K. Swapnil asked: What is the difference between urban terrorism and hinterland terrorism?

Vivek Chadha replies: The terms “urban” and “hinterland” have both geographical and socio-economic connotations. Urban refers to the towns and cities in any country. Urbanisation is often related to better development, higher income, and politically sensitive areas, which makes them more visible parts of a country. It is also for this reason that the urban centres tend to come up higher in the list of terrorist targets, given the sensational impact terror strikes in such areas could potentially make. In the Indian context, the wave of terrorism witnessed in Punjab had an urban flavour to it, when it was unleashed in towns like Jalandhar, Amritsar, etc.

On the other hand, hinterland refers to areas in the interiors, which are usually away from the coast. In terms of development, these areas are often at a disadvantage when compared to more developed regions elsewhere. The reference to the coast is linked to the spread of development around ports in the past, given the economic activity generated from there. While this may not be completely relevant in the present context, the term continues to be used for areas with limited development. In the Indian context, insurgency in the Naxal-hit areas can be associated with this description.

However, these classifications are not strict and are at times overlapping. Terror strikes by groups in regions other than the border areas are often described as terrorism in the hinterland. In some cases, this can also happen in urban areas as evident from bomb blasts in cities such as Varanasi, New Delhi and Ahmedabad. In that sense, urban terrorism becomes a subset of hinterland terrorism. Therefore, the usage of these terms tend to be more contextual in nature, rather than guided by any strict definitional parameter.

Posted on June 30, 2015