In a recent episode of The Big Fight on NDTV, a bunch of studnets from the Lahore University were pitted against a few indian students and were asked present their own views on the current turmoil regarding both countries and the terror situation of south east Asia.
I was surprised, that on accusations of fostering terrorism, some of the Pakistanis strongly defended them (terrorists) as freedom fighters! As the show continued questions were raised about India's clean image in the whole scenario. "What proof do you have that Indians were not involved in the bombings in Pakistan?.. What exactly are the reasons for India having five consulates in Afghanistan?", were among the many queries put forward by them. From our side was the usual assault on the Pakistani president, the motives of the ISI, so on and so forth.
On being questioned what was the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter, they retorted that one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist as seen accross borders. This might just be how political leaders would want people to think and exactly why there still exists a level of discomfort on how different people handle the issue.
What if we could arrive on common terms and definitions for terrorism and freedom fights? Maybe then we could actually come together in combating terrorism and perhaps even help out those struggling for their freedom. So what are these universal definitions? My humble opinion:
Terrorism:
==========
Use of force and weapons on any human or civilian in particular, who, in every obvious way, is not responsible for the plight/suffering of the perpetrator, in order to harm physically,economically or mentally as an act of vengeance whether the original root cause of this vengeance is authentic or not. These weapons could range from anything between the pocket knife to an F16 bomb. Also, the intended victim would usually have no knowledge of the attack that he faces, unarmed and would in no way be prepared to defend himself. Even if the victim is capable of defending himself, attacking him, without reason, is still an act of terrorism.
Also, the terrorist's claim that the people killed were responsible for higher powers that were the actual enemies is hogwash. There is no single nation where elected representatives actually represent a nation. The terrorist will go any lengths to enforce his irrational beliefs and ideals to his victims.
Examples of terrorists that would fit the bill:
9/11 bombers.
LeT and JeM in Kashmir.
Carpet Bombers killing thousands of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Rioters in post-godhra Gujarat.
Mohammed Afzal. (yes, he needs to be hanged)
LTTE
Freedom fighters:
================
A fight against oppression, with the oppressors or their agents directly in combat or through various forms of protest. This combat/protest would take place in such a way that there are certain globally accepted rules of engagement followed and no civilian, innocent third person would be harmed in the process. The oppression could be in any form and can broadly be defined as the violation of basic rights and freedom such as the right to live, right to practice one's own faith, right to own property and freedom of speech.
Examples:
Vietnamese Soldiers.
Hizbollah during the recent Israeli invasion.
Defenders of the Jessica Lal case.
I'm somehow running out of examples.
War:
===
We know this one pretty well, don't we?
Which brings me to the actual question: Do terrorists give rise to freedom fighters?
