Type-1 Terrorists, terrorism and sponsors in "Guns Sans Frontières"

"Guns Sans Frontières"   Worms in woodworks and from woods:

Imaginch, did not know what made him to read about the Anobium Punctatum, a common furniture beetle. This beetle lays eggs on moist wood which become larvae (worms). They bore deep into the wooden articles and make it their home. Over a period of time, it destroys the home that sheltered it. They do not carry and propagate diseases, except causing minor discomfort. He named this beetle/larva (worms) and the likes as worms in the woodworks.

His wandering mind did some acrobatic manoeuvres, started to explore the phenomenon of terror and terrorism. He noticed that the worms and the terrorists shared many common characteristics between them – infesting to destroy. He delved deep to list the similarities. Ambrosia beetles, woodborer weevils, bark borer beetles, and deathwatch beetles infect the woodworks. 

Likewise, terror outfits of different ideologies infiltrate across borders. For simplicity’s sake, he named the terrorists as worms from the woods, as they often choose woods or forests as cover. Both like wood, infest, stay hidden, have ravenous appetite and feed on to destroy the shelter that harbours them. A major difference being, the worms and their destruction is a containable, with suitable protective treatments. No such preventive measures exist to contain this contagion called terrorists.

In his view, compassion to terrorists is tantamount to surrendering sovereignty.  The only treatment that would work is to put them down - lock stock and barrel, like in the old western movies. This will be better than naming and shaming the sponsors. Coming to the mindset of the international community towards terrorism and sponsors, he doubted that even the gunshots in the western movies could disturb their deep slumber.

To keep the narrative, on track to avoid getting lost in the woods, he came up with certain markers. He designated the ‘sponsor’ is the nation sharing borders, or in the same geographical region or has an inter-continental location, with a common ideology of inimical intent and selfish motives (this would become clear in part-2 of the narrative). The ‘perpetrators’ could be residents of the above qualifying nation/nations, as the terrorist are guns sans borders.

The worms from the woods range from ignorant and indoctrinated to learned and illogical. These camouflaged terrorists call themselves as liberators and freedom fighters. Once out, they perpetrate different forms of terror. Military grade combat training, including strategy, logistic and use of state-of-the-art technologies – under free education programme, probably with funds misappropriated from loans and grants given for developmental works. 

Modus operandi of these courageous, hardcore worms is:  On national duty, infiltrate and avoid contact with military/paramilitary forces, as much as possible. Select soft civilian targets, unleash terror attacks and escape alive to repeat the cycle, barring unforeseen encounter operations.

The tag, as non-state actors, is a meaningless misnomer. The terrorist has residences and families. And for the expedient of deniability, the citizenship records of the ‘host’ country registers them as ghosts with postal addresses, bank accounts and satellite phones. Their ethereal status draws the politicos, to hobnob, fall heads-over-heels, with these worms, to have a tete a tete. Each an invaluable asset to the other.

The safe haven enjoyed by these two-legged worms from the woods, made Imaginch to lock on to the nation that breeds and supports them. Taking the cudgel, he named the border sharing nation/nations, as worms that stay in the woods as type-1. These type-1 worms, facilitate the terrorists to sneak across borders in battle gear, with impunity. Instead of diplomatic passports, briefs or pouches, the terrorists carry grenades. 

Is it not the moral responsibility of the sponsor to ensure safe return of terrorists to home bases? The sponsor guarantees by providing satellite imageries and artillery cover during infils and exfils.

This Type-1 worms live with defunct moral compass.  As a state policy, not adverse to use terrorist as ambassadors to dispense cross-border terrorism. The nativity and the germinating pool of indoctrinated professionalism of the worms from the woods, is exploited to the hilt by this sponsor. As an added bonus, the sponsor has a perfected, successful low-cost military strategy with deniability for captive use, in proxy wars in the neighbourhood and a profitable business model terrorists as exportable commodity!  

To further their business model, this type-1 worms do not hesitate to dangle ‘strategic location carrots’ in exchange for umbrellas to shield them, from scrutiny and indictment. These quid pro quo umbrellas cut both the ways- nations, with devious minds, do not hesitate to help the strategic ally, and the ally offering FTA on all its exportable commodities and guaranteed deniability! Imaginch boiled at the callous attitude of nations hedge-funding terrorism. He decided to deal with such nations and related subjects separately, in part -2, as Type-2 worms that stay in the woods.

Two things happen, after any terror strike. First, likeminded worms from other terror outfits come out, waving different colour flags, to express solidarity and support. These comrades- in-arms are ready to offer a lend-lease programme – with munitions, technology and even able-bodied worms to swell the ranks. If they are foreign worms merrier the camp becomes.

Jostling for attention, the fledgling, home-grown version  of worms from the woods, (victim and sponsor) comes out in support. They shamelessly deliver sermons and eulogise to downplay the cross-border terrorism. They try to score bullet-points and badly needed exposure, to go up in the ladder of terrorism. These are attempts with certain aims. To address survival, financial crunch, and as a sure-shot means to move on the road to get ‘designated’. These home-grown versions, certainly have vision! Here, Imaginch had a doubt. How, the ‘designated’ outfits garner support and generate more revenue than the sponsoring nation?

The remorseless terrorists enjoy the aftermath of a terror attack, with a great deal of electronic and print media attention, focused on their heroic acts. They feel elated and encouraged by the epithets and upgrades, elevating them to the status of freedom fighters, from the ranks of mindless butchers. Their facsimiles do more electronic rounds than that of genuine freedom fighters, who never got it in their lifetime!

If at all possible, these media houses would have gone ahead, to pin gallantry medals on these ‘heroes’, conveniently forgetting that these worms are nothing but terrorists and their avocation is nothing but terrorism.  What the media attention achieves? The terrorists celebrate it by firing volleys of bullets in acknowledgement. Do terrorists worth the wasted print and pixels?   Imaginch fumed at this travesty steeped in hypocrisy!

 Second, the worms that jump on bandwagons (vocal, activist types) and worms with opaque vision (blind supporters) bravely come out from their quantum state of being there but actually not anywhere! The worms that jump on bandwagons, reside in individual glass jars. Going around, inside the highly polished inner wall of this protected domain, each worm admires its own reflection. Failing to comprehend the reality, it gets carried away by thinking that there are many more of its ilk, in action, with it. Truly, a narcissistic world, these worms that jump on bandwagons live! 

 Ring-side view or not, the worms with opaque vision refuse to see anything that is amiss and fail to do anything. Terrorism and terror funding, going hand in hand, right under their very eyes does not look bad. Forced to sit on this bullet edge, their dilemma is - to be patriotic or show loyalty to the inimical ‘friends’? Somewhere down the line, they have developed a malfunctioning conscience with an acquired opaque vision syndrome (AOVS).

Meet the faint secondary, 'sporty' peacenik worms that stay in the woods, lurking besides the main rainbow. This kind of worms, indigenous or foreign, often break cover, to bask in televised 15 second glory. Imaginch focused his attention on the indigenous ‘sporty’ peacenik worms, who miss no opportunity to seek humane treatment for the terrorists. In their sympathetic view, shooting without compunction and using fellow humans as Kevlar vests, is nothing but a minor human aberration.  

If these worms are from a political outfit, they try to exploit the acts of terrorist, to legitimise their sympathetic relevance- a pole vault patriotism. At the polling booths, this sportsmanship gets rewarded with empty ballot boxes. But the game goes on.

The other type of peacenik worms, wears political garb, grabs available mikes to dispense profound wisdom. Unfortunately, these scholarly analyses turn out to be jokes at home, and fail to tickle the audience, abroad.  Whatever branch they hail from, these ‘sporty’ worms would go after popularity rather than confronting the aided perpetrators. The who is who - the nation or the terrorists, is the catalyst to energise these peaceniks.

Imaginch wondered ‘what would be their response, if terrorists attack them!’ The attack would not happen, as these peacenik worms are under heavy security envelop.  Since they are safe from such terror attacks, they counsel vociferously to wave an olive branch and book a seat at the negotiating table to meet with these perpetrators. 

Unfortunately, these home-grown peacenik worms don't realise that the terrorists or the bullets they fire will not make any distinction, at the time of an attack. Imaginch boldly decided to shame them as humanity humiliators. He fumed, why not dismantle the security envelop and safeguard the public. This will definitely save many lives instead of a few?”

Now, Imaginch understood that all these worms, without distinction, are predators. They terrorise or lend support to the ‘heroic acts’ of terrorists. In case of the yet-to-make-the mark peaceniks, it is a way forward to grow, by hanging with the seasoned. He debated on this question – which type of worms are dangerous? The disturbing answer that came out was - Worms that stay in the woods, at home, as they bring complex dimension, in tackling the menace of terror.

Worming their ways into the hearts of academics, they have found ways to reach the courts and stall the firm handed dealing of terrorists and terrorism. In the name of activism, the combating response - swift or slow is decried in equal measures, with paralysing public demonstrations. Yet, they do not have time or artificial tears to shed for the victims and their families and to condemn the mayhem.  To give these worms company, media houses too ignored the existence and sufferings of victims’ families.

All these infected worms, vehemently deny the existence and the where abouts of terrorists because they view them as freedom fighters and martyrs. Are only those in uniforms duty bound to lay down their lives, so that all these selfish worms could enjoy freedom, protection and be opinionated? Imaginch wanted to urge the academics and activists - wake up and answer, is it not an irony, since it not personal?

Amid all these manoeuvrings, what do the terrorising worms, that enjoy the limelight do? Designated or not, as per their SOP, plan another attack with wanton impunity, spread the disease of destruction and inflict sufferings. There is one thing that is common between the worms in the woodworks and the worms from the woods – both proliferate, infest and never perish, but destroy the very shelter that housed them.

What do the families of victims do? The burden of tragedy makes them to turn over another page of life. Why there is no public outcry, demanding economic boycott of the sponsor as cost for its transgressions? Are they satisfied that the band-aid type ex-gratia or insurance payouts announced, would compensate and mitigate the sufferings? The world does not give a damn about the victims - buried or burnt. Why the worms in the woods are not forced to cease, desist, deny shelter and act against terrorists?  What prevents the sponsoring nation from doing it, helplessness?

 No. The sponsoring nation gets to play the victim card (themselves being sufferers) to get sympathy and strategic importance card to get funds to tide over financial collapse. Why would it close the well-established supply chain and forgo the profitable business model based on terror and terrorism?”

We all live in the world of victims, perpetrators, sponsors, sympathisers, and importers/exporters of terrorism. Imaginch could add nothing more. Has he become a cherry picker?  No, thanks. He does not fancy meeting a worm in the fruit!

The miffed Judge

Dripping wet and feeling pangs of apprehension, I swiped on the face and accepted the judge's call. He sounded tired and a trace of rejection seeped through his voice. 

The judge simply said, I had a fight with the Registrar, for refusing to publish my suo motu verdicts.

This electrical shocker stunned me. I asked, "Why would he and on what grounds?

The judge replied, "I can understand the why, but the grounds really shook me like an earthquake."

I asked, dropping my tone in to a sympathetic scale, "on what grounds?"

He called it as " Invitus et non-sollicitatus" extra judicial activism. Have you ever heard of this?

Yes. In one of the lecture classes and we students termed it as non-sollicitatus , meaning we did not want it.

I did not tell him that the Registrar meant that he reluctantly rejects the unsolicited judgements.

The judge: But I did not hear it even once.

Me: Probably, the intention of the Registrar was to rectify the situation.  Usually, the judge would direct a kill-stare at me, but he badly needed my shoulder to cry on.

I asked him,” why you called me and what I have to do with this?”

Counsellor, Let us talk, meet me in the court.

I wished for a miracle - a walkable distance stretching beyond the orbit of Mars. That distance might have appeared very far even for a miracle to reach. End result- the miracle let me down and my feet walked me for the talk.

He said, “You know, all these suo motu cases were argued by you as pro bono. Why should I alone wallow in misery for this highhandedness.  Ok. Is there a foreign word for highhandedness?”

Me: “Judge there are.  "Superbia" is pride and arrogance.  "arrogantia" roasts you with presumption and disdain.  "nimis manus" conveys the idea of overbearing or excessive control. Having dealt with this Registrar for long, who else would be a better person than you, to judge what he implied about the verdicts?”

Good or rotten, the apple does not fall far from the tree. The rotten ones have worms too! That old owl of a Registrar, how dare he...

Me: “Judge, please stop right there. You are about to step into a probable libel suit there. “

The judge with a faraway look replied like an automaton, “Unless this issue is resolved, how can I take suo motu cognizance of that libel suit, you mentioned, and appoint you as a pro bono counsellor?

I understood his "status mentis" and murmured to myself how do I tell him - To go back to doodling or wood carving or any other engaging activity to calm down? Will he understand that I meant well for his "tranquillare" or "lenire" or "quietare"?

The judge is known for his instant teleporting with teleprompting skills. The talk is that he does so to unsettle an opponent. Whatever it is, I am only nervous to receive his calls and not in person. The binding equation is rather strong - the only suo motu judge and his unfortunate pro bono counsellor. 

Suddenly he spoke, " You feel as though I am making noise about a legal language? Let me tell you something about noise: The type 1, from those who, with third or fourth generation getting educated in private schools/ foreign universities, wake up and make political noise on the richness of a language, which is not spoken by all. The type 2 noise comes from persons following same modus operandi, to sing praises of a particular tongue in which neither he is proficient nor has visions for future generations.

The type 3 noise maker is the one who tries to ride two boats, into a language controversy - points out all fingers on the neighbouring state's dismal performance questioning the failure percentage. This noise maker conveniently forgets that his state has a ‘no retention policy'. 

The type 4 noise maker does all the above, but tries to establish, with archaeological diggings, that his tongue and cultural roots predate the world of languages with antiquity. His 3nd and 4th generation study abroad, to probably to understand the antiquity as medium of instruction. 

In turn, he has ignited the desire in society to dig and find the antiquity or mediocrity of their beloved language. But there is one thing they don't vocally state but imply - future generations be damned or doomed.”

This lengthy speech left me speechless, literally and verbally. In confusion I asked, “Judge where are you going with all these? Why are you worried about the noise and what it has to do with your tiff with the Registrar?

Judge: “I am going back to my question of foreign words used in verdicts, denials and dismissals. By using a foreign language to reject my sound legal verdicts - suo motu or not, is the Registrar not making a silent noise?”

I felt a lightning bolt striking twice at the same place. To say, stunned by this outburst is an understatement or is it litotes? Still, the relevance to the Registrar's reluctance eluded me, like an eel fish. How am I going to ground him ,on his own repeated usage of foreign words?

As per his own words, he has no legal standing for presiding and dealing with cases, without they being filed and so on. It eluded my limited legal Latin vocabulary, why the Registrar has not used “Ultra vires” an apt phrase instead of “Invitus et non-sollicitatus" when both mean, more or less - plus minusve, to acting or done beyond one's legal power or authority! I felt lost in the woods of Latin words. At this point, I decided to end the session for the day. at the Judge, “May we reconvene, at a mutually convenient time, tomorrow?”

The judge surprised me. “Let us switch the language and meet for a “Voir dire”, so to say, 'to speak the truth'. How this works for you, counsellor?”

I vaguely recollected this legal term, with French nativity. Jury selection depends on it. The competence of a witness to testify, also can be examined with this tool. My doubt- is he trying to test my competence or the lack thereof?

To pass the competent test, I said, “Judge, usage of Latin, in the chambers of law, is as old as the Roman laws. It adds richness to legal pronouncements. Clarity and precision, stability and unchanging nature, is ideally suited for use in legal terminology. Reduces ambiguity and potential for misinterpretation. Its continued usage is a matter of tradition and legal professionals, are reluctant to abandon them entirely. 

A language is a civilisation's gift, that has endured, persevered, flourished and floundered. This does not mean the language too should flounder. English and other languages becoming the dominant language in legal practice, could not do away with this prejudice. For example, suo motu and pro bono did not be native because you are fine with using them!"

Counsellor, hold your horses there. When I am dealing with our penal code, why are you bringing in Roman and French horses? 

I sensed this travel will never go anywhere and I did not remind him that the French horse was from his stable. Politely informed the judge, a recess would be in order to tether the horses and refresh our minds.

I took this time to reflect.  My lecturer spent an hour to explain why Latin, Greek and French words got into the legal system. In his baritone voice, he intoned, “The Romans gave us the template to build upon, for the legal systems and naturally a few Latin words, came along. This language being precise and unchanging in its meaning, lent a regal voice to pronounce our legal proceedings. Not to be left behind the Greek and French languages also offered some choice words. 

Now let me introduce a few of the most often used words in court proceedings. This will help you to be in the same page as the law, which you all will be practicing.”  Some took serious notes, and I didn’t.  He was an erudite scholar, which I started to appreciate after leaving the college!

Each imprisoned in his own thoughts, we went to a nearby brew house specialising in one of a kind of coffee. The joint looked empty of patrons and a lone man, standing in front of the counter, was chasing daydreams with a napkin. The moment he saw us he appeared to be having two minds - to run us off or simply vanish. Concluding both to be impractical, he beamed a plastic smile at the judge. Without further exchange, he disappeared behind a curtain and reappeared with two steaming cups. I presumed, it could be the one-of-a-kind brew.

Yes, it turned out to be just that - burnt coffee seeds, cogitating with a little engine oil, condiments and some undeterminable ingredients. The judge took to the drink like fish to water.  Moments of silent exchange between the judge and the daydream chaser came to an end and the judge announced the recess to be over and back to where we let off.

Instead of the adjourned matter under discussion, the judge started a new ,unpublicised story. Years back when he was a lawyer, this coffee shop owner was implicated in civil suit. I argued his case, pro bono, and won. That time, the old court was functioning nearby, and he had a healthy business going. Tides turned, the court moved to a new premises drying up his business. For old times’ sake, I visit the shop whenever possible. He thinks I had something to do with the loss of business. That is why the lukewarm welcome I get, alone or in company.

Masking my sarcasm I asked, “Why you remembered this old story, now”

The judge’s sharp look conveyed annoyance and he said, “If only I had forgotten, then I should try to remember it. Did you ever wonder, why my cases always involved you as a pro bono counsellor?”

Fearing another lengthy story about him rescuing a greasy joint in a suo motu case, I kept my counsel to remain silent.

The judge provoked me to say something. Throwing caution and reprimands to the winds I blurted out slogan like responses.

 Judgement reserved with foreign words is Law in regal clothes.

Judgement without foreign words, is like peacock without its vibrant plumage.

Judgement reserved with or without foreign words is Law in darned clothes.

Should I bid adieu for suo motu cases and pro bono appearances? Mentally I started the process of filing a ‘habeas corpus’ and a ‘writ mandamus’ to be on the safer side. I took an ex-parte decision not to wait and leave the judge alone, to fight with his Latin, Greek and French demons! However, from a corner of my heart oozed empathy for this arbiter senilis.

At that point in time, a thunderous noise broke through to my mind. Postponing the debate which alerted me - conscious or subconscious type, I hastily audited the safety of my limbs and faculties.  Now, once again the thunder was trying to get admitted through my front door. Cursing silently, I opened the door and came face to face with the judge. Not only his presence but his invitation for a stroll in the park set me on fire. 

Reading my face, the judge asked " did I interrupt any romantic dreams?"

This last statement confused me more than his opinions.  Incredulous, I asked, " judge why you made such a statement?"

Calmly he said, " Look at you. Does the Latin lexicon, you are holding offers clues to daydreams or is it sub Judice to comment?"

Then only I realised that I might have fallen asleep, reading and thinking about the learned judge (not clear why). 

I agreed for the walk in the park, to clear my mind (and send off the judge), if he would be kind enough to come inside and wait for me to freshen up.