IMPACT OF TERRORISM ON MINORITIES

Minorities have always been struggling for equality and inclusion with the nation’s majority culture
all around the world. The link between countries’ socioeconomic characteristics and the incidence of
terrorist acts, such as economic discrimination against minorities, might be an unnoticed factor. So,
the experience of minority group discrimination has been identified as a factor that motivates and
fuels domestic terrorist campaigns of individual countries or terrorist movements. Regarding aspects
of domestic terrorism, democratic governance, political stability, and country demographic makeup
have played a significant role.
Some theoretical research suggests that there is a causal relationship between minority injustice and
domestic terrorism within countries. As a result of discrimination enhancing social isolation,
disappointed minority populations become alienated from the mainstream economic system,
distrustful of state institutions and authority, and thus more vulnerable to extremism, providing fertile
ground for terrorist organisations to recruit cadres, raise funds, and plan and execute attacks.
Since the 11 September, 2001 attacks, minorities, specifically Muslims in the US and Europe, have
been subjected to more significant restrictions and governmental authorities. The Minority Rights
Group has pointed out that rules like religious profiling by authorities can divide communities,
promote hate, and create conditions of future conflict. Stops, searches, strict scrutiny, and surveillance
are examples of religious profiling, which includes preconceptions about people who are thought to
follow a specific religion.
Religious profiling is opposing to international law, which prohibits discrimination on religious belief
about the administration of justice and policing. But profiling is not just illegal, it is
counterproductive. The problem with profiling is that strange though it may seem, the authorities do
not know whom to profile. Not all terrorists are Muslims. And even if they were, not all Muslims look
alike, nor do they come from the same place. Recognition of international terrorist organizations as
AL-Qaeda has risen to the mainstream populace, resulting in a significant concern of potential attacks
within the immigrant Muslim population. The marginalization of a minority populace may prove to be
vastly detrimental and divisive to the societal majority.
To prevent prospective unforeseeable outcomes, public awareness should be raised to the varied types
of systematic discrimination minorities often face and potential factors that may lead to sympathy to
the radical belief system. The development of effective forms of integration into a host nation’s
culture will help deter the formation of domestic terrorist groups and acts of terrorism from an
immigrant population.

INDIA: TERRORISM AND MINORITY ISSUES

Terrorism in India has grown to a great extent in the last two decades. The bomb blasts and terrorist
attack in many cities like Jaipur, Ahmedabad, Bangalore and attack on Mumbai on 26/11 and recent
attack on Pune on 14-2-2010. The terrorist attack has outraged every patriotic Indian. No civilized
nation can allow this kind of barbaric inhumanity to be partly or fully supported or sponsored by any
neighbour or domestic insurgents. The only way we can combat it is to minimize, if not eliminate,
such occurrences. Prevention is crucial; and laws like Pota can prevent such occurrences.

As the representative body of Government of India, the planning commission listed the
reason for the violence to the minority in India. 17 The expert body clearly stated in a social,
economic, and political context that Dalits and Adivasis who led the foundation for the
movement are deprived of even their fundamental human rights for decades.18 It also shows
that the root causes are denial of righteousness and justice, exclusion and alienation, and
human rights violations for minorities. There has been a steep rise in terrorism in India in the
last two decades. There is a various terrorist attack in cities like Jaipur, Ahmedabad
Bangalore, Mumbai and Pune. There is no second opinion that terrorism is a big challenge for
India security and democracy. States have undertaken several measures like anti-terrorism
legislation implementation of special development schemes for affected areas, strengthening
the security and intelligence apparatus, deployment of the police force in anti naxal operation,
and negotiation with representatives of militants groups.
India’s tryst with terrorism and violent extremism can be traced back partly to the religion-based
partition in 1947, which ripped the sub-continent into two nations: India and Pakistan. The sub-
continent remained witness to the most horrifying ethnic riots in modern history, which were marked
by extreme violence and acts of terrorism.

In India, terrorism and violent extremism is also a manifestation of:

• politico-religious violence
• ethnic-sub regional nationalism
• socio-economic conditions
• politics of identity
Telangana peasant movement directed against landlords was the first terrorist movement in the post-
independent India. However, the most serious challenge to Indian political system was posed by the
insurgency in the Northeast. Nagaland was the first to raise the banner of revolt. It quickly spread to
other states of Northeast. Mizoram, Manipur, Tripura and eventually Assam followed the suit. Out of
the seven states of Northeast, only Arunachal and Meghalaya are so far peaceful. Terrorism in
Northwest India, particularly Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir have also posed serious threat to the
unity and integrity of the country. Central India consisting of the states of Andhra Pradesh,
Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Bihar and Orissa is the third region of India troubled by the problem of
terrorism.
The nature of terrorism and their grievances in three regions are a lot different from one another. The
cause of insurgency in the northeast is ethnicity. The Northeast region is bordered by Myanmar,
China, Bhutan, Nepal and Bangladesh. These long international borders add external dimension to the
problem.
If politico-ethnic factors are responsible for terrorism in the northeast region then in the northwest it is
politico-religious reason. Terrorism in Kashmir is mainly state (Pakistan) sponsored. Pakistan
provides all kind of logistical support to terrorism in Kashmir. The emergence of global Islamic
terrorism has also aided and abetted terrorism in J&K. In the name' of Jihad, terrorists from
Afghanistan, Central Asia and Arabian countries have also joined terrorists in Kashmir. These foreign
mercenaries are calling the shots in the Kashmir valley. Of late, there has been some conflict between
the local and foreign terrorists. Punjab is also another case of politico-religious terrorism. Here again
it was religion inspired terrorism with the active support of Pakistan. However, of late here the
problem of terrorism has been resolved to the great extent. Nevertheless, if ignored it might erupt
again.
The nature of terrorism in the central India is different from northeast and northwest. Here, the
terrorism is ideology based and caused by the socio-economic reasons. These terrorists are popularly
known as Maoists or Naxals and are waging a war against the upper caste landlords. The Naxalism or
Naxals refers to Naxalbari, a taluk in West Bengal. It is here in 1960s, the peasant movement against
landlords led by legendary revolutionary Kanu Sanyal and Charu Majumdar began. There is hardly
any state which is completely free from the Naxal violence. The prominent Naxal groups in India
have created serious internal security threat and security forces are finding it difficult to contain them.
Naxals are equipped with the sophisticated weapons and they have acquired the expertise in planting
landmines and using Improvised Explosive Devices (lED). They kill the class enemies such as
landlords, suspected informers, police and paramilitary forces. The cause of Naxalism is extreme
poverty and inequality. The Naxal affected regions are the most backward and extreme poverty ridden
regions of the country. Since Naxalites take up the cause of poor, oppressed and exploited, they enjoy
popular mass support in their regions. This is the reason that governments are finding it difficult to
curb Naxalism. To root out Naxalism, the state has to first root out poverty and inequality. Naxalism
is primarily socio-economic problem and so it can be resolved only through socio-economic
measures.
India is facing multifarious challenges in the management of its internal security. There is an upsurge
of terrorist activities, intensification of cross border terrorist activities and insurgent groups in
different parts of the country. Terrorism has now acquired global dimensions and has become the
challenge for the whole world. The reach and methods adopted by terrorist groups and organization
take advantage of modern means of communication and technology using high tech facilities available
in the form of communication system, transport, sophisticated arms and various other means. This has
enabled them to strike and create terror among people at will. The criminal justice system of India like
Criminal Procedure Code ( CrPC) was not designed to deal with such type of heinous crimes. In view
of this situation, it was felt necessary to make special anti-terror laws for giving rigorous punishment
for theses enmity of the humanity.
There are many laws are made in India but the protest of these laws on the basis of the violation of
fundamental rights of the people. In post anti-terrorism laws in India, protagonists have, however,
hailed the legislation on the ground that it has been effective in ensuring the speedy trial of those
accused of indulging in or abet terrorism. But after some time, these laws have been breaking down in
view of human right. But after 26/11 there is need to much stringent law to end up the terrorist
activities.

LAWS RELATED TO TERRORISM IN INDIA

Terrorism has immensely affected India. The reasons for terrorism in India may vary vastly
from religious cause and other things like poverty, unemployment and not developed etc.
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..
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. The measure laws are that
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
The UAPA was designed to deal with associations and activities that questioned the
territorial integrity of India. The ambit of the Act were 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.
Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002
With the intensification of cross-border terrorism and the continued offensive agenda of
Pak ISI targeted at destabilizing India and the post 11th September developments, it became
necessary to put in place a special law to deal with terrorist acts. Accordingly, the Prevention
of Terrorism Act, 2002 (POTA, 2002) was enacted and notified on 28.03.2002.
The POTA, 2002 clearly defines the terrorist act and the terrorist in Section 3 and grants
special powers to the investigating authorities under the Act. 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.
· The Act provides for punishment for any officer who exercises powers maliciously or with
malafide intentions. It also provides for award of compensation to a person who has been
corruptly or maliciously proceeded against under the Act.
The POTA, 2002 is a special law for the prevention of and for dealing with terrorist activities
and clearly defines the terrorist act and the terrorist in Section 3, Sub-Section (1) of the Act.
The Act provides the legal framework to strengthen the hands of the administration in our
fight against the menace of terrorism and can and should be applied against such persons
and acts as are covered by the provisions of this law and it is not meant as a substitute for
action under ordinary criminal laws

TERRORISM IN USA

Minority communities and indigenous populations worldwide continued to be troubled by the

aftermath of the 11 September 2001 violent attacks on the United States of America.
President George W. Bush declared the “war on terror” at the time. However, conflicts
between governments and armed groups have continued to result in international and
domestic flight, weakening already vulnerable communities. Since then, the state-sanctioned
discriminatory policies has risen. They have fueled the conflict between freedom of religion
and freedom of expression in some places, resulting in bloodshed amongst populations that
had previously coexisted peacefully. While President Barack Obama’s presidency has
officially distanced itself from the term “war on terror,” other countries often use the word,
and the battles continue. MRG has been tracking how the different effects of the “war on
terror” have always significantly influenced religious minorities’ lives.
According to Minority Rights Group International, the worldwide “war on terror” has
devolved into a “war on minorities,” with millions of individuals from minority communities
facing clear human rights violations in the name of counter-terrorism. Since 9/11,
governments have increasingly utilised the “war on terror” to target minorities, mainly ethnic
and religious minorities, and restrict their rights, according to the London-based human rights
organisation. Minority populations have also been falsely labelled as terrorists in the last
fiveyears.10 In the aftermath of the Christmas Day 2009 attempted bombing of an airliner
overDetroit, Michigan, by a Nigerian Muslim, the US authorities targeted citizens of 14
countries,13 of them predominantly Muslim, for particular scrutiny at airports.11 Congress
has failed to pass the necessary laws to combat racial profiling.12 The idea of non-
discrimination needs to be enforced, with particular attention given to the rights of vulnerable
groups. Anti-terrorism measures that target specific ethnic or religious groups are human
rights violations, and they exacerbate the problem of discrimination and racism. Law
enforcement authorities have often mistreating minorities in the United States. Before 9/11,
Blacks were the primary targets of racial profiling.13 However, since the terrorist incident,
Arabs and Muslims have become the primary focus of police enforcement surveillance. There
are some significant similarities between the profiling of Black people and Arabs and
Muslims. The fundamental issues with racial profiling in both cases are that it violates the
personal rights of innocent individuals and refuses to acknowledge minorities equal
protection under the law. According to MRG, in most cases, “anti-terror laws target Muslim
minority groups and have resulted in an increase in arbitrary arrests, detention without charge
or trial and torture of people from these communities. The United States, Canada and some
European states, including the United Kingdom, Spain and Holland, have seen anti-terror
laws violate the rights of Muslim, Asian, North African and Middle Eastern minority
communities. The Muslims and South Asians living in these countries often feel targeted and
isolated, potentially leading to an increase in sympathy with extremist groups, the silencing
of moderate voices and setbacks for women’s rights.” Lattimer says, “The high-profile
violations of the rights of minorities by the US and other Western states in the name of the
‘war on terror’ have given a licence to other states around the world to excuse or justify their
own repression; of minorities.” All of these have a direct impact on the enjoyment of
fundamental human rights. For authorities, it is the challenge to end the current violations of
civil liberties and ensure equality before the law for all citizens.
Arabs and Muslims, like other traditional minorities, are now vulnerable to racial profiling.
While profiling of Blacks and Hispanics has primarily taken place in drug battles and illegal
immigration, profiling of Arabs and Muslims has been related to the War on Terror. Not
surprisingly, law enforcement agencies that have become part of the Homeland Security
Department are primarily responsible for profiling Arabs and Muslims. While racial profiling
of African-Americans is widely accepted as an issue in American culture, profiling Arabs and
Muslims is far worse.
ANTI-TERROR LAWS IN USA

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) was passed by the
107th Congress “to deter terrorism, provide justice for victims, provide for an
effective death penalty, and for other purposes.” To accomplish this goal, some
of the AEDPA provisions include increasing penalties for crimes involving
explosives or terrorism, providing restitution for victims of terrorism, and setting
new legal procedures for capital cases.

The most notable changes enacted by the AEDPA were made to the law of
habeas corpus. The AEDPA’s habeas reform provisions, codified in 28 U.S.C. §
2254, included a statute of limitations for habeas corpus claims and restrictions
on a habeas petitioner’s ability to file a second habeas petition. Section 2254(d)
narrowed the grounds on which successful habeas claims can be made by
allowing claims only to succeed when the court decisions (1) “was contrary to, or
involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as
determined by the Supreme Court of the United States”; or (2) “was based on an
unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the
State court proceeding.”

Within months of the passage of the 1996 anti-terrorism bill, Congress

enacted two other laws-the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act and the Prison Litigation Reform Act-that also shielded
from review by neutral judges executive authority over disfavored
minorities.

CONCLUSION
Terrorism in the post-cold war period has emerged as the greatest menace to
the international community. Growing terrorism has led to the increasing
violation of human rights by terrorists as well as the state apparatus. No part
of the world is free from the problem of terrorism. India is no exception.
Though entire country has been impacted by the scourge of terrorism, but
Northeast, Northwest and Central India are worst affected regions. The nature
and cause of terrorism differ in these three regions. In Northeast it is politico-
ethnic terrorism, in Northwest it is politico-religious terrorism and in Central
India it is Maoist ideology inspired terrorism caused by socio-economic
reasons.
State has responded to the growing problem of terrorism by declaring the
affected regions as disturbed areas followed by the deployment of paramilitary
and armed forces.
Civil society groups, mass media and judiciary are acting as effective restraint
on state terrorism. State has also responded to the allegation of human rights
abuse by state authorities by setting up National Human Rights Commission.
Respect for human rights and containment of terrorism are not antithetical.
Both the objectives can be achieved simultaneously. Only by observing human
rights and rule of law, State agencies can contain and eliminate terrorism.
Human right activist are no votary of terrorism. Their only plea is that the
terrorism should be dealt with sternly without violating rule of law and abusing
human rights. Thus, respect for human rights and containment of terrorism are
complementary to each other. Counter terrorism measures and operations
must pay due respect to the human rights. Only then counter terrorism
operations will yield desired results.