Insurgency and Terror

The concluding day of the two-day conclave of police chiefs of the northeastern States held in Shillong last week deliberated on the need to distinguish between insurgency and terrorism in the context of the Northeast and arrived at an interesting conclusion: that terrorists are those who want to destabilize the country with support from inimical forces outside the country, while insurgents are those who are local groups operating with local support. Addressing the media after the conference, Additional Director of the Intelligence Bureau (IB) RN Ravi said: ‘‘Counter-terrorism is a combat against the external forces whose objective is to destabilize the country without local support, while counter-insurgency is a fight against a group with emotional and logistic support from within.’’ While such drawing of line between insurgency and terrorism may appear elegantly academic and have many takers as well who do not want to face the grim reality because it will be so embarrassing for them, the crux of the matter is that the thin line of difference between insurgency and terrorism does not at all exist in most of the militancy movements in today’s Northeast. In Assam, for instance, which is an insurgent outfit? ULFA, whose hands are stained with the blood of even schoolchildren? NDFB, despite the recent Bhimajuli barbarity? Black Widow (before its surrender), which sought to prove ‘insurgency’ valour by gunning down poor construction labourers? What, however, one must remember is that all these groups started out as insurgent outfits with a cause, backed by the masses in one way or the other. But eventually — and inevitably — they would soon metamorphose into sheer terror outfits after the realization that insurgency would entail a lot of honesty, gallantry, hard work, a clear direction, unwavering commitment to the cause advocated, intellectual leadership and a very dedicated and doctrinaire fight against state aberrations, while terrorism would have nothing to do with any of the revolutionary ideas and ideals and yet be a far more rewarding business. And the advantage would be that the terrorist, so evolved from being an insurgent, could masquerade as an insurgent supported by a whole gamut of ‘human rights’ organizations that are actually frontal wings of insurgent-turned-terrorist groups — all stakeholders in the roaring business of terrorism.

The thesis that terrorists are only those who want to destabilize the country with support from inimical forces outside the country, and hence different from insurgents who have nothing to do with outside support and designs, is a negation of the reality of home-grown terrorism. Going by this thesis, Maoists are all revolutionaries despite them having emulated the Talibanic savagery of beheading people! What the Shillong conclave, unfortunately, missed is the fact of the manifestation of criminal terrorism or super-terrorism in the Northeast. It is a flourishing industry that includes other criminal acts like drug trafficking and poaching of wildlife parts. It has absolutely nothing to do any people’s cause. Someone among the police chiefs at the Shillong conclave should have raised the question as to how many non-state actors in the Northeast are really insurgents, who would fight the state system, no doubt, for its many aberrations but who would also help the state fight criminal terrorism because it is a sheer crime against the sea of innocent humanity. Can one show us an insurgent group in the present-day Northeast that enjoys complete public support? THE SENTINEL