Spate of bomb blasts in Bangalore, Ahmadabad and other parts of the country has rekindled the debate over terrorism. If political parties are busy in blame game and finger pointing, the establishment has its quote of rituals; condemnation and reiterating its resolve to fight terrorism. All would be forgotten until the next round.

If the terrorist vs. freedom fighter argument debate prevented an internationally accepted definition for terrorism, debates within the country have been hampered by political correctness and partisanship. As a result, there is a tendency among the intelligentsia to club all forms of political violence as terrorism. So much misused terrorism has become an empty expression.

Any meaningful exercise regarding terrorism would have to begin with recognizing what is and what is not terrorism. All forms of political violence are not terrorism but the latter would have to be politically motivated.

At the outset one has to rule of all attacks on the security forces from the purview of terrorism. Even if the political motives and grievances are questionable, attacks on legitimate military targets such as military bases, army barracks, security forces conveys and other forms of military assets would have to be excluded from terrorism. They are undoubtedly motivated by political grievance but there are other appropriate expressions depicting such forms of violence.

Similarly one could exclude communal violence. Since partition of the sub-continent communal violence has become endemic to India and the number has only increased since then. Such violence not only affects the immediate people who are victims of such attacks but targets the wider community. Often it is a 'message' to silence the larger mass. Despite the temptations over post-Godhra riots and potential political dividends, it is essential to delink communal riots from terrorism. Organized or unorganized they are the result of larger social problems and depicting them as terrorism only complicates any efforts to minimize their recurrence. In riots the targets are chosen but in terrorism it is indiscriminate. Once a target is chosen terrorism does not distinguishes caste, color race or religion.

The demolition of the controversial Babri Masjid has unleashed large-scale backlash as manifested by the series of blasts in Mumbai on 12 March 1993. It is impossible to ignore the link between the two. The disappointment and helplessness felt by the Muslim masses at the government handling the Ayodhya dispute was real. Many felt let down by the state and its commitment to secularism and some settled for violence to express their anger. The link is undeniable but calling the demolition terrorism would insult both the act as well as terrorism.

Likewise, while political murder is an assassination, every assassination does not fall into the category of terrorism. For example, for long the murder of Mahatma Gandhi was not seen as terrorism. If the killing of Rajiv Gandhi by a female suicide bomber is an act of terrorism, the murder of Indira Gandhi by her security guards is a borderline category. The assassination was undoubtedly provoked by the perceived grievance of the Sikh community but can it be defined as terrorism in the classical sense of the term?

The discourse on terrorism needs a great degree of honesty and transparency. It is impossible to discuss the Sikh terrorism of the 1980s without looking at the culpable role played by the Congress party, especially its leaders Indira Gandhi and Zail Singh in the growth and popularity of Jarnail Singh Bhinranwale. The spreading of Naxal violence, which often manifests as terrorism is facilitated partly by their linkages with various political parties on the Left. Without addressing the umbilical card, it is impossible to fight Naxal violence. Same holds true for the extreme Hindu groups associated with the BJP.

Before blaming its neighbors for cross border violence and terrorism, India would have to look at its own track record. Many wanted for terrorism in neighboring states have been given support and sanctuary by various Indian political parties and leaders. Discussion on the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka would have to look at the political as well as financial support provided by various Tamil Nadu politicians including the then Chief Minister M G Ramachandran. The prolonged Maoist violence in Nepal was sustained by the tacit support from their ideological cousins in India.

It is essential recognize that political parties have a dubious track record and at one time or another willy-nilly they were collaborators in terrorism. In the name of supporting political demands of various groups, they had actively supported terrorism, provided political, economic and at times armed support to various groups that indulged in terrorism.

Hence it is unnatural to expect political parties and groups to come to terms with their past. Same holds true for activists whose primary concern is their partisan agenda. The Congress loves to forget to Rubiya Sayeed while the BJP would wish Kandahar never happened. Same holds true for others.

Therefore there is an urgent need for a non-partisan national discourse. Devoid of partisanship it has to recognize core characters that distinguish terrorism from other forms of political violence. Even if one sympathizes with the political cause of a group, any act of violence that targets innocent individuals and through them terrorizes the wider audience has to be recognized as terrorism.

Let the politicians and activists worry about political correctness and dividends. Let the conscious Indians avoid wrapping every violence as terrorism. Let's look for a narrower definition it so that one could see its true characters: political groups target innocent civilians with the purpose of terrorizing the wider audience. Whether Ahmadabad or Agartala the hallmarks of terrorism are same.

P R Kumaraswamy teaches at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.