How to deal with terrorism

The (update: now former) president of India, Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam, recently posted a question on yahoo answers, on how to free the world from terrorism. Buried among the over 15000 responses is my response, that I have posted below:

The root of the problem of terrorism is not with the so called 'terrorists'. It is with a much larger section of humanity, probably including most 'normal' people we know. Before I mention it, it is critical that I provide an anecdote. I had a couple of close people, who were addicted to alcohol. What fascinated me most while I supported them through their problems that they were in vehement denial of the fact that alcohol was the problem. They refused to see the simple logic behind the argument that 'If they stopped drinking, their health/family/social/work related problems would go away.' They would give such long winding arguments to insist that they could continue to drink and still control themselves and not do all those bad things. They were in complete denial to face the fact that all their problems could go away by giving up alcohol. Well, the point of this anecdote is that, we as a race are sadly in the same situation. In our case, it is not alcohol, but the tendency to classify everything that is at the root of all evil. Classification in its varied forms - religion, language, nationality, color, sex, even intelligence.

It is well known that the more gradual or indirect the ill effects of an addictive element, the harder it is to give it up. For example, quitting cigarettes is so hard, because each time, it feels like this one cigarette is not going to kill you. But then they all add up and damage your body. Classification is such a subtle evil that we rationalize it easily, with no regret. For instance, my mother justifies the practice of her religion by saying that she is not harming anyone by doing so. She only does it for peace of mind, and uses it in positive ways. She refuses to believe that it is on the strength of a majority of believers in the faith who use it for good means that the minority rides to drive mass destruction. And the unfortunate part is that the majority of mankind is in denial of their part in this divisive factor that is eating away into the core of humanity. Just like the smoker who says, my smoking one cigarette is not affecting me, while his lungs are slowly collapsing, you say that your practicing religion is not causing any harm, while others ride on the strength of your faith to achieve large scale devastation.

Almost all the bases for categorization that leads to violence among people have one common trait. They started as a common characteristic of a set of related people. For instance, people of a region communicated with the same language, which was good. The people who shared a certain set of beliefs named it as a religion, still good. People who lived in a certain region gave themselves a name as a nation. However, almost invariably, dispute occured when two peoples of different groups came in contact, and had to share the resources in the area. For instance, two tribes moved to the same river bank and had to share the fruit in that area. Or two nations have to share the limited oil on earth. Then people start using these categorizations to stake claims on the resources. If geographical ownership doesnt work, then use religion. If that doesnt work, use language. Then, someone throws the first stone which is lost to antiquity, and now we just see blood being shed both ways,and it is hard to tell who is right or wrong, or who started it or not, or who is the terrorist and who is not.

So, the common underlying factor is classification. Now, one may argue, like the alcoholic in denial, that being patriotic to one's nation, or practicing one's religion peacefully are not the cause of all this violence. But collectively, it is these little actions that provide the strength on which fundamental acts are built. I am not saying that we should shed all such tools. We should retain those especially where they are useful. We should for instance, continue to use language as a tool for communication. We should make literature of all languages globally available and promote the degree of exchange that enables people to realize the underlying poetry of all languages. However, we must question the classifications and their value where there is more harm than good coming out of it. Religion is one, and sadly due to nationality being invoked to counter religion, nationality is another of them. We must question what aspects of these categorizations we need to retain. Should we, for instance, continue to celebrate independence in India, if it serves even so lightly as a reminder of Indian divide with the Europeans? Especially considering that we are collaborating with European companies in so many walks of life. Should we hoist a flag and emphasize our uniqueness (in any nation) if that can be used as a basis for men to kill each other? Should we continue to practice religions in public, when it obviously emphasizes to others that we are different from them. Should we even question the need for religion, given that it has lost its historic purpose in today's world, where people of all religions coexist and interact, mostly in positive ways?

Now, if you are a strong practitioner of your religion, you may find the last question somewhat disturbing, even offensive. This is analogous to the alcoholic or smoker's indignation when told that hes should consider quitting. In this case, though, the tendency to be offended often rises from the insecurity of not being able to face the consequences of taking on these questions. In some cases, this is due to conditioning in a certain faith, which is hard to remove, somewhat like it is hard to quit smoking if you have been smoking since childhood. However, the best first step to even accept this question is to reiterate that religion was created for a very specific historic purpose - to bring together people of a common set of rules of conduct. However, some aspects of religion, such as fire being caused by a god rather than by the more scientific understanding we have today, can be reexamined. It is my contention that if we reexamine all the things that fall in the boundary of our religion, and eliminate things that have since been explained, either by science, or by the realization that some of the rules were put in there to serve a specific social or political goal, then what remains is the big questions that neither science nor religion have an answer for. For instance, the question of how the world came to be is still unanswered. But at this level, there really shouldnt be much of a dispute (at least not enough to lead to large scale terrorism), since the religious people all agree that some God was behind it, and the scientific community, which is usually not so fanatic about science as to cause as much devastation as religious fundamentalists, will continue to dig for rational explanations.


Finally, here are some concrete steps to execute the plan:

0. First and foremost, we must stop referring to the people resorting to terror as terrorists. There is no inherent class of people called terrorists. There are people who resort to violence and those who dont. And often the people who resort to violence are driven to it.
1. Create an environment/forum for people, starting with the non-violent masses to have open discussion and debate to question their faith. Allow some of us to make the case that their own practice of religion, while peaceful, may be fueling all the death and devastation of terrorism. The only requirement is that no question will be responded with violence. People are made to feel the right and the responsibility to accept all opinions.
2. Minimize all categorizations possible, such as national holidays that only serve to remind people of how they are different from others. Instead, foster the image of a global citizen. Encourage, if you can, the curiosity to understand other cultures, with no fear or intimidation. This can be done by an intensive effort on cultural exchange programs. Let people realize that they are not going to be treated differently based on who they are.
3. Encourage knowledge - make education as free and accessible as possible. Provide and emphasize explanations for nature that allow people to develop a passion for understanding the world around them. Equip people with the skills to make contributions to making the world a better place. Train one farmer in a village on advanced farming technology. Coach him to go back and train his fellow farmers. Train the youth to think about how they can contribute to technology with something as inexpensive as a computer and an internet connection.
4. Provide special online forums for so called 'terrorists' to come and discuss with people - and keep your word not to use this as an opportunity to trace them. Make them feel safe, and then have an open dialog, focusing on what they need. Have people talk to them, to understand what they really need - experts in fields like psychology could help some of them, while some may find value in talking to common people. Yet others may benefit by interacting with people in power. Some of them may benefit most from talking to others of their own persuasion.
5. Agree to hear all demands and talk through them with maturity and poise. Just knowing that there is a forum for people with grievances to talk goes a long way in supporting what they need. If the concern is genuine in the greater picture, then work with commitment to address the concern fairly. So much can be won by being honest and equitable to people than by using all the force in the world, a lesson we all know from Gandhiji.
6. Shift education in schools to focus more on understanding the world and making it a better place. De-emphasize things that point to violence, discrimination, divisiveness.
7. Create a world where people can say what they want, and where people are less affected by what others say about them, and more reinforced by their own self image. Identify and reward people who use this power responsibly and educate those who abuse it (by trying to demean others) of the indirect consequences (of death and destruction) of their seemingly innocuous statements.
8. Channel the energies of the young towards inquisitiveness, creativity - so that they dont have the time, energy or inclination to commit violent acts.
9. Stop or reduce violence in movies. Just like expletives are censored in movies, censor out all programs and movies that involve violence and fear. Convince the people that the world is a safe place to live in, rather than pandering to their violent aspect by making movies violent and horrific. And the argument that it is ok for adults to view violence is flawed. Whatever the age, the world needs a reassurance that it is a safe place to live in. I recently read a statistic that the death by terrorist activities is still a small fraction compared to say natural calamities, vehicle accidents, or disease. The issue to tackle is not terrorism itself as it is the constant fear that has pervaded our minds, breeding people to be insecure, and hence resort to violence more easily.

These steps when implemented, along with any others to address the factors I list in my discussion above, should make significant improvements in the direction of bringing forth a world where people are so filled with wonder about nature, science, and the possibilities of technology and industry, that they are blissfully occupied in constructive tasks and far less likely to resort to violence.