regimes most of which ended by the 1950’s resulting the formation of over 100 nation-states as self-governing geographical entities.

In the context of the Hindu traditions which encompass over one billion people of the globe (that is, one-sixth of the world population), a rastram is a community of people, a path for achieving dharma, in two dimensions: internal, leading to nihsreyas (unity of the atman with the paramatman) and external, leading to abhyudayam ( welfare).

Hindus have a right to demand self-determination, as a continuum of the struggle against colonial dominance which resulted in unprecedented loot of their national wealth as documented by Angus Maddison. Restitution of this loot back to Hindus is a condition-precedent to any discourse in international for with the proselytizers. The minimum condition before any discourse can begin is an unequivocal declaration by proselytizers that proselytization is unethical, criminal conduct which is abhorrent. The declaration in words has to be shown in action by returning the colonial loot to the poor Hindus who have their dharma to protect and live by.

Struggle to gain an agreed definition of ‘Conversion as international terrorism’ is step one for the Hindus.

The struggles will have to continue for a protracted period. If need be, strategies of non-violent resistance which resulted in the end of colonial regimes may have to be further intensified.

There should be an Outrage for Dharma. http://tinyurl.com/7aokr9r


Kalyanaraman
Sarasvati Research Center
February 16, 2012