Chronology of terrorist incidents in India

Status of
case
(Arrests
Date Incident Fatalities Injured made/
Cracked/
Verdict
given)
March 12, verdict
Bombay bombings 257
1993 given
Brahmaputra Mail train
1997
bombing
February verdict
Coimbatore bombings 46
14, 1998 given
Terrorists attack
October 1,
Jammu-Kashmir 35
2001
assembly complex
Attack on the
December verdict
parliament complex in 7
13, 2001 given
New Delhi
21
December Kurnool train crash 20 80
2002
10
September Rafiganj rail disaster 130
2002
27
February Godhra Train Burning cm
2002
Terrorists attack the
September
Akshardham temple in 31
24, 2002
Gujarat
A terrorist bocb attack
March 13,
on a commuter train in 11
2003
Mumbai[1]
Terrorists attack an
army camp near
May 14,
Jammu, killing more 30
2003
than 30, including
women and children
August 25, Simultaneous car
52
2003 bombs in Mumbai
 Bomb explodes in
August 15, Assam, killing 16
16
2004 people, mostly school
children
2005 Jaunpur train bombing 13
July 5, Shri Ram Janmabhoomi
0
2005 attack in Ayodhya
Three powerful serial
blasts in New Delhi at
October
different places just two 70
29, 2005
days before Hindu
festival Deepawali[2]
Three synchronized
terrorist attacks in
Varanasi in Shri
March 7,
Sankatmochan Mandir 21
2006
and Varanasi
Cantonment Railway
Station
Series of 7 train
July 11, bombing during the
209
2006 evening rush hour in
Mumbai
Series of bomb blasts in
September the vicinity of a mosque
37 125
8, 2006 in Malegaon,
Maharashtra
18
Samjhauta Express
February 68
bombings
2007
At least 13 people were
killed, including 4 killed
by the Indian police in
the rioting that
May 18,
followed, in the 13
2007
bombing at Mecca
Masjid, Hyderabad that
took place during the
Friday prayers
Two blasts in
August 25,
Hyderabad's Lumbini 42
2007
park and a restaurant
 One blast at a shrine of
October
a Sufi Muslim saint in 3
11, 2007
the town of Ajmer[3]
One blast in a movie
October theater in the town of
6
14, 2007 Ludhiana on the Muslim
holy day of Eid ul-Fitr[4]
A series of near-
simultaneous explosions
November at courthouse
16
24, 2007 complexes in the cities
of Lucknow, Varanasi,
and Faizabad[5]
May 13, 9 bomb blasts along 6
63
2008 areas in Jaipur
July 25, 8 low intensity bomb arrests
2 20
2008 blasts in Bangalore made
July 26, 17 serial bomb blasts in arrests
29 110
2008 Ahmedabad made
September 5 bomb blasts in Delhi
21 110
13, 2008 markets
Bombings at Mehrauli
September
area 2 bomb blasts in 1 17
27, 2008
Delhi flower market
10 killed and 80 injured
September in bombings in
10
29, 2008 Maharashtra and
Gujarat bomb blasts
September 7 killed in bike blasts in
7
29, 2008 Malegaon.
October 1,
Agartala bombing 4 100
2008
October
Imphal bomb blast 17 40
21, 2008
October
Assam bomb blast 77 300
30, 2008
November Coordinated attack in
171 239
26, 2008 Mumbai[6][7]

Terrorism in India
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump 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
 Organizations listed as terrorist
groups by India
Northeastern India
National Socialist Council of
• 9 See also Nagaland-Isak-Muivah (NSCN-
• 10 References IM)
• 11 Notes Naga National Council-Federal
(NNCF)
• 12 External links National Council of Nagaland-
Khaplang
[edit] Chronology of major United Liberation Front of Asom
incidents People's Liberation Army
Kanglei Yawol Kanna Lup (KYKL)
[show] Zomi Revolutionary Front
North India
v•d•e
Babbar Khalsa
Terrorism in IndiaBhindranwala
since 2001 Tigers Force of
Khalistan
Communist Party of India
(Maoist)
Dashmesh Regiment
Main article: Chronology of International Sikh Youth
major terrorist incidents in Federation (ISYF)
India Kamagata Maru Dal of Khalistan
Khalistan Armed Force
Khalistan Liberation Force
Khalistan Commando Force
Khalistan Liberation Army
Khalistan Liberation Front
Khalistan Liberation
[edit] Western India Organisation
Khalistan National Army
Mumbai has been the most Khalistan Guerilla Force
preferred target for most terrorist
organizations, primarily the Khalistan Security Force
separatist forces from Kashmir. Khalistan Zindabad Force
Over the past few years a series of Shaheed Khalsa Force
attacks including explosions in Kashmir
local trains in July 2006, to the
most recent and unprecedented Lashkar-e-Toiba
attacks of 26th November, 2008, Jaish-e-Mohammed
where two of the prime hotels and Hizbul Mujahideen
another building, in south Mumbai, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen
were sieged. Farzandan-e-Milat
United Jihad Council
Terrorist attacks in Mumbai Al-Qaeda
include:* Students Islamic Movement of
India
Central India
People's war group
Balbir militias
Naxals
Ranvir 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 Delhi
Main 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 encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
1993 Bombay Bombings
Location Bombay, India
March 12, 1993
Date
13:30-15:40 (UTC+ 5.5)

13 car bombs (RDX)

Attack type
containing shrapnel.

Deaths 257[1]
Injured 713[2]
Underworld criminal groups
Perpetrator(s)
(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 involved

Mohammed 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 agents

Dawood 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 officials
S 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] Policemen
Vijay 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 friends

Sanjay 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] Others
Zaibunnisa 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 encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
"Terrorist" redirects here. For other uses, see Terrorist
(disambiguation).
 Terrorism
Definitions
History
International conventions
Anti-terrorism legislation
Counter-terrorism
War on Terrorism
Red Terror
White Terror

By ideology
Communist
Eco-terrorism
Narcoterrorism
Nationalist
Ethnic
Religious
(Christian • Islamic • Jewish)

Types and tactics

Agro-terrorism
Bioterrorism
Car bombing
Environmental
Aircraft hijacking
Nuclear
Propaganda of the deed
Proxy bomb
Suicide attack

State involvement
State terrorism
State sponsorship

Configurations
Fronts
Lone wolf

Lists
 Designated organizations
Incidents

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 terrorism

See 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 groups
Main articles: List of designated terrorist organizations and Lone
wolf (terrorism)

State sponsors
Main 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 terrorism
Main 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 2008

Main 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 encyclopedia

Jump 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 encyclopedia

Jump 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 encyclopedia

Jump 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 1967

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, 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, 2004

It 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 Punishment
Membership 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.

Conclusion
Various 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
without
any 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.”