Khan 1

Muhammad Dayyen Khan

Gulrukhsar Mujahid

International Relations

1st May, 2017

The Art of Subjective Terrorism

History has seen instances where people have fought for numerous ideologies and beliefs;

some more religiously oriented while others oriented towards unshackling the “People” from the

chain imposed on them by their governments. From the infamous Crusade Wars fought in the

name of Allah and in the name of the Pope by the Muslims and Christians from 1096 AD

onwards, to the now present War against Terrorism being fought against Islamic militancy, both

had and, presently, have sides who justify their actions in their own subjective ways.

But the more pressing and, rather unorthodox form of “terrorism”, that people might

consider or argue about, is the art of revolution, the art of change, the art of reform. The Editors

of the Encyclopedia Brittanica described the period of the French Revolution from September 5,

1793, to July 27, 1794 (9 Thermidor, year II) as La Terreur, or the Reign of Terror. During this

period, revolutionaries gave orders to execute and carry out severe punishments against everyone

who dared go against their movement. This order was soon followed by a number of public

executions, turning a movement of change in to a kamikaze of blood baths.

During the period of the Revolution, French citizens razed and redesigned their country’s

political landscape, uprooting centuries-old institutions such as absolute monarchy and the feudal

system. They abolished the system of monarchy, that granted the Church of France and the

Monarchy complete and utter autonomy over the country’s funds, leaving the “People” to die of

starvation, disease and poverty. The “People” saw that their rulers were incompetent, without
 Khan 2

empathy for the ones they ruled, which ultimately led them to take matters into their own hands,

marking one of the biggest instances portraying the “Power of the People”. The movement

played a critical role in shaping modern nations by showing the world the power inherent in the

will of the people but, as stated by numerous modern historians, “Degenerated into a chaotic

bloodbath”.

To most, this was an act of terrorism. It was much similar to the actions committed by

Nazi Germans who, in their own subjective viewpoint, wanted revenge for the treatment their

homeland was given by the winning side after WWI. Both instances saw a “People”, fighting for

their claims to freedom, their claim for revolution, to unshackle themselves from a superior

“Power”. Both instances had an immense body count, had innumerable human riots violations,

but, regardless of their similarities, today’s society views one instance to be justified, while the

other to be one the worst times in the history of this world.

The predicament that this argument ultimately reaches is, who decides which form of

terrorism is, in fact, the right form? The world flinches at the idea of the World Trade Centre

being taken down on September 11th by the Al- Qaeda, which was, without a doubt, one of the

saddest instances this world has had the ill fortune of witnessing, but the thing that really draws

questions is, that the very same world acknowledges the actions of the United States during

WWII in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be justified. One event is categorized as a catastrophe while

the other is categorized as collateral.

The truth, according to me, is that revolution, or any action committed in the name of an

ideology, will only be justified and not categorized as terrorism, if the side that calls for

revolution is the side that wins. “History is written by the victor” were words uttered by the

infamous Winston Churchill, and in all honesty, truer words have never been spoken. It is the
 Khan 3

side that wins that decides what is justified and what is not. It is the side that wins that defines

terrorism and revolution. But if you take away that added value of perception, you might as well

believe that the actions of the Mujahedeen forces in Afghanistan and those of the French in the

18th century are one of the same thing. Both “People” wanted to free themselves from the

clutches of their superiors. At the time, the United States, out of their “good will” had decided to

start working towards “stabilizing” the Afghani government after Soviet units retreated from the

region, and during that stabilization, had conveniently decided take the law in their own hands,

carrying out a number of strikes and armed assaults against Afghanis who wanted them to leave.

Perception is what gives definition to actions. Yes, I do believe that when people gather

to fight for their rights against a government, or any other kinds of oppressors for the sake of

their freedom and rights, it can never be categorized as terrorism, provided that the actions of the

people during that movement, do not imitate those of the oppressor. But movements which

camouflage blood baths, torments, killings and inhumane actions, under the umbrella of

revolution are no more than feeble actions of terrorism, no different than those committed by

organizations such as the Islamic State or Al-Qaeda. It is perception that defines, and it is

perception that deceives the world into believing right to be wrong, and wrong to be right.
 Khan 4

Works Cited

http://www.history.com/topics/french-revolution

https://www.britannica.com/event/Reign-of-Terror

https://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article779.html