Terrorism and Human Rights G.hargopal
Terrorism and Human Rights G.hargopal
Terrorism and Human Rights G.hargopal
These violent acts of those members of the world who are not able to
adjust or those who are rejecting the model are put in the broad
category called “ terrorism”. There are, however, other equally
powerful expressions characterised by varied nomenclature –
insurgency, extremism, ethnicism, separatism, or Naxalism.
The question under debate is: how and why the nation state has been
reacting and responding the way it did to these growing threats to its
legitimacy? The way they handled these critical challenges is a sad
reflection of the nature of the Indian state.
The contextualists maintain that the origins of the outbursts lie not
inside the outbursts but outside the historical and socio-economic
processes.
There are a number of ways through which human beings could be
divided, deprived and alienated.
It is the drift of mainstream politics from the democratic and
transformative visions that can be one of the important causes for
immediate provocation for protest which can grow into frightful
violence.
As the violence grows quite often the initial causes are lost sight of and rulers
get engrossed with the violence per se and take recourse to different forms of
force to deal with the otherwise complex socio-political situation.
The contextualists hold that those dealing with such situations should get into
deeper processes and find historical alternative possibilities of dealing with the
situation more through imaginative and creative political action than use of
brute force.
The confrontationalist approach, on the contrary, maintains that human beings
are basically peace loving and therefore prefer an orderly life. But there are
always misconceived causes espoused by the misled and crime-prone
individuals and groups whose sole purpose is to disturb the social order as that
is the only way they know how to express themselves.
Contextualist
Confrontationalist
INTRODUCTION