Why don’t world leaders talk about state unleashed terror that has destroyed people and nations?

How I wish that President Trump while talking about Islamic terrorism could also mention a little about state unleashed terrorism and PM Modi could mention Hindutva terror groups in our country

Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images
Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images

Humra Quraishi

Wondering aloud: Is the Modi-Trump ‘friendship’ carrying a whole range of vested interests? Much in tune with the expansionist policies of America, the selling and buying of weapons, the role of the arms lobbies, export of warfare technologies from American and Israeli companies to be used on us …perhaps, also, the ‘use’ of foreign troops, in the garb of mediation or arbitration or use any other viable term of your choice!

It would be naïve to expect that this ‘friendship’ is based on a nothingness to it! No, it doesn’t seem to be sheer selfless, nor based on the old fashioned terms of diplomacy. It has much to do with extractions, subtraction and intrusions.

In today’s changing world scenario, all that seems to hold sway is military might and its destroying prowess. The lone superpower using all possible ploys to extend its territorial intrusions on the pretext of friendships! Here I am more than tempted to quote Noam Chomsky from an earlier interview to me in 2001 when he was visiting New Delhi. Today his words hold out as never before in this dark scenario when we seem to be led towards disasters.

When I had asked Noam Chomsky to comment on the terrorism unleashed by the state, this is what he had to say, in terms of the US State unleashing terrorism -

“In the Reagan years alone, US sponsored state terrorists in Central America left hundreds of thousands of tortured and mutilated corpses, millions of maimed and orphaned and four countries in ruins. In the same years, Western-backed South African depredations killed 1.5 million people. I need not speak of West Asia or much else. All of this, however, is barred from the annals of terrorism by a simple device: the term terrorism, like most terms of political discourse, has two meaning, a literal one and a propagandistic one. The literal one can be found in the official US documents, which instruct us that ‘terrorism is the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious or ideological in nature (carried out) through intimidation, coercion or instilling fear’. But the literal definition cannot be used, for one reason, because it is a close paraphrase of an official government policy called 'low-intensity war ' or counter-terrorism'. Another reason is that the definition quickly yields conclusions that are wholly unacceptable. Accordingly, the propagandistic version is preferred: terrorism is terrorism that is directed against the US and its friends and allies. Reviews of the literature reveal, not surprisingly, that this usage is close to universal and of course not restricted to the US. It would, I suspect, be difficult to find a historical exception, even among the extreme mass murderers. The Nazis, for example bitterly condemned terrorism and conducted what they called 'counter-terrorism' against terrorist partisans. The US basically agreed. It organised and conducted similar 'counter-terrorism' in the post-war years. And it drew from the Nazi model which was treated with respect: Wehrmacht officers were consulted and their manuals used in designing post-war counter-insurgency programs worldwide, typically called counter-terrorism.”

Chomsky could well foresee the dangers involved in the expansionist policies. To quote him on this - “The threat of terrorism is not the only abyss into which we peer ... an even greater threat is posed by the expansion of the arms race into space… the term race is inappropriate, because the US, is, for now, competing alone. Its goal is to achieve 'full spectrum dominance'. These plans have been available in government documents for some years and the projects outlined have been under development... it is conventional everywhere for the attack to be called 'defence' and this case is no exception: the plans for militarization of space are disguised as 'ballistic missile defence' (BMD). And it is well understood that BMD, even if technically feasible must rely on satellite communication and destroying satellites is far easier than shooting down missiles and that is one reason why the US must seek 'full spectrum dominance', such overwhelming control of space that even the poor man's weapons will not be available to an adversary ... the goals of militarization of space extend far beyond. The US Space Command is very explicit about it. Its Clinton era publications announce the primary goal prominently - ‘dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect US interests and investment.’ Armies were needed ‘during the westward expansion of the continental United States’ Of course, in self-defence, against the indigenous population!”

How I wish that whilst President Trump was busy harping on threats posed by ‘Islamic terrorism’, he could also mention a little about the State unleashed terrorism and how it is instrumental in the killings of hundreds and thousands and also the reactionary violence it drags along. Several lands and entire civilisations stand wrecked because of the American government’s military intrusions and bombardments on these countries.

Also, how I wish Prime Minister Modi had mentioned some details of the Hindutva terror groups more than flourishing in our country; lynching and killings as never before; targeted attacks on the minority population and groups.

Homegrown terror groups’ attacks have been peaking in the country yet there are little hue and cry. How can there be, when you have a terror accused sitting right inside the Parliament! How can there be, when several Right-Wing rulers have openly extended their support to the goon brigades hell-bent on fracturing human forms, under the cover of the stale alibis and pretexts in circulation, well monitored and more than well executed by a certain set agenda!

How I wish any one of the so-called world leaders, had focused on the plight of the Valley and of Kashmiris. How could they, for the talk of all that brutality isn’t part of that big agenda!

The stark reality is that today there are no leaders around. We are in fact leaderless. And in such a headless condition, we are getting ruined on any given front.

Follow us on: Facebook, Twitter, Google News, Instagram 

Join our official telegram channel (@nationalherald) and stay updated with the latest headlines