In South Asia, ‘terrorism’ has become a label of convenience

Before her ouster, former Bangladeshi prime minister Sheikh Hasina termed the student protesters ‘terrorists’ in a national security panel meeting. She said, “Those carrying out violence are not students but terrorists” and appealed to her countrymen to “suppress the terrorists with a strong hand.” Likewise, Pakistan military’s spokesman, Lt. Gen. Arshad Sharif, also framed Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s (PTI) social media activists as “digital terrorists” during a press conference on July 23. He said, “Digital terrorists were using cell phones, computers, lies, and propaganda to impose their will on society.” 

It is typical of South Asian states to securitize political issues and use pejoratives like terrorism against political opponents to suppress them through administrative tools and legal force. For instance, India still uses terrorism’s straw-man to block negotiations with Pakistan and avoid the bilateral cricket series. Similarly, Bangladesh banned Jamaat-e-Islami, its student wing Islami Chattra Shibir, and other associate bodies as “militant and terrorist organizations.” Likewise, Pakistan’s military establishment frames the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM) and the Baloch Yakjehti Committee (BYC), two social movements, as “traitors, anti-state, and fifth generation hybrid warriors.”

Terrorism is a label of convenience that the states have (a) used to accumulate power, maintain order and silence critical voices. The stigmatization and negative connotation attached to terrorism allows states to demonize their political opponents and frame them as potential security threats. In doing so, they pave the way for the use of force against political oppositions, including arbitrary arrests, registration of cases, and even extrajudicial killings. States use laws and narratives as weapons by combining normative and prerogative elements to widen the process of criminalization as a mechanism to maintain monopolies over power.

Framing oppositional politics as terrorism and invoking counterterrorism laws to tackle the former can have far-reaching political, social and security implications.

- Abdul Basit Khan

The rapid advancements of communication and digital technologies in evolving political environments have blurred the lines between crimes and terrorism, as well as political activism and misinformation campaigns, allowing states to liberally use counterterrorism laws to maintain order. The broad nature and complexities of counterterrorism laws make them easily abused, having a corrosive effect on individual liberties and freedom of speech. Counterterrorism laws act both as a shield to justify state excesses and a tool to advance their interests. The (ab)use of counterterrorism laws is an act of aggrandizement that hits horizontal constraints on executive power, i.e., those from other elite actors. States weaponize counterterrorism laws as part of a larger control apparatus to suspend fundamental rights, including political rights like free speech and assembly. Consequently, the emerging securitization atmosphere provides justification for states to criminalize oppositional politics and penalize dissent. States legally harass the opposition, intimidate the media, and equate criticism with disloyalty.

Framing oppositional politics as terrorism and invoking counterterrorism laws to tackle the former can have far-reaching political, social and security implications. The securitized approach to deal with political issues allows states to retain power and assert control in the short-term, but it proves counterproductive in the long-term. In short, political issues have no security solutions.

First, using terrorism narratives to demonize political opponents can result in the gradual death of democracy. The correlation between the security crisis and democratic backsliding is poignant. In 2019, India used the pretext of a terrorist threat to move tens of thousands of additional troops into Kashmir before unilaterally taking away the region’s semi-autonomous status. From being the world’s largest democracy, India has taken a sharp turn toward an ethnocracy or autocracy where, despite regular elections, the norms of democracy are in terminal decline. Hence, it is unsurprising that in 2023, India’s status was downgraded from democracy to a hybrid regime. Similarly, Bangladesh under the Sheikh Hasina regime was reduced to a one-party authoritarian regime. Likewise, Pakistan’s democratic transition has been reduced to a hybrid rule where the civilian veneer is fast coming off. In fact, the Democracy Index 2023 reclassified Pakistan from a hybrid to an “authoritarian regime,” resulting in an 11-place drop, placing it at the 118th ranking globally.

Second, the securitization of politics also politicizes security, negatively impacting both. In Bangladesh, the Rabid Action Battalion (RAB), a paramilitary counterterrorism unit, has earned notoriety for acting as the previous regime’s private militia. It has been accused of extrajudicial killings, politically motivated arrests, and enforced disappearances. Likewise, India has routinely misused counterterrorism laws to silence critics. In 2019, the amendments to the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) extended their applicability from groups and organizations to individuals as well. According to Human Rights Watch, the authorities have routinely abused the UAPA to arrest students who protested the controversial Citizen Amendment Act. Likewise, several journalists, activists, and minorities have been booked under the UAPA. The situation in Pakistan is no different, where the saga of missing persons is as old as the country’s struggle against terrorism. The way PTM and the BYC have been accused of spreading anarchy in society is regrettable. The term “digital terrorism” has been coined in Pakistan ahead of installing a national firewall to block online content. 

South Asia remains one of the most affected regions by terrorism in the world. The Taliban’s return to power in August 2021 has created new security challenges for the region. Hence, the tendency to misuse terrorism laws against political opponents will negatively affect genuine counterterrorism efforts as well. Unfortunately, the elastic use of terrorism by South Asian states has weakened democracy and allowed terrorists to exploit the emerging state-society gaps to their advantage.

The author is a Senior Associate Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Singapore. X: @basitresearcher.