"Freedom fighter" is a term for those engaged in a struggle, the main cause of which is to achieve political freedom for themselves or obtain freedom for others.[1] Though the literal meaning of the words could include anyone who fights for the cause of freedom, in common use it may be restricted to those who are actively involved in an armed rebellion, rather than those who campaign for freedom by peaceful means (though they may use the title in its literal sense).
Generally speaking, freedom fighters are people who use physical force to cause a change in the political and or social order. Notable examples include uMkhonto we Sizwe in South Africa, the Sons of Liberty in the American Revolution, the Irish Republican Army in Ireland and Northern Ireland, the Eritrean People's Liberation Front, and the National Resistance Army in Uganda, which were considered freedom fighters by supporters. However, a person who is campaigning for freedom through peaceful means may still be classed as a freedom fighter, though in common usage they are called political activists, as in the case of the Black Consciousness Movement. In India, "Freedom fighter" is an officially recognized category by the Indian government covering those who took part in the country's independence movement; people in this category (can also include dependant family members)[2] get pensions and other benefits like special railway counters.[3]
People who are described as "freedom fighters" are often also referenced as assassins, rebels, insurgents, or terrorists. This leads to the aphorism "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".[4] The degree to which this occurs depends on a variety of factors specific to the struggle in which a given freedom fighter group in engaged. During the Cold War, the term freedom fighter was first used with reference to the Hungarian rebels in 1956.[5] Ronald Reagan picked up the term to explain America's support of rebels in countries controlled by communist states or otherwise perceived to be under the influence of the Soviet Union, including the Contras in Nicaragua, UNITA in Angola and the multi-factional mujahideen in Afghanistan.[5]
A freedom fighter is different from a mercenary as they gain no direct material benefit from being involved in a conflict, though they may have no personal reason for being involved. Thus they are not considered mercenaries under the Geneva Convention and thus may in certain circumstances be protected by it (Mercenaries are not protected under the Geneva Convention and can be tried as criminals).
In the media, the BBC tries to avoid the phrases "terrorist" or "freedom fighter", except in attributed quotes, in favor of more neutral terms such as "militant", "guerrilla", "assassin", "insurgent", "rebel", "paramilitary", or "militia".[6]