The lecture comprised of two broad parts: In the first part the speaker tried to situate himself in the security discourse, while in the second part he discussed terrorism as a security issue, with various aspects like definitional dilemma, origin, causes and characteristics. The concept of security can be linked to the origin of International Relations though there is ambiguity about the event that heralded its birth - Peloponnesian War or Treaty of Westphalia or creation of the Woodrow Wilson chair for International Relations following World War II. But the defining element in all these events is 'war'; hence the central focus of the discipline of International Relations is war. Thus the quest for security is as old as war. State or National Security is an exercise in the 'acquisition of security against objective threats'. The dominant concept of security is a realist one, which is narrow and focuses on territorial security based on military strength. It legitimizes a militaristic solution to problems relegating a political solution to the secondary position. However other schools of thought exist like the English school that takes into consideration a wider notion of security like socio-economic security, environmental security, and so on. Then there is the feminist perspective of security, which highlights the negative impact of war on women. It states that the female body is subject to assault and abuse during the course of conflict. Instruments of dominance like rape are employed on the women of the opposition party. Defiling women is seen as defiling the entire community. The post colonial view of security focuses on the manner in which danger is represented. According to this school of thought, the concept of security is socially constructed. The speaker believes in a people-centric notion of security, which often challenges the State-centric view of security, more evident in developing countries, where most threats emanate from the State rather than external sources. One of the most potent threats comes from western consumerist democracy, which adopts a patronizing attitude towards the elite.

There is no clear cut, comprehensive definition of terrorism. The problem of terrorism is deliberately constructed to provide scope for State manipulation, including exercise of the instrument of last resort, war, as the first resort. For example, the United States led 'War on Terror', and its subsequent attack on Iraq is being represented as a human service. Ambiguity provides scope for diverse interpretations of what terrorism entails and who are the terrorists to suit one's needs. The initial focus was on Marxist-Leninist regimes. It is now directed to religious groups. The United States and the Western world are portrayed as victims. A hierarchy of victimization was created with 9/11 heading the list followed by the Palestine-Israel conflict. Terrorism is projected as an attack on innocent citizens, democracy and all things good. It is portrayed as a battle between the forces of good and evil, between the civilized world and barbarism. A strong rhetoric of evil is employed to justify State action. Thus, there is a strong element of the politics of representation involved.

Invoking Noam Chomsky's categorization of terrorism into 'retail' (carried out by individual terrorist organizations) and 'wholesale' (carried out by the State and its agencies) terrorism, the speaker labeled the US occupation of Iraq in the category of wholesale terrorism. The speaker argued that, by any standard definition, State acts can also become acts of terrorism. The number of people killed in 'collateral damage' in the first few days of the occupation of Iraq due to the 'shock and awe' campaign far exceeds the number of people killed in the World Trade Centre attack. This makes the US a perpetrator of wholesale terrorism. Terrorism has become a catch-all term directed against the opposition. Earlier, they were termed bandits, then insurgents, and now terrorists. One's own action is justified as 'counter-terrorism'. The counter terrorism industry is a product of the post-1970 State ideology that emanated in Israel and spread to the US in the 80s. The US 'War on Terror' has its moorings in the mid 80s, when the then US President Ronald Reagan declared the year 1984-1985 as the "Year of Terrorism". The war on drugs is the precursor to the war on terror, which has benefited the US defence industry. For academicians, it has given rise to a new branch of study dealing with the phenomena of terrorism called 'terrorology'. According to this perspective the West is as much a perpetrator of terrorism as a victim of it.

Terrorism emerged as a reaction to globalization, and is therefore anti-global in nature. But, ironically, it draws its sustenance from globalist ideology. According to the literature posted on the BBC website, terrorism originated in anti-colonial struggles. It states that empires are best at dealing with terrorism. This line of argument explains the behaviour of the US in which war is a routine foreign policy action instead of being the last resort.

Apart from extermination, a more permanent and lasting solution to terrorism will be to deconstruct the problem and deal with its various components. However, in our blind quest to erase this menace, one should not overlook other important problems like structural violence, poverty, disease and malnutrition. Therefore, rather than dealing with the problem of terrorism, in terms of who defines the phenomenon, why and how it is constructed, should be critical questions to be addressed.

Comments/queries

• What is the possibility of the use of WMDs by terrorist organizations and to what purpose?

• Suicide terrorism is a threat to the State and society alike and hence needs to be effectively tackled. What are your suggestions in this regard?

• What is the best way of dealing with problems like the one that has erupted in Manipur?

• Can violence inflicted on a weak State by a powerful State, as in the case of US occupation of Iraq, be termed Terrorism?

• Under the facade of moral/ideological causes lie material goals, which is usually the cause for State terrorism.

• The concept of 'innocent' civilians is media generated. Innocence is a subjective attribute.

• While the definition of terrorism is abstract, the problem is real. How does one manage it?

• The financing of terrorism is through established channels. How can they be tackled?

• Can deconstructing the concept of terrorism ameliorate the harmful effects of this phenomenon?

• The profile of terrorists involved in 9/11 falsifies the assumption that terrorism stems from deprivation

• Terrorism is an act of power that States indulge in. Is there an alternative to the State?

• Is the new international order, which is unipolar in nature, responsible for the increasing acts of terrorism?

Responses

• WMD changes the character of the conflict, though the possibility of its use by terrorist organizations is remote. Historical records show that it is usually the State, especially powerful States, that indulge in the use of WMDs. Even al Qaeda, which is considered omni-potent, omni-present post 9/11, is not as powerful as is made out to be and the chances of it indulging in WMD warfare is extremely remote.

• Suicide terrorism is glorified and hence attracts volunteers. The best way to tackle it is to obliterate the cause for indulging in this form of terrorism like the Palestinian problem or the Kashmir conflict.

• State responses in the form of counter terrorism strategies are often harsh and result in a backlash as seen in Manipur. States need to be careful in devising these operations.

• The speaker was of the opinion that violence between asymmetrical powers can be termed as terrorism.

• The constructivist argument generalizes and universalizes. Deconstructing it shifts the focus to specifics. However, this cannot rule out the real effects of terrorism. Hence, the threat has to be dealt with without getting into the semantics of the problem and without hypocrisy.

• Terrorism is an integral part of the power discourse. The power to define is where the power game is played out. In fact, the international community itself is a euphemism for powerful western states.

• Terrorism gains from hyper capitalism, which comprises an elaborate financial network. This makes it very difficult to snap its financial linkages.

• To some extent the present world order with a single superpower can be held responsible for the current state of affairs.

• The solution to the problem of terrorism lies in greater scrutiny of the State and not its abandonment.

The talk ended on an optimistic note with the chair stating that the menace of terrorism can be combated as long as efforts remain concerted and comprehensive.