|
The Meaning of Terrorism
20 August 2007
[see also What is
Terrorism? - Law & Practise ]
How did the term
�Terrorism� originate and how has it been tormented to change its original
meaning and significance? The term was first used by the British to describe the
Jewish movement to create the independent state of Israel. Irony of ironies,
because the result of that terrorism is now a recognized country not only in the
middle east, but in the world, by the very western powers that condemned this
struggle and termed it terrorism. President Truman refused to recognize Israel
when it was created. The Russians were the first major power to recognize the
product of that terrorism. Now, those who described the leaders of this
independence movement as terrorists are the greatest supporters of their right
to exist and will do anything to perpetuate its existence.
The same phrase �terrorism� is now used by the US, Britain, Canada and Australia
to condemn the Tamil violent struggle to confront Sinhalese violent
discrimination against them, discrimination which has occurred ever since the
British, by granting freedom to the Sinhalese leaders, gave them the ability to
do so. The legal protections provided by the British to bar discrimination were
unconstitutionally abolished by a racist government led by Mr Bandaranaike in
1972. Discrimination, previously illegally practiced, now became legal. The
British Privy Council, which safeguarded the rights of the national minorities,
was abolished as the final court of appeal and was replaced by a biased
Sinhalese-oriented Sri Lankan Supreme Court.
After many years of civil war, even those nations that classified the Tamil
independence movement spearheaded by the LTTE as �terrorist� recognized the need
of the Government of Sri Lanka to negotiate a devolutionary constitutional set
up with the very party those nations classified as terrorist. Their inability to
draw the parallel with Israel's war of Independence reveals a clear inability to
recognize the similarity of the struggle, till the result, to wit Independence,
is fulfilled.
Gandhi, Nehru, the leader of Pakistan and a host of African leaders who led
independence movements were regarded with the same contempt and disapproval as
the LTTE is today, till they gained their independence.
Even today, the LTTE is recognized as the only power capable of granting Tamils
freedom from Sinhalese discrimination by every major power. The Sinhalese
governments and their supportive media attempt to equate the LTTE with AL Qaeda
and other such international entities which challenge western superiority over
what they regard as Muslim suppression. Some naive western leaders buy this
nonsensical effort. The fact that what is said is repeated incessantly by
Sinhalese governments and their loyal media, hardly makes this pathetic claim,
true.
The entire Sinhalese government posture rests upon the fallacy that they cannot
survive without discrimination. The idea is shocking in its blinding simplicity.
Their own parliament has reached a point of complete rupture over this concept.
Parliamentary members who as adventurers joined the government are now running
like rabbits in the other direction. The government is out for blood flowing
from this frustration and the frustration of the Tamil determination to be
autonomous. The President, believing he has a divine right to discriminate, has
no hesitation in believing that tyranny is a right he also possesses to execute
his objectives. His pretense that an easy tolerance will solve the conflict is
unconvincing even to those longing to believe him.
The Tamils who left, not in trickles but in convoys, are now portrayed by the
president, not as victims of Sinhalese policy, but as an enemy out to destroy
the Sinhalese. The Tamils have never sought to rule their Sinhalese neighbors.
All they seek is autonomy and freedom from the Sinhalese quest to perpetuate
Tamil dependence on Sinhalese domination.
Furthermore, the Tamils have not in the past and do not now pose any danger to
India or any segment of the western world.
|
