| |
|
One Man’s Terrorist
Law Enforcers’ Attitudes towards Terrorism
S. Sanyal*
 
Counter Terrorism is concerned with the maintenance
of law and order. It is dependent on skilful intelligence acquisition,
the adoption of sensible precautions, logical contingency planning and
reasoned argument – each predicated upon and supported by concrete anti-terrorist
capabilities and action. Existing attitudes and opinions among the common
man, the victims, various professionals including the media and the
criminal justice system have strong determining influences on the state’s
counterterrorist policies and action. The scientific study of such attitudes
and opinions is, consequently, a precondition to the evolution of consistent
and effective state policy. A coherent strategic approach can only be
constructed on the basis of a social consensus on the nature of terrorism
and the actions of terrorists. Such an approach must express the conviction
that terrorism within a democratic polity is entirely repugnant, and
that a fanatical minority cannot be permitted to hold an entire nation
or its people to ransom through the use or the threat of extreme force.
Within the attitudinal complex of the entire social
system, the opinions that have the most direct and immediate bearing
on counterterrorist practice are those held by members of the criminal
justice system – specifically, the police, the judiciary and the penal
institutions. This paper is an attempt to assess the attitudes towards
terrorism of officials drawn from these three professions, and is based
on the results of an ongoing and wider study that is intended to evaluate
social attitudes towards terrorism in order to help design policies
to combat the problem.
Research on terrorism has often been driven by various
presumptions regarding the personality of the terrorist, alternatingly
creating stereotypes of psychotic, fanatical, or highly motivated and
rational individuals. Each of these images has its own validity, since
terrorists are complex human beings – rational or otherwise – governed
by laws of behaviour that apply to all of us. More significantly, within
the context of the present study, the attitudes and opinions held by
others are significant determinants not only of the dynamics of such
behaviour and the terrorist’s evaluation of himself, but also of the
collective response to acts of terrorism. Interpersonal relationships
– and our transactions with terrorists fall into this category – depend
substantially on personal attitudes, on subjective likes and dislikes,
and perceptions of the other and his ideology. Our opinions may cast
the terrorist in the role of hero and saviour, or degrade him as the
very embodiment of evil – in either case, the impact on the terrorist
and on his potential to act as he wills, is immense, since his actions,
and often his very ability to survive, depend upon the attitudes of
people, particularly those in his immediate vicinity. The more positive
these attitudes, the wider the sphere of freedom and power that he enjoys,
and the greater his confidence in the validity and realisation of his
goals. Even where he does not secure the approval of the people, he
may succeed as a result of the overwhelming fear he inspires – fear
that, a number of studies indicate, is disproportionate to the actual
damage he causes. Terrorists, moreover, have their apologists in a wide
variety of social strata, and are often perceived as friends of the
oppressed, standing up to the tyranny of the state, using violence to
dismantle a repressive system that violates the human rights of a people.
An effective strategy of counterterrorism would have
to defeat such perceptions as much as it would have to defeat the terrorist
through force of arms. While building up military, administrative, legal
and economic measures to combat terrorism, a systematic information
campaign is also necessary to win over the minds and the hearts of the
people, and weaken the links between extremist elements and their supporters
and sympathisers.
Since, in combating terrorism, we are dealing with
human behaviour, it is all the more important for behavioural science
research to examine the reactions and responses of the state and of
various sections of its population, including their sense of vulnerability,
their threat perceptions, and the conditions that give rise to political
violence, and the justifications of political. Such studies would help
assess the terrorists’ sources of strength, as well as their impact
on the system at large.
Terrorism is a specific form of political violence,
and there has been substantial ambiguity in its definition – ambiguity
that is reflected in the state’s response. There is an inchoate tendency
to approach the problem in terms of what is considered just or unjust,
with the actual parameters of these terms left largely undefined. As
a result, co-operation even between various authorities and institutions
of the state has often crumbled in the face of disagreement and the
absence of shared perceptions and values.
Nevertheless, given the fact that liberal democracies
all over the world are being increasingly targeted by terrorists, it
is clear that entire nations cannot be left to suffer under the assault
of impatient minorities and their threats or acts of violence. Moreover,
despite wide disagreements on specific actions and responses, it is
a fact that there is a general agreement on the fundamentally negative
character of terrorism. Terrorism today is seen to have caused thousands
of violent deaths and left untold millions psychologically and physically
scarred. Its worst affected victims have been women, children and the
aged. Children who have experienced nothing but hatred, fear, bloodshed
and violence in their surroundings have grown up with traits of overwhelming
aggression, instability, obstinacy, irresponsibility, and an obsession
with vengeance. Irrespective of the professional or ideological context
of their judgements, there is now a growing consensus that there are
very few circumstances, especially in a democratic polity, that justify
a resort to indiscriminate extremist violence.
The objective of the present study was to assess attitudes
towards terrorism of members of various arms of the criminal justice
system. It is an empirical, diagnostic study designed to measure attitudes
of three specific groups of criminal justice functionaries who are directly
responsible for various tasks connected with tackling terrorism, providing
protection and relief to its victims, and dealing with the terrorists
themselves.
In order to assess the opinions of its target groups,
an attitude scale was administered to 36 police officers, 54 judicial
officers and 25 officers of the correctional services on the hypothesis
that their opinions would be significantly influenced by their profession,
the frequency and nature of their confrontation with terrorists, the
realities and constraints of their workplace, and the ideological/conceptual
context of these interactions. It was assumed that, though each of these
three categories of professionals shared certain law enforcement goals
and objectives, the circumstances under which they worked, the stage
at which they encountered or confronted the terrorist act and its consequences,
and the tasks they were required to perform in response would have a
direct impact on their perceptions. Consequently, the police, who directly
confronted the terrorist onslaught, and who were exposed to maximal
risk – a risk that often extended to their families as well – and who
saw the primary and immediate evidence of the irrationality, the brutality
and the ugliness of each terrorist act, could be expected to be harsher
and more aggressive in their approach to terrorism. The judiciary and
the correctional officials, distanced from the immediate impact of the
terrorist act and required, respectively, to either settle the question
of guilt or innocence, or to hold the terrorist in custody, would be
expected to be more moderate in their judgements. In terms of the broad
trends, it was expected that:
-
Significant differences exist in the opinions of the police, the
judicial and correctional officers.
-
The police were more specific, frank and aggressive in their opinions
on terrorism.
-
Judicial officers were more moderate in their attitude, and concerned
with the human rights aspects of their decisions.
-
Correctional officers, as the last link in the criminal justice
system, tend to be more ambivalent in their approach to terrorism.
To explore the attitudinal complex of various categories
of respondents, a Likert-type scale was constructed in a pilot study,
with 60 items focusing on attitudinal responses to various salient features
of terrorism.1 Both qualitative and quantitative assessments
were made to obtain correct inferences regarding the attitudes of police,
judicial and correctional officers in the study. It is significant that
a great deal of persuasion and explanation of the objectives of the
study were necessary to secure the co-operation of the sample group.
Many questionnaires were simply not returned, or were returned without
responses. A large number of forms were taken away by the officers with
assurances that they would be duly filled out and returned, but are
yet to be received. This hesitation to respond to the questionnaire
may be a result either of undefined apprehensions or of indifference.
Data was, however, eventually collected on the basis of responses of
police, judicial and correctional officers who came for training to
the National Institute of Criminology & Forensic Sciences (NICFS)
under a variety of programmes over a span of three years.
Of the 60 items that constituted the original scale
of the pilot study, 44 were selected to measure the attitudes of the
three groups of professionals in the criminal justice system. Of these,
15 items are discussed here, and it is interesting to note that there
is substantial variation in the response on many of these as reflected
in Graphs 1-15. It was observed that, while the results obtained showed
no apparent statistical variations between the three groups on various
issues (each item or question represented an issue), yet, inherent differences
were visible when the responses were observed separately, and these
differences were natural and to be expected.
The first statement examined was: Without political
violence, constructive change is not possible (Graph 1) Surprisingly,
12 police personnel out of a sample of 36 (33.33%), expressed agreement
with this idea (with one strongly agreeing). The disapproval of the
judicial (66%) and correctional officers (72%) was stronger and less
ambiguous. The no response (or ‘don’t know’) category should also not
be ignored in these results.
The responses to the statement, We cannot call ourselves
civilised as long as we have terrorist activities in the country
(Graph 2) were evenly distributed across all three categories, suggesting
that the respondents perceived no relationship between the levels of
civilisation and terrorist activities. However, the fact that 56% of
police, 41% of judicial and 32% of correctional officers disagreed with
the statement may also suggest that violence and terrorism are perhaps
looked upon as negative aspects of the civilisational process itself,
and that the police, with their greater exposure to societal violence,
are perhaps more inclined to this view, believing that terrorism has
come to stay, and that we must learn to combat it.
A majority of professionals in all three categories
agreed with the proposition that "Terrorists are misguided, unemployed,
frustrated youth; the government should consider their demands sympathetically"
(Graph 3) Interestingly, while the highest proportion of positive responses
expectedly came from the judiciary, 69% of policemen also agreed with
the statement, going against the general belief that the police tend
to a repressive ‘law and order’ or punitive orientation. The lowest
proportion of agreements, 56%, was observed among correctional officers
who were expected to have a more ‘reformist’ orientation. These trends
were reinforced further by the responses to the statement, Rather
than punishing them, we should help them through treatment. As many
as 60% of the correctional officers opposed the idea of giving treatment
to terrorists instead of punishing them; indeed, 15 correctional officers
out of the sample of 35 felt that terrorists should not even be given
the advantages of the various vocational and welfare programmes that
benefited other criminals. By comparison, only 26% of judicial and 34%
of police officials were in favour of a purely punitive orientation.
As many as 56% of police officers, who were immediate witnesses to the
violence and anarchical impact of terrorist activities, were nevertheless
in favour of a reformist approach. Jail Superintendents and Welfare
officials who should have been more inclined to the idea ‘correcting’
the behaviour of the criminals in their custody had, on the other hand,
evidently been swayed by the scandal of the smouldering decay of India’s
prisons, of the numerous disturbances within them, and a succession
of public inquiries into conditions prevailing within a variety of jails.
Hardcore terrorists, as high-risk offenders constitute an added responsibility
and they were clearly unwilling to take any chances. These prisoners
are usually kept under maximum security and surveillance, often fettered,
and normally denied access to a variety of treatment and welfare programmes
that may be offered to other inmates. Clearly, opinions here have been
shaped by the exigencies and burdens of additional administrative risks
and accountability that are inevitable when dealing with volatile and
dangerous prisoners – or with prisoners perceived as such.
The proposition, Political violence should be legally
liberalised (Graph 6) also threw up interesting anomalies. Here,
a consensus on disagreement could have been expected, and yet, while
the distribution was definitely and strongly skewed in this direction,
there were a surprising number of agreements – with the largest proportion
coming from judicial officers who would have been expected to emphasise
the imperatives of order and democratic protest. As many as 19% of judicial
officers were in favour of the legal liberalisation political violence.
16% of correctional and 8% of police officials also assented. Another
15% of judicial, 8% of correctional and 14% of police officials were
ambivalent on this issue, registering a ‘Don’t know’ response. Similar
trends were evidenced in the responses to the propositions, A frustrated
man has a right to rebel against the state (Graph 14) and Since
political violence has solved many problems of society, which it set
out to address, it should be given due respect (Graph 15). Political
violence was also endorsed by significant numbers of negative responses
by all categories to the statement that Terrorism cannot be regarded
as a rational method of dealing with national problems (Graph 11);
40% of correctional, 17% of police and 10% of judicial officials felt
that it could be so regarded. To the extent that the three institutions
from which the present sample was drawn represent the conservative forces
of society, these responses are at least surprising, if not disturbing.
Nevertheless, the questionnaire drew out strong endorsement,
across the board, in favour of non-violence as a solution to political
problems (Graph 8), and a high level of concern was also expressed regarding
terrorist activities (Graphs 7 & 9). Strong action against the terrorists
was endorsed by an overwhelming majority in all categories (Graph 13).
An overwhelming majority also felt that extremist ideologies had their
sources on foreign soil, and that the people should be warned by the
government regarding the danger of such influences and interventions
(Graph 10).
Both the strength of these trends and the aberrations
deserve close attention. In every country where terrorism currently
manifests itself in the political arena, there is a continuous dispute
between various agencies and arms of the state – though most prominently
between the police and security forces, on the one hand, and the judiciary,
the political opposition and the media, on the other. The former tend
to treat terrorism simply as a law and order problem; the latter are
more inclined to discover complexities of motivation and perceive terrorist
violence as a war – with varying degrees of legitimacy – against an
established state.
Terrorism constitutes the gravest danger to democracy,
in that it seduces democracies to destroy themselves through either
overreaction or an inadequate response. A carefully balanced approach,
however, is possible only if a clear understanding and consensus exist
on related issues and policies in all arms of the state. It is, however,
evident that a substantial degree of ambivalence and confusion exists
on the subject among officials of various branches of governance in
India. These variations are a consequence, not of an objective evaluation
of all aspects of the problem, but of selective professional exposure
to some of the characteristics and consequences of terrorism.
The failure to cope with the rising tide of terrorism
signifies the failure of the complete system. There has been a persistent
tendency to put the entire onus of this failure on the police and the
security forces. This is myopic and counterproductive. Other branches
of the government are also responsible, and should be held accountable.
Only a response that co-ordinates the combined efforts of the police,
security forces, intelligence agencies, the judiciary, the civil and
political executive, the legislature, as also correctional institutions
and policies, can prove effective in countering this growing menace.
The political will that could bring about such an effort will emerge
from deeper research and a larger debate on issues related to terrorism;
research and debates that can produce a better understanding and a stronger
mandate for concerted action to defeat this scourge.
-
The
scale was administered as a pilot study on a heterogeneous group
of 200 subjects, representing professionals, educated youth, unemployed
students, housewives, teachers as well as members of various institutions
of the criminal justice system. At this stage, internal consistency
and item analysis were computed, with 41 items screened on the basis
of a significance level at .001. Reliability and split-half reliability
tests were administered to 100 subjects twice at an interval of
30 days. The scores of .65 and .57 at a significance level of .001
were recorded on these occasions. The face validity was determined
by taking the opinion of 10 judges in order to measure the criterion
validity. Responses of terrorists and victims are also being collected.
The scale has been found to be both reliable and valid in the pilot
study. Cf. SANYAL, Dr. S, & KATHPALIA, V.K., "Developing a Scale
Measuring Attitude Towards Terrorism", Indian Journal of Criminology,
Volume 17, No. 2, July 1989.
|
