​​How is a terrorist different from a freedom fighter?

Answer Podcast

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
What is the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter? Yeah. At one level, we could say this is subjective.
Say a person who is fighting in Kashmir, in India for independence of Kashmir or for protection against the protection of the Kashmiris, they may be considered by the Kashmiris to be a freedom fighter and Indians may label them as a terrorist. So, once we go into various specific geopolitical causes, the nomenclature is not important. It is the conduct that is important.
If innocent people are being targeted as a matter of vendetta, then such action is not worthy of a person who claims to fight for a principled cause. Today, especially the western media highlights how India and the Indian army does some excesses in Kashmir. But quite often while talking about this, what is completely or largely neglected is that there have been Muslim insurgents who have been doing excesses against Hindu families over there.
In 1989 or so, the whole thousands of Kashmiri Pandits were either annihilated or were driven out of, they had to flee from Kashmir. And a similar drive is to some small extent being attempted today wherever it is possible for the insurgents to do so. So, if we are going to call this as freedom fighting, that people who have lived for generations in a particular place are forced to flee or they are killed, this is definitely not the cause of any principled action.
It is brutal inhuman violence. So, the difference is in terms of the way one conducts oneself. If one is brutally indiscriminately targeting innocent people who are not directly involved in the cause that one is agitating for, then that is not at all the action of any principled person.
So, terrorism as I said is defined by attacking civilians, it is defined by attacking people who are not directly involved in warfare. That itself is vintage terrorism.