<p>India's Permanent Representative to the United Nations T S Tirumurti seems to have tied himself in knots while making a case for Hinduphobia, Buddhistphobia and Sikhphobia and to place it along with Islamophobia, Christianophobia, and anti-semitism, and on the other hand opposing the expansion of the definition of terrorism to include "racially and ethnically motivated violent extremism, violent nationalism, rightwing extremism etc." He was speaking at the International Counter Terrorism Conference held by the Global Counter Terrorism Council on January 18. India is the chair of the UN counter-terrorism committee for 2022.</p>.<p>Tirumurti's argument, which is the official Indian position, comes in two parts. The first is that the UN and the world must recognise discrimination against other major faiths like Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism, and not just the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as it is the case now. The second part of the argument is that the definition of terrorism should not be diluted to include all shades of extremist ideologies. He argued that left- and right-wing ideologies are part of democracy, and those who believe in them come to power through the battle of the ballot, and they enjoy the acquiescence of the majority of people. Therefore, right-wing extremism and left-wing extremism should not be counted as terrorism: "We, therefore, need to be wary of providing a variety of classifications, which may militate against the concept of democracy itself." Tirumurti said that "so-called threats which are limited to national or regional contexts" should not be included in a global narrative "because they are neither global nor have any global definition."</p>.<p>It is evident that there are quite many ambiguities embedded in the Indian position, and it is neither a weakness nor a sin because there are no simple definitions. What is implied is that terrorism has to be defined very clearly as something that threatens the global order. It is to be understood that in the Indian view, Al-Qaeda, and till recently, the Taliban, posed such a trans-national threat. India has not yet made up its mind whether the Taliban is a legitimate political actor on the global stage or not. Clearly, India is not keen to use the term 'Islamic terrorism' or even 'jihadi terrorism'. It wants to stick to the term 'terrorism' without too many qualifications.</p>.<p>India and the Western powers, including Europe and the United States, generally agree on the term 'terrorism'. They know that it emanates mainly from non-state actors like Al-Qaeda, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) Boko Haram in Nigeria. Of course, Pakistan-based jihadi groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Muhammad (JeM), which have been placed on the UN list of terrorist groups, are deemed terrorist.</p>.<p>India has indeed to tread carefully because the jihadi groups claiming to fight for Kashmir should not be allowed to internationalise the issue of Jammu and Kashmir. And that indeed is the intent of Pakistan which is not content to keep the Kashmir question a bilateral one because Pakistan finds itself at a disadvantage. India then will have to show that organisations like LeT and JeM pose a threat to the international order in the same way that Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and Boko Haram do. India is confident of repelling any attack on Kashmir, either Pakistan or a jihadi group. India's stance would be that the jihadi organisations and the states like Pakistan, which provide them with a base, are disturbing international peace.</p>.<p>Pakistan has won a part of its battle when its support for the Taliban has been legitimised and strengthened by the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan after an unsuccessful 20-year war. But the fact that most countries are unwilling to recognise the Taliban government makes it a thorny issue. This is also the reason that Pakistan, too, has not recognised the Taliban regime.</p>.<p>India, especially under a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government, is keen to keep the issue of global terrorism boiling. However, it appears that the United States itself, which has made terrorism a global issue after September 11, 2001, terror attacks in New York and Washington, seems to have lost interest in the issue. Washington now has new issues – Ukraine and Taiwan. If the Americans are to withdraw from the war against global terror, it might be difficult to sustain it. India does not have the economic and military clout to keep it going. There is no official declaration from the Americans that the war against global terrorism is over though it is practically over, and America is engaged in new Cold War hostilities with Russia and with China.</p>.<p>It is plausible the reason the Indian representative alluded to discrimination against Hinduism, Buddhism, and Sikhism is a clever way of moving away from the ever-elusive issue of terrorism proper. If America does not any more feel threatened either by Al-Qaeda and ISIS et al, and the Taliban have been left free to govern Afghanistan according to their own rules and whims, then talk about terrorism becomes nothing more than a debating society topic. Hinduphobia then becomes a more amenable topic for discussion.</p>.<p>But terror finance remains an issue. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) is active, but here too, its ambit has been generalised as it includes money laundering, which is only a part of combatting terror finance. It is aimed at tax-evaders and global drug syndicates as well. India is interested in FATF because Pakistan is on its radar, and India believes, and perhaps rightly too, that this should serve as a check on Pakistan's financial and so-called moral support to groups like LeT and JeM.</p>.<p>The America-determined post-global terrorism agenda then is directed towards Russia and China. America is pursuing its strategic goals under the garb of democracy and freedom. India is not too hung up on the issues of democracy and freedom. New Delhi is keen on strengthening itself on nationalist credentials and economic reach. And China is its main rival, though China does not consider India to be one. It is inevitable perhaps that the 2001-2021 anti-terrorism era should come to an end, and India has to look for a new global perspective.</p>.<p><em>(The writer is a New Delhi-based political commentator)</em></p>.<p><em>Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.</em></p>
<p>India's Permanent Representative to the United Nations T S Tirumurti seems to have tied himself in knots while making a case for Hinduphobia, Buddhistphobia and Sikhphobia and to place it along with Islamophobia, Christianophobia, and anti-semitism, and on the other hand opposing the expansion of the definition of terrorism to include "racially and ethnically motivated violent extremism, violent nationalism, rightwing extremism etc." He was speaking at the International Counter Terrorism Conference held by the Global Counter Terrorism Council on January 18. India is the chair of the UN counter-terrorism committee for 2022.</p>.<p>Tirumurti's argument, which is the official Indian position, comes in two parts. The first is that the UN and the world must recognise discrimination against other major faiths like Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism, and not just the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as it is the case now. The second part of the argument is that the definition of terrorism should not be diluted to include all shades of extremist ideologies. He argued that left- and right-wing ideologies are part of democracy, and those who believe in them come to power through the battle of the ballot, and they enjoy the acquiescence of the majority of people. Therefore, right-wing extremism and left-wing extremism should not be counted as terrorism: "We, therefore, need to be wary of providing a variety of classifications, which may militate against the concept of democracy itself." Tirumurti said that "so-called threats which are limited to national or regional contexts" should not be included in a global narrative "because they are neither global nor have any global definition."</p>.<p>It is evident that there are quite many ambiguities embedded in the Indian position, and it is neither a weakness nor a sin because there are no simple definitions. What is implied is that terrorism has to be defined very clearly as something that threatens the global order. It is to be understood that in the Indian view, Al-Qaeda, and till recently, the Taliban, posed such a trans-national threat. India has not yet made up its mind whether the Taliban is a legitimate political actor on the global stage or not. Clearly, India is not keen to use the term 'Islamic terrorism' or even 'jihadi terrorism'. It wants to stick to the term 'terrorism' without too many qualifications.</p>.<p>India and the Western powers, including Europe and the United States, generally agree on the term 'terrorism'. They know that it emanates mainly from non-state actors like Al-Qaeda, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) Boko Haram in Nigeria. Of course, Pakistan-based jihadi groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Muhammad (JeM), which have been placed on the UN list of terrorist groups, are deemed terrorist.</p>.<p>India has indeed to tread carefully because the jihadi groups claiming to fight for Kashmir should not be allowed to internationalise the issue of Jammu and Kashmir. And that indeed is the intent of Pakistan which is not content to keep the Kashmir question a bilateral one because Pakistan finds itself at a disadvantage. India then will have to show that organisations like LeT and JeM pose a threat to the international order in the same way that Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and Boko Haram do. India is confident of repelling any attack on Kashmir, either Pakistan or a jihadi group. India's stance would be that the jihadi organisations and the states like Pakistan, which provide them with a base, are disturbing international peace.</p>.<p>Pakistan has won a part of its battle when its support for the Taliban has been legitimised and strengthened by the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan after an unsuccessful 20-year war. But the fact that most countries are unwilling to recognise the Taliban government makes it a thorny issue. This is also the reason that Pakistan, too, has not recognised the Taliban regime.</p>.<p>India, especially under a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government, is keen to keep the issue of global terrorism boiling. However, it appears that the United States itself, which has made terrorism a global issue after September 11, 2001, terror attacks in New York and Washington, seems to have lost interest in the issue. Washington now has new issues – Ukraine and Taiwan. If the Americans are to withdraw from the war against global terror, it might be difficult to sustain it. India does not have the economic and military clout to keep it going. There is no official declaration from the Americans that the war against global terrorism is over though it is practically over, and America is engaged in new Cold War hostilities with Russia and with China.</p>.<p>It is plausible the reason the Indian representative alluded to discrimination against Hinduism, Buddhism, and Sikhism is a clever way of moving away from the ever-elusive issue of terrorism proper. If America does not any more feel threatened either by Al-Qaeda and ISIS et al, and the Taliban have been left free to govern Afghanistan according to their own rules and whims, then talk about terrorism becomes nothing more than a debating society topic. Hinduphobia then becomes a more amenable topic for discussion.</p>.<p>But terror finance remains an issue. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) is active, but here too, its ambit has been generalised as it includes money laundering, which is only a part of combatting terror finance. It is aimed at tax-evaders and global drug syndicates as well. India is interested in FATF because Pakistan is on its radar, and India believes, and perhaps rightly too, that this should serve as a check on Pakistan's financial and so-called moral support to groups like LeT and JeM.</p>.<p>The America-determined post-global terrorism agenda then is directed towards Russia and China. America is pursuing its strategic goals under the garb of democracy and freedom. India is not too hung up on the issues of democracy and freedom. New Delhi is keen on strengthening itself on nationalist credentials and economic reach. And China is its main rival, though China does not consider India to be one. It is inevitable perhaps that the 2001-2021 anti-terrorism era should come to an end, and India has to look for a new global perspective.</p>.<p><em>(The writer is a New Delhi-based political commentator)</em></p>.<p><em>Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.</em></p>