On 31 December 2015 heavily armed men sneaked into India from across the border. They mounted an attack on the Pathankot air force base, killing soldiers, putting crucial military assets at risk and endangering the lives of civilians.
The western media has refrained from calling these men terrorists, using more neutral terms like ‘gunmen’ instead. In the Indian media, the word terrorist has been widely used.
Were these men terrorists? How do we know when to deploy the term, so laden with political and moral implications?
Reuters is one of the largest news wire services in the world. And while its content is carried by major news outlets throughout the world, there has been controversy around its strict policy of objectivity, particularly when it comes to the use of the word “terrorist”.
Even in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks in New York, Reuters refused to use the word “terrorist” to describe those who planned and executed the attack on the World Trade Centre. The matter became more controversial when an internal memo by their global head of news was leaked.
Reuters came under attack for being neutral to the point of being insensitive. However, the question remains: Is there a bias in who the media chooses to call a terrorist?
First the obvious question. Is there any clear guideline on when the use of the word ‘terrorist’ is appropriate, or when ‘insurgent’ or ‘militant’ should instead be used?
For Praveen Swami, Strategic Affairs Editor of the Indian Express the words have a clear and precise definition, and it shouldn’t be difficult when to know which one to deploy.
But politically loaded terms are often over-scrutinised. The words ‘militant’ came to be used for violent non-state actors during the Punjab insurgency. The violent pro-Khalistan movement implemented something called the Panthic Code.
Among other things, it forbade journalists from using the word terrorist or extremist while referring to violent actors in the Khalistan movement. Any violation of the code would result in reprisal, often violent, for journalists. ‘Militant’, Praveen Swami feels, is too broad a term and is best abandoned. It confuses violent and non-violent actors. One can be militant environmentalist or even a militant anti-war activist. The term denotes the degree of commitment to an ideology, not necessarily violence.
Rajdeep Sardesai agrees with the definition of what constitutes a terrorist, but thinks it is broader in its application. Anyone employing fear and terror as a political tool is a terrorist. Till recently, western countries and media were reluctant to call acts of violence in our part of the world terrorist attacks. However, things have been changing around the world since the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Centre.
Are Maoists terrorists? Is there such a thing as saffron terror? Is there an inclination towards calling violent acts perpetrated by followers of a particular religion terrorist acts? The answer to the conundrum lies in applying the definition of terrorist without hyphenation or bias, feels Sardesai.
For Swami, terrorist does not describe a person but an act. Can we call Maoists terrorists? Not on the whole, feels Swami.
The real problem may lie in the fact that brutal attacks on a country, whether on a military installation like Pathankot or civilians as in the 26/11 Mumbai attacks shakes the population to the core. Journalists, as susceptible as anyone else, can respond to that emotional impulse as well.
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)