Terrorism
Freedom fighter?
The saying goes “one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist”.
There is a clear difference between freedom fighter and a terrorist. Both might resort to violence, but only terrorists use terror as a weapon, and have no remorse in killing unarmed civilians. A freedom fighter on the other hand might not even use violence at all – as in the way India gained its independence, through Satyagraha (the Civil Disobedience Movement engineered and lead by Gandhi).
When people are under the protectorate of a government, as in most civilized societies, where all its citizens are guaranteed equal rights and protection by the State, violence of any kind is not really warranted. But what happens when the government uses “excessive force” (aka terrorism) to subdue its civilians? Then eventually some of these freedom fighters end up responding with likewise or greater force, and eventually cross the line to become terrorists (not all people/societies are mature enough to be a Gandhi or even understand how to avail to democracy; and the onus would ideally be on the elite elected officials to understand and deal with that).
Generating Terrorists
The big question is, once these freedom fighters turn into terrorists, should we be sympathetic to their original cause? If the answer is “yes”, then we are supporting and encouraging terrorism. If the answer is “no” then we are supporting and encouraging that “might is right” (i.e. state sponsored terrorism). That is, if you are the majority, don’t think twice about silencing the minority, as in the short term the victims will defend themselves, but in the long term they’ll become terrorists, and at that point nobody will back them, but will back you 100%. What this says is that it is ok to uproot native cultures (as often is the case) with total disregard for their sensitivities. Like the plight of the once noble and honorable Sumarai who were turned into terrorists by the turn of century, the plight of Tibetan Buddhists, the plight of the Buddhists in Indonesia, the plight of the Tamil population in Sri Lanka, etc. State sponsored terrorism: turning civilians into terrorists.
But the real question is, what caused freedom fighters to originate in the first place in a civilized society? Why or how did the government (i.e. the majority people) cause a minority group to feel that alienated or disenfranchised so as to become freedom fighters (let alone terrorists)? I’m sure my question is too simple, and the answer way too complex… which is why I’ll not bother with it, we have political scientists and sociologists for that :).
Religion
I’ve always held that at the very heart of most of the ethnic conflicts is the introduction of the concept of “religion” by Christian and Islamic missionaries (Africa and South East Asia – Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Phillippines, Cambodia, Sudan, etc). From which ensues the ideas of “religious identity” and “religious discrimination”. Prior to the advent of missionaries there was no religion in most of these countries. There was only faith, and there was no fanaticism over ones faith (or faiths) nor any attempt to forge an identity out of ones faith. Just as devotees in India go to Siva, Vishnu, Murugan, and Kali temples and read from each other spiritual texts, such was the case in other places, until Christians or Muslims came, created divisions (“isms”) that did not exist, and left; leaving the native populations in perpetual “ethnic” struggle.
Along with religion, Western and Middle-East culture has been obsessed by the word “conquer”. A deadly combination. Even as late as the 20th century the term was not “space exploration”, but the “conquest of outer space”. As also in “to conquer or master the seven seas”, “to conquer the world”. Not to mention the early obsession to conquer or control Nature. Contrast this to the more benign Eastern approach of seeking harmony with Nature through yoga.
Video
This excellent seven minute video lecture, Prof. Valentine Daniel of Columbia University, shows how the Sri Lankan crisis between Ceylonese Buddhists and Tamil Hindus is a result of divisiveness that was never there prior to Christian missionaries. The Christian missionaries introduced the idea of identity based on ethnicity and religion. The missionaries left, but the division they left behind remained.