TERRORISM

UNIT 12
CONCEPT OF TERRORISM
The term “terrorism” is quite broad, and no single definition exists. Different individuals and
organisations have developed their own definitions of terrorism.
It is an illegal and violent behaviour carried out by an individual, a group of individuals, or an
organisation with the intent of instilling fear in the general public and sending messages to the
public and governments in order to achieve a certain purpose.
Although the terror attack may only affect a few individuals (depending on the circumstances),
the intended target is usually much larger than the number of victims.
The goal of the terrorists is to send a powerful message to the general population and the
government. They usually claim blame after committing a violent crime in order to demonstrate
their power and ability, and therefore terrorise the public.
DEFINING OF TERRORISM
Though we are living in the midst of terrorism and similar activities, it is difficult to define accurately
the phenomenon of terrorism. However, it can be defined as an organized violence 2 against the
State or individuals with some political and personal objectives. Again, it can be said that terrorism is
the unlawful use or threat of violence against a person or property to further political or social
objectives. It is sometimes used as a means to intimidate or coerce a government, individuals or
groups to modify their behavior or policies. The Oxford Advanced Dictionary defines terrorism as the
use of violent action in order to achieve political aims or to force a government to act. The
Encyclopedia Britannica describes terrorism as the systematic use of terror or unpredictable violence
against governments, public or individuals, to attain a political objective It can be broadly defined as
violent behaviour designed to generate fear in the community or a substantial segment of it for
political purpose. It is the use of violence on the part of non-governmental groups to achieve political
ends. According to the Encyclopedia of Social Sciences, terrorism is a method whereby an organized
group or party seeks to achieve its vowed aims chiefly through the systematic use of violence. The
terrorists use various methods to cause panic and fear among people. Some of these methods
include hostage taking, hijacking, political assassination, kidnapping, bombing, and explosions.
CAUSES OF TERRORISM
The Reality of Persistent Disputes: Terrorism has its breeding ground in conflicts. Reasons for conflicts, however, can vary
widely. Basically, it is the differences in objectives and ideologies that show the way to conflict. Some of the historical
examples to this effect are: dominance of territory or resources by various ethnic, linguistic, religious or cultural groups;
aspiration for freedom from foreign regimes; imposition of a particular form of govemment, such as democracy,
theocracy, oligarchy, or dictatorship; economic deprivation of a population; and real or perceived instances of injustices.
Dearth of Reasonable Redressal Procedure: The absence of a systematic and proper redressal system can cause
continued terrorist activities. If such a system were to exist, people will have recourse to it and thus solve conflicting
situations. When such systems are not available due to their nonexistence, sloth, corruption; or unaffordable cost, the
socially and culturally wounded people will get tempted to seek solution by themselves. Terrorist activities thus can
arise from a sense of denial of lawful right of a certain group of people, for which they have been demanding
determinedly.
Weakness of the Distressed People: When there are violent discords coupled with the absence of a genuine redressal
system, there could be attempts to find solutions to the problems by force. This could result in various kinds of
organized violence like communal riots and war. However, violence takes an ugly form through terrorism when the
distressed people realize their inability to influence the dominator, due to their weakness. In such a situation, they are
unable to face the oppressive forces face to face or in a direct manner. Therefore, they go underground and fight for
their cause.
Misguidance: When children and youth are not brought up responsibly by their parents or guardians, there is a high risk for them to get involved
with violent groups or militancy. There are vested interested groups who indoctrinate young minds to take up arms to right for their causes which
are sometimes fabricated. Often, an ideology of hatred in the name of religion, ethnic loyalty or nationalism are injected into the minds of people.
These youngsters are trained to cause destruction and are armed with deadly weapons. Their misguidance becomes complete when they are
taught to regard the death and destruction of their enemies as a glorious achievement and their own possible death in the process as heroic
martyrdom.
Influence of the Mass Media: Mass media are showing keen interest in terrorism and in the issues related to it. We find radio stations, television
channels, newspapers, and Web pages often discussing this subject. These broadcasts reach a large portico of people in the world, especially
those in the West and intensify the fear that the threat of terrorism generates. The terrorists make use of this effect of the media, thus turning
them into an unwilling al1y. The wide coverage given in the media motivates a terrorist organization to go ahead with their plans, since they know
for sure that they action will be made known to the whole world and thus draw greater attention to the cause. Often, the live coverage of the
terrorist activity helps the perpetrators of violence to get away from the site of the violence in an easy manner. In such cases, the mass media can
become an unwilling ally of terrorism.
Democratic State: Though it is opined by researchers that democratic nations are generally less vulnerable to terrorism, however, they too are
not free from terrorist activities. There is a complex relationship between terrorism and democracy. Though in one sense democracy diminishes
the risk of terrorism by undercutting some of its reasons, in another sense it often contributes to its prevalence. The open nature of democratic
societies makes them vulnerable to terrorism. In such societies, civil liberties are protected, and government control and constant surveillance of
the people and their activities are kept to the minimum. Taking advantage of such restraints by the government, terrorists have stepped up their
activities. Studies done on the relationship between liberal societies and terrorism suggest that concessions awarded to terrorists have increased
the frequency of terrorist attacks. By contrast, repressive societies, where the government closely monitors citizens and restricts their speech and
movement, have often provided more difficult environments for terrorists.
Political •Insurgency and guerrilla warfare, a form of organised political violence perpetrated by a non-state army or
group, were the origins of terrorism theory.
•They pick terrorism because they dislike society’s current structure and wish to change it.
•It is, in general, the polar opposite of independence, growth, and human rights.
•Terrorism has had the greatest impact on India’s frontier regions, particularly those bordering Pakistan.

Strategic •Emphasizing that an organisation has a strategic reason for using terrorism is another way of saying that it
isn’t a haphazard or irrational choice, but rather a tool used to achieve a bigger goal.
•Hamas, for example, employs terrorist techniques, but not because it has an irrational urge to launch
rockets at Israeli Jews.
• Instead, they want to use violence (and cease-fires) to get specific concessions from Israel and Fatah in
order to achieve their goals.
•It is often regarded as a weak person’s method for gaining an edge over bigger militaries or political powers.
Socio- •Socio-economic theories of terrorism imply that certain forms of deprivation motivate
Economic people to commit acts of terror, or that they are more open to recruitment by terrorist
organisations.
•Poverty, illiteracy, and lack of political freedom are only a few examples. On both sides of
the debate, there is evidence to support their claims.
•Comparisons of different conclusions can be perplexing because they don’t distinguish
between individuals and societies, and they ignore the complexities of how people feel
injustice or deprivation, independent of their economic situation.

Religious •In the 1990s, experts began to argue that a new type of terrorism motivated by religious
zeal was on the increase. They cited Al Qaeda, Aum Shinrikyo (a Japanese cult), and
Christian identity groups as examples.
•Terrorist groups in India include communists, Islamists, and separatists. Terrorist groups
affiliated with the Communist Party of India are by far the most common perpetrators and
the leading cause of terrorism deaths in India.
•Terrorist assaults by Islamic groups in Kashmir, Sikh separatists in Punjab, and secessionist
movements in Assam continue to target India.
OBJECTIVES OF TERRORISM
Terrorism has several objectives, such as,
to advertise the movement or to give publicity to the ideology and strength of the movement;
to mobilize mass support and urge sympathizers to greater militancy;
to eliminate opponents and informers and thus remove obstacles to the growth of the
movement;
to demonstrate the inability of the government to support the people and maintain order;
to destroy internal stability and create a feeling of fear and insecurity among the public;
 to ensure the allegiance and obedience of the followers.
CHARACTERISTICS OF
TERRORISM
Violence or Threat of Violence: Terrorism typically involves the use or threat of violence against civilians or non-
combatants to instill fear, intimidate populations, or coerce governments into meeting the terrorists' demands.
Political or Ideological Motivation: Terrorist acts are often driven by political, ideological, or religious motives.
These motivations can vary widely, ranging from separatism and nationalism to religious extremism or
revolutionary ideologies.
Non-State Actors: While states can engage in acts of terrorism, it is more commonly associated with non-state
actors, such as extremist groups, militias, or insurgent movements. These groups may operate domestically or
internationally.
Symbolism: Terrorist attacks are often designed to have symbolic significance, targeting locations, individuals,
or events that represent political, religious, or cultural importance to their adversaries. Symbolic targets can
include government buildings, religious sites, transportation hubs, or landmarks.
Indiscriminate Targeting: Terrorist attacks often target civilians or non-combatants indiscriminately, with the
aim of maximizing casualties and spreading fear among the population. However, terrorists may also target
specific groups or individuals perceived as representing their adversaries.
Asymmetrical Warfare: Terrorism is often characterized by asymmetrical warfare tactics, where small, non-state
actors use unconventional methods to combat larger, more powerful adversaries. This can include guerrilla
warfare, suicide bombings, or cyber attacks.
Transnational Operations: Many terrorist groups operate across national borders, seeking to exploit weak
governance structures, porous borders, and global communication networks to plan and execute attacks in
multiple countries.
Propaganda and Media Manipulation: Terrorist organizations often use propaganda and media manipulation to
spread their message, recruit followers, and amplify the impact of their actions. This can include the use of
social media, videos, and online publications to attract sympathizers and justify their violence.
State Sponsorship: Some terrorist groups receive support, funding, or safe haven from state actors seeking to
advance their own geopolitical goals or destabilize their adversaries. State sponsorship can provide terrorists
with resources, training, and logistical support to carry out attacks.
Psychological Impact: Beyond the physical casualties and damage caused by terrorist attacks, they also have a
profound psychological impact on the affected populations, creating a climate of fear, mistrust, and insecurity.
ANTI-TERRORISM LAWS OF INDIA
Anti-terrorism legislation are laws with the purpose of fighting terrorism. They usually, if not
always, follow specific bombings or assassinations.
Anti-terrorism legislation usually includes specific amendments allowing the state to bypass its
own legislation when fighting terrorism-related crimes, under alleged grounds of necessity.
Because of this, suspension of regular procedure, such legislation is sometimes criticized as a
form of “villainous laws" which may unjustly repress all kinds of popular protests.
Critics often allege that anti-terrorism legislation endangers democracy by creating a state of
exception that allows authoritarian style of government.
 TERRORIST AND DISRUPTIVE
ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT,
1987
Commonly known as TADA, the act was the first anti-terrorism law legislated by the Union government to define and
counter terrorist activities.
It was formulated in the back drop of growing terrorist violence in Punjab which had its violent effects in other parts
of the country too, including capital New Delhi.
The Act, which was criticised on various counts by human rights organisations and political parties was permitted to
lapse in May 1995 though cases initiated while it was in force continue to hold legal validity.
Act came into effect on 23rd May 1985. It was modified in 1989, 1991 and 1993 and finally it was lapsed in 1995
because of its increasing unpopularity and allegations of abuse of power. It was assented to on 3rd Sept 1987 and
commenced from 24th Sept 1987.
The Act's third paragraph gives a very thorough definition of "terrorism":
 "Whoever with intent to overawe the Government as by law established or to strike terror in the people or any
section of the people or to alienate any section of the people or to adversely affect the harmony amongst different
sections of the people does any act or thing by using bombs, dynamite or other explosive substances or inflammable
substances or lethal weapons or poisons or noxious gases or other chemicals or by any other substances (whether
biological or otherwise) of a hazardous nature in such a manner as to cause, or as is likely to cause, death of, or
injuries to, any person or persons or loss of, or damage to, or destruction of, property or disruption of any supplies or
services essential to the life of the community, or detains any person and threatens to kill or injure such person in
order to compel the Government or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act, commits a terrorist act."
POWERS
The law gave wide powers to law enforcement agencies for dealing with national terrorist and
'socially disruptive' activities. The police were not obliged to produce a detainee before a judicial
magistrate within 24 hours. The accused person could be detained up to 1 year.
Confessions made to police officers was admissible as evidence in the court of law, with the
burden of proof being on the accused to prove his innocence. Courts were set up exclusively to
hear the cases and deliver judgements pertaining to the persons accused under this Act.
The trials could be held in camera with the identities of the witnesses kept hidden. Under 7A of
the Act, Police officers were also empowered to attach the properties of the accused under this
Act. Under this act police have no rights to give third degree or harassed anyone to speak as
mentioned in the act.
PROVISIONS UNDER TADA
Acts that endanger the unity, integrity, security, or sovereignty of India are considered terroristic
under the Act’s definition, as are those that are meant to intimidate the government or instill fear
among the population.
Additionally, disruptive acts are described as those that “directly or indirectly impair the sovereignty
and territorial integrity of India or support demands for the secession or cession of any portion of
India”
It’s against the law to provide a safe haven for terrorists or disruptors, aid or abet those planning
such activities, interrupt services or supplies, or destroy property. Being a part of any kind of
“terrorist gang or organisation” is illegal.
Terrorist financing and the acquisition of property considered to be connected to terrorism are also
illegal.
With the superintendent of police’s permission, the investigating officer can confiscate or attach such
property even in the absence of a court order.
Acts that endanger witnesses or cause harm to interstate or foreign business fall under this category
Section 3(8) of the new law criminalises withholding information from law enforcement that is “known
or believed to be of value in preventing a terrorist attack or ensuring the arrest of a person. This means
that inaction can also result in legal consequences.
The Act permits harsher punishments alongside its broad definitions. For non-homicide offences, the
minimum term is five years in jail, while the maximum sentence is life in prison.
This means that giving a speech, speaking at a rally, or taking part in a protest action may result in a
five-year prison sentence. When someone’s life has been taken, the choice between life in jail or
execution is the only option for punishment.
The severity of the crime justifies a new set of criminal rules. Because this offender is not your typical
criminal and requires intensive investigation, it is justified to disregard the protections afforded by the
criminal procedure code
CRITICISM OF TADA
Under the Act, whoever advocates directly or indirectly for cession or secession in any part of India is liable to be punished.
The Act provides that a person can be detained up to one year without formal charges or trial against him.
Section 20 of the Act provides that detainee can be in police custody up to 60 days, which increases the risk of torture. Also
the detainee need not be produced before a judicial magistrate but instead may be produced before an executive
magistrate, who is an official of police and administrative service and is not answerable to the high court.
The trial can be held secretly at any place, with the identity of the witnesses being secret, which violates international
standards of fair trials.
The Act reverses the presumption of innocence of the accused under the Act. Under section 21 of the Act, the person who
is accused of committing a terrorist act if arms and explosives were recovered or made confessions to someone other than a
police officer or provided financial assistance for the commission of the terrorist act or by suspicion that the person has
arms or explosives or financial assistance to commit the terrorist act, that person shall be presumed to be guilty unless the
contrary is proved.
Confessions to a police officer not below the rank of superintendent of the police can be used as evidence against a person.
Section 19 of the Act bars appeals by persons accused under it except to the Supreme Court.
IMPACT
The problem with TADA was that it gave exceptional powers to law enforcement officials, which
subsequently resulted in widespread torture, arbitrary detention and harassment of mostly
innocent citizens.
According to the United Nation Human Right Committee, the safeguards provided under the Act
(TADA) are insufficient and they are not in consistent with international human rights law. The
number of people arrested under the act had exceeded 76,000, by 30 June 1994.
Twenty-five percent of these cases were dropped by the police without any charges being
framed. Only 35 percent of the cases were brought to trial, of which 95 percent resulted in
acquittals. Less than 2 percent of those arrested were convicted.
 The TADA act was ultimately repealed and succeeded by the Prevention of Terrorist Activities
Act (2002-2004) and this act was subsequently repealed after much controversy as well. Yet
many continue to be held under TADA.
UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES
(PREVENTION) AMENDMENT ACT
(UAPA)
The UAPA – an enhancement on the TADA (Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act),
which was allowed to lapse in 1995 and the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) was repealed in
2004 — was originally passed in 1967 under the then Congress government led by former Prime
Minister Indira Gandhi.
Eventually, amendments were brought in under the successive United Progressive Alliance
(UPA) governments in 2004, 2008 and 2013.
At present, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) is functioning as the Central Counter-
Terrorism Law Enforcement Agency in India established under NIA Act 2008.
SALIENT FEATURES OF UAPA
The Act gives special procedures to handle terrorist activities, among other things. It aims at the effective prevention of
unlawful activities associations in India. Unlawful activity refers to any action taken by an individual or association
intended to disrupt the territorial integrity and sovereignty of India.
Who may commit terrorism: According to the Act, the union government may proclaim or designate an organisation as a
terrorist organisation if it: (i) commits or participates in acts of terrorism, (ii) prepares for terrorism, (iii) promotes
terrorism, or (iv) is otherwise involved in terrorism. The Bill also empowers the government to designate individuals as
terrorists on the same grounds.
UAPA has the death penalty and life imprisonment as the highest punishments. The Act assigns absolute power to the
central government, by way of which if the Centre deems an activity as unlawful then it may, by way of an Official Gazette,
declare it so.
Under UAPA, both Indian and foreign nationals can be charged. The offenders will be charged in the same manner
whether the act is performed in a foreign land, outside India.
Approval for property seizure by National Investigation Agency (NIA): As per the Act, an investigating officer is required
to obtain the prior approval of the Director-General of Police to seize properties that may be connected with terrorism.
The Bill adds that if the investigation is conducted by an officer of the National Investigation Agency (NIA), the approval of
the Director-General of NIA would be required for seizure of such property.
The investigation by the National Investigation Agency (NIA): Under the provisions of the Act,
investigation of cases can be conducted by officers of the rank of Deputy Superintendent or
Assistant Commissioner of Police or above. The Bill additionally empowers the officers of the
NIA, of the rank of Inspector or above, to investigate cases.
Insertion to the schedule of treaties: The Act defines terrorist acts to include acts committed
within the scope of any of the treaties listed in a schedule to the Act. The Schedule lists nine
treaties, comprising of the Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings (1997), and the
Convention against Taking of Hostages (1979). The Bill adds another treaty to this list namely,
the International Convention for Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism (2005).
 ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF
AMENDMENTS
The objective of the proposed amendments is to facilitate speedy investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and
designating an individual as a terrorist in line with international practices. The amendments will also allow the NIA probe
cybercrimes and cases of human trafficking, sources aware of the proposal said Sunday.
Amendment to Schedule 4 of the Act, the NIA will be allowed to designate an individual suspected to have terror links as a
terrorist. In the current scenario, before the amendment was made, only organisations were designated as ‘terrorist
organisations’.
A strict law is of utmost necessity to strengthen the investigation agencies and to uproot terrorism from this country in this regard.
Hon’ble Home Minister stated in Lok Sabha that law can not be misused against any individual, yet, those individuals who engage
in terrorist activities against the security and sovereignty of India, including the urban Maoists, would not be spared by the
investigating agencies either.
There are no changes to the bail or arrest provisions. Hence, it is evident that there will be no fundamental rights violation of
anyone. Also, the burden of proof is on the investigating agency and not on the accused.
The amendment about attaching properties amassed through proceeds of terrorism is being proposed in order to accelerate
investigation in terror cases and is not against federal principles.
At present, Section 25 of the UAPA states that forfeiture of property acquired from terrorism can be done only with the prior
approval given in writing by the DGPs of the state wherein lies such property. But the problem is that many times, the terror
accused owns properties in multiple states. In this kind of a scenario, it becomes tough to get the approvals of several DGPs and
can cause a delay in the whole process of forfeiting property, which can help the accused transfer such property to someone else.
CRITICISM
The Act assigns absolute power to the central government, by way of which if the Centre deems
an activity as unlawful then it may, by way of an Official Gazette, declare it so.
The opposition voiced concerns about the amendments, saying the provisions were against the
federal structure of the country enshrined in the Constitution of India.
There was no pre-legislative consultation.
Designating an individual as a terrorist raises serious constitutional questions and has the
potential for misuse.
An individual cannot be called a ‘terrorist’ prior to conviction in a court of law, It subverts the
principle of “innocent until proven guilty. A wrongful designation will cause irreparable damage
to a person’s reputation, career and livelihood.
POTA-PREVENTION OF
TERRORISM ACT
POTA Act was passed in the Joint session of Parliament in March 2002.
The objective of POTA was to strengthen the anti-terrorism operations.
This act was passed after the attack on Parliament by the Pakistan based terrorists.
This act was passed in the joint session of Lower House (Lok Sabha) and Upper House (Rajya
Sabha).
This was only the 3rd time an Act was passed by the Joint session of the Parliament.
POTA replaced the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act (TADA).
 POTA was repealed in September 2004 when there was a change of Government at the Centre.
PROVISIONS IN POTA AS
COMPARED TO TADA
Similar to the provisions contained in TADA, the law provided that a suspect could be detained
for up to 180 days without the filing of a chargesheet in court. However, a very major change
was introduced, in that unlike TADA, this act had no provision to allow preventive detention.[8]
Secondly, the matter of confessions made by the accused to the police. The general law in India
does not recognise confessions made to police as evidence admissible in court, and permits a
person to deny such confessions in court, but under POTA, confessions made to a police officer
were admissible as evidence in court.[9] POTA also allowed law enforcement agencies to withhold
the identity of witnesses. Anti-Terrorism Day is celebrated on 21 May.
However, the POTA law did have some safeguards. Any decision on bail petitions or the verdict
of the special courts constituted under this Act could be appealed against, and the appeal would
be heard by a division bench of the relevant High Court.
IMPACT AND REPEAL
Once the Act came into force, many reports surfaced of the law being grossly [Link] was
alleged to have been arbitrarily used to target political opponents. Only four months after its
enactment, state law enforcement officers had arrested 250 people nationwide under the Act,
and the number was steadily increasing. A mere eight months later, seven states where POTA
was in force, had arrested over 940 people, at least 560 of whom were languishing in jail.
Several prominent persons like Vaiko were arrested under the act.
The Act had a built-in expiry date three years after its commencement, vide section 1(6) of the
Act. It had commenced on 24 October 2001, so was scheduled to expire on 24 October 2004.
One month before its expiry, the Act was repealed on 21 September 2004 by the Prevention of
Terrorism (Repeal) Ordinance, 2004,later substituted with the Prevention of Terrorism (Repeal)
Act, 2004 (assented to on 21 December 2004 NDA asked UPA to introduce the Act again, but
Congress criticized it and did not pass the Act
CRITICISM
Abuse of Human Rights: Critics argued that POTA gave authorities excessive powers to detain suspects without trial
and to infringe upon civil liberties, leading to abuses of human rights and instances of torture.
Ethnic Profiling: In regions with ethnic or religious tensions, such as Sri Lanka, there were concerns that POTA could be
used to target specific ethnic or religious groups, leading to discrimination and exacerbating social divisions.
Lack of Accountability: Some critics contended that POTA lacked sufficient checks and balances to prevent its misuse
by law enforcement agencies, leading to arbitrary arrests and detention.
Impact on Freedom of Expression: The broad definitions of terrorism and terrorist activities under POTA raised
concerns that the law could be used to suppress legitimate forms of dissent and political opposition, stifling freedom of
expression.
Effectiveness: There were debates about the effectiveness of POTA in actually preventing terrorist activities. Some
argued that the law's focus on punitive measures rather than addressing root causes of terrorism could be
counterproductive and ultimately ineffective in combating terrorism.
Repeal and Revisions: Due to widespread criticism and concerns about human rights violations, POTA was eventually
repealed or amended in some countries. Critics argued that even with revisions, the underlying issues of abuse of
power and lack of accountability persisted in subsequent anti-terrorism legislation.