Chronology of terrorist incidents in India

Date   Incident   Fatalities   Injured  

Status of case (Arrests made/ Cracked/ Verdict given)  

March 12, 1993

Bombay bombings 257verdict given

1997Brahmaputra Mail train bombing

February 14, 1998

Coimbatore bombings 46verdict given

October 1, 2001

Terrorists attack Jammu-Kashmir assembly complex

35

December 13, 2001

Attack on the parliament complex in New Delhi

7verdict given

21 December 2002

Kurnool train crash 20 80

10 September 2002

Rafiganj rail disaster 130

27 February 2002

Godhra Train Burning cm

September 24, 2002

Terrorists attack the Akshardham temple in Gujarat

31

March 13, 2003

A terrorist bocb attack on a commuter train in Mumbai[1]

11

May 14, 2003

Terrorists attack an army camp near Jammu, killing more than 30, including women and children

30

August 25, Simultaneous car 52

2003 bombs in Mumbai

August 15, 2004

Bomb explodes in Assam, killing 16 people, mostly school children

16

2005 Jaunpur train bombing 13

July 5, 2005

Shri Ram Janmabhoomi attack in Ayodhya

0

October 29, 2005

Three powerful serial blasts in New Delhi at different places just two days before Hindu festival Deepawali[2]

70

March 7, 2006

Three synchronized terrorist attacks in Varanasi in Shri Sankatmochan Mandir and Varanasi Cantonment Railway Station

21

July 11, 2006

Series of 7 train bombing during the evening rush hour in Mumbai

209

September 8, 2006

Series of bomb blasts in the vicinity of a mosque in Malegaon, Maharashtra

37 125

18 February 2007

Samjhauta Express bombings

68

May 18, 2007

At least 13 people were killed, including 4 killed by the Indian police in the rioting that followed, in the bombing at Mecca Masjid, Hyderabad that took place during the Friday prayers

13

August 25, 2007

Two blasts in Hyderabad's Lumbini

42

park and a restaurant

October 11, 2007

One blast at a shrine of a Sufi Muslim saint in the town of Ajmer[3]

3

October 14, 2007

One blast in a movie theater in the town of Ludhiana on the Muslim holy day of Eid ul-Fitr[4]

6

November 24, 2007

A series of near-simultaneous explosions at courthouse complexes in the cities of Lucknow, Varanasi, and Faizabad[5]

16

May 13, 2008

9 bomb blasts along 6 areas in Jaipur

63

July 25, 2008

8 low intensity bomb blasts in Bangalore

2 20arrests made

July 26, 2008

17 serial bomb blasts in Ahmedabad

29 110arrests made

September 13, 2008

5 bomb blasts in Delhi markets

21 110

September 27, 2008

Bombings at Mehrauli area 2 bomb blasts in Delhi flower market

1 17

September 29, 2008

10 killed and 80 injured in bombings in Maharashtra and Gujarat bomb blasts

10

September 29, 2008

7 killed in bike blasts in Malegaon.

7

October 1, 2008

Agartala bombing 4 100

October 21, 2008

Imphal bomb blast 17 40

October 30, 2008

Assam bomb blast 77 300

November 26, 2008

Coordinated attack in Mumbai[6][7] 171 239

Terrorism in India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search

Terrorism in India can be attributed to many low intensity conflicts within its borders.

The regions with long term terrorist activities today are Jammu and Kashmir,Mumbai, Central India (Naxalism) and Seven Sister States (independence and autonomy movements). In the past, the Punjab insurgency led to militant activities in the Indian state of Punjab as well as the national capital Delhi (Delhi serial blasts, anti-Sikh riots).

As of 2006, at least 232 of the country’s 608 districts were afflicted, at differing intensities, by various insurgent and terrorist movements. [1]

Contents

[hide] 1 Chronology of major incidents 2 Western India 3 Jammu and Kashmir 4 Northern and Northwestern India

o 4.1 Bihar o 4.2 Punjab o 4.3 New Delhi

4.3.1 Delhi security summit 4.3.1.1 Attack on Indian parliment

o 4.4 Uttar Pradesh 4.4.1 Ayodhya crisis 4.4.2 Varanasi blasts

5 Northeastern India o 5.1 Nagaland o 5.2 Assam o 5.3 Tripura o 5.4 Manipur o 5.5 Mizoram

6 South India o 6.1 Karnataka o 6.2 Andhra Pradesh o 6.3 Tamil Nadu

7 Indian Railways

8 Air India Flight 182 9 See also 10 References 11 Notes

12 External links

[edit] Chronology of major incidents

[show]

v • d • e

Terrorism in India since 2001

Main article: Chronology of major terrorist incidents in India

[edit] Western India

Mumbai has been the most preferred target for most terrorist organizations, primarily the separatist forces from Kashmir. Over the past few years a series of attacks including explosions in local trains in July 2006, to the most recent and unprecedented attacks of 26th November, 2008, where two of the prime hotels and another building, in south Mumbai, were sieged.

Terrorist attacks in Mumbai include:*

Organizations listed as terrorist groups by India

Northeastern India

National Socialist Council of Nagaland-Isak-Muivah (NSCN-

IM)Naga National Council-Federal

(NNCF)National Council of Nagaland-

KhaplangUnited Liberation Front of Asom

People's Liberation ArmyKanglei Yawol Kanna Lup (KYKL)

Zomi Revolutionary Front

North India

Babbar KhalsaBhindranwala Tigers Force of

KhalistanCommunist Party of India

(Maoist)Dashmesh Regiment

International Sikh Youth Federation (ISYF)

Kamagata Maru Dal of KhalistanKhalistan Armed Force

Khalistan Liberation ForceKhalistan Commando ForceKhalistan Liberation ArmyKhalistan Liberation Front

Khalistan Liberation Organisation

Khalistan National ArmyKhalistan Guerilla Force

Khalistan Security ForceKhalistan Zindabad Force

Shaheed Khalsa Force

Kashmir

Lashkar-e-ToibaJaish-e-MohammedHizbul Mujahideen

Harkat-ul-MujahideenFarzandan-e-Milat

United Jihad CouncilAl-Qaeda

Students Islamic Movement of India

Central India

People's war groupBalbir militias

NaxalsRanvir Sena

12 March 1993 - Series of 13 bombs go off killing 257 06 December 2002 - Bomb goes off in a bus in Ghatkopar killing

2 27 January 2003 - Bomb goes off on a bicycle in Vile Parle killing

1 14 March 2003 - Bomb goes off in a train in Mulund killing 10 28 July 2003 - Bomb goes off in a bus in Ghatkopar killing 4 25 August 2003 - Two Bombs go off in cars near the Gateway of

India and Zaveri Bazaar killing 50 11 July 2006 - Series of seven bombs go off in trains killing 209 26 November 2008 to 29 November 2008 - Coordinated series of

attacks killing at least 172.

[edit] Jammu and Kashmir

Main article: Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir

Armed insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir killed tens of thousands till date.

[edit] Northern and Northwestern India

[edit] Bihar

Although terrorism is not considered a major issue in the state, existence of certain groups like the CPI-ML, Peoples war, MCC,Ranvir Sena and Balbir militias is a major concern as they frequently attack local policemen and politicians.

Poor governance and the law and order system in Bihar have helped increase the menace caused by the militias. The Ranvir Sena is a militia of forward caste land owners which is taking on the might of powerful Naxalites in the area.

The State has witnessed many massacres by these caste groups and retaliatory action by other groups. All the militias represent interest of some caste groups.

The main victims of the violence by these groups are helpless people (including women, old and children) who are killed in caste massacres. The state police is ill equipped to take on the AK-47, AK-56 of the militants with their vintage 303 rifles. The militants have used landmines to kill ambush police parties as well.

The root cause of the militant activities in the state is huge disparity among different caste groups. After Independence, land reforms were

supposed to be implemented, thereby giving the low caste and the poor a share in the lands which was till then held mostly by high caste people.

However, due to caste based divisive politics in the state land reforms were never implemented properly. This led to growing sense of alienation among the low caste.

Communist groups like CPI-ML, MCC and People's War took advantage of this and instigated the low caste people to take up arms against establishment which was seen as a tool in the hands of rich. They started taking up lands of rich by force killing the high caste people.

The high caste people resorted to use of force by forming their own army Ranvir Sena to take on the naxalites. The State witnessed a bloody period in which the groups tried to prove their supremacy by mass killings. The Police remained a mute witness to these killings as it lacked the means to take any action.

However now the Ranvir Sena has significantly weakened with the arrest of its top brass. The other groups are still active.

There have been arrests in various parts of the country, particularly those made by the Delhi and Mumbai police in the recent past, indicating that extremist/terrorist outfits have been spreading their networks in this State. There is a strong suspicion that Bihar is also being used as a transit point by the small-arms, fake currency and drug dealers entering from Nepal and terrorists reportedly infiltrating through Nepal and Bangladesh.

However, in recent years these attacks by various caste groups have come down with better government being practised.

[edit] Punjab

During the 1970s, the Indian Green Revolution brought increased economic prosperity for the Sikh community in Punjab. This propensity kindled an age old fear in the Sikh community - that of being absorbed into the Hindu fold and led to the rise of Sikh militants.

The insurgency intensified during 1980s when the movement turned violent and the name Khalistan resurfaced and sought independence from the Indian Union. Led by Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale who , though not in favor in the creation of Khalistan but also was not against it, began using militancy to stress the movement's demands. Soon things turned bloody with India alleging that neighboring Pakistan supported

these militants, who, by 1983-4, had begun to enjoy widespread support among Sikhs.

In 1984, Operation Blue Star was conducted by the Indian government to stem out the movement. It involved an assault on the Golden Temple complex, which Sant Bhindranwale had fortifed in preparation of an army assault. Indira Gandhi, India's then prime minister, ordered the military to storm the temple, who eventually had to use tanks, helicopter gunships, artillery and chemical weapons.

After a seventy-four-hour firefight, the army successfully took control of the temple. In doing so, it completely damaged some portions of the Akal Takht, the Sikh Reference Library and some damaged to the Golden Temple itself. According to Indian government sources, eighty-three army personnel were killed and 249 injured. Militant casualties were 493 killed and eighty-six injured.

During same year, the assassination of Indira Gandhi by two Sikh bodyguards, believed to be driven by the Golden Temple affair, resulted in widespread anti-Sikh riots, especially in New Delhi. Following Operation Black Thunder in 1988, Punjab Police, first under Julio Ribeiro and then under KPS Gill, together with the Indian Army eventually succeeded in pushing the movement underground.

In 1985, Sikh terrorists bombed an Air India flight from Canada to India, killing all 329 people on board Air India Flight 182. It is the worst terrorist act in Canada's history.

The ending of Sikh militancy and the desire for a Khalistan catalyzed when the then-Prime Minister of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto handed all intelligence material concerning Punjab militancy to the Indian government, as a goodwill gesture. The Indian government used that intelligence to put an end to those who were behind attacks in India and militancy.

The ending of overt Sikh militancy in 1993 led to a period of relative calm, punctuated by militant acts (i.e. the assassination of Punjab CM, Beant Singh in 1995) attributed to half a dozen or so operating Sikh militant organisations. These organisations include Babbar Khalsa International, Khalistan Commando Force, Khalistan Liberation Force and Khalistan Zindabad Force.

Support for Khalistan is still widespread among Sikh communities in Canada and the United Kingdom.

[edit] New DelhiMain article: 29 October 2005 Delhi bombings

Three explosions went off in the Indian capital of New Delhi on October 29, 2005 which killed more than 60 people and injured at least 200 others. The high number of casualties made the bombings the deadliest attack in India of 2005.It was followed by 5 bomb blasts on 13th September 2008.

[edit] Delhi security summit

Main article: 2007 Delhi security summit

The Delhi summit on security took place on February 14, 2007 with the foreign ministers of China, India, and Russia meeting in Hyderabad House, Delhi, India to discuss terrorism, drug trafficking, reform of the United Nations, and the security situations in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and North Korea.[2][3]

[edit] Attack on Indian parliment

Terrorists on December 13, 2001 attacked the Parliament of India resulting in a 45-minute gun battle in which 9 policemen and parliament staffer were killed. All the five terrorists were also killed by the security forces and were identified as Pakistani nationals. The attack took place around 11:40 am (IST), minutes after both Houses of Parliament had adjourned for the day.

The suspected terrorists dressed in commando fatigues entered Parliament in a car through the VIP gate of the building. Displaying Parliament and Home Ministry security stickers, the vehicle entered the Parliament premises.

The terrorists set off massive blasts and have used AK-47 rifles, explosives and grenades for the attack. Senior Ministers and over 200 Members of Parliament were inside the Central Hall of Parliament when the attack took place. Security personnel sealed the entire premises which saved many lives.

[edit] Uttar Pradesh

[edit] Ayodhya crisis

Main article: 2005 Ram Janmabhoomi attack in Ayodhya

The long simmering Ayodhya crisis finally culminated in a terrorist attack on the site of the 16th century Babri Masjid -Demolished Ancient Masjid in Ayodhya on July 5, 2005. Following the two-hour gunfight between Lashkar-e-Toiba terrorists based in Pakistan and Indian police, in which six terrorists were killed, opposition parties called for a nationwide strike with the country's leaders condemning the attack, believed to have been masterminded by Dawood Ibrahim.

[edit] Varanasi blasts

Main article: 2006 Varanasi bombings

A series of blasts occurred across the Hindu holy city of Varanasi on 7 March 2006. Fifteen people are reported to have been killed and as many as 101 others were injured. No-one has accepted responsibility for the attacks, but it is speculated that the bombings were carried out in retaliation of the arrest of a Lashkar-e-Toiba agent in Varanasi earlier in February 2006.

On April 5, 2006 the Indian police arrested six Islamic militants, including a cleric who helped plan bomb blasts. The cleric is believed to be a commander of a banned Bangladeshi Islamic militant group, Harkatul Jihad-al Islami and is linked to the Inter-Services Intelligence, the Pakistani spy agency.[4]

[edit] Northeastern India

Main article: Insurgency in North-East India

Northeastern India consists 7 states (also known as the seven sisters): Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Manipur, and Nagaland. Tensions exists between these states and the central government as well as amongst the tribal people, who are natives of these states, and migrant peoples from other parts of India.

The states have accused New Delhi of ignoring the issues concerning them. It is this feeling which has led the natives of these states to seek greater participation in self-governance. There are existing territorial disputes between Manipur and Nagaland.

There is a rise of insurgent activities and regional movements in the northeast, especially in the states of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Tripura. Most of these organizations demand independent state status or increased regional autonomy and sovereignty.

Many of these are said to be China sponsored. North Eastern region tension have eased off-late with Indian and state government's concerted effort to raise the living standards of the people in these regions. However, militancy still exists in this region of India supported by external sources.

[edit] Nagaland

The first and perhaps the most significant insurgency was in Nagaland from the early 1950s until it was finally quelled in the early 1980s through a mixture of repression and co-optation. The National Socialist Council of Nagaland-Isak-Muivah (NSCN-IM), demands an independent Nagaland and has carried out several attacks on Indian military installations in the region. According to government officials, 599 civilians, 235 security forces and 862 terrorists have lost their lives between 1992 and 2000.

On June 14, 2001, a cease-fire agreement was signed between the Government of India and the NSCN-IM which had received widespread approval and support in Nagaland. Terrorist outfits such as the Naga National Council-Federal (NNC-F) and the National Council of Nagaland-Khaplang (NSCN-K) also welcomed the development.

Certain neighbouring states, especially Manipur, raised serious concerns over the cease-fire. They feared that NSCN would continue insurgent activities in its state and demanded New Delhi scrap the ceasefire deal and renew military action. Despite the cease-fire the NSCN has continued its insurgency[citation needed].

[edit] Assam

After Nagaland, Assam is the most volatile state in the region. Beginning 1979, the indigenous people of Assam demanded that the illegal immigrants who had emigrated from Bangladesh to Assam be detected and deported. The movement lead by All Assam Students Union began non-violently with satyagraha, boycotts, picketing and courting arrests.

Those protesting frequently came under police action. In 1983 an election was conducted which was opposed by the movement leaders. The election lead to widespread violence. The movement finally ended after the movement leaders signed an agreement (called Assam Accord) with the central government in August 15, 1985.

Under the provisions of this accord, anyone who entered the state illegally between January 1966 and March 1971 were allowed to

remain but were disenfranchised for ten years, while those who entered after 1971 faced expulsion. A November 1985 amendment to the Indian citizenship law allows non citizens who entered Assam between 1961 and 1971 to have all the rights of citizenship except the right to vote for a period of ten years.

New Delhi also gave special administration autonomy to the Bodos in the state. However, the Bodos demanded for a separate Bodoland which led to a clash between the Bengalis, the Bodos and the Indian military resulting in hundreds of deaths.

There are several organizations which advocate the independence of Assam. The most prominent of which is the ULFA (United Liberation Front of Assam). Formed in 1971, the ULFA has two main goals, the independence of Assam and the establishment of a socialist government.

The ULFA has carried out several terrorist attacks in the region targeting the Indian Military and non-combatants. The group assassinates political opponents, attacks police and other security forces, blasts railroad tracks, and attacks other infrastructure facilities. The ULFA is believed to have strong links with Nationalist Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN), Maoists and the Naxalites.

It is also believed that they carry out most of their operations from the Kingdom of Bhutan. Because of ULFA's increased visibility, the Indian government outlawed the group in 1986 and declared Assam a troubled area. Under pressure from New Delhi, Bhutan carried a massive operation to drive out the ULFA militants from its territory.

Backed by the Indian Army, Thimphu was successful in killing more than a thousand terrorists and extraditing many more to India while sustaining only 120 casualties. The Indian military undertook several successful operations aimed at countering future ULFA terrorist attacks, but the ULFA continues to be active in the region. In 2004, the ULFA targeted a public school in Assam killing 19 children and 5 adults.

Assam remains the only state in the northeast where terrorism is still a major issue. The Indian Military was successful in dismantling terrorist outfits in other areas, but have been criticized by human rights groups for allegedly using harsh methods when dealing with terrorists.

On September 18, 2005, a soldier was killed in Jiribam, Manipur, near the Manipur-Assam border by members of the ULFA.

[edit] Tripura

Tripura witnessed a surge in terrorist activities in the 1990s. New Delhi blamed Bangladesh for providing a safe haven to the insurgents operating from its territory. The area under control of the Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council was increased after a tripartite agreement between New Delhi, the state government of Tripura, and the Council. The government has since been brought the movement under control though certain rebellious factions still linger.

[edit] Manipur

In Manipur, militants formed an organization known as the People's Liberation Army. Their main goal was to unite the Meitei tribes of Burma and establish an independent state of Manipur. However, the movement was thought to have been suppressed after a fierce clash with Indian security forces in the mid 1990s.

On September 18, 2005, six separatist rebels were killed in fighting between Zomi Revolutionary Army and Zomi Revolutionary Front in the Churachandpur District.

On September 20, 2005, 14 Indian soldiers were ambushed and killed by 20 rebels from the Kanglei Yawol Kanna Lup (KYKL) terrorist organization, armed with AK-56 rifles, in the village of Nariang, 22 miles southwest of Manipur's capital Imphal. "Unidentified rebels using automatic weapons ambushed a road patrol of the army's Gorkha Rifles killing eight on the spot," said a spokesman for the Indian government.

On June 9, 2007, Eleven people have been killed[5] Eleven people have been killed in Moreh near the border with Myanmar.

Trouble started on Saturday after local residents recovered the bodies of five Kuki tribespeople with bullet wounds.

Angry Kukis attacked the local police station, where the bodies were kept, and razed several houses belonging to the rival Meitie ethnic group. Later in the evening, police recovered the bodies of six Meitie fishermen.

Currently there are 19 separate rebel groups operating in Manipur.

[edit] Mizoram

The Mizo National Front fought for over 2 decades with the Indian Military in an effort to gain independence. As in neighbouring states the insurgency was quelled by force.

[edit] South India

[edit] Karnataka

Karnataka is considerably less affected by terrorism in spite of having many places of historical importance and the IT hub of India, Bangalore. However, recently Naxal activity has been increasing in the Western Ghats. Also, a few attacks have occurred, major ones including an attack on IISc on 28th December 2005 and serial blasts in Bangalore on 26th July 2008.

[edit] Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh is one of the few southern states affected by terrorism, although of a far different kind and on a much smaller scale. The terrorism in Andhra Pradesh stems from the People's War Group or PWG, popularly known as Naxalites.

The 'PWG, has been operating in India for over two decades with most of its operations in the Telangana region in Andhra Pradesh. The group is also active in Orissa and Bihar. Unlike the Kashmiri insurgents and ULFA, PWG is a Maoist terrorist organisation and communism is one of its primary goals.

Having failed to capture popular support in the elections, they resorted to violence as a means to voice their opinions. The group targets Indian Police, multinational companies and other influential institutions in the name of the communism. PWG has also targeted senior government officials, including the attempted assassination of former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu.

It reportedly has a strength of 800 to 1,000 well armed militiants and is believed to have close links with the Maoists in Nepal and the LTTE of Sri Lanka. According to the Indian government, on an average, more than 60 civilians, 60 naxal rebels and a dozen policemen are killed every year because of PWG led insurgency.Also one of the major terrorist attack is 25 August 2007 Hyderabad Bombing.

[edit] Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu had LTTE Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam militants operating in state Tamil Nadu up until the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. LTTE had given many speeches in state Tamil Nadu led by Velupillai Prabhakaran, Tamilselvan and other Eelam members. Tamil Tigers, now a banned organisation, have been receiving many donations and support from India in the past.

The following are Listed Terrorist Organizations banned in India

Black Tigers Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam Tamil Tigers

and major listed incidents

Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi

Tamil Nadu also faced terrorist attacks orchestrated by muslim funadamentalists. For more information refer, 1998 Coimbatore bombings

[edit] Indian Railways

India has hundreds of thousands of miles of railway track, and over 14,000 trains criss-cross the country every day. These are tempting targets for many of the groups described above, and attacks on trains, whether direct assaults, bombings or deliberate derailing through sabotage are common.

[edit] Air India Flight 182

Main article: Air India Flight 182

Air India Flight 182 was an Air India flight operating on the Montreal-London-Delhi-Bombay route. On 23 June 1985 the Boeing 747-237B operating on the route was bombed over Irish airspace, killing all onboard. Until 11 September 2001, the Air India bombing was the single deadliest terrorist attack involving aircraft. It remains to this day the largest mass murder in Canadian history.

The incident occurred within an hour of the Narita Airport Bombing. The plane, a Boeing 747-237B (c/n 21473/330, reg VT-EFO) named Emperor Kanishka exploded at an altitude of 31,000 feet (9500 m),

crashing into the Atlantic Ocean killing all 329 people on board, of whom 280 were Canadian citizens and 22 were Indian nationals

1993 Bombay bombings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search

1993 Bombay Bombings

Location Bombay, India

DateMarch 12, 1993

13:30-15:40 (UTC+ 5.5)

Attack type13 car bombs (RDX)

containing shrapnel.

Deaths 257[1]

Injured 713[2]

Perpetrator(s)Underworld criminal groups

(D-Company)

[show]

v • d • e

Terrorism in Mumbai

[show]

v • d • e

Terrorism in India since 2001

The 1993 Bombay bombings were a series of thirteen bomb explosions that took place in Bombay (now Mumbai), India on March 12, 1993.[3] The coordinated attacks were the most destructive bomb explosions in Indian history. The single-day attacks resulted in up to 250 civilian fatalities and 700 injuries.[4] The attacks are believed to have been coordinated by Dawood Ibrahim, don of the organized crime syndicate named D-Company, which had operated as a terrorist organization.[5] It

is believed that the attacks were carried out in retaliation for widespread massacre of Muslims in Mumbai during December and January, and also the demolition of the Babri Masjid.

Contents

[hide] 1 Background 2 The bombings 3 Aftermath 4 Arrests, convictions and verdict

o 4.1 The Memons o 4.2 The Planters o 4.3 Accused involved o 4.4 Landing agents o 4.5 Customs officials o 4.6 Policemen o 4.7 Sanjay Dutt and friends o 4.8 Others

5 See also 6 References

7 External links

[edit] Background

In December 1992 and January 1993, there was widespread rioting in Bombay following the December 6 destruction of the Babri Mosque in Ayodhya by extreme Hindu groups. Although there was no loss of life in the incident at the Babri Mosque, a series of riots soon erupted throughout the nation, most notably in Bombay. After five years following the December-January riots, the Srikrishna Commission Report stated that nine hundred individuals lost their lives and over two thousand were injured, most of them Muslim, in the riots.[6]

[edit] The bombings

At 1:30 p.m. a powerful car bomb exploded in the basement of the Bombay Stock Exchange building. The 28-story office building housing the exchange was severely damaged, and many nearby office buildings also suffered some damage. About 50 were killed by this explosion. About 30 minutes later, another car bomb exploded elsewhere in the city, and from 1:30 p.m. to 3:40 p.m. a total of 13 bombs exploded throughout Bombay. Most of the bombs were car bombs, but some were in scooters.

Three hotels, the Hotel Sea Rock, Hotel Juhu Centaur, and Hotel Airport Centaur, were targeted by suitcase bombs left in rooms booked by the perpetrators. Banks, the regional passport office, hotels, the Air India Building, and a major shopping complex were also hit. Bombs exploded at Zaveri Bazaar, area opposite of Century Bazaar, Katha Bazaar, Shiv Sena Bhawan, and Plaza Theatre. A jeep-bomb at the Century Bazaar exploded early, thwarting another attack. Grenades were also thrown at Sahar International Airport and at Fishermen's Colony, apparently targeting Hindus at the latter. A double decker bus was very badly damaged in one of the explosions and that single incident accounted for the greatest loss of life - perhaps up to ninety people were killed.

Buildings attacked include

Bombay Stock Exchange Building Hotel Sea Rock Hotel Centaur, Juhu Hotel Centaur, Santa Cruz Plaza Cinema Shiv Sena Bhawan Zaveri Bazaar Area opposite of Century Bazaar Passport Office Air India Building Sahar Airport

[edit] Aftermath

The official number of dead was 257 with 1,400 others injured (some news sources say 317 people died;[7] this is due to a bomb which killed 60 in Calcutta on March 17[8]). Several days later, unexploded car bombs were discovered at a railway station. Terrorist groups based in Pakistan were suspected to be responsible for these bombings, and evidence uncovered pointed to the involvement of underworld don Dawood Ibrahim.

On August 25, 2003, two large and destructive bombs left in taxis exploded in south Mumbai - the Gateway of India and Zaveri Bazaar in the busy Kalbadevi area - killing 52 people, again entirely Hindus and wounding more than a hundred others. Two Pakistan based militant groups, Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Toiba, were found to be responsible for the attacks. Along with the July 2006 train bombings in Mumbai, these attacks are believed to be in retaliation for the 2002 Gujarat riots in which more than a thousand persons, mostly Muslims were killed,[9], though the Gujarat government denies such a connection.[10]

On August 11, 2006, the former Chief Minister of Maharashtra, Sharad Pawar, admitted, on record, that he had "deliberately misled" people following the 1993 Bombay blasts by saying there were "12 and not 11" explosions, adding the name of a Muslim-dominated locality to show that people from both communities had been affected.[11] He tried to justify this deception by claiming that it was a move to prevent communal riots by falsely portraying that both Hindu and Muslim communities in the city had been affected adversely. He also admits to lying about evidence recovered and misleading people into believing that some of it pointed to the Tamil Tigers as possible suspects.[11]

[edit] Arrests, convictions and verdict

Many hundreds of people were arrested and detained in Indian courts. In 2006, 100 of the 129 finally accused were found to be guilty and were convicted by the specially designated TADA court. Many of the 100 are still missing including the main conspirators and masterminds of the attacks - Tiger Memon and Dawood Ibrahim. On September 12, 2006, the special TADA court hearing the case convicted four members of the Memon family for their involvement in the 1993 Bombay bombings.[12]

Three other members of the Memon family were acquitted by the special TADA court with the judge giving them the benefit of doubt.[12] The four members of the Memon family are being held after being found guilty on charges of conspiring and abetting acts of terror.[13] All four of them face jail terms from five years in prison to life imprisonment, that will be determined based on the severity of their crime.[12] A day later, the TADA court announced that it would start pronouncing the verdict of the thirty-one people charged with transporting and planting bombs.

Yakub Memon, the brother of prime accused Tiger Memon, was charged for possession of unauthorised arms. After the blasts, family members of Tiger, including Yakub, escaped from Bombay to Dubai and Pakistan. Correspondents say Tiger Memon owned a restaurant in Bombay and was allegedly closely associated with Dawood Ibrahim, the chief suspect.[14]

Except for Tiger and his brother Ayub, the entire family returned back to India and were prompty arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation in 1994. Since then, Yakub has been in custody and is undergoing treatment for depression. The Memon family was subsequently tried in court and found guilty of conspiracy. The defense lawyers have asked for leniency in the sentencing and have caused delays in the process.

Dawood Ibrahim, believed to have masterminded the terrorist attacks, was the former Don of the Mumbai organized crime syndicate D-Company, largely consisting of Muslims. He is suspected of having connections to several Pakistan based terrorist groups,[15] such as al-Qaeda and its leader, Osama bin Laden,[16] as well as Lashkar-e-Toiba[17] and was declared a terrorist by the governments of India and the United States in 2003. Ibrahim is now wanted by Interpol as a part of the worldwide terror syndicate of Osama bin Laden.[18] He has been in hiding since the blasts and is believed to be hiding in Pakistan, which the Pakistani government denies.[19] The Bush administration in the United States imposed sanctions on Ibrahim in 2006.[20]

The penalty stage of the longest running trial in India's history is still ongoing. In February 2007, prosecutors asked for the death penalty for forty-four of the hundred convicted. The prosecution also requested the death penalty for those convicted of conspiracy in the case.[21]

[edit] The Memons

Yakub Memon has spent approximately 15+ years in prison. He was sentenced to death by hanging by the Judge, Ashish Roy Pillai.

Convicted for conspiracy. Arranging finance and managing its disbursement through

co-accused, Mulchand Shah and from a firm, Tejarath International, owned by absconding accused, and brother, Ayub Memon to achieve objectives of conspiracy.

Arranged for air tickets through Altafali Mushtaqali Sayyed, East West travels for the youths who were sent for arms and ammunition training to Pakistan. Also made arrangements for their lodging and boarding.

Purchased motor vehicles which were used while planting bombs.

Requested co-accused, Amjadali Meherbux and Altafali Sayyed, to store suitcases containing arms, ammunition, hand grenades and detonators.

Essa and Yusuf Memon, brothers of Yakub

Both charged for allowing their flat in Al-Hussaini building, Mahim to be used for terrorist activities.

Essa has already spent about 12 years in prison. Yusuf is a schizophrenia patient, but has spent less than a

year in prison. For both Essa and Yusuf, the prosecution sought the death

sentence.

Rubeena her Maruti car was the first piece of evidence in the trial. The prosecution has sought a lesser sentence for her.

[edit] The Planters

Prosecution has sought the death sentence for all except Imtiaz Ghavate as he suffers from AIDS. The prosecution has sought a lesser sentence for him.

Shoiab Ghansar planted an RDX-laden scooter in Zaveri Bazaar that killed 17 and injured 57 others

He was also guilty of filling RDX in the scooter the previous night at Al-Hussaini building that killed 17 people and injured 57. He is Asghar Mukadam's cousin.

He was sentenced to death by the court on the counts of murder and participating in terrorist act [22] on July 19, 2007[23]

Asghar Mukadam planted an RDX-laden van in Plaza Cinema with Shahnawaz Qureshi that killed 10 and injured 37 others

Participated in the loading of RDX in vehicles, on March 11 Collected money from Mulchand Shah and facilitating

disbursement of money to other accused Sentenced to death on July 19, 2007. [24]

Shahnawaz Qureshi planted an RDX-laden van at Plaza Cinema with Asghar Mukadam, killing 10 and injuring 37others

Guilty of taking arms training in Pakistan via Dubai and of loading the contraband in Al-Hussaini building on March 11, 1993.

Sentenced to death on July 19, 2007. [25]

Abdul Gani Turk guilty of parking RDX-laden jeep at Century Bazaar killing 113 and injuring 227

Filling RDX in vehicles killing 113 and injuring 227 Sentenced to death on July 18, 2007. [26]

Parvez Shaikh guilty of parking a bomb in Katha Bazaar that killed four.

Guilty of planting bomb in Hotel Sea Rock, destroying property worth nine crores.

Sentenced to death on July 18, 2007. [27]

Mohammed Iqbal Mohammed Yusuf Shaikh convicted for throwing hand grenades in Sahar airport; parking an unexploded RDX-laden scooter in Naigaon

Obtaining arms training in Pakistan, loading RDX in vehicles on the night of March 11

Sentenced to death on July 20, 2007. [28]

Naseem Barmare guilty of hurling hand grenades at Sahar airport, parking unexploded scooter at Naigaum, taking training in Pakistan Mohammed Farooq Pawale planting an RDX-laden car at Air-India building killing 20 and injuring 84.

Parking an RDX-laden van near Sena Bhavan with approver killing 4 and injuring 50

Participated in arms training in Pakistan Participated in the landing of arms and ammunition at

Shekhadi Sentenced to death on July 25, 2007. [29]

Mustaq Tarani participated in a meeting at hotel Taj Mahal. He did a recce of the sites for the blasts.

Planting at Hotel Juhu Centaur injuring 3 and causing loss of property worth Rs 2.10 crore

Planting an unexploded scooter at Sheikh Memen street in Zaveri Bazaar

Sentenced to death on July 18, 2007. [30]

Imtiaz Ghavate only one who did not face death planted unexploded RDX-laden scooter at Dhanji street. He also participated in the landing of arms and ammunition at Shekhadi

[edit] Accused involvedMohammed Moin Qureshi , Feroz Amani Malik , Bashir Khairulla , Zakir Hussain and Abdul Akhtar Khan had pelted handgrendes in Mahim Causeway causing three deaths and injuring six. The driver Salim Shaikh , did not pelt any handgrenades. Bashir Khairulla convicted for his participation in arms, ammunition and explosives training conducted by Tiger Memon in Sandheri and Bhorghat

Convicted for participating in the conspirator's meetings in the house of Mubina Baya and for participating in the filling of RDX in the vehicles

Zakir Hussain was convicted for participating in the arms, ammunition and weapon training in Pakistan, for participating in conspirator's meetings and participating in the filling of RDX

Sentenced to death on July 24, 2007. [31]

Abdul Akhtar Khan convicted for taking arms, ammunition and explosives training in Pakistan.

Sentenced to death on July 24, 2007. [32]

Firoz Amani Malik convicted for taking arms, ammunition and explosives training in Pakistan

Sentenced to death on July 24, 2007. [33]

Moin Qureshi convicted for participating in the arms, ammunition and explosives training, participating in the conspirator's meeting and participating in the filling of RDX in vehicles on March 11.

Was also found guilty for being in possession of 17 handgrenades.

Sentenced to life imprisonment on July 24, 2007. [34]

[edit] Landing agentsDawood Phanse in his 60s, he is guilty of conspiracy. Guilty of organising the landing of arms and ammunition in Shekhadi; attending a conspiracy meeting in Dubai with Dawood Ibrahim Dadabhai Parkar, landing at Shekhadi, showed training camps at Sandheri and Bhor Ghat, transportation of consignment.

Acquitted of conspiracy, the prosecution has sought life imprisonment

[edit] Customs officialsS N Thapa, former additional customs collector, preventive

Accused of being Guilty of conspiracy. Convicted for getting the information about the landing at Shekhadi and that the main exit point could be in Mhasla Shrivardhan area. He is alleged to have laid a trap at Purarphata on Mhasla-Goregaon road on January 30. Besides that, his team gave up the vigil after February 2 in spite of the warnings [confessions of co-accused in TADA Court shows that landing actually took place many days after team lead by S N Thapa had left for mumbai and that the smugglers in-fact postponed the landing as they heard from sources that an ambush had been laid for them by S N Thapa]. These accusations stand to be the same even though confessions of others convicted say otherwise. To quote "He (Phanse) also confessed that the duo (Phanse and Parkar)bribed all Customs officers except for additional collector S N Thapa, who incidentally is an accused in the

case." [ http://www.rediff.com/news/2006/sep/22sheela.htm]. In the 10,000 page judgement copy provided, TADA Court judge, P.D. Kode resons that even though there is no direct or in-direct evidence against Mr. S.N. Thapa, he is awarded a term of life imprisonment because he was the seniormost customs officer and thus must be knowing about the conspiracy. Till his last days S N Thapa proclaimed his innocence and was confident that the greater conspiracy of his wrongful arrest,trial and conviction would be unveiled in the Supreme Court who, in 1994 granted him bail after going through all evidence stating that there is no direct or in-direct evidence to prove that Mr. S.N. Thapa was part in planning, landing or transportation of contraband substances nor that was he aware of any such conspiracy for blasts in mumbai. [35] [1]

S N Thapa passed away due to lung cancer on 11th April 2008. His family hopes that the supreme court will entertain their quest for the truth.

R K Singh, Former assistant commissioner of customs, convicted for facilitating RDX landing in Shekhadi after

accepting bribe of more than 7.8 lakh Rupees. Had meetings with the accused.

Mohammed Sultan, Sayyed former customs superintendent. Convicted for facilitating RDX landing in Shekhadi after

accepting bribe of more than 7.8 lakh. Had attended meetings with the accused.

Jaywant Gurav, former customs inspector. Convicted for allowing passage of RDX from Raigad to

Mumbai

S S Talwadekar, former customs superintendent. Convicted for allowing passage of RDX from Raigad to

Mumbai

[edit] PolicemenVijay Patil, ex police sub-inspector

Guilty of conspiracy and taking bribe to allow passage of RDX from Raigad to Mumbai

Has been sentenced to life imprisonment and 1 lakh rupees fine by TADA court on 22 May 2007

Ashok Muleshwar, P M Mahadik, Ramesh Mali and S Y Palshikar; all Police Constables

Guilty of allowing passage of RDX of arms from Raigad to Mumbai.

All four sentenced by TADA court to six years' imprisonment and a fine of Rs 25,000 each on May 21,2007

[edit] Sanjay Dutt and friendsSanjay Dutt, convicted and sentenced to 6 years in prison Yusuf Nulwalla, convicted for trying to destroy Sanjay's arms. He has been sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment with two years further for destroying the arms. Also, he has to pay Rs 25,000 as fine. Kersi Adajenia, convicted for trying to destroy Sanjay's arms. He has been sentence to two years rigorous imprisonment. He too has been slapped with a fine of Rs. 25,000 fine. Rusi Mulla, convicted for trying to destroy Sanjay's arms. He has been freed by the court but has to pay Rs. 1 lakh to the court. All four have been convicted under Arms Act and had applied for release under Probation of Offenders Act

[edit] OthersZaibunnisa Kadri guilty for storing AK-56 and handgrendes at the instance of Anees Ibrahim and Abu Salem, she faces a minimum of five years RI. Mansoor Ahmed convicted for carrying weapons from Sanjay Dutt's house to co-accused's house has already spent 9 years in prison Samir Hingora convicted for conspiracy [36]. For supplying 3 AK-56 rifles, its magazines and ammunition, hand grenades to Sanjay Dutt's residence at told to by Anis Ibrahim. Prosecution has sought the death sentence Ibrahim Musa Chauhan alias Baba Chauhan convicted for supplying AK-56 rifles, its magazines, ammunition, and hand grenades to Sanjay Dutt and Salim Kurla as told to by Anis Ibrahim. He was also convicted for being in unauthorised possession of one AK 56 rifles, 635 ammunition, 10 magazines, and 25 handgrenades, which were recovered by the police Ejaz Pathan extradited from Dubai in 2003, participated in Dubai meetings, provided men for landing of arms and ammunition at Shekhadi, for being in possession of arms and sending youth to Dubai for arms training. Referenced fro

terrorism Types of terrorism

Main

the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective. Terrorism has been practiced by political organizations with both rightist and leftist objectives, by nationalistic and religious groups, by revolutionaries, and even by state institutions such as armies, intelligence services, and police.

Definitions of terrorism

Definitions of terrorism are usually complex and controversial, and, because of the inherent ferocity and violence of terrorism, the term in its popular usage has developed an intense stigma. It was first coined in the 1790s to refer to the terror used during the French Revolution by the revolutionaries against their opponents. The Jacobin party of Maximilien Robespierre carried out a Reign of Terror involving mass executions by the guillotine. Although terrorism in this usage implies an act of violence by a state against its domestic enemies, since the 20th century the term has been applied most frequently to violence aimed, either directly or indirectly, at governments in an effort to influence policy or topple an existing regime.

Terrorism is not legally defined in all jurisdictions; the statutes that do exist, however, generally share some common elements. Terrorism involves the use or threat of violence and seeks to create fear, not just within the direct victims but among a wide audience. The degree to which it relies on fear distinguishes terrorism from both conventional and guerrilla warfare. Although conventional military forces invariably engage in psychological warfare against the enemy, their principal means of victory is strength of arms. Similarly, guerrilla forces, which often rely on acts of terror and other forms of propaganda, aim at military victory and occasionally succeed (e.g., the Viet Cong in Vietnam and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia). Terrorism proper is thus the systematic use of violence to generate fear, and thereby to achieve political goals, when direct military victory is not possible. This has led some social scientists to refer to guerrilla warfare as the “weapon of the weak” and terrorism as the “weapon of the weakest.”

In order to attract and maintain the publicity necessary to generate widespread fear, terrorists must engage in increasingly dramatic, violent, and high-profile attacks. These have included hijackings, hostage takings, kidnappings, car bombings, and, frequently, suicide bombings. Although apparently random, the victims and locations of terrorist attacks often are carefully selected for their shock value. Schools, shopping centres, bus and train stations, and restaurants and nightclubs have been targeted both because they attract large crowds and because they are places with which members of the civilian population are familiar and in which they feel at ease. The goal of terrorism generally is to destroy the public’s sense of security in the places most familiar to them. Major targets sometimes also include buildings or other locations that are important economic or political symbols, such as embassies or military installations. The hope of the terrorist is that the sense of terror these acts engender will induce the population to pressure political leaders toward a specific political end.

Some definitions treat all acts of terrorism, regardless of their political motivations, as simple criminal activity. For example, in the United States the standard definition used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) describes terrorism as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” The element of criminality, however, is problematic, because it does not distinguish among different political and legal systems and thus cannot account for cases in which violent attacks against a government may be legitimate. A frequently mentioned example is the African National Congress (ANC) of South Africa, which committed violent actions against that country’s apartheid government but commanded broad sympathy throughout the world. Another example is the Resistance movement against the Nazi occupation of France during World War II.

Since the 20th century, ideology and political opportunism have led a number of countries to engage in transnational terrorism, often under the guise of supporting movements of national liberation. (Hence, it became a common saying that “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”) The distinction between terrorism and other forms of political violence became blurred—particularly as many guerrilla groups often employed terrorist tactics—and issues of jurisdiction and legality were similarly obscured.

These problems have led some social scientists to adopt a definition of terrorism based not on criminality but on the fact that the victims of terrorist violence are most often innocent civilians. For example, the U.S. government eventually accepted the view that terrorism was premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets. Even this definition is flexible, however, and on occasion it has been expanded to include various other factors, such as that terrorist acts are clandestine or surreptitious, that terrorists choose their victims randomly, and that terrorist acts are intended to create an overwhelming sense of fear.

In the late 20th century, the term ecoterrorism was used to describe acts of environmental destruction committed in order to further a political goal or as an act of war, such as the burning of Kuwaiti oil wells by the Iraqi army during the Persian Gulf War. The term also was applied to certain environmentally benign though criminal acts, such as the spiking of lumber trees, intended to disrupt or prevent activities allegedly harmful to the environment.

Types of terrorism

Various attempts have been made to distinguish among types of terrorist activities. It is vital to bear in mind, however, that there are many kinds of terrorist movements, and no single theory can cover them all. Not only are the aims, members, beliefs, and resources of groups engaged in terrorism extremely diverse, but so are the political contexts of their campaigns. One popular typology identifies three broad classes of terrorism: revolutionary, subrevolutionary, and establishment terrorism. Although this typology has been criticized as inexhaustive, it provides a useful framework for understanding and evaluating terrorist activities.

Revolutionary terrorism is arguably the most common form. Practitioners of this type of terrorism seek the complete abolition of a political system and its replacement with new structures. Modern instances of such activity include campaigns by the Italian Red Brigades, the German Red Army Faction (Baader-Meinhof Gang), the Basque separatist group ETA, and the Peruvian Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso), each of which attempted to topple a national regime. Subrevolutionary terrorism is rather less common. It is used not to overthrow an existing regime but to modify the existing sociopolitical structure. Since this modification is often accomplished through the threat of deposing the existing regime, subrevolutionary groups are somewhat more difficult to identify. An example can be seen in the ANC and its campaign to end apartheid in South Africa.

Establishment terrorism, often called state or state-sponsored terrorism, is employed by governments—or more often by factions within governments—against that government’s citizens, against factions within the government, or against foreign governments or groups. This type of terrorism is very common but difficult to identify, mainly because the state’s support is always clandestine. The Soviet Union and its allies allegedly engaged in widespread support of international terrorism during the Cold War; in the 1980s the United States supported rebel groups in Africa that allegedly engaged in acts of terrorism, such as the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA); and various Muslim countries (e.g., Iran and Syria) purportedly provided logistical and financial aid to Islamic revolutionary groups engaged in campaigns against Israel, the United States, and some Muslim countries in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

The military dictatorships in Chile (1973–90) and Argentina (1976–83) committed acts of state terrorism against their own populations. The violent police states of Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union and Ṣaddām Ḥussein in Iraq are examples of countries in which one organ of the government—often either the executive branch or the intelligence establishment—engaged in widespread terror against not only the population but also other organs of the government, including the military.

The persistent element of all forms of establishment terrorism, unlike that of nonstate terrorism, is that of secrecy. States invariably seek to disavow their active complicity in such acts, both to evade international censure and to avoid political and military retribution by those they target.

History

Terror has been practiced by state and nonstate actors throughout history and throughout the world. The ancient Greek historian Xenophon (c. 431–c. 350 bc) wrote of the effectiveness of psychological warfare against enemy populations. Roman emperors such as Tiberius (reigned ad 14–37) and Caligula (reigned ad 37–41) used banishment, expropriation of property, and execution as means to discourage opposition to their rule.

The most commonly cited example of early terror, however, is the activity of the Jewish Zealots, often known as the Sicarii (Hebrew: “Daggers”), who engaged in frequent violent attacks on fellow Hebrews suspected of collusion with the Roman authorities. Likewise, the use of terror was openly advocated by Robespierre during the French Revolution, and the Spanish Inquisition used arbitrary arrest, torture, and execution to punish what it viewed as religious heresy. After the American Civil War (1861–65), defiant Southerners formed the Ku Klux Klan to intimidate supporters of Reconstruction (1865–77) and the newly freed former slaves. In the latter half of the 19th century, terror was adopted in western Europe, Russia, and the United States by adherents of anarchism, who believed that the best way to effect revolutionary political and social change was to assassinate persons in positions of power. From 1865 to 1905 a number of kings, presidents, prime ministers, and other government officials were killed by anarchists’ guns or bombs.

The 20th century witnessed great changes in the use and practice of terror. It became the hallmark of a number of political movements stretching from the extreme right to the extreme left of the political spectrum. Technological advances, such as automatic weapons and compact, electrically detonated explosives, gave terrorists a new mobility and lethality, and the growth of air travel provided new methods and opportunities. Terrorism was virtually an official policy in totalitarian states such as those of Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler and the Soviet Union under Stalin. In these states arrest, imprisonment, torture, and execution were carried out without legal guidance or restraints to create a climate of fear and to encourage adherence to the national ideology and the declared economic, social, and political goals of the state.

Terror has been used by one or both sides in anticolonial conflicts (e.g., Ireland and the United Kingdom, Algeria and France, and Vietnam and France and the United States), in disputes between different national groups over possession of a contested homeland (e.g., Palestinians and Israelis), in conflicts between different religious denominations (e.g., Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland), and in internal conflicts between revolutionary forces and established governments (e.g., in the successor states of the former Yugoslavia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Peru). In the late 20th and early 21st centuries some of the most extreme and destructive organizations that engaged in terrorism possessed a fundamentalist religious ideology (e.g., Ḥamās and al-Qaeda). Some groups, including the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and Ḥamās, adopted the tactic of suicide bombing, in which the perpetrator would attempt to destroy an important economic, military, political, or symbolic target by detonating a bomb on his person. In the latter half of the 20th century the most prominent groups using terrorist tactics were the Red Army Faction, the Japanese Red Army, the Red Brigades, the Puerto Rican FALN, Fatah and other groups related to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the Shining Path, and the Liberation Tigers.

In the late 20th century the United States suffered several acts of terrorist violence by Puerto Rican nationalists (such as the FALN), antiabortion groups, and foreign-based organizations. The 1990s witnessed some of the deadliest attacks on American soil, including the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City in 1993 and the Oklahoma City bombing two years later, which killed 168 people. In addition, there were several major terrorist attacks on U.S. government targets overseas, including military bases in Saudi Arabia (1996) and the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania (1998). In 2000 an explosion triggered by suicide bombers caused the deaths of 17 sailors aboard a U.S. naval ship, the USS Cole, in the Yemeni port of Aden.

The deadliest terrorist strikes to date were the September 11 attacks (2001), in which suicide terrorists associated with al-Qaeda hijacked four commercial airplanes, crashing two of them into the twin towers of the World Trade Center complex in New York City and the third into the Pentagon building near Washington, D.C.; the fourth plane crashed near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The crashes destroyed much of the World Trade Center complex and a large portion of one side of the Pentagon and killed more than 3,000 people.

Terrorism appears to be an enduring feature of political life. Even prior to the September 11 attacks, there was widespread concern that terrorists might escalate their destructive power to vastly greater proportions by using weapons of mass destruction—including nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons—as was done by the Japanese doomsday cult AUM Shinrikyo, which released nerve gas into a Tokyo subway in 1995. These fears were intensified after September 11, when a number of letters contaminated with anthrax were delivered to political leaders and journalists in the United States, leading to several deaths. U.S. President George W. Bush made a broad war against terrorism the centrepiece of U.S. foreign policy at the beginning of the 21st century.

John Philip Jenkins Ed.

Additional Reading

A collection of critical essays on various international movements and crises is Martha Crenshaw (ed.), Terrorism in Context (1995). A comprehensive survey of patterns of terrorism is Bruce Hoffman, Inside Terrorism (1999). Mark Juergensmeyer, Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religion’s Violence (2000), studies the relationship between religion and political violence. The relationship between politics and terrorism is explored in Grant Wardlaw, Political Terrorism: Theory, Tactics, and Counter-Measures, 2nd ed., rev. and extended (1989); and Paul Wilkinson, Terrorism and the Liberal State, 2nd ed., rev., extended, and updated (1986). Works examining trends in terrorism in the 1990s include Walter Laqueur, The New Terrorism: Fanaticism and the Arms of Mass Destruction (1999); and Richard A. Falkenrath, Robert D. Newman, and Bradley A. Thayer, America’s Achilles’ Heel: Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Terrorism and Covert Attack (1998).

John Philip Jenkins

Terrorism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search"Terrorist" redirects here. For other uses, see Terrorist (disambiguation).

Terrorism

DefinitionsHistory

International conventionsAnti-terrorism legislation

Counter-terrorismWar on Terrorism

Red TerrorWhite Terror

By ideology

CommunistEco-terrorism

NarcoterrorismNationalist

Ethnic Religious

(Christian • Islamic • Jewish)

Types and tactics

Agro-terrorismBioterrorismCar bombing

EnvironmentalAircraft hijacking

NuclearPropaganda of the deed

Proxy bombSuicide attack

State involvement

State terrorismState sponsorship

Configurations

FrontsLone wolf

Lists

Designated organizationsIncidents

v • d • e

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror.[clarification needed][1] At present, there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism.[2][3] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants.

Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence and war. The history of terrorist organizations suggests that they do not select terrorism for its political effectiveness.[4] Individual terrorists tend to be motivated more by a desire for social solidarity with other members of their organization than by political platforms or strategic objectives, which are often murky and undefined.[4] The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged,[5] and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. One 1988 study by the US Army found that over 100 definitions of the word "terrorism" have been used.[6] A person who practices terrorism is a terrorist. The concept of terrorism is itself controversial because it is often used by states to delegitimize political opponents, and thus legitimize the state's own use of terror against those opponents.

Terrorism has been used by a broad array of political organizations in furthering their objectives; both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic, and religious groups, revolutionaries and ruling governments.[7] The presence of non-state actors in widespread armed conflict has created controversy regarding the application of the laws of war.

While acts of terrorism are criminal acts as per the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 and domestic jurisprudence of almost all countries in the world, terrorism refers to a phenomenon including the actual acts, the perpetrators of acts of terrorism and their motives.

Contents

[hide] 1 Origin of term 2 Key criteria 3 Pejorative use 4 Definition in international law

5 Types o 5.1 Democracy and domestic terrorism

6 Perpetrators o 6.1 Terrorist groups o 6.2 State sponsors o 6.3 State terrorism

7 Tactics 8 Responses 9 Mass media 10 History 11 See also 12 Further reading

o 12.1 UN conventions o 12.2 News monitoring websites specializing on articles on

terrorism o 12.3 Papers and articles on global terrorism o 12.4 Papers and articles on terrorism and the United States o 12.5 Papers and articles on terrorism and Israel o 12.6 Other

13 Footnotes

Origin of term

Main article: Definition of terrorismSee also: State terrorism

"Terror" comes a Latin word meaning "to frighten". The terror cimbricus was a panic and state of emergency in Rome in response to the approach of warriors of the Cimbri tribe in 105BC. The Jacobins cited this precedent when imposing a Reign of Terror during the French Revolution. After the Jacobins lost power, the word "terrorist" became a term of abuse. Although the Reign of Terror was imposed by a government, in modern times "terrorism" usually refers to the killing of innocent people by a private group in such a way as to create a media spectacle. This meaning can be traced back to Sergey Nechayev, who described himself as a "terrorist".[8] Nechayev founded the Russian terrorist group "People's Retribution" (Народная расправа) in 1869.

In November 2004, a United Nations Security Council report described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act". (Note that this report does not constitute international law).[9]

In many countries, acts of terrorism are legally distinguished from criminal acts done for other purposes, and "terrorism" is defined by statute; see definition of terrorism for particular definitions. Common principles among legal definitions of terrorism provide an emerging consensus as to meaning and also foster cooperation between law enforcement personnel in different countries. Among these definitions there are several that do not recognize the possibility of legitimate use of violence by civilians against an invader in an occupied country and would, thus label all resistance movements as terrorist groups. Others make a distinction between lawful and unlawful use of violence. Ultimately, the distinction is a political judgment.[10]

Key criteria

Official definitions determine counter-terrorism policy, and are often developed to serve it. Most government definitions outline the following key criteria: target, objective, motive, perpetrator, and legitimacy or legality of the act. Terrorism is also often recognizable by a following statement from the perpetrators.

Violence – According to Walter Laqueur of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, "the only general characteristic of terrorism generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence". However, the criterion of violence alone does not produce a useful definition, as it includes many acts not usually considered terrorism: war, riot, organized crime, or even a simple assault. Property destruction that does not endanger life is not usually considered a violent crime, but some have described property destruction by the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front as violence and terrorism; see eco-terrorism.

Psychological impact and fear – The attack was carried out in such a way as to maximize the severity and length of the psychological impact. Each act of terrorism is a “performance” devised to have an impact on many large audiences. Terrorists also attack national symbols, to show power and to attempt to shake the foundation of the country or society they are opposed to. This may negatively affect a government, while increasing the prestige of the given terrorist organization and/or ideology behind a terrorist act.[11]

Perpetrated for a political goal – Something many acts of terrorism have in common is a political purpose. Terrorism is a political tactic, like letter-writing or protesting, which is used by activists when they believe that no other means will effect the kind of change they desire. The change is desired so badly that failure to achieve change is seen as a worse outcome than the deaths of civilians. This is often where

the inter-relationship between terrorism and religion occurs. When a political struggle is integrated into the framework of a religious or "cosmic"[12] struggle, such as over the control of an ancestral homeland or holy site such as Israel and Jerusalem, failing in the political goal (nationalism) becomes equated with spiritual failure, which, for the highly committed, is worse than their own death or the deaths of innocent civilians. One definition that that combines the key elements was developed at the George C. Marshall Center for European Security Studies by Carsten Bockstette: "Terrorism is defined as political violence in an asymmetrical conflict that is designed to induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes indiscriminate) through the violent victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols). Such acts are meant to send a message from an illicit clandestine organization. The purpose of terrorism is to exploit the media in order to achieve maximum attainable publicity as an amplifying force multiplier in order to influence the targeted audience(s) in order to reach short- and midterm political goals and/or desired long-term end states." [13]

Deliberate targeting of non-combatants – It is commonly held that the distinctive nature of terrorism lies in its intentional and specific selection of civilians as direct targets. Specifically, the criminal intent is shown when babies, children, mothers and the elderly are murdered, or injured and put in harm's way. Much of the time, the victims of terrorism are targeted not because they are threats, but because they are specific "symbols, tools, animals or corrupt beings" that tie into a specific view of the world that the terrorists possess. Their suffering accomplishes the terrorists' goals of instilling fear, getting their message out to an audience or otherwise satisfying the demands of their often radical religious and political agendas.[14]

Disguise – Terrorists almost invariably pretend to be non-combatants, hide among such non-combatants, fight from vantage points in the midst of non-combatants, and (when they can), strive to mislead and provoke the government soldiers into attacking other people, so that the government will be blamed. When an enemy is identifiable as a combatant, the word "terrorism" is rarely used.[citation needed]

Unlawfulness or illegitimacy – Some official (notably government) definitions of terrorism add a criterion of illegitimacy or unlawfulness[15]

to distinguish between actions authorized by a government (and thus "lawful") and those of other actors, including individuals and small groups. Using this criterion, actions that would otherwise qualify as terrorism would not be considered terrorism if they were government sanctioned. For example, firebombing a city, which is designed to affect civilian support for a cause, would not be considered terrorism if

it were authorized by a government. This criterion is inherently problematic and is not universally accepted, because: it denies the existence of state terrorism; the same act may or may not be classed as terrorism depending on whether its sponsorship is traced to a "legitimate" government; "legitimacy" and "lawfulness" are subjective, depending on the perspective of one government or another; and it diverges from the historically accepted meaning and origin of the term.[16][17][18][19] For these reasons, this criterion is not universally accepted; most dictionary definitions of the term do not include this criterion.

Pejorative use

The terms "terrorism" and "terrorist" (someone who engages in terrorism) carry strong negative connotations. These terms are often used as political labels, to condemn violence or the threat of violence by certain actors as immoral, indiscriminate, unjustified or to condemn an entire segment of a population.[20] Those labelled "terrorists" rarely identify themselves as such, and typically use other euphemistic terms or terms specific to their situation, such as separatist, freedom fighter, liberator, revolutionary, vigilante, militant, paramilitary, guerrilla, rebel or any similar-meaning word in other languages and cultures. Jihadi, mujaheddin, and fedayeen are similar Arabic words which have entered the English lexicon.

On the question of whether particular terrorist acts, such as murder, can be justified as the lesser evil in a particular circumstance, philosophers have expressed different views: while, according to David Rodin, utilitarian philosophers can (in theory) conceive of cases in which the evil of terrorism is outweighed by the good which could not be achieved in a less morally costly way, in practice, utilitarians often universally reject terrorism, because it is very dubious that acts of terrorism achieve significant good in a utility-efficient manner, or that the "harmful effects of undermining the convention of non-combatant immunity is thought to outweigh the goods that may be achieved by particular acts of terrorism".[21] Among the non-utilitarian philosophers, Michael Walzer argued that terrorism is always morally wrong, but at the same time, those who engaged in terrorism can be morally justified in one specific case: when "a nation or community faces the extreme threat of complete destruction and the only way it can preserve itself is by intentionally targeting non-combatants, then it is morally entitled to do so".[21]

In his book "Inside Terrorism" Bruce Hoffman wrote in Chapter One: Defining Terrorism that

"On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. 'What is called terrorism,' Brian Jenkins has written, `'thus seems to depend on one's point of view. Use of the term implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label terrorist to its opponent, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.' Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization `terrorist' becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism."[5]

The pejorative connotations of the word can be summed up in the aphorism, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". This is exemplified when a group using irregular military methods is an ally of a state against a mutual enemy, but later falls out with the state and starts to use those methods against its former ally. During World War II, the Malayan People’s Anti-Japanese Army was allied with the British, but during the Malayan Emergency, members of its successor (the Malayan Races Liberation Army), were branded "terrorists" by the British.[22][23] More recently, Ronald Reagan and others in the American administration frequently called the Afghan Mujahideen "freedom fighters" during their war against the Soviet Union,[24] yet twenty years later, when a new generation of Afghan men are fighting against what they perceive to be a regime installed by foreign powers, their attacks are labelled "terrorism" by George W. Bush.[25][26] Groups accused of terrorism understandably prefer terms reflecting legitimate military or ideological action.[27][28][29] Leading terrorism researcher Professor Martin Rudner, director of the Canadian Centre of Intelligence and Security Studies at Ottawa's Carleton University, defines "terrorist acts" as attacks against civilians for political or other ideological goals, and goes on to say:

"There is the famous statement: 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.' But that is grossly misleading. It assesses the validity of the cause when terrorism is an act. One can have a perfectly beautiful cause and yet if one commits terrorist acts, it is terrorism regardless."[30]

Some groups, when involved in a "liberation" struggle, have been called "terrorists" by the Western governments or media. Later, these same persons, as leaders of the liberated nations, are called "statesmen" by similar organizations. Two examples of this phenomenon are the Nobel Peace Prize laureates Menachem Begin and Nelson Mandela.[31][32][33][34][35][36][37]

Sometimes states which are close allies, for reasons of history, culture and politics, can disagree over whether or not members of a certain organization are terrorists. For instance, for many years, some branches of the United States government refused to label members of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) as terrorists while the IRA was using methods against one of the United States' closest allies (Britain) which Britain branded as terrorism. This was highlighted by the Quinn v. Robinson case.[38][39]

Often, the terms "terrorism" and "extremism" are interchangeably used. However, there is a significant difference between the two: "terrorism" is essentially the threat or act of physical violence; "extremism" involves using non-physical instruments to mobilise minds to achieve political or ideological ends. For instance, Al Qaeda is involved in terrorism. The Iranian revolution of 1979 is a case of extremism[citation needed]. A global research report An Inclusive World (2007) asserts that extremism will pose a more serious threat than terrorism in the decades to come.

For these and other reasons, media outlets wishing to preserve a reputation for impartiality are extremely careful in their use of the term.[40][41]

Definition in international law

There are several International conventions on terrorism with somewhat different definitions.[42] The United Nations sees this lack of agreement as a serious problem.[42]

Types

In the spring of 1975, the Law Enforcement Assistant Administration in the United States formed the National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals. One of the five volumes that the committee was entitled Disorders and Terrorism, produced by the Task Force on Disorders and Terrorism under the direction H.H.A. Cooper, Director of the Task Force staff.[43] The Task Force classified terrorism into six categories.

Civil Disorders – A form of collective violence interfering with the peace, security, and normal functioning of the community.

Political Terrorism – Violent criminal behaviour designed primarily to generate fear in the community, or substantial segment of it, for political purposes.

Non-Political Terrorism – Terrorism that is not aimed at political purposes but which exhibits “conscious design to create and maintain high degree of fear for coercive purposes, but the end is individual or collective gain rather than the achievement of a political objective.”

Quasi-Terrorism – The activities incidental to the commission of crimes of violence that are similar in form and method to genuine terrorism but which nevertheless lack its essential ingredient. It is not the main purpose of the quasi-terrorists to induce terror in the immediate victim as in the case of genuine terrorism, but the quasi-terrorist uses the modalities and techniques of the genuine terrorist and produces similar consequences and reaction. For example, the fleeing felon who takes hostages is a quasi-terrorist, whose methods are similar to those of the genuine terrorist but whose purposes are quite different.

Limited Political Terrorism – Genuine political terrorism is characterized by a revolutionary approach; limited political terrorism refers to “acts of terrorism which are committed for ideological or political motives but which are not part of a concerted campaign to capture control of the State.

Official or State Terrorism –"referring to nations whose rule is based upon fear and oppression that reach similar to terrorism or such proportions.” It may also be referred to as Structural Terrorism defined broadly as terrorist acts carried out by governments in pursuit of political objectives, often as part of their foreign policy.

In an analysis prepared for U.S. Intelligence[44] four typologies are mentioned.

Nationalist-Separatist Religious Fundamentalist New Religious Social Revolutionary

Democracy and domestic terrorism

The relationship between domestic terrorism and democracy is complex. Such terrorism is most common in nations with intermediate political freedom and that the nations with the least terrorism are the

most democratic nations.[45][46][47][48] However, one study suggests that suicide terrorism may be an exception to this general rule. Evidence regarding this particular method of terrorism reveals that every modern suicide campaign has targeted a democracy- a state with a considerable degree of political freedom. The study suggests that concessions awarded to terrorists during the 1980s and 1990s for suicide attacks increased their frequency.[49]

Some examples of "terrorism" in non-democracies include ETA in Spain under Francisco Franco, the Shining Path in Peru under Alberto Fujimori, the Kurdistan Workers Party when Turkey was ruled by military leaders and the ANC in South Africa. Democracies, such as the United States, Israel, and the Philippines, also have experienced domestic terrorism.

While a democratic nation espousing civil liberties may claim a sense of higher moral ground than other regimes, an act of terrorism within such a state may cause a perceived dilemma: whether to maintain its civil liberties and thus risk being perceived as ineffective in dealing with the problem; or alternatively to restrict its civil liberties and thus risk delegitimizing its claim of supporting civil liberties. This dilemma, some social theorists would conclude, may very well play into the initial plans of the acting terrorist(s); namely, to delegitimize the state.[50]

Perpetrators

Acts of terrorism can be carried out by individuals, groups, or states. According to some definitions, clandestine or semi-clandestine state actors may also carry out terrorist acts outside the framework of a state of war. However, the most common image of terrorism is that it is carried out by small and secretive cells, highly motivated to serve a particular cause and many of the most deadly operations in recent times, such as 9/11, the London underground bombing, and the 2002 Bali bombing were planned and carried out by a close clique, composed of close friends, family members and other strong social networks. These groups benefited from the free flow of information and efficient Telecommunications to succeed where others had failed.[51] Over the years, many people have attempted to come up with a terrorist profile to attempt to explain these individuals' actions through their psychology and social circumstances. Others, like Roderick Hindery, have sought to discern profiles in the propaganda tactics used by terrorists.

It has been found that a "terrorist" will look, dress, and behave like a normal person, such as a university student, until he or she executes

the assigned mission. Terrorist profiling based on personality, physical, or sociological traits would not appear to be particularly useful. The physical and behavioral description of the terrorist could describe almost any normal young person.[52]

Terrorist groupsMain articles: List of designated terrorist organizations and Lone wolf (terrorism)

State sponsorsMain article: State-sponsored terrorism

A state can sponsor terrorism by funding or harboring a terrorist organization. Opinions as to which acts of violence by states consist of state-sponsored terrorism or not vary widely. When states provide funding for groups considered by some to be terrorist, they rarely acknowledge them as such.

State terrorismMain article: State terrorism

“ Civilization is based on a clearly defined and widely accepted yet often unarticulated hierarchy. Violence done by those higher on the hierarchy to those lower is nearly always invisible, that is, unnoticed. When it is noticed, it is fully rationalized. Violence done by those lower on the hierarchy to those higher is unthinkable, and when it does occur is regarded with shock, horror, and the fetishization of the victims. ”

  — Derrick Jensen [53]

The concept of state terrorism is controversial.[54] Military actions by states during war are usually not considered terrorism, even when they involve significant civilian casualties.[citation needed] The Chairman of the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Committee has stated that the Committee was conscious of the 12 international Conventions on the subject, and none of them referred to State terrorism, which was not an international legal concept. If States abused their power, they should be judged against international conventions dealing with war crimes, international human rights and international humanitarian law.[4] Former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said that it is "time to set aside debates on so-called 'state terrorism'. The use of force by states is already thoroughly regulated under international law"[55] However, he also made clear that, "...regardless of the differences between governments on the question of definition of terrorism, what is clear and what we can all agree on is any deliberate

attack on innocent civilians, regardless of one's cause, is unacceptable and fits into the definition of terrorism."[56]

State terrorism has been used to refer to terrorist acts by governmental agents or forces. This involve the use of state resources employed by a state's foreign policies, such as the using its military to directly perform acts of considered to be state terrorism. Professor of Political Science, Michael Stohl cites the examples that include Germany’s bombing of London and the U.S. atomic destruction of Hiroshima during World War II. He argues that “the use of terror tactics is common in international relations and the state has been and remains a more likely employer of terrorism within the international system than insurgents." They also cite the First strike option as an example of the "terror of coercive dipolomacy" as a form of this, which holds the world "hostage,' with the implied threat of using nuclear weapons in "crisis management." They argue that the institutionalized form of terrorism has occurred as a result of changes that took place following World War ll. In this analysis, state terrorism exhibited as a form of foreign policy was shaped by the presence and use of weapons of mass destruction, and that the legitimizing of such violent behavior led to an increasingly accepted form of this state behavior. (Michael Stohl, “The Superpowers and International Terror” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, Atlanta, March 27-April 1, 1984;"Terrible beyond Endurance? The Foreign Policy of State Terrorism." 1988;The State as Terrorist: The Dynamics of Governmental Violence and Repression, 1984 P49).

State terrorism has also been used to describe peace time actions by governmental agents or forces, such as the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 flight. Charles Stewart Parnell described William Gladstones Irish Coercion Act as Terrorism in his "no-Rent manifesto" in 1881, during the Irish Land War.[5] The concept is also used to describe political repressions by governments against their own civilian population with the purpose to incite fear. For example, taking and executing civilian hostages or extrjuducial elimination campaigns are commonly considered "terror" or terrorism, for example during Red Terror or Great Terror.[57] Such actions are often also described as democide which has been argued to be equivalent to state terrorism.[58] Empirical studies on this have found that democracies have little democide.[59][60]

Tactics

Main article: Tactics of terrorism

Terrorism is a form of asymmetric warfare, and is more common when direct conventional warfare either cannot be (due to differentials in available forces) or is not being used to resolve the underlying conflict.

The context in which terrorist tactics are used is often a large-scale, unresolved political conflict. The type of conflict varies widely; historical examples include:

Secession of a territory to form a new sovereign state Dominance of territory or resources by various ethnic groups Imposition of a particular form of government Economic deprivation of a population Opposition to a domestic government or occupying army

Terrorist attacks are often targeted to maximize fear and publicity. They usually use explosives or poison, but there is also concern about terrorist attacks using weapons of mass destruction. Terrorist organizations usually methodically plan attacks in advance, and may train participants, plant "undercover" agents, and raise money from supporters or through organized crime. Communication may occur through modern telecommunications, or through old-fashioned methods such as couriers.

Responses

Main article: Responses to terrorism

Responses to terrorism are broad in scope. They can include re-alignments of the political spectrum and reassessments of fundamental values. The term counter-terrorism has a narrower connotation, implying that it is directed at terrorist actors.

Specific types of responses include:

Targeted laws, criminal procedures, deportations, and enhanced police powers

Target hardening, such as locking doors or adding traffic barriers Pre-emptive or reactive military action Increased intelligence and surveillance activities Pre-emptive humanitarian activities More permissive interrogation and detention policies Official acceptance of torture as a valid tool

Mass media

Media exposure may be a primary goal of those carrying out terrorism, to expose issues that would otherwise be ignored by the media. Some consider this to be manipulation and exploitation of the media.[61] Others consider terrorism itself to be a symptom of a highly controlled mass media, which does not otherwise give voice to alternative viewpoints, a view expressed by Paul Watson who has stated that controlled media is responsible for terrorism, because "you cannot get your information across any other way". Paul Watson's organization Sea Shepherd has itself been branded "eco-terrorist", although it claims to have not caused any casualties.

The mass media will often censor organizations involved in terrorism (through self-restraint or regulation) to discourage further terrorism. However, this may encourage organisations to perform more extreme acts of terrorism to be shown in the mass media.

There is always a point at which the terrorist ceases to manipulate the media gestalt. A point at which the violence may well escalate, but beyond which the terrorist has become symptomatic of the media gestalt itself. Terrorism as we ordinarily understand it is innately media-related.

—Novelist William Gibson[62]

History

Number of terrorist incidents 2008Main article: History of terrorism

The term "terrorism" was originally used to describe the actions of the Jacobin Club during the "Reign of Terror" in the French Revolution. "Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible," said Jacobin leader Maximilien Robespierre. In 1795, Edmund Burke denounced the Jacobins for letting "thousands of those hell hounds called terrorists" loose upon the people of France.

In January 1858, Italian patriot Felice Orsini threw three bombs in an attempt to assassinate French Emperor Napoleon III.[63] Eight bystanders were killed and 142 injured.[63] The incident played a crucial role as an inspiration for the development of the early Russian terrorist

groups.[63] Russian Sergey Nechayev, who founded People's Retribution in 1869, described himself as a "terrorist", an early example of the term being employed in its modern meaning.[8] Nechayev's story is told in fictionalized form by Fyodor Dostoevsky in the novel The Possessed. German anarchist writer Johann Most dispensed "advice for terrorists" in the 1880s.[64]

List of hijacking of Indian aeroplanes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search

1971 January 30 : An Indian Airlines plane on its way from Srinagar to Jammu was hijacked by Hashim Quereshi and Ashraf Quereshi of the JKLF, who took it to Lahore. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, then Foreign Minister of Pakistan rushed to Lahore and met the hijackers and helped them get maximum international publicity. On February 1, he persuaded them to release the crew and passengers who were then sent by road to Amritsar. The Government of India sought permission of Pakistan to send a replacement crew to fly the aircraft back to India. Pakistan authorities denied the permission. Instead it is alleged they supplied petrol to the hijackers with which they burnt the aircraft on February 2. From Lahore Airport the hijackers were taken into a procession as heroes.

1981 September 29 : An Indian airlines plane on flight from Srinagar to Delhi is hijacked and taken to Lahore. Pakistan took commando action and got all passengers released.

1982 August 22: A lone militant, armed with a pistol and a hand grenade, hijacked a Boeing 737 on a scheduled flight from Bombay to New Delhi carrying 69 persons. Indian security forces killed the hijacker and rescued all passengers.

1982 August: An Indian Airlines flight from Jodhpur to Delhi was hijacked. The hijacked plane landed at Amritsar.

1984 July 6 : An Indian Airlines jet carrying 255 passengers and a crew of nine on flight from Srinagar to New Delhi was hijacked and forced to land in Lahore ,Pakistan.The hijackers were reported to be armed with pistols, daggers and explosives. The

hijackers' surrender to Pakistan authorities ended a 17- hour ordeal for the plane's passengers and crew, who remained aboard the A-300 Airbus in suffocating heat, with little food and water.

1984 August 24: Seven young hijackers demanded an Indian Airlines jetliner, on a domestic flight from Chandigarh to Srinagar with 100 passengers on board ,be flown to the United States. The plane was taken to Lahore and then to Karachi and finally to Dubai where the defense minister of UAE negotiated the release of the passengers. It was related to the secessionist struggle in the Indian state of Punjab.The hijacker was subsequently repatriated by UAE authorities to India, who handed over the pistol recovered from the hijacker. Investigations revealed that the pistol was manufactured in Germany and was part of 75 pistols consigned from Germany to CAO, PO Box 1040, Islamabad.The Pakistani Foreign Ministry denied the accusation.

1993 April 24: Indian Airlines aircraft bound for Srinagar via Jammu from Delhi is hijacked . The hijacker wanted to take the plane to Lahore but Pakistan authorities refused permission. The plane landed at Amritsar where the hijacker was killed and passengers freed.

1999-2000: Indian Airlines Flight 814 flying from Kathmandu is hijacked and diverted it to Kandahar. After a week-long stand-off India agrees to release three jailed Kashmiri militants in exchange for the hostages. 1 hostage was stabbed to death and his body thrown on the tarmac as a "warning attack"

Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search

The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, commonly known as TADA, was an Indian law active between 1985 and 1995 (modified in 1987) for the prevention of terrorist activities in Punjab. It was renewed in 1989, 1991 and 1993 before being allowed to lapse in 1995 due to increasing unpopularity due to widespread allegations of abuse. The drawback was that it didn't provide a definition of the term 'terrorist'. The Act does not define the term 'terrorist'. It presumed that the accused was guilty. It had a conviction rate of less than 1% despite

the fact that, under criminal law, a confession before a police officer, even though being given under torture, was admissible as evidence in court. A special court known as TADA court was set up to hear the cases and deliver judgements pertaining to 1993 Bombay bombings

Prevention of Terrorist Activities Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search"POTA" redirects here. For other uses, see POTA (disambiguation).

The Prevention of Terrorist Activities Act (POTA) was an anti-terrorism legislation enacted by the Parliament of India in 2002. The act replaced the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO) of 2001 and was supported by the governing National Democratic Alliance. The act was repealed in 2004 by the United Progressive Alliance coalition.

Contents

[hide] 1 Purpose 2 Repeal 3 Prominent POTA cases 4 References

5 External links

[edit] Purpose

The act provided the legal framework to strengthen administrative rights to fight terrorism within the country of India and was to be applied against any persons and acts covered by the provisions within the act. It was not meant as a substitute for action under ordinary criminal laws.

The act defined what a terrorist act and a terrorist is and grants special powers to the investigating authorities described under the act. To ensure certain powers were not misused and human rights violations would not take place, specific safeguards were built into the act.[1] Under the new law detention of a suspect for up to 180 days without the filing of charges in court was permitted. It also allowed law enforcement agencies to withhold the identities of witnesses and treat a confession made to the police as an admission of guilt. Under regular

Indian law, a person can deny such confessions in court, but not under POTA.[2]

[edit] Repeal

Once the Act became law there surfaced many reports of the law being grossly abused. Human rights and civil liberty groups fought against it. The use of the Act became one of the issues during the 2004 election. The United Progressive Alliance government of India committed to repealing the act as part of their campaigning. On October 7, 2004, the Union Cabinet approved the repeal of POTA.[3]

[edit] Prominent POTA cases

Vaiko, a prominent Tamil politician, was controversially arrested under the POTA for his support to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.

After the Mumbai Blasts of August 2003, three suspects were arrested under the POTA act.[1]. The act was repealed the following year in 2004. In July 2006, a series of train bombings occurred in Mumbai. In late November 2008, Mumbai was hit with the worst terrorist attack in recent Indian history. This has led some people to question the wisdom of repealing POTA, as there has been an escalation of terrorist attacks of worsening magnitudes.[4]

S.A.R. Geelani, a lecturer at Delhi University, was sentenced to death by a special POTA court for his alleged role in the 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament. He was later acquitted on appeal by the Delhi Bench of the High Court on a legal technicality.[5]

Syed Ali Shah Geelani, the leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami group, arrested under POTA.

Raghuraj Pratap Singh, a.k.a Raja Bhaiya, a mobster and Member of the Legislative Assembly of Kunda, India was arrested on the orders of then Chief Minister, Mayawati Kumari. He was sent to jail under POTA.

History of anti-terrorism laws in India.Terrorism has immensely affected India. The reasons for terrorism in India may vary vastly from religious to geographical to caste to history. The Indian Supreme Court took a note of it in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab [1994] 3 SCC 569, where it observed that the country has been in the firm grip of spiraling terrorist violence and is caught between

deadly pangs of disruptive activities. Apart from many skirmishes in various parts of the country, there were countless serious and horrendous events engulfing many cities with blood-bath, firing, looting, mad killing even without sparing women and children and reducing those areas into a graveyard, which brutal atrocities have rocked and shocked the whole nation Deplorably, determined youths lured by hard-core criminals and underground extremists and attracted by the ideology of terrorism are indulging in committing serious crimes against the humanity.

Anti-terrorism laws in India have always been a subject of much controversy. One of the arguments is that these laws stand in the way of fundamental rights of citizens guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. The anti-terrorist laws have been enacted before by the legislature and upheld by the judiciary though not without reluctance. The intention was to enact these statutes and bring them in force till the situation improves. The intention was not to make these drastic measures a permanent feature of law of the land. But because of continuing terrorist activities, the statutes have been reintroduced with requisite modifications.

At present, the legislations in force to check terrorism in India are the National Security Act, 1980 and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. There have been other anti-terrorism laws in force in this country a different points in time. Earlier, the following laws had been in force to counter and curb terrorism. The first law made in independent India to deal with terrorism and terrorist activities that came into force on 30 Dec 1967 was

- The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967The UAPA was designed to deal with associations and activities that questioned the territorial integrity of India. When the Bill was debated in Parliament, leaders, and cutting across party affiliation, insisted that its ambit be so limited that the right to association remained unaffected and that the executive did not expose political parties to intrusion. So, the ambit of the Act was strictly limited to meeting the challenge to the territorial integrity of India. The Act was a self-contained code of provisions for declaring secessionist associations as unlawful, adjudication by a tribunal, control of funds and places of work of unlawful associations, penalties for their members etc. The Act has all along been worked holistically as such and is completely within the purview of the central list in the 7th Schedule of the Constitution.

- Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA)The second major act came into force on 3 September 1987 was The Terrorist & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1987 this act had

much more stringent provisions then the UAPA and it was specifically designed to deal with terrorist activities in India. When TADA was enacted it came to be challenged before the Apex Court of the country as being unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of India upheld its constitutional validity on the assumption that those entrusted with such draconic statutory powers would act in good faith and for the public good in the case of Kartar Singh vs State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569. However, there were many instances of misuse of power for collateral purposes. The rigorous provisions contained in the statute came to be abused in the hands of law enforcement officials. TADA lapsed in 1995. Other major Anti-terrorist law in India is The Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 which was enforced on 24th April 1999. This law was specifically made to deal with rising organized crime in Maharashtra and specially in Mumbai due to the underworld. For instance, the definition of a terrorist act is far more stretchable in MCOCA than under POTA. For, POTA did not take note of organised crime as such while MCOCA not only mentions that but, what is more, includes `promotion of insurgency' as a terrorist act. Again, the onus to prove a person guilty under POTA lies on the prosecution while under the Maharashtra law a person is presumed guilty unless he is able to prove his innocence. MCOCA does not stipulate prosecution of police officers found guilty of its misuse. But POTA did.

The need of POTA.It is normally said that terrorism is a low intensity war. But the loss, which our country has suffered in the last two decades due to the rise of terrorist activities, has been on a very large scale. This country has fought four high intensity wars and in those wars we have lost more then 6000 people. We have already lost more then 70000 civilians. In addition, we have lost more then 9000 security personnel. Almost six lakh people in this country have become homeless as a result of terrorism. Outside the expenditure on our armed forces, merely for maintaining the entire set up to fight insurgency, to fight cross-border terrorism, the economic cost itself has been Rs 45000 crore. The budgetary increase itself in the last 15 years, because of terrorism or anti-insurgency activities, has been 26 times. We have no record of the explosives that have been used in various parts of the country. We have a record of crime. But the explosives that have been confiscated by our security agencies weigh 48000 kilos. If our security forces had not been vigilant enough to confiscate these explosives, they would probably have been enough to take care of every inch of Indian soil.

What are the regions that are affected: It is not only Kashmir; Punjab too has suffered. Also Mumbai, Delhi and other regions of the country

like the North East. Development has suffered, the economy has suffered. You have now a brand of Maoist terrorism; People's War Group and other groups. A large part of Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Chattisgarh and Jharkhand right up to the Nepal border is affected. We had insurgency and terrorism in Tamil Nadu. We lost two of our former prime ministers to this kind of terrorism.

In terms of our sovereignty, unity and integrity and our feeling of nationalism, terrorism strikes at each one of them. This is the enormity of the problem that we are addressing. But it is also said that our criminal law systems have broken down; it seems to be a sad fact to accept. Are we aware of the conviction rate under the so-called ordinary laws- At times we try and conceal the figures and say that in India the conviction rate is 40%. But that 40% is actually a camouflage because every time there is a challan and somebody pays Rs 100 as fine, it is recorded as a conviction. Every time somebody feels guilty and pays a fine under company law, we take it as a conviction and then claim that the conviction rate is 40%. In heinous crimes like murder, the conviction rate under the so-called normal processes has come down to 6.5%. There are several reasons for this. One is that when we deal with hardened criminals, some of our old notions of criminal law have to change. It is a sad reality that crime in India has become a low risk business. It is a high profit business with a 93% probability that you can commit a hard crime and get away with it.

So it becomes very necessary in a country like India that if a law regarding terrorism is enacted it should be made so stringent that the culprit be bought to book and does not go scot-free just because of the loopholes and lacunaes in the ordinary law because when our neighboring nation Pakistan which is the cause of perpetrating terrorism in India and can have such stringent laws why can not we have such laws.

Analysis of some important sections of Pota-In the case of People's Union for Civil Liberties Vs. Union of India (UOI) (2004) 9 SCC 580 the constitutional validity of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 was discussed. The court said that the Parliament possesses power under Article 248 and entry 97 of list I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India to legislate the Act. Need for the Act is a matter of policy and the court cannot go into the same. Once legislation is passed, the Govt. has an obligation to exercise all available options to prevent terrorism within the bounds of the constitution. Mere possibility of abuse cannot be a ground for denying the vesting of powers or for declaring a statute unconstitutionally.

Court upheld the constitutional validity of the various provisions of the Act.

1.Section 3(a) Defining terrorist act- Whoever with the intent of threatening the unity, integrity, security and sovereignty of India or strike terror in the minds of people or any section of the people does any act or thing by using dynamite or explosive substances or inflammable substance or firearms or other lethal weapon or poisonous or noxious gases or other chemical or any substance of a hazardous nature in such a manner as to cause death or injuries to any person or loss or damage to property or disruption of any supplies or services essential for life.

Case Law- Devender Pal Singh Vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi 2002 (1) SC (Cr.) 209 In a case where 9 person had died and several other injured on account of perpetrated acts The court said that such terrorist who have no respect for human life and people are killed due to there mindless killing. So any compassion to such person would frustrate the purpose of enactment of Tada and would amount to misplaced and unwarranted sympathy. Thus they should be given death sentence.

Argument against- trade union activity would be affected because whoever disrupts essential supplies would be covered under POTA.Argument in favor- at least our trade union leaders are nationalist leaders. Nobody has ever suggested that when our trade union leaders go on strike, they threaten the unity, integrity, security and sovereignty of India.

2. Section 4 Possession of certain unauthorized arms- Where any person is in unauthorized possession of any- bombs, dynamite or hazardous explosive substance or other lethal weapons capable of mass destruction or biological or chemical substances of warfare in any area, whether notified or not.

Case Law- Sanjay Duttt Vs. State through C.B.I 1994 SCC 410 The expression possession though that of section 5 of Tada has been stated to mean a conscious possession introducing thereby involvement of a mental element i.e. conscious possession & not mere custody without awareness of nature of such possession and as regards unauthorized means and regards without any authority of law.

Argument against - That an offence coming under the Arms Act has been brought under POTA, irrespective of whether a person carrying such arms has any nexus with a terrorist.

Argument in favour - Firstly the section clearly says that any person who has unauthorized possession of arms that is does not possess a proper license for the arms. This section is only making the law stringent by stating that anybody who possesses arms should also possess proper license from the proper authority.

Secondly it also states weapons should be capable of mass destruction or biological or chemical substances of warfare so why would any person without any reason possess such kind of weapons and that to unauthorized

3. Section 7 Powers of investigating officers - If any officer (not below the rank of SP) investigating an offence committed under this act, has reason to believe that any property in relation to which an investigation is being conducted represents proceeds of terrorism he shall with prior approval in writing from Director General of Police of which the property is situated can make an order to seize or attach such property.

Argument against - The petition articulates the fear that permitting a police officer to act on the basis of his belief will be "draconian and unguided.

Argument in favour - Case Law - T.T. Anthony Vs. State of Kerala 2001 Cri LJ 3329 This plenary power of police to investigate a cognizable offence is not unlimited. It is subject to certain limitations such as if no cognizable offence is disclosed & still more if no offence of any kind is disclosed the police would have no authority to undertake an investigation.

4. Section 21 Offence relating to support given to a terrorist organisation-(1) A person commits an offence if (a) He invites support for a terrorist organization , and (b) The support is not , or is not restricted to, the provisions of money or other property

(2) A person commits an offence if he arranges, manages or assists in managing or arranging a meeting which he knows is-(a) to support a terrorist organization, or(b) to further the activities of a terrorist organization , or(c) to be addressed by a person who belongs or professes to belong to a terrorist organization.

(3) A person commits an offence if he addresses a meeting for the purpose of arranging support for a terrorist organization or to further its activities.

Case Law - Vaiko's Case One of the petitions in this regard admitted by the Supreme Court has been filed by Vaiko, the general secretary of the (MDMK), a constituent of the ruling National Democratic Alliance at the Centre. Vaiko had defended POTA in Parliament during the debate on it. Therefore his petition challenging the validity of Section 21 of the Act assumes particular significance. Under this Section, a person commits an offence if he invites support for a terrorist organisation, and even if the support is not confined to the provision of money or other property. He is guilty if he arranges or addresses a meeting which he knows is meant to support a terrorist organization or to further its activities. Vaiko was arrested under this Section on the basis of certain remarks saying that "I was a supporter of LTTE once. I was a supporter of LTTE yesterday; I am a supporter of LTTE today and I will be a supporter of LTTE tomorrow." Then, he asked his audience whether the LTTE had engaged in terrorism for the sake of violence or had taken up arms to suppress a culture. Mr. Vaiko, was in detention for 17 months, did not choose to seek bail on a matter of principle.

When we looked at various chapters internationally, it was found that as far as membership of a terrorist group is concerned, the British law has an exclusive chapter on banning terrorist organizations. After banning a terrorist organization, membership of a terrorist organisation, ipso facto, becomes a punishable act.

5. Section 22- Fund raising for a terrorist organization to be an offence-(1) Whoever commits an offence if he-(a) invites, receives or provides money or other property (b) intends that it should be used, or has reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used, for the purposes of terrorism. The second component that was not there in TADA is, if you try and earn money through a crime, that is, through terrorism, there are two offences which flow out of that. Whoever funds terrorism is also held guilty. By funding terrorism you are abetting terrorism. You are giving resources to terrorism. The old terrorist laws the world over never had a chapter on funding of terrorists. But now you must create a fear and scare in the minds of those who fund terrorists.

What you earn out of crime is not your private property, it is against public interest and must belong to the state. The UN passed a draft Money Laundering Bill which all of us have been debating. The whole concept of money laundering is that profits out of crime must be

confiscated because they cannot belong to an individual. Is it the argument today that since India is now to have a provision where profits from terrorism will be confiscated, it is a draconian provision.

6. Section 27 Powers to direct for samples, etc.- when a police officer investigating a case requests a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to obtain hand writing, footprints, photographs, blood, saliva, semen, hair, voice of any accused person reasonably suspected to be involved in the commission of this act it will be lawful for the judge to give such orders as the case may be. If any accused person refuses to give such samples the court shall draw adverse inference against the accused. Case Law - S. Srinivasa Vs. M/s Deccan Petroleum Ltd. 2001 Cri LJ 659 The court said where the order of refusal to issue summons for production of document was prejudicial to accused then such order is not sustainable. The most important part of the section says that the power to take samples is not given to the police authorities but when a police officer investigating a case requests a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to obtain samples of any accused person reasonably suspected to be involved in the commission of this act and then if only the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate gives the order to obtain such samples its only then he can force the accused to give such samples. If any accused person refuses to give such samples the court shall only then draw adverse inference against the accused.

7.Section 32 Certain confessions made to police officers taken into consideration - A confession made by a person before a police officer not lower in rank than a S.P. and recorded by him out of which sound or images could be reproduced shall be admissible in trial of such person for the offence under this act. Case Law - Devender Pal Singh Vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi 2002 (1) SC (Cr.) 209 The court said that it is entirely to the court trying the offence to decide the question of admissibility or reliability of a confession in its judicial wisdom strictly adhering to law it must while so deciding the question should satisfy itself that there was no trap. No track and no importance seeking evidence during the custodial interrogations and all the conditions recquired are fulfilled. If the court is satisfied then the confessional statement will be a part of the statement.

Confessions could be made admissible evidence. In respect of confessions, we have given the facility of video recording. After that, within 48 hours, the person should be produced before a magistrate. The magistrate will ask whether it was voluntary or not. If the accused says that it was not voluntary, that he had been assaulted and coerced, the magistrate will have a medical examination done. So, a safeguard has been put in.

State (N.C.T. of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru (2005) 11 SCC 600 this was an appeal against convictions in view of attacks made on parliament. The matter was relating to admissibility and evidentiary value of evidence that retracted confessions cannot be acted upon by Court unless it is voluntary and can be corroborated by other evidence. Confession of accused can be used against co-accused only if there is sufficient evidence pointing to his guilt confession made under POTA cannot be used against co-accused as POTA operates independently of Indian Evidence Act and Indian Penal Code. Section 10 of Evidence Act has no applicability as confessionary statement has not been relied on for rendering conviction.

Admissibility of intercepted phone calls, intercepted phone calls are admissible piece of evidence under ordinary laws even though provisions of POTA cannot be invoked as it presupposes investigation to be set in motion on date of its interception. Impact of procedural safeguards under POTA on confession. Confession made involuntary is inadmissible evidence. If procedural safeguards have not been complied it will affect admissibility and evidentiary value of evidence being proved all charges beyond reasonable doubt convictions were upheld.

8. Section 45 Admissibility of evidence collected through the interception of communication (1) Notwithstanding anything in the code or in any other law for the time being in force the evidence collected through the interception of wire, electeronic or oral communication shall be admissible as evidence against the accused in the court during the trial of a case.

It is said that TADA was misused. Probably it was misused. I would like to point out that one of the great weaknesses in TADA  a structural defect  was its dependence on witnesses; eyewitnesses and humble citizens appearing against terrorist groups. Anybody from Punjab, Mumbai or Kashmir will testify that the average citizen is scared of coming and honestly deposing before these institutions. This is a threat that the witnesses face against terrorist acts. So how can a normal person be able to give a statement before the court

So there is a need bring in a provision that when terrorist gangs communicate with each other, intercepts of their communication should be allowed and these intercepts should become admissible evidence in court. So, when you arrest terrorists, you do not need a humble citizen to come and give evidence against them. You produce the recording of that intercept. At that moment, it becomes admissible evidence. Under normal law it is not admissible evidence. We examined the suggestion

and accepted it. One of the strengths of this law is actually on the question of intercepts becoming admissible evidence. It is one reason why in Maharashtra, the conviction rate has reached 75% plus under MOCA.

9. Bail provision This language of a bail provision, the CrPC normal bail provisions, will not apply: ?That no person will be released on bail unless the public prosecutor has an opportunity or where he opposes the application, there is a reasonable opportunity of believing that the person is innocent and shall not commit an offence. This was the language under TADA.

The language was diluted under POTA.10. Action against police officer .There is a provision that in case any police officer misuses this law for his own personal purposes or for collateral reasons, he will be prosecuted under POTA itself. Several safeguards have been incorporated in the Act to minimize the possibility of its misuse. Some of the main safeguards are as follows:(i) Investigation of an offence under the Act is to be done by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.(ii) No court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act unless sanction of the State.(iii) The Act provides safeguards against abuse of the provision relating to admissibility of confession made before a police officer.(iv) Intimation of arrest of the accused will have to be provided to a family member immediately after arrest and this fact is to be recorded by the police officer.(v) Provision for prosecution of police officers for malafide actions under the Act and compensation to affected persons in such cases.

The State Government/UT Administrations were advised to ensure that the provisions of this law are used only against the terrorists and not against the innocent. They were also advised to sensitize the police officers and others concerned with the implementation of POTA on the need to ensure its fair and transparent operation and to also install a mechanism to oversee the implementation of the Act.

MCOCA does not stipulate prosecution of police officers found guilty of its misuse. But POTA did. Under POTA a police officer found guilty of malafide action could be jailed for up to two years but MCOCA offers no such protection. Finally the law extended to the state of J&K unlike other laws.

Consequences of repeal of POTA-Finally on September 17, 2004 the Union Cabinet in keeping with the UPA government's Common Minimum Programme, approved

ordinances to repeal the controversial Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 and amend the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. By the promulgation of 1.Ordinance No.1 of 2004, it repealed POTA, a law specially designed to deal with the menace of terrorism with its repeal, the state apparatus combating terrorism has been debilitated.

2. By Ordinance No 2 promulgated on the same day, virtually all the penal provisions of Pota concerning terrorist organisations and activities were transferred to the pre-existing milder sounding Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). By Ordinance No 2, the definition of unlawful association has been expanded to also include any association which has for its object any activity which is punishable under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, or which encourages or aids persons to undertake any such activity, or of which the members undertake any such activity. Section 153A is about promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc.

3. There would be no arrests made after the ordinance is promulgated.

4. Among the special provisions dropped are those restricting release on bail and allowing longer periods of police remand for the accused. Now suspected terrorists may roam free under the bail a rule, jail an exception dictum. The police will not get sufficient time to interrogate the accused to investigate the cases which, by their very nature, are complex. In Pota, as in Tada earlier, confessions made before a police officer of the rank of superintendent were admitted as evidence.

5. All terrorist organizations banned under POTA would continue to remain banned, under the Unlawful Activities Act, after the repeal of the Act.

6. Some of the clauses contained in POTA, which will be completely dropped in the amended Unlawful Activities Act, are: the onus on the accused to prove his innocence, compulsory denial of bail to accused and admission as evidence in the court of law the confession made by the accused before the police officer.

7. In another major departure from Pota, the government has removed all traces of strict liability. Meaning, the burden of proof has shifted from the accused to the police. There is no presumption of guilt under UAPA. Like under any other ordinary criminal law, the police will have to establish that the accused person had a criminal intention for committing the offence in question.

8. But beware, these concessions from the internal security establishment have not come without a price. As reported recently in the Indian Express, UAPA is more draconian than Pota when it comes to the admissibility in evidence of telephone and e-mail intercepts. The police can now produce intercepts in the court without abiding by any of the elaborate safeguards provided by the repealed law. Thus, if the police cannot anymore extract a confession in custody, they have been given more scope than before to plant evidence in the form of interceptions.

9. Another glaring shortcoming in the new law pertains to the dichotomy in the provision for banning terrorist organisations and unlawful organisations. UAPA was originally meant only for banning unlawful organisations. Now it has a separate chapter for banning terrorist organisations as well. Thus, the procedures prescribed by the same law for the two kinds of bans are different. But the problem is that the procedure for banning a group on the charge of terrorism is easier than to ban it on the milder charge of unlawful activities. The government cannot, for instance, ban any group for unlawful activities without having its decision ratified within six months by a judicial tribunal headed by a sitting high court judge. There is no such requirement if the ban is on the charge of terrorism. This anomaly has arisen because of the strategy adopted by the UPA government to hide special provisions in an ordinary law.

So what remains on the statute books- The UAPA was designed to deal with associations and activities that questioned the territorial integrity of India. When the Bill was debated in Parliament, leaders, cutting across party affiliation, insisted that its ambit be so limited that the right to association remained unaffected and that political parties were not exposed to intrusion by the executive. So, the ambit of the Act was strictly limited to meeting the challenge to the territorial integrity of India.

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2004It would however be simplistic to suggest, as some critics did, that the new law has retained all the operational teeth of Pota or it has made only cosmetic changes. The difference between Pota and UAPA is substantial even as a lot of provisions are in common.

A brief outline of the amended act: The Act does not define the word terrorist in its definition clause but defines a terrorist act. The word terrorist is to be construed according the definition of the terrorist act. Terrorist act is defined in the Act as - Whoever, with intent to threaten the unity, integrity, security or

sovereignty of India or to strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India or in any foreign country, does any act by using bombs, dynamite or other explosive substances or inflammable substances or firearms or other 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 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 in India or in any foreign country or causes damage or destruction of any property or equipment used or intended to be used for the defence of India or in connection with any other purposes of the Government of India, any State Government or any of their agencies, or detains any person and threatens to kill or injure such person in order to compel the Government in India or the Government of a foreign country or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act, commits a terrorist act (Section 15).The above definition did not exist in the 1967 Act. The previous Act only defined and dealt with unlawful activity. An unlawful activity includes an activity which intends to bring about cession of a part of the territory of India or the secession of a part of the territory of India from the Union, or which incites any individual or group of individuals to bring about such cession or secession; or which disclaims, questions, disrupts or is intended to disrupt the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India, or which causes or is intended to cause disaffection against India Section 2(o).

Whether an association is unlawful is to be declared by the Central government by giving the grounds for such a declaration. Section 3 Thereafter; it is referred to the Tribunal Section 4. A notice is issued by the Tribunal to the association concerned to show cause why it should not be declared unlawful. To ascertain whether there is sufficient cause for declaring the association unlawful.

For taking cognizance of any offence under this Act prior sanction of the Central or the State government, as the case may be, is necessary. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, is made applicable in matters of arrest, bail, confessions and burden of proof. Those arrested are to be brought before a magistrate within 24 hours, confessions are no longer admissible before police officers and bail need not be denied for the first three months. The presumption of innocence leaving the burden of

proof on the prosecution has also been restored.

The evidence collected through interception of wireless, electronic or oral communication under the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act or the Information Technology Act or any law being in force has been

made admissible as evidence against the accused in the court Section 46.The amended Act provides for following penalties: Offence Includes Penalty

Being a member of an unlawful association A person who is and continues to be a member of such association, takes part in meetings, contributes to, or receives or solicits any contribution for the purposes of the association or in any way assists the operations of such association. If such person is in possession of unlicensed firearms, ammunition, explosive, etc, capable of causing mass destruction and commits any act resulting in loss of human life or grievous injury to any person or causes significant damage to any property, and if such act has resulted in the death of any person. In any other case Imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and fine.

Death or imprisonment for life.Imprisonment for not less than five years. Dealing with funds of an unlawful association Includes an association declared unlawful by the central government. Such association is prohibited from dealing in any manner with moneys, securities or credits pays. Imprisonment upto three years, or fine, or both. Contravention of an order made in respect of a notified place Includes use of articles for unlawful activities found in a notified place (i.e. a place used for unlawful association and so notified by the central government). Imprisonment upto one year. Unlawful activities Includes taking part in or committing an unlawful act, advocating, abetting, advising or inciting the commission of any unlawful activity. Assisting an unlawful organization in its activities. A term of seven years and fine.

Imprisonment upto five years or fine, or both. The amended law now contains new provisions dealing with terrorist acts, the offences and their punishments. Chapter IV, sections 15-22. The following table summarises these provisions:Offence Punishment Terrorist act Resulting in death of any person In any other case Death or imprisonment for life.A term for not less than five years.

Raising funds for a terrorist act Term not less than five years. Conspiracy Term not less than five years. Harbouring Imprisonment for not less than three years. Being a member of a terrorist organization The term may extend upto imprisonment for life.

Holding proceeds of terrorism May extend to imprisonment for life. Threatening witnesses Imprisonment upto three years. There is a provision in the Act which provides for enhanced penalties.

Any person aiding a terrorist or acting in contravention to Explosives Act, 1884, the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 or the Inflammable Substances Act, 1952 or the Arms Act, 1959, or has unauthorized possession of bombs, explosives, etc, will be punished with a term not less than three years and may extend for life (Section 23). The Act also gives power to the Central and the State Governments, as the case may be, to forfeiture the proceeds of terrorism. The investigating officer is empowered to seize the concerned property with the prior approval of the Director General of the police of the State (Section 24 and 25). Cash (including monetary instruments) can also be seized if it is intended to be used for purposes of terrorism. The Court confirms the seized property and orders its forfeiture Section 26. An appeal to the High Court against the forfeiture is allowed within one month from the date of receipt of such order.

Chapter VI of the amended Act gives power to the Central government under section 35 to add or remove an organization in the schedule as a terrorist organization. Under section 36, an application can also be made to remove an organization from the schedule. Such an application can be made by an organization or any affected person. The offences and penalties under this chapter as given below:Offences PunishmentMembership of a terrorist organization (S. 38) Imprisonment not exceeding ten years. Supporting a terrorist organization (S. 39) Imprisonment not exceeding ten years. Raising funds for terrorist organization (S. 40) A term not exceeding fourteen years.

The Act also provides for protection of witnesses under section 44 such as keeping the their identities secret even in orders, judgments and records of the Court, issuing directions to secure the identity of the witnesses and by imposing punishment for contravention of any such directions.

ConclusionVarious suspicion and voices have been raised by people NGO's under the pretext of constitution, constitutional provisions, and equality before law and civil rights. All these organizations must keep in mind that provisions are there in the constitution where reasonable restrictions can be enforced even upon the liberty of people and in view of the increasing terrorist activities in the nation more particularly in view of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center which killed more then 3000 people and 13 December attack on the Indian Parliament and large number of terrorist activities not only in J&K, N.E., A.P., and other areas of our country need for promulgation of POTA type legislation becomes the need of the hour. However there are numerous

safeguards to prevent the abuse of above legislation by unscrupulous investigating officers, which are being ignored by various organization professing the repeal of such law. The attention of those who are against this legislation is invited to object and reason for which POTA was enacted. The repeal of Pota is just party politics to gain for their party's vote bank. If you do not give to your security forces and investigative forces the legal power, human rights violations will be much worse. Therefore, if you want, out of concern for human rights, the powers not to be misused, you cannot sustain a situation where you do not give powers to the police but put pressure on it to deliver. You will have a situation of anarchy.

Therefore, let us all understand the problem we are now dealing with. And this problem requires various kinds of provisions. Legitimate power has to be given because this is an extraordinary situation. Extraordinary situations require extraordinary remedies. Please do not advise us to use velvet gloves. Terrorism has several consequences that have to be faced in the context of a growing threat to the country. References have repeatedly been made to laws in other countries. It is very dangerous to quote selectively. Let us not selectively take our lessons from America. With all due respects to those great countries, when 3,000 people sadly died in the World Trade Centre, the US president said that a war had been launched on America. When 61,000 people and 8,000 security persons have died here, we are advised to show restraint. We are advised that this is the remedy; that we should deal with it under the normal procedure. Learning from this experience, I would urge the people who are opposing this law to once again reconsider their stand because posterity eventually will decide that this country, for its integrity, sovereignty and unity certainly needs this law. Quite clearly, there is a crying need to fight the menace of terrorism unitedly. Partisanship of any sort in dealing with the ISI-sponsored terror attacks in India should be abandoned forthwith. Today terrorism has reached the heart of India in New Delhi's Parliament House. And to suggest that preventive detention laws without any safeguards whatsoever against their misuse were required in those relatively peaceful times in the Seventies and Eighties but are not required now, even with safeguards against their misuse, is to betray a sickening streak of partisanship.

To the extent it detracts from presenting a united front against terrorists, the governments myopic stand on POTO and MCOCA in Delhi represents a greater threat to national unity than even the threat of the ISI-sponsored terror. So it becomes very necessary in a country like India that if a law regarding terrorism is enacted it should be made so stringent that the culprit be bought to book and does not go scot-free

just because of the loopholes and lacunae's in the ordinary law because when our neighboring nation Pakistan which is the cause of perpetrating terrorism in India can have such stringent laws then why can not we have such laws. Indian law as it stands today has come around in strange circumstances as the earlier legislation was found capable of being misuse. This law is less harsh than the previous anti-terrorism laws in India and is not equipped by way of express provision for discretion to deal with a vast variety of terrorist activity or other activities connected with perpetration of terrorism. Therefore I am of the considered opinion that the Prevention of Terrorist Activities Act should be brought back for curbing terrorism and such like activities with a strong arm, which may help in preventing and deterring such activities.

Sikh bodyguards, and in the aftermath of her death, thousands of Sikhs were killed and tens of thousands displaced in targeted violence. In the aftermath of Operation Bluestar and the massive post-assassination violence, many Sikhs were outraged and alienated, including many who had not previously supported the militants. Militant demands intensified, and as efforts to reach a political resolution failed, both militant violence and draconian government responses escalated dramatically throughout the rest of the decade and into the early 1990s.Even before Operation Bluestar, the government relied significantly upon its emergency and preventive detention powers in responding to the Punjab situation. The government extensively used the NSA throughout the early 1980s, and in October 1983, the government dismissed the Punjab state government and imposed President’s Rule. 205 The government also amended the NSA in early 1984 to permit it to be used more aggressively in Punjab, extending the maximum period of detention from one year to two years, extending the deadline for referral to an Advisory Board from three months to four-and-a-half months, and permitting the government to dispense with Advisory Board review under certain circumstances.206 The central government again imposed President’s Rule in Punjab in 1987, and amended the Constitution to expand the grounds for declaring a national state of emergency to include “internal disturbance” in Punjab. Punjab remained under President’s Rule until 1992. In addition to using these emergency powers, the government also enacted new non-emergency laws that defined acts of terrorism as substantive criminal offenses. 208 In early 1984, Parliament enacted the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, which established special courts to adjudicate certain “scheduled offenses” related to terrorism in areas designated

by the central government, for specified time periods, as “terrorist affected.”209 The statute required the special courts to hold proceedings in camera unless the prosecutor requested otherwise, and authorized the courts to take measures to keep witness identities secret upon a request by either the prosecutor or the witnesses themselves. 210 The TAAA also instituted a stringent bail standard under which an individual accused of a scheduled offense could not be released if the prosecutor opposed release, absent reasonable grounds to believe the accused was not guilty, and extended the time during which an individual may be detained pending investigation from 90 days to one year. Most of these provisions were incorporated into the more sweeping Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act of 1985, which was enacted in the wake of Indira Gandhi’s assassination.212 Unlike the TAAA, which deemed certain existing substantive offenses terrorist-related only if they were committed in specific geographic areas designated for limited periods of time as “terrorist affected,” TADA explicitly defined a series of new, substantive terrorism-related offenses of general applicability, which could be prosecuted by state governments throughout the country withoutany central government designation that the area in which the offense took place was “terrorist affected.” At one level, this may have been desirable, for as Jaswant Singh noted during the 1980s, the singling out of Punjab for emergency treatment may have contributed to the “psychological isolation of[that] beleaguered state.”213 At the same time, enactment of a powerful, nationwide antiterrorism law without sufficient safeguards to constrain its misuse and ensure national uniformity in its application led to human rights abuses and disparate patterns of enforcement throughout the country.TADA’s principal provisions made it a crime to (1) commit a “terrorist act,” (2) conspire, attempt to commit, advocate, abet, advise or incite, or knowingly facilitate the commission of a terrorist act or “any act preparatory to a terrorist act,” (3) “harbor or conceal, or attempt to harbor or conceal any person knowing that such person is a terrorist,” or (4) hold property that has been “derived or obtained from commission of any terrorist act” or that “has been acquired through the terrorist funds.” The statute also made it a crime to commit any “disruptive activity,” defined as any act, speech, or conduct that, “through any other media or in any other manner whatsoever,” either (1) “questions, disrupts, or is intended to disrupt, whether directly or indirectly, the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India,” or (2) “is intended to bring about or supports any claim, whether directly or indirectly, for the cession of any part of India or the secession of any part of India from the Union.”