Today, on 19 January 2004, there is news of a terrible blast in Baghdad. Yesterday there were false alarms of terrorism in many countries. Terrorism is the focus of the attention of the world since Nine Eleven. However, the answers governments come up with deal with the symptoms not with the conditions which breed terrorism. In order to understand these conditions, history can be of help. In this article I propose to trace out some aspects of this history, more specifically from the history of medieval Islam, to propose that certain conditions of governance promote terrorism.
The idea of this article came from reading Bernard
Lewis’s book The Assassins (1967).
The Assassins, or Ismailis, began as a branch of Shia Muslims. In 765 the sixth
Imam, Jafar al Sadiq passed away. His eldest son, Ismail, was disinherited and
most of the Shias recognized Musa Al Kazim as Imam. Some, however, followed
Ismail and these are known as the Ismailis. As the Sunni rulers were dominant,
the Ismailis struggled against them secretly. They were powerful in Egypt but
it is the Persian branch which is relevant for us. This was led by
Hasan-ibn-Sabbah (d. 1124) who, having converted to Ismailism from Twelver
Shiaism, established himself in a castle in Alamut. From here he would send out
young men on missions of assassination. The aim was to kill the most powerful
functionaries of the state and the religious establishment in order to usher in
the righteous era of moral rule by the Imam.
This little bit of history is essential to understand the
point I want to make. The point is that the assassin of the medieval age was
like the suicide bomber of today. Those assassins always used daggers and were
generally caught. They were so firmly convinced of the righteousness of their
position, that they considered it a moral act to sacrifice their own lives. The
modern suicide bomber is equally committed to his moral ideals and holds his
life in contempt. Why? Because the medieval assassin believed that Islamic rule
was the right of the Imam and that the present rulers were usurpers. The
contemporary terrorist believes that Muslims are oppressed---in Palestine,
Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya etc---and that it is their moral duty to fight
back.
There are, however, other interesting but not so obvious
parallels. The Assassins had no way of removing the king or a major decision-maker.
There were no elections so rulers, or their major functionaries, were not
removed. Then, and this is most significant, the way of rule was personalized.
Since so much was dependent on one decision-maker it made sense to remove him.
That is where democracy comes in. In this system of rule there are
institutions, rules and combinations of interests and pressure groups.
Everything does not depend on the whims of one man. Thus, it makes less sense
to kill one man.
That is why all histories of despotic rule including
Mughal rule in India, are full of personal revolts against the despot.
Similarly, in Latin America and Africa whenever there is a dictator, people try
to eliminate him. On the other hand it is rare for prime ministers and
presidents of stable democracies to be assassinated. There is little point in
assassinating them since they do not make personalized decisions. Their parties
have a manifesto and, in parliamentary democracy, cabinets make important
decisions. In short, terrorism can end
if despotic, one-person rule comes to an end.
Sometimes, however, a person can make the right decisions and
still become the focus of fanatics who want to assassinate him. This is true in
General Musharraf’s case who is being targeted by militant groups because he
has reversed militant policies in Kashmir and weaned Pakistan away from the
Taliban after Nine Eleven. True all this happened at American insistence but if
it is allowed to succeed Pakistan may well become a moderate country at peace
with India. However, if democracy had been allowed to flourish in Pakistan and
the same decisions had been made by a party in power, by a cabinet with joint
responsibility and not one person, then General Musharraf would not have been
in danger of being killed. He would, as an elected prime minister, be in danger
of getting less votes but not too many
would be less since these policies are seen as being pragmatic by all sensible
people who want peace and prosperity. In short it is safe even for people in
power to appear to work as a group and not an individual. That is what I said
to begin with--- democracies are safer for all, including the rulers.
Individuals appearing to be running the whole show, even if they are doing a
good job, are less safe when the system is anything but a democracy.
This, however, is true only for the assassination of
individuals. Let us go back to the wider political aims of the assassins---it
was to end a political system which was unrighteous in their eyes. The present
day terrorists too want to end an unrighteous political system. Their argument
is that the war of the West against the Muslim world (symbolized by Palestine)
was not started by them. It was started by the Western powers which created
Israel in Palestine driving the Palestinians out of their lands. Time would
have healed this wound if the Israeli governments had not adopted an
aggressive, insensitive, expansionist programme. As this programme was
supported by America this new country, hitherto uninvolved in the affairs of
Europe, became Enemy Number one of the Arabs in general and the extremists, the
equivalent of the Assassins, in particular.
Since the demise of the Soviet Union America assumed the
role of a despot among nations. Despots cannot be removed from their position
of power and they recognize no law except power. This is how America behaves
externally though it practices democracy within the United States. The response
to despotism is terrorism whether the despotism is internal to a country or
external to it. When there is no process to get rid of the despot nor can he be
challenged in an open fight, people do exactly what the medieval assassins
did---they continue to make a small band of people who value their life less
than their ideals.
The fact is that this is exactly what is happening in
Iraq and Afghanistan. One wonders why the decision-makers in America failed to
realize that this would happen. After all they had been through Vietnam but
still they make this colossal blunder. One reason could be that they knew that
they were dealing with extremely unpopular regimes. That, of course, is true.
Yet, in the process of removing regimes through war, you hurt so many people
that there is a whole new army of bitter opponents by the time you are through.
Combined with the trigger-happy, culturally insensitive ways of the American
troops (the humiliation of Saddam is seen by most Arabs as the humiliation of
the Arab world) one sees a new crop of the equivalent of the’ assassins’ which
America is facing in these turbulent parts of the Muslim world.
The strategy of the assassins failed in the medieval
ages. They lost their high moral ground except in their own eyes. The Sunni, as
well as the Iranian Shia, empires carried on till the Mongols destroyed them as
well as the assassins of Alamut. Similarly, the present day terrorists have
hurt so many innocent people that they have harmed the interests of ordinary
Muslims and given Islam itself a bad name. Even if they do force withdrawals
from some areas, such as Iraq, they would not win the whole endeavour to
protect the interests of Muslims everywhere in the would. In any case no
movement which condones the killing of innocent people, irrespective of their
religion, can ever be justified. And yet such appalling low intensity suicidal
warfare will continue in the Muslim would because the conditions which produce
the Assassin-type movements prevail.
If the Western powers want security they mast examine and
eliminate the conditions which create such movements. Primarily, they must end despotism
in foreign affairs. America, and to a lesser extent Britain, can restrain
themselves by strictly following international law and never resorting to
aggression. If this involves pulling out their troops and losing military
control of oil, it would be a small price for security. Moreover, by dominating
world trade, the West can surely secure its supply of oil through less risky
means. In short if the mounting death toll of American troops is to be stopped,
the American decision-makers must understand the links between terrorism and
despotism both within countries and abroad---the killing of the symbolic
representatives of despotic countries i.e. innocent civilians, troops, business
houses etc.s