According to Oxford dictionary the word terror means extreme fear.

If we accept this meaning then a terrorist is the one who attempts to instill extreme fear among the target audience as suggested above. Terrorism is defined 'as an act or threat of violence against non combatants with the objective of exacting revenge, intimidating or otherwise influencing an audience'. A 'terrorist' is a person who uses or favors violent and intimidating methods of coercion. The essence of this definition is the employment of violent methods in order to instill fear and influence the targets, which may be a government or a community or a particular individual. Terrorists are defined not by their goals but by how they opt to attain them. It needs to be highlighted that by this definition only a non state actor is portrayed as a terrorist, which is not necessarily true. A plethora of definitions is available with each one of them reflecting requirements of the changing political environments in different countries. How one defines terrorism reflects the thinking and profoundly affects the likely response. The US considers 'premeditated politically motivated violence perpetrated against non combatant targets by sub national groups or clandestine agents' whereas there are others who define terrorism as 'a process of deliberate employment of psychological intimidation and physical violence by sovereign states and sub national groups to attain strategic and political objectives in violation of the law. Extremism can be defined as a state of being extreme. It can be described as immoderate and uncompromising attitude. Many factors can cause the advent of extremism. Among these factors are included socio-political environment, oppressive cultural norms, social injustice, ideological contradictions, rigid religious beliefs and outsiders interferences. The contributory factors include poverty, unemployment especially unequal employment opportunities, illiteracy etc. The rise of extremism in South Asia is primarily the product of three factors. First is the slow economic progress along with a fairly high population growth rate. Second, the phenomenon of poor governance which was unable to address the socio-economic issues confronting the people of regional states. Third and perhaps the most significant is the foreign interference. The operative global environment along with the incumbent international political system is conducive to foreign interference. President Karazais interview clearly tends to put the blame more on developments in Pakistan as responsible for causing the growth of extremism and terrorism whereas Governor Ghanis remarks tend to put the blame on incumbent Afghan governments inability to stamp out extremism in Afghanistan. President Karazai expressed concerns over growing terrorism in Pakistan where, according to him, President Musharraf is confronted with mounting opposition to quit amid spreading militant violence whereas Governor Ghani categorically stated that extremism would not evaporate unless it is eliminated from Afghanistan. An objective analysis of the situation reveals that both countries are facing problems of the

twin menace of extremism and terrorism. The Afghan government along with its NATO and ISAF partners has not been able to either control the Taliban or even effectively check infiltrations. In fact, in many ways, Pakistan governments successes are neutralized when the militants use their hideouts in Afghanistan for regrouping, training and re-equipping purposes. According to many independent sources, the Pakistanis were able to check the infiltrations to some extent but the fleeing militants take refuge in Afghanistan and their foreign supporters help them in a comprehensive way and then send them back to undertake their nefarious missions. There is no doubt that as long as Afghanistan continues to remain unstable, it would be quite difficult to stamp out the twin menace altogether. While it may not be easy to quickly eradicate extremism, one thing is certain that the best course of action lies in the collaborative efforts of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It would be appropriate for both to shed the notion of blaming other but focus more on how collectively they can stamp out this menace. An honest joint approach could pay the desired dividends much earlier. In almost all recent interviews and statements, President Karazai has been painting a gloomy picture of both Pakistan and Pakistan and urging the international community to pay heed to the ground realities and to make concerted efforts to defeat the extremists. Undoubtedly the earnest joint efforts could enormously help in stamping out the twin menace. However it is advisable for President Karazai to avoid giving statements that contain insinuations and can impede collective efforts. Although President Karazai has been relatively careful in recent times and appears to be embarked upon a more appropriate path but he still has to shed his habit of employing diversionary tactics and putting blame on Pakistan in order to cover his own shortcomings and inabilities.

Pakistan and terrorism

The POST, Sun, April,22, 2007. Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema

The 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the lingering civil war in Afghan war had severe repercussions for Pakistani state and society. Pakistan had to face a massive influx of nearly 4 million Afghan refugees the largest in the world. Unlike Iran, which kept its refugees under tight surveillance by restricting them to border areas, Pakistan acted in a characteristic Islamic spirit of magnanimity by letting the uprooted Afghan Muslim brethren free to stay and move as they liked often detrimental to its national interests. Today, after nearly 27 years of Soviet military intervention, Afghanistan remains a troubled and violent country. Although many refugees have left after 9/11, a sizable 2.6 million are still staying on in Pakistan.

When Afghan refugees streamed across the borders into Pakistan, they created a number of problems for the host country e.g., there were incidents of encroachment over lands and property, overgrazing of fields of local population, large scale deforestation, land erosion, illegal shanty towns, massive increase in rent ceilings, introduction of drug and Kalashnikov culture, intensification of sectarianism, increased competition for transport and construction businesses, housing and jobs and incidents of violence etc. This had put a heavy strain on social services of an already underdeveloped NWFP province. More importantly, law and order problems increased due to beggary, crime and immorality. This was followed by a spate of terrorist bomb explosions throughout the 1980s and early 1990s. The Taliban period provided some respite as it was able to control law and order in Afghanistan to a considerable extent. After 9/11 and more specifically following US military strikes against the Taliban regime fell and in consequence many defeated Talibans crossed over the Pak-Afghan border and took refuge in the tribal regions of Pakistan. Incidentally, these regions, comprising of seven tribal agencies have close ethnic and family ties with each other. With varied interpretations of the Durand Line and the tribal areas traditionally enjoying a semi-autonomous status, it was not too difficult to mingle with the local people. Cognizant of the incumbent situation in tribal areas, they were able to carry out terrorist activities within Pakistan and against the Karazai government as well. The presence of foreign militants in some parts of Pakistan and more specifically in FATA pose challenges to Pakistani society as violent acts increased when they along with Taliban elements and their mentors, Al-Qaeda, moved into the major cities. Afghan refugees in big cities are also infiltrated with these elements. Now the government is trying to register these refugees and make plans to repatriate them. But economic and security conditions in Afghanistan are so forbidding that they are reluctant to return to their war- shattered country. Some Afghan refugees who went back to Afghanistan after their long stay in Pakistan have also come back to Pakistan primarily because of extremely difficult situation in most parts of Afghanistan. Cognizant of extremely unattractive situation if Afghanistan and being fully aware of incumbent Afghan governments inability to secure even some semblance of law and order, many refugees have categorically refused to go back to Afghanistan. After 9/11, some of Al-Qaeda leaders and Taliban have been using these areas as havens to escape detection and launch incursions on both sides of the border. Pakistan government has captured nearly 700 Al-Qaeda leaders, including Khalid Omer, Abu Zubaida and Libby from different areas. However military operations in troubled South Waziristan had forced them to move to other cities and places. In many ways, it is mainly Pakistan that has borne the major brunt of the Soviet invasion, the adverse effects of Afghan civil war and the consequences of the post 9/11 war on terrorism. This has posed major dilemmas for policy makers in Pakistan. One, it has affected major development projects in these regions; secondly, it has forced the state to station many divisions of army for law and order. Not only nearly 90,000 troops have been stationed in FATA and more than 1000 posts have also been established but the government is relying heavily upon the local elders to check the activities of the militants. A three pronged approach consisting of political, economic and military approaches has been adopted which is paying the expected dividends. In terms of damage to economy i.e., the loss of foreign direct investment and tourism the losses are indeed substantial. Moreover the image of the country has taken a massive battering which for the Pakistanis was an extremely unkind blow. Visa and job opportunities for Pakistanis from these areas to the Middle East are being increasingly curtailed. The strict checking at the entry point amounted to insults initially but later the situation began to improve. Paradoxically, it was the Pakistani diasporas that actively contributed to national economic development of many countries in the Gulf, the ME and Europe (UK, Denmark, Germany and Norway) 1960s and 1970s. With trained professional armed forces, a responsible nuclear power and geopolitical

salience, Pakistan is considered as a stabilizing force in a volatile ME and looked up to as a leading country to combat international terrorism since 9/11. Another negative fallout has been the radicalization of some sections of its own society and the boost that it has given to religious political parties in the country that either rule or form coalition partners in the two bordering provinces. One manifestation of this is the introduction of a bill deemed to be a parallel legal mechanism to control check vice and immorality. Pakistan was and is a major victim of terrorism, and this has been frequently acknowledged by notable US policy makers. On allegations that it was not doing enough in the war against terrorism, it needs to be mentioned that Pakistan had undertaken extensive operations against terrorists sometimes at the loss of considerable lives of its troops which nearly amounts to 400-500. Incidentally, this was also conceded and acknowledged even by the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. It is little realized how harsh ground realities of the area make this task quite problematic and difficult for Pakistan. Part of the Pak-Afghan border consists of the rugged terrain of nearly 1,500 km (out of the total 2600 km) at the height of 10,000 to 15,000 feet with no communication infrastructure, which has enabled the foreign elements to fully exploit the geographical situation. Yet the Pakistanis have dealt with this menace with patience and courage despite the fact that no other country has paid so much as has been done by the Pakistanis. One major reason for such a resolve is that almost all Pakistanis view terrorism as a curse of the current phase of international world order and in order to eliminate this menace at home and abroad, they feel that they will have to carry their fight as long as it takes even if they have fight alone. The tragedy of 9/11 led to the formation of an international coalition to combat terrorism under the leadership of the United States. This global coalition drew its moral strength from the endorsement of the United Nations. The global war against international terrorism therefore enjoyed the universal support. However, there were many observers and analysts who thought that the US had interpreted this support as the license to act unilaterally and without any regard to the rules of international law and authority of the United Nations. The current situations in Iraq is the manifestation of this American unilateralism. The war against terrorism has changed the concept of security. It is a new form of war in which the enemy is no longer the traditional state entity. It is a war against an enemy, which can no longer be identified, located or predicted. It is therefore a highly complex, difficult and unpredictable war. However, it is being increasingly recognized that war against terrorism cannot be won only through military means. As it is the war against terrorism would not only confront many obstacles but would also be a painfully long affair. While international community supports all efforts in the war against international terrorism, the war has created new tensions between and within a number of nations. This is because of conflicting perceptions of terrorism and failure to address the main impediments influencing the course of war. Unless and until serious considerations are given to the six factors that are and would continue to impede progress on this front, the war is going to be a long drawn pursuit. These factors include lack of definition, blurring of clearly recognized distinction between a legitimate freedom struggle and terrorist movements, inability to opt for a comprehensive approach, quick acceptance of prejudicial interpretations, not properly addressing the root causes of terrorism and finally not much emphasis is placed on tracking money trail. While each of the above mentioned factors deserves to be comprehensively analyzed, addressing the root causes is perhaps the most important. Undoubtedly the most important factor that needs to be addressed deals with the causation and this has not yet been able to attract deserving attention. What causes terrorism? Injustice, deprivation, denial of legitimate rights in a comprehensive sense, excessive use of force are just few of the causes that often give birth to undesirable violent approaches.

Additional two factors such as disparity between power and forces and gap between rich and poor tend to exasperate the situation. Undoubtedly democracy, justice and improved economic situation with job opportunities could certainly help in improving the situation. A concerted effort to effectively deal with causation aspect could put war against terrorism on the right track. Unless the causes are treated properly this war is likely to continue for years without attaining the desired containment. A concerted hard look at the Kashmir dispute or the Palestine issue could not only lead the international community towards the desired panacea but may also prove the first major gain in this war. Concentration on the removal of causation could pay the dividends that are becoming even more illusive than they were in the past. Why does a terrorist opt for violent approaches? One school of thoughts suggests that after exhausting all other available means to redress the situation, a terrorist feels that the only way to attain his objective is to adopt what are generally considered intimidating means. This of course denotes that a terrorist is defined by the means employed rather than by his goals however justifiable they may seem. Another school of thought simply believes that opting for violent means appears to be short cut towards the attainment of stated goals. A terrorist views violent approach as the most effective mechanism to air his point of view. A systematic extermination of important individuals who are spearheading a movement against the established authority is often interpreted as states efforts to eliminate them and weaken the movement. However it needs to be highlighted that in some cases the movement is a genuine freedom struggle and states attempt to crush the movement is not viewed sympathetically. But on the other hand the states that are opposed to such freedom struggles and are involved the processes of crushing the movements; they always tend to project them as terrorist movements. There are four major causes which produce terrorism; injustice in all forms, denial,deprivation, social and economic inequalities. An aggrieved individual invariably seek justice initially through judicial system but having gone through all the levels of judicial system and not being able to secure justice, some individual take recourse to violence in order to highlight the experienced injustice. As far as the states are concerned, almost all states are aware of imperfect nature of the operative international system. Cognizant of the imperfect nature of the state system, they tend to either join alliances or be in grouping or seek the blessings of a powerful state etc. Similarly if a state or the particular group of people are promised to allow them to exercise their rights but later these rights are denied to them, the chances regarding the advent of a movement brightens. When the leaders of movement feel frustrated and unable to secure what has been promised, they begin to contemplate the employment of violent course of action. Another cause of violent path is deprivation whether these entails property or human rights. A concerted hard look at the Kashmir dispute, the Palestine question and the Chechens quest for freedom could not only lead the international community towards the desired panacea but may also prove the first major gain in this war. Concentration on the removal of causation could pay the dividends that are becoming even more illusive than they were in the past. Perhaps the most important cause of terrorism revolves around social and economic inequalities. This is precisely what the Pakistani Prime Minister attempted to highlight at the Davos Economic Forum. Focus on eliminating poverty from the region is a generally accepted priority of the regional leaders. South Asia houses one fifth of humanity and need to focus on improving economies in order to eliminate poverty. The economies can only function smoothly if the political dispute are resolved enabling to regional countries to concentrate more on economic uplift. The Pakistani Prime Minister has been extremely consistent in pushing the notion of attracting investments in order to provide the much desired boost to economy. To create a favorable climate for

the functioning economies, he has also been regularly supporting efforts against the menace of terrorism both inside as well as outside Pakistan.