IPRI :: Islamabad Policy Research Institute

errorism has been a dreaded phenomenon during the later half of the Twentieth Century. Since the Second World War, it had continued to grow and expand, firstly as a part of anti-colonial guerrilla or resistance movements and secondly as a protest against unjust political dispensations resulting in imposed or unresolved territorial disputes and the problem of identity and self-rule by large ethnic/communal minorities. Despite its growth as a multi-faceted political concept, terrorism is not well-understood nor well portrayed particularly by the Western media which virtually presents any act of violence against the state or society as terrorism. No distinction is drawn between anti-government protests, militant actions by dissidents or separatists, rioting and arson by unruly mobs or state repression, ethnic discriminations, religious or sectarian fanaticism, sabotage sponsored by hostile states, organized syndicate crimes and violence or individual acts by lone psychotics. All are herded together and treated as terrorism. This vagueness and ensuing confusion have frequently resulted in condemnation of otherwise legitimate politically motivated militant protest, causing further alienation and spread of terrorism.

The fact that terrorism originated as an instrument of repressive state power is either not generally known or has not been emphasised deliberately. Its strong psychological impact to cause fear and insecurity and to intimidate and demoralize people was first pointed out by the ancient Greek historian Xenophon (c.430-349 B.C) and effectively applied through the ages by the imperial powers to discourage rebellion and enforce submission. The notorious Courts of Inquisition used terror to punish religious dissidence and heresy. The reactionary role of Hasan ibn Sabah’s Assassins during the Abbaside period to spread chaos and anarchy are well known. [1] It was however during the French Revolution that perhaps for the first time, terrorism was politicized as a revolutionary measure to consolidate power against the opposing forces – ‘the enemies of the people’. When Maximillien Robespierre, a French revolutionary leader during ‘the Reign of Terror’, declared that ‘terror is nothing but justice; prompt, severe and inflexible’, [2] he brought it dangerously close to the ideals of political governance and public virtue.

What began under the drums of public executions in France, spread and took roots in the anti-monarchist and anti-imperialist sentiments in Europe, Asia and the Americas, constantly changing or adding new meanings to known precepts of terrorism. This was also a period of great political changes caused by the advent of nationalism and constitutional federalism and the challenge posed by Marxist ideologies. Republican extremists were zealously preaching violence, albeit selective violence for the furtherance of their revolutionary cause and Carlo Pisacane was arguing for ‘violence as a necessity, not only to draw attention to, or generate publicity for a cause, but to inform, educate and ultimately rally the masses behind the revolution’. According to him, ‘the purpose of violence could never be effectively replaced by propaganda posters or assemblies.’ [3] As the revolutionary fervour settled down, the meaning and application of terrorism reverted back to their traditional repressive, fearful and intimidating mould. Fascist regimes in Germany and Italy and the communists in the USSR came to power and set horrifying examples in ‘state-sanctioned or explicitly ordered acts of internal/domestic violence’ or as it is now termed -‘state terrorism’. During the years following the Second World War, the inevitable anti-colonial backlash swept across Asia and Africa with political violence as the order of the day to gain freedom, in which terrorism was employed as an integral part of these political movements. Countries such as Israel, Algeria, Cyprus and Kenya are known to have won their independence at least partly through terrorist violence. Its close association with and accepted contributions to nationalist freedom movements are therefore fully acknowledged. The modern concept of terrorism has since maintained itself between the two ends of pendulum – the traditional and the revolutionary. It is this paradox that defies its precise and consistent definition and understanding.

Although revolutionary terrorism has maintained its older context as the champion of national liberation and self determination with political legitimacy, it has gradually expanded to include sub-nationalist and ethnic separatist groups outside the older framework and controversial radical elements with religious and ideological agendas, posing new threats domestically as well as across the frontiers. This has brought in outside support and involvement and international linkages. But more seriously, a change in the nature of objectives and operational methods is obvious which now seeks to threaten and overthrow the established political and social order with much lowered ethical and humanitarian concerns. It is this new face of terrorism – extremely dogmatic and ruthless that frightens the world for its chaotic consequences and has become the subject of public debate and negative criticism.

It is in this background that this paper aims at critically examining the modern concept of terrorism in its numerous forms and variations, its threat to peace and stability in the world in general and the region in particular, and the new developing trends in international terrorism.

Terrorism has proved increasingly elusive against attempts to formulate an agreed definition, mainly because it has constantly shifted and expanded its meaning and usage in a long chain of conflicts and violence. The adage that ‘one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter’, reveals the wide range of variation in its interpretation.

Simply stated, terror is extreme or intense fear [4] ; a psychological state which combines the physical and mental effects of dread and insecurity. Terrorism thus implies a system or a concept in which terror is applied to cause fear, panic and/or coercive intimidation to exert direct or indirect pressure to achieve political objectives. Invariably the people are the main targets and the means employed are frequently violent though not necessarily extreme or excessive. It is a simpler explanation and may seem inadequate to capture the full magnitude of problems and new factors that are now associated with terrorism worldwide. But it provides a literal beginning by combining the intrinsic meaning with its purpose and application.

In the contemporary historical perspective, the League of Nations in 1937, adopted a resolution that defined terrorism as, ‘all criminal acts directed against a state and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public.’ [5] Its imperial bias and background and inadequacy of its meaning and application to a vastly changed political environment after the Second War World were obvious. In October 1970, the UN passed a declaration on the Principles of International Law on inter–state relations, laying down that, ‘Every state has the duty to refrain from organizing, assisting or participating in acts of civil strife or terrorist acts in another state or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts, when the acts referred to in the present paragraph involve a threat of use of force’. [6] To remove the ambivalence created by the above declaration, the UN further added that, ‘Every state has the duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives people referred to above in the elaboration of the present principles of their right to self-determination, freedom and independence. In their actions against, and resistance to such forcible action in pursuit of the exercise of their right of self determination, such peoples are entitled to seek and receive support in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter’. [7]

Following the 1972 Munich Olympic massacre, there was a serious attempt under the UN patronage to condemn such wanton acts and take practical steps to prevent terrorist violence. In the ensuing debate however, it was argued that people struggling to liberate themselves from foreign oppression and exploitation had the right to use all means at their disposal, including force. This position was justified with two main arguments. Firstly, that all liberation movements were invariably declared ‘terrorists’ by the oppressive regimes against whom the struggles were directed and by condemning terrorism the UN would be endorsing the power of the strong over the weak and denying the oppressed people perhaps the only weapon available to them to oppose oppression. Secondly, that it was not violence that was germane but the root causes in form of frustration, grievances and despair that produced the violent acts. People who were denied freedom, self dignity and basic human rights could not be condemned as terrorists. The UN debate was rendered inconclusive, though the political character of terrorism, its justification and legitimacy remained contentious. In 1973, an Ad-hoc Committee on International Terrorism, clarified in unequivocal terms, the importance of the right to self-determination,… ‘the inalienable right to self-determination and independence of all peoples under colonial and racist regimes and other forms of alien domination and the legitimacy of their struggle, of national liberation movements, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the charter and the relevant resolutions of the organ of the UN.’ [8] A detailed study of the several debates in the UN on the issue of terrorism clearly indicates a consistent emphasis and acceptance of the oppressed people’s right to self-determination, but the question of admissibility of terrorism as a part of the militant struggle for the right to self-determination was however consistently evaded.

Subsequently, in the following years, the UN adopted a number of conventions on the subject, which defined a terrorist as, ‘any person who, acting independently of the specific recognition of a country, or as a single person, or as a part of a group, not recognized in any part of division of a nation, acts to destroy or to injure civilians or destroy or damage property belonging to civilians or to governments in order to affect some political goals’ [9] , and terrorism as, `the act of destroying or injuring civilians’ lives or the act of destroying or damaging civilian or governments property without the expressly chartered permission of a specific government, thus by individuals or groups acting independently of governments, on their own accord and belief in the attempt to effect some political goals.’ [10] It is evident from these definitions that the UN, having accepted the political nature and goal oriented terrorist acts of violence, denied it political legitimacy. In doing so, the UN restricted the definition by the nature of the terrorist act and not by the political identity of the terrorists or the nature of their cause. It is obvious that the UN focus was on protection of the exposed and innocent civilians from terrorist outrage and violence. But by missing state terrorism which is equally if not more outrageous, the UN by ignoring to condemn it, almost legitimized all repressive measures and policies by terrorist state(s). We witness its dreadful effects every day in the Palestine and Kashmir. In December 1985, the UN adopted a resolution condemning all acts of terrorism as criminal [11] and closed the process for a better understanding of the phenomenon, thus prompting an escalation in terrorist incidents and eventually leading to the tragedy of September 11, 2001. The latest sanctions passed by the UNSC are conspicuously harsh and once again seem to ignore the root causes of terrorism.

In the wake of these developments, terrorism has come to be regarded as a depreciatory term with negative connotation and disagreeable moral implications. It is plausible that such an impression has been created and extensively propagated by the vested interest — the countries or governments who provoke terrorism by their unjust and oppressive practices and against whom the struggles are directed. Such countries or governments themselves are in most cases involved in state terrorism and find it convenient to take cover behind such propaganda and condemnation. The most obvious examples are those of India and Israel. This perception however is vehemently protested by the alleged terrorist. ‘We are not terrorists’, declared a Hezbullah militiaman, ‘we are fighters — mujahideen who fight a Holy War for the people’. Similar protestations could be heard from the valleys of Kashmir, where Hezb ul Mujahideen identify themselves as ‘freedom fighters’ struggling to win the right of self determination for their people, a perfectly legitimate cause which also carries the unequivocal sanction of the UN. Not long ago, the Indian National Congress supported by rabid organizations such as RSS and Israeli terrorist groups, such as Lehi and Heganah indulged in acts of terrorism against the Muslim inhabitants and the British colonial power and openly admitted and preached for the same but today the same people oppose and condemn similar acts of protest and resistance directed against their illegal occupation and brutalities in Kashmir and Palestine. Awhile ago, to be called an aggressor or a terrorist in Brazil was considered an honour for any citizen, because it meant that he was fighting with a gun, against the monstrosity of the dictatorship and the suffering it was causing to the people. [12]

Despite such positive characterization, terrorism has earned disrepute. It is regarded abhorrent and a security threat to the civil society and the state. Walter Laqueur in one of his essays concluded that, ‘terrorism constitutes the illegitimate use of force’, [13] while another writer, James M. Poland defined, ‘terrorism as the premeditated, deliberate, systematic murder, mayhem and threatening of the innocent, to create fear and intimidation in order to gain a political or tactical advantage, usually to influence an audience’. [14] The shifting focus from the accepted national objectives, which provided some political legitimacy to terrorism and the increasing lethality of violence, at times being irrationally excessive, have become the cause of serious public concern worldwide. Reckless and indiscriminate targeting of the innocent civilians are exploited by the vested media and presented as a critical moral issue, creating doubts and hostility against legitimate political resistance or freedom movements. These already suffer under the changing political environment and are further weakened by the infusion of ideological or religious passion. Its fallout has been highly favourable to state terrorism, which thrives on the weakened opposition and operates even more boldly and brutally, as is being demonstrated by Israel and India following 11^th September incident.

In summary therefore, terrorism may not be easily defined, but it can be qualified by its distinct features. [15] It is political in aims and motives and conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or secret cell structure, based in sub-national groups or non-state entities. It is violent and resorts to threat of violence to create far–reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target. It cannot be equated with guerrilla warfare though terrorism had remained its covert component for a longtime. It is mainly because terrorism does not operate openly and avoids direct engagement with enemy’s military forces. Terrorism when a part or extension of a political movement retains its old revolutionary character and operates within the framework of its policy and objectives. Nonetheless, terrorism is badly stigmatized and carries the scars of wanton violence against innocent civilians and of religious and ethnic extremism. Hostility towards and opposition to commonly believed terrorist violence have increased world wide and the media plays a highly provocative and at times biased role in its projection. The aggressors exploit this changed perception and they are supported according to their strategic value to the world powers. This is the new dilemma, which confronts the oppressed people today, whose ability to fight back has been systematically restrained and limited.

In today’s highly competitive and polarized world, there is far greater awareness of political and social injustices amongst the people. Inequities in the existing order which affect their lives, lead to bitterness and alienation, to increased sense of deprivation and ultimately to outrage. This is the beginning of the protestations gradually becoming violent. All terrorists are not zealots or ruthless killers. At best they are reluctant warriors. Most of them are driven by desperation, that is, not finding viable alternative to violence against a repressive state, a rival ethnic or nationalist group or an unresponsive world order. They all have a cause, albeit a political cause, in whose rightness they have faith at least in their own minds. Some times, the inspirations come from the radical thinkers and philosophers such as Frantz Fanon (the Wretched of the Earth) who preach and promote violence ‘as the only road to salvation’. [16]

But the most powerful impulses are generated from the ground realities; of recurring injustices, indignities, denials and deprivations from intolerant societies where the majority is often even more intolerant, provoking the victims to a response, which gradually transforms into violent resistance. Violence breeds violence, which sets into motion a vicious cycle of terrorist actions and state repression – a militant struggle for freedom and justice against denials and retribution. In most cases, terrorist violence is a reaction against persisting injustices and denials and its growth is a result of refusal to recognize and resolve the problems.

SEQUENCE OF VIOLENCE AND TERRORISM

The historical perspective of international legislation on the one hand, and the increasing incidents of terrorism both in their intensity and frequency, on the other, clearly point towards the ineffective and unjust handling of this issue. Repressive terrorism had been the oldest practice in human society, following different forms in different ages, from ‘pure savagery’ to ‘slavery and bondage’, to ‘imperialism and colonialism’. Today, the international financial institutions, GATT, WTO and various World Orders continue perpetuation of old colonialism in new and sophisticated form. The ‘economic exploitation’ of people and communities throughout history has been a constant political factor which continues unabated and denies even today the poor humanity at least $ 500 billions of economic opportunities in the global market every year because of trade restrictions, immigration controls and uneven capital flows. This unjust denial and exploitation have assumed a highly oppressive dimension, causing frustration, despair, hostility and anger amongst the oppressed and the dispossessed. When George Bush at the end of the Gulf War of 1991 declared that it was fought for the preservation of American values, perhaps, he meant the affluent American life style for which free flow of the Gulf oil was an absolute necessity.

State managed terrorism is undertaken by the state misusing its military, paramilitary and civil apparatus against the targeted components/minorities, denying them their political rights that may eventually result in loss of control, territories or vested interests. It provokes the oppressed and deprived people, being weak and frustrated but convinced of their cause, also to adopt terrorist methodology against the state, in reaction or perhaps as the only course available to seek recognition of their rights. It is ironical that state terrorism survives unnoticed with impunity but the reaction from the oppressed is highlighted, frequently with distorted facts.

In a suppressed environment, deprivation and unjust political and socio-economic dispensation give boost to frustrations. The consequent perception of helplessness is sufficient to motivate individuals, groups and communities to adopt violence and terrorism as an expression of their anger. The terrorists while placing their lives at stake buildup sufficient conviction that it was worth the sacrifice to inflict death and damages upon their oppressors. In this state of mind, parameters for their violent activities become unlimited.

The Palestinians have been dispossessed, deprived and cruelly discriminated against since 1948. They lost their homeland to Israel and now their lands are forcibly taken to build Jewish settlements. A large number of them live in a Diaspora all over the Middle–East as unwelcomed refugees by their own Arab brothers. They have no permanent home nor employment and whatever little they have in the Gaza strip and the West Bank, they have no control over them. There are scores of UN Resolutions for their settlement, but none implemented due to Israeli intransigence. Their early guerrilla movements combined with terrorist strikes failed to yield worthwhile results for one reason alone – the unlimited and blatant US support to Israel, which over the period appears highly biased and unjust. Without this support, Israelis could not be so arrogant and uncompromising, that even a stone slinging Palestinian boy is condemned as a terrorists and is shot down by Israeli tanks in self defence! Thousands of Palestinians have been killed, their houses demolished and villages razed to ground. None of these causes a stir or moves the West. The magnitude of this tragedy is like a smouldering volcano which could erupt in a desperate reaction which could also target the US as the main supporter of Israel. As the recent events have unfolded, it is no longer a hypothesis. People do not opt for certain death, without a cause and strong motivation.

For over forty years, the people of Jammu and Kashmir have been cheated and oppressed by the traditional Indian deceit and her repressive policies. The Indians continue to renege on their solemn commitments for the plebiscite, refuse to honour the UN Resolutions and maintain a highly threatening size of military forces. It was logical that when peaceful protests and agitations failed to yield result and the oppressive conditions became more oppressive, these turned violent and eventually led to organized militant movement with some infusion of terrorist activities, which generally have remained selective and restrained. India’s failure to resolve the issue peacefully and according to agreed principles is the main cause of militancy in Kashmir. Their continued intransigence and application of worst form of repression and atrocities against innocent and unarmed Kashmiris provide the cause and strong motivation for the Kashmiri freedom struggle. As expected the Indians have declared the Kashmiri fighters as terrorists and consistently blamed Pakistan for support and what they call ‘cross-border terrorism’. Their failure to overcome the Kashmiri militancy despite maintaining the strongest military presence and application of draconian counter measures confirms the indigenous character of the movement. During the last twelve years they have killed over sixty thousand Kashmiris and subjected them to massive state terrorism. But the movement has sustained itself and the morale of the Kashmiri fighters has not degraded.

A while ago, people’s uprising and resistance against state repression and injustices took the form of insurgency or guerrilla war which was considered the most appropriate militant response to state’s brute and largely superior force. Most freedom struggles or separatist movement followed this pattern but now, these do not fit into the emerging new environment. The preference has thus fallen on to terrorism for its obvious shock effects and being economical. Significantly however, the freedom movement in Kashmir, most convincingly remains and falls into the category of armed insurgency or low–intensity guerrilla war and thus enjoys legitimacy under the UN convention.

In both these examples, the important factor that has led to militancy, violence and terrorism is prolonged continuation of existing conflicts, and the delay in their resolution, clearly attributable to lack of political will, demands of political expediency, vested strategic interests and compulsions of realpolitik. Despite the inherent risks of escalation and its assuming a global dimension, these volatile conflicts have been deliberately prolonged through willful neglect, unscrupulous propaganda and distorted historical exposition from such writers as Samuel P. Huntington. The concept of Confidence Building Measures (CBMs) as conflict resolving mechanism has a poor track record for its faulty application and uncertain results which seem more oriented to further prolonging the conflicts. Instead of applying these on the main issues for creating positive conditions for the conflict resolution, their intended effects are often diluted, even lost through circumspections. The ineffectiveness of the UN to implement its own resolutions, has all but eroded its credibility and left the world at the mercy of the aggressor’s brute force. In such circumstances the escalation of violence and terrorism becomes inevitable.

Terrorists’ ‘only hope lies in their despair’ [17] — a paradoxical expression that reveals the terrorist’s state of mind and the emotional character of his motivation which has brought forth the desperate nature of his terrorist act – suicidal mission, a tragic drama in which knowingly and willingly, he offers the supreme sacrifice of his own life for the cause in the hope that others may live with dignity and freedom. This explains the state of a terrorist’s motivation – a strong conviction that the value of the outcome is worth the effort, that the task as a result of his performance is achievable and that there is a reward for him in the hereafter. Perhaps an understanding of this motivation package by the policy makers may help in determining the root causes and removing them.

Terrorism grows from the precipitated causes, frequently created and deliberately left unresolved, for vested interests and strategic advantages or purely for self aggrandizement or political expediency. The political and moral value of the contested issues provide the requisite motivation for a terrorist response. The Western world’s reluctance to resolve the issues that have kept the Middle-East and South Asia destabilized for half a century and their tacit acquiescence to state terrorism by Israel and India have been instrumental in the promotion of violence in these regions. Jerusalem carries strong religious sentiments for the Muslims and their sympathy and support to the Palestinian cause, worldwide, therefore is natural. The infusion of religious passion as a driving force in terrorist undertaking was inevitable but more so after the successful conclusion of Afghan Jihad against the Soviets. This however is not exclusive to the Muslims as the Jewish dominated Western media keeps harping. Most terrorist groups contain quasi– religious elements; some of them are more fanatical than others. They could not be any different than the IRA, Aum Shinrikyo or the American Militia. The religious beliefs provide self justification while conducting terror campaign which is bound to result in human casualties and sufferings. To associate terrorism with Islam by some, therefore is a deliberate mischief and dishonest propaganda.

For a long time, terrorism had remained categorized into two main variations – the traditional, which is now identified as ‘state terrorism’ and the revolutionary, which grew as a protest against political and social injustices, as an auxiliary to insurgency and rebellion to win freedom and bring about political and social changes and as a response to state terrorism. The revolutionary concept by its very nature being dynamic, expanded to absorb new challenges and opportunities thrown up by the changing political and social conditions during the Twentieth century. Today, we have a wide range of variations within its fold, each distinct by its socio–political character, objectives and the nature of terror and violence – from propaganda campaign, assassination and gun running to mass killings and destruction such as the recent attacks on World Trade Centre in New York and from the use of piano wire and knife to bio–chemical weapons. The range has acquired a horrific dimension and needs to be restrained.

The terrorists are known to have political cause, which is sustained with strong motivation. The use of terror and violence is usually resorted to, only under compelling and desperate circumstances. The terrorists believe in the righteousness of their cause, which in some cases, tends to assume fanatical proportion, as in the case of religious extremism or religiously motivated cause. Consistent with the expanding scope of terrorism, along with the original motivations, a broad spectrum of new ones – ethnic sub-national separatism, ideological and/or revolutionary upsurge, religious extremism, struggle against political injustices, state sponsored terror, drug mafia and crime syndicates and numerous other interest groups etc. is now added and driving the terrorist organizations to a new level of violence domestically as well as worldwide. [18] Their causal linkages to violence, however, may not be easily demarcated due to their distinct division and territorial limits, though in some cases these overlap and reinforce each other particularly when under threat. For example, ethnic sub-national rebel groups have a tendency to establish a nexus or take advantage of situation, with drug mafia and religious extremists. It is generally believed that an ethnic–religious combine can potentially prove to be the most destructive. [19]

Political Terrorism

Political terrorism is a distinctive disorder of the modern world. It originated as a term and, arguably, as a practice, less than two centuries ago and has come into the spotlight of global conflict in our lifetime. As a political strategy, it began its course as a part of guerrilla warfare and insurgency and has been used to overthrow governments, gain independence from colonial rule, to assert ethnic identity and recognition, to force constitutional guarantees or to draw global attention etc. It is regarded as the weapon of the weak and uses terror and violence to intimidate and cause fear to pressurize and compel the target state or the government to accept its demands. Precisely, political terrorism aims at bringing about political change. The UN Research Institute for Social Development, has identified three main root causes of political terrorism i.e. (1) cultural identity or distinction—in which conflict is rooted as a usual fashion of resolving the disputes; (2) psychological factors—arising out of the sense of relative deprivation and increasing marginalization in every field of life; and (3) rational calculations—the use of violence as per requirements and only when needed. [20] “Conflicts based on ethnic or religious identities are often associated with political violence, even though most of the social movements that are concerned with social identity do not advocate violence as a medium of change”. [21] But political violence in the modern world, is predominantly characterized by religious and ethnic identities, and has assumed precise version of conflict. The conflicts resulting out of these causes, acquire their own dynamics and seem unending, no matter how stringent measures are taken against them.

Political terrorism can be further categorized into various forms. Certainly one of the most sensational forms of political terrorism is revolutionary in character. Often called agitational terrorism or terror from below, its primary objective is to destabilize and topple the incumbent regime, replacing it with a political apparatus more acceptable to the revolutionaries. [22] Revolutionary groups seek violence to fulfill their objectives through guerrilla warfare tactics. It is directed to either overthrow domestic regime, gain independence or self rule as sub-national group or attain liberation from foreign rule. Mao Zse-Dong viewed this form of terrorism as the initial stage of revolutionary process, potentially ending in conventional confrontation. Tamil Tigers’ struggle for an independent Tamil state in northern Sri Lanka, Moros in the Philippines and Sindso Luminoso (the Shining Path) in Peru can be quoted as some of the examples of revolutionary form for overthrowing the yoke of majority national regimes. Similarly, the militant activities of IRA in Ireland, PLO in Palestine, the Afghan Mujahideens against the Soviets and the insurgents or freedom fighters in Kashmir are examples of revolutionary violence against the foreign occupation. And finally while it is generally believed that both the nature and scope of terrorism is political, [23] its objectives, methodology and organizational structure of the groups, point to gaining political power, or at least promoting their political ideas. [24] Although these militant activities are protected under the UN conventions, they have consistently been condemned and brutalized by the state.

Politically motivated terrorist groups, the separatists in particular, obsessed with the establishment of independent states of their own have limited aims and do not usually escalate the situation beyond the frontiers. [25] The terrorist activities of Kurdish Workers Party, the IRA, The Basque ETA, the Tamil Tigers and the Kashmiri Hizb ul Mujahideen, are known to be directed against their respective aggressor’s assets to force them to make desired political concessions, because they realistically assess their inability to destroy the state power. It is only likely that such groups when under threat of elimination may resort to desperate means. It is ironical that despite such relative amicability, neither the state nor the world are moved to resolve the cause of the conflict.

Political terrorism based on ethnicity has assumed dangerously significant role in domestic as well as international politics. The countries with multi-ethnic composition face this problem as the ethnic groups use ethnic identity for political purposes. Harold A. Gould writes: ‘the political milieus that have sponsored terrorism are ethnically structured communities, whose collective identities are based upon socio-religious, socio-cultural and social class variables. The ideologies that drive such groups, stress the injustice and oppression being inflicted on them by the elites who control the state, or by some other favoured groups within the corpus of the state.’ [26]

The psychological concept of relative deprivation vis-à-vis other favoured groups breeds frustration among the marginalized groups, who nourish and transfer their grievances to their fellows and succeeding generations in order to consolidate their intra-group ties as a deterrence to the encroachment of their rights. Therefore, they resort to all possible means to ensure that their rights are preserved and safeguarded. Besides all other efforts, terrorism also becomes one of the extreme measures to redress their group’s grievances. [27] Socio-cultural ethnicity has thus become the basis for resistance to state authority, perceived to be in the hands of the rival hostile ethnic communities. The political developments through the century show that very little has really changed. In fact, the demise of colonialism and the emergence of Third World states have sharpened the distinction between nation and multi-ethnic, multi-cultured social formation within states and the latter having enormous potential of maladjustment. In such heterogeneous social formation, lack of common bondage worsens the situation, and thus tend to fuel imponderables over a period into cut-throat inter-ethnic/cultural/religious competition, ending into violence, while each perceiving others as homogenous and with intentions of submerging the threatened.

In Sri Lanka, Tamil Tigers have resorted to continued violence against the Sinhalese, who constitute the bulk of the population. The Tamils have applied all types of methods including suicidal operations in order to establish their own independent homeland but have made no appreciable progress. India also presents a panorama of conflict initiated and mobilized by ethnically motivated insurgents in NEFA, Assam, and the Punjab. In Pakistan also, MQM and Jiye Sindh, attempted to initiate ethnic terrorism but could not gain the requisite momentum. As noted earlier, definitional dilemma of terrorism and sub-national self-determination still persists and evades the real answer to existing realities. The movements of sub national self-determination will therefore continue to grow in vigour if treated and countered as terrorism, for both have different objectives.

Fundamentalism or Religious Extremism/Terrorism

Religion as a potent driving force behind the increasing lethality of domestic and international terrorism has shaken most of the established assumptions about terrorists, such as political idealism, recognition or calculated restraint etc. But the compelling new motivations of religious extremists have created a sense of chaotic bewilderment. Indeed, the religious factor has assumed an all important defining line for the terrorist activity today.

The religiously motivated terrorism is not a new experience. The term ‘zealots’ goes back to millenarian Jewish sect that indulged in meaningless and often terrifying fratricidal civil war in Judea between 66-73 A.D. The art of terror practiced by the ‘Assasins’, the ‘Spanish Courts of Inquisition’ and the ‘Christian Crusaders’ are far more factual than is made to believe. Nearer home the ‘Hindu Thugs’ of Central India, making human sacrifice to the terror goddess Kali, the Sikhs brutalities during the Partition and lately the resurgence of Hindu fundamentalism in form of ‘Hindutva’ are all bound to the same chain of religious terrorism. In the recent past most of the ethno-nationalist and ideologically motivated terrorist groups, suppressed their religious character in their anti-colonial nationalist movements and some succeeded in keeping the political/nationalist motivation as the dominant factor. [28] In 1968, no terrorist group could be classified as religious; in 1995, 26 out of 65 nearly half, were identified as predominantly of religious character. [29] The increase was alarming, possibly also attributable to the end of the Cold War, which brought down many prevalent socialist ideologies. This highly dangerous change in the basic motivation for terrorism is now being apprehended as potentially a pivotal watershed for more intense and indiscriminate violence and bloodshed. [30]

The objectives of religious terror can be many but one primary concern of most religious’ radical movements is to protect their own culture or ways of life from the dangers of heretic deviations within the community and the external influences from alien religions or cultures regarded as corrupt or undesirable. The religious extremists believe in their recognition and identity as a role model, its spread and enforcement through a distorted interpretation of revivalist movement or upsurge. Some fanatical groups amongst them even preach and work for the conversion of the whole world. The desire to seize power to overthrow the existing order or force fundamental changes in policy and attitude give religious extremism a political character. By using a religious justification for violence, religious terrorists become overtly political; they break the state’s monopoly on morally justifiable killings and therefore make a claim of political independence. [31]

Violence to a religious terrorist is a sacred act or divine duty carried out in response to religious obligation. This gives the terrorist act a transcendental dimension and the terrorist is thus freed from any political or moral restraints, usually exercised by non-religious groups, which prevent indiscriminate violence as counter-productive, if not unethical to their objectives. Religion does not recognize constituency and its political and moral obligations, which virtually can lead to almost limitless violence. Religiously tainted perceptions are usually inflexible and inherently hostile which could and often do make the terrorist acts, highly destructive and ruthless. In their zealous approach for the establishment of a theocratic order, religious terrorist often mixes up transcendental and divinely inspired imperatives with anti-government populism and imaginary external conspiracy notions. In this respect examples of Japanese Aum Shinrikyo sect, the American Christian Militia, Christian Patriot movement, fanatical Jewish Eyal and some radical Muslim organizations are considered highly extremist and their aims and motivation almost incomprehensible. [32]

Religion, undoubtedly, has manifested the capacity to draw unflinching loyalty and allegiance, which other causes fail to elicit from their followers. The sacrifice of life in the service of religion motivated by the rewards in the life hereafter, complicate and reduce the capacity of the policy makers and security organizations to counter it. In this context, Islam has come to be projected as a threat to the West and their interests all around the world. The West and Islam, are portrayed to maintain mutually conflicting views of each other’s actions. The West by its own perception considers Islam in the world as aggressive and intolerant of other’s views and believes in force rather than dialogue and discussion. Whereas Islam by its own experience depicts West as imperialist that has virtually enslaved rest of mankind for selfish purposes. It was therefore, a religious duty to confront such evil forces for the betterment of humanity. This definitional dilemma, helped formulate their respective policies corresponding to their own perceptions of each other, in mutual contradiction. [33] The US hounds the allegedly Muslim terrorists all around the world alone and also in collaboration with other states but rarely faces any commendable success. [34] In fact the Jewish dominated US academia and policy think tanks have played a highly negative role in developing Islam as a future threat as evident from Samuel P. Huntington’s seminal article “Clash of Civilizations” and projection of numerous doomsday scenarios. It seems more than coincidence that most of the destabilized crisis areas in the world are inhabited by the Muslims and who for decades have been subjected to political injustices and oppressed by non-Muslim governments.

It is also well known that the Western world is highly prone to racist tendencies and has been involved in terrorist activities to either avenge their grievances or augment their fellowship. Christian religious groups in North America have gathered considerable strength. Jewish Defence League, while maintaining its pressures on North America, actively operates in Israel and its occupied territories, and develops a combination with Jewish nationalism to perpetrate atrocities against the Muslims in the Palestine. [35] The rise of Hindu fundamentalists with their fanatical groups and their acquisition of state power in India should have sent a shock wave through the world. Instead, the West found this constitutional coup a triumph of democracy, completely ignoring the lessons from history — the rise of the Nazis in Germany through the ballot box!

Religious terrorism has also emerged with a more parochial version, divided along sects within the same belief system and has triggered widespread instability within the states. Sometimes it transcends borders but such tendency is quite thin. These divisions within the same belief system have led to the emergence of sectarian strife and terrorism. Sectarianism is a phenomenon not exclusive to Pakistan though excessively prevalent here. Northern Ireland is an older example. The case of Shia-Sunni divergence in Pakistan and its assumption of militancy have introduced potentially serious problems for the policy makers. It is further complicated by its external dimension in the form of aid from abroad. [36] Gun firing and throwing of grenades in mosques, assassination of prominent personalities and officials associated with either of the sects illustrate, how focused targets are being taken.

The global threat from religious terrorism emanates from the hostile sentiments against the West, but more particularly against the US, for obvious unfriendly and unfair treatment given to the Muslims and their states. This problem is more acute in the Middle-East. The bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania brought into sharp focus the intense feelings of hostility against the US. The rise of Osama bin Laden and his world-wide Islamic movement, Al Qaeda, conforms to the widely believed perception that the US only cares about Israel and free flow of Gulf oil and not about national rights to self-determination or democratic institutions in the Arab world. The American retaliation thus appears symptomatic of a heavy–handed policy. The American ‘War against Terror’ in Afghanistan would stay and haunt the memory, possibly becoming a catalyst for greater extremism and hatred, unless the real causes of religious upsurge and violence are fairly addressed and resolved.

State Terrorism

State terrorism is the oldest form of terrorism and has been applied and practiced throughout history. For a long time, it was no more than a dreaded instrument of brutality and terror, whose legitimacy was drawn from ‘the law of the jungle’. Gradually however, state terrorism acquired political recognition and an institutional status as an important component of state security. It has since been employed by the governments with varying justifications and lethality to silence political opposition and dissent, to crush separatist militancy or freedom movements and in many cases to brutalize or outrightly eliminate ethnic or religious minorities (now termed as ethnic cleansing). The worst examples in contemporary history of state–sponsored terrorism are those of Nazis’ pogrom for the ‘Permanent Jewish Settlement’, communist purges and persecutions in the Soviet Union between the two Great Wars and the recent Serb atrocities in the Balkans. Despite UN guarantees, states have continuously indulged in terror and violence against their peoples and neigbours for self defined interests of national security. It still goes on undeterred, in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Indian Held Kashmir.The exponents of state terrorism, usually fascist regimes, military dictatorships and radical or reactionary hardline governments, argue in favour of employing state power (actually terror) to preserve state security and state’s political ideology or values and regard those who oppose or threaten them, irrespective of their legitimate grounds, as enemies of the state and their political (or militant) activities as criminal acts (of terrorism). Their elimination therefore is considered justified for which the state monopoly of power should be applied with full vigour. These arguments seek a political basis and defacto legitimacy for an institutionalized application of terror and violence through the state apparatus to suppress dissent and opposition within the population. [37] . Even the best of liberal democracies, generally if not openly, seem to accept this distasteful concept for maintaining stability and order and apply their disapproval selectively only to suit their strategic interest, with the result that the terrorizing states get away with their crimes of political oppression, brutalities and violations of basic human rights. The glaring examples are those of Israel, South American states, particularly Chile, India and South Africa (under the racist regime). This is a tragic dilemma, which breeds all forms of terrorism.State terrorism by definition and practice is least complicated. As a concept, it involves ‘systematic’ application of lethal state power to crush or restrain political opposition within the population to preserve state security. It is a ‘vertical war’ against the local or domestic dissidents who are perceived to be threatening the political ‘order’, ‘values’ or ‘structure’ of the state through their peaceful or violent protests against social injustices, deprivation and denial of political rights. State terrorism is by nature heavy–handed and repressive and acquires an extra-legal character by: (1) Violating and/or suppressing the guaranteed basic human rights. (2) Delimiting or bypassing the established judicial process. (3) Distorting, modifying or corrupting the constitutionally proclaimed judicial order through arbitrary legislations or superimposing the order with clandestine state sanctions.The ruthless application of extra-legal means, frequently violent or excessive in nature, deprive the targeted people of liberty, property, or life, in many cases disregarding the innocence of the victims, which generally negate the effects of terror and become counter-productive. State terrorism is applied in two dimensions: the internal and the external. [38] The internal dimension is repression by the state against its own targeted people, while the external is sponsored by the state outside its borders, usually a targeted neighbour or hostile country.Repressive terrorism within the state is usually directed against revolutionary or rebellious activities or to strengthen the government or dictatorship. Since the state monopolizes the coercive paraphernalia, formulates policies and seeks their execution through collaboration of different organs of the state, it enjoys initiative and advantage and is better poised to manoeuvre in any direction to realize its objectives. The methods include intimidation, forced conversion even genocide through progressive displacement, dispersion and extermination of targeted people that may be an ideological, ethnic or religious group. [39] For this purpose the state employs selectively any or all of the terror means, such as arrests, deportation, torture, murder, extra judicial or custodial killings, rapes, demolition or burning of houses or shops etc, all forcused on suppressing the dissent and hostile violence or breaking the will of the targeted people. [40] The case of Indian Held Kashmir perfectly fits into the above repressive methods, being applied by the Indian security forces under the patronage of the Union government. It is also generally known that a majority of the states coerce their targeted citizens, including racial discrimination rampant in the white skinned countries.The external dimension of state terrorism is based on the belief that terrorism can be used as an instrument of foreign policy, against a rival state(s) to destabilize and weaken it. With this objective, the sponsor state either involves itself directly through its deployed agents to inflict destruction and chaos or indirectly stimulates subversive and insurgent or violent activities through the dissidents with serious or unaddressed grievances towards their own state. The indirect covert support may involve political or psychological support through propaganda, funding, intelligence, training and supply of weapons. [41] India is the prime example for her persistent indirect involvement in and of sponsoring terrorism against her targeted neighbours to intimidate and exert and maintain psychological pressures. India, subverted, trained and supported the Tamil minority to dismember Sri Lanka or at least develop and maintain coercive leverage, as later she did in former East Pakistan to create Bangladesh, using all the means to sponsor terrorism externally and succeeded. Today, the Indians still continue to indulge in regular subversive and terror activities against Pakistan, exploiting sectarian and ethnic unrest particularly in Sindh where for decades she had been involved in inciting sub-national separatism through sabotage and terrorist activities. However, organizations that are sponsored externally by foreign governments tend to have momentum of their own and slip out of the control of the foreign sponsors, [42] as it happened in the case of separatist Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka, being an Indian creation, forcing a full-fledged costly military operation and later resulting in Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination by a Tamil suicide bomber.There had been a general outcry against state sponsored terrorism and some of the countries like North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya and Sudan and more recently Afghanistan came under severe UN and/or US sanctions, but the actions taken left much to be desired. States like Israel and India known for perpetrating state terrorism, directly and/or indirectly were left out, with a lingering hostile perception against the US and the West for being biased and compromising for their strategic interests.

Indian State Terrorism in Indian Held Kashmir

Indian Held Kashmir is a classic case study of state terrorism where India has and continues to apply every known method and technique to achieve her objectives: suppression of the militant struggle and the political movement seeking self-determination, the right acknowledged by the UN. In order to suppress the freedom movement, the Indian security forces are killing Kashmiri youth, raping women, burning shops, destroying houses and terrorizing people, through custodial murders, fake encounters and summary executions. [43] Many cases of rape and sexual molestation occur during the house to house searches when the men are forced to go out and the women are left at the mercy of soldiers, who rape them at gun point. According to a report: ‘in Jammu and Kashmir rape is practiced as a part of systematic attempt to humiliate and intimidate the local population during counter-insurgency operations’. [44] Kashmiris are being consistently denied their basic rights granted to them by the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). A joint report issued by the Asia Watch and Physician for Human Rights notes: [45]

In their efforts to crush the insurgencies, Indian forces in Kashmir have engaged in massive human rights violations including extra-judicial executions, rape, torture, and deliberate assault on health care workers…Indian government forces have systematically violated international human rights and humanitarian laws. Among the worst of these violations have been the summary executions of hundreds of detainees in the custody of security forces in Kashmir. Such killings are carried out as a matter of policy. More than any other phenomenon, these deliberate killings reveal the magnitude of human rights crisis in Kashmir.

In 1996, according to a report, Indian security forces committed an estimated 100-200 extra-judicial killings of suspected militants in Kashmir. The report maintains that: [46]

Impunity has been and remains a serious problem in Kashmir. Security forces have committed thousands of human rights violations over the course of conflict including extra-judicial killings, disappearance and torture. Yet during period January 1, 1990 to June 30, 1997 only 10 members of security forces were tried and sentenced to ten or more years imprisonment…

Besides extra-judicial killings, torture by the Indian security forces has become very common in Kashmir. The forces have been given wide-ranging powers to perpetrate torture in conducting operations, whose gruesome details have few equals in the annals of human atrocities. [47]

The use of terror by the Indian military and para military forces in Indian Held Kashmir reveals the brutal face of state terrorism in all its manifestation. Indian government has maintained an unrelenting war of distorted propaganda against, what she calls ‘cross-border terrorism’ by Pakistan, ignoring altogether the fact that the wholly indigenous Kashmiri freedom struggle cannot be described as terrorist activity by UN definition which clearly differentiates between terrorism and freedom struggle. Besides, the state of Jammu and Kashmir is a disputed territory, a portion of which is illegally occupied by the Indians and whose future is yet to be decided.

While working closely with and as a part of anti-colonial freedom or guerrilla movements during the mid-Twentieth Century, terrorism had acquired valuable professional expertise to operate wholly by itself. Indeed it evolved its own micro-system, which proved far more effective and secure in the changing operational environment. Its main assets were, its small size, freedom and ability to move, speed in communication, minimum organizational vulnerability and logistical dependence and less reliance on sponsor(s) or operating base. With these assets, terrorist operations could not be restrained by traditional frontiers or state boundaries. Modern technology, especially information technology, transportation and scientific discoveries and their knowledge, diffusion and assimilation across the borders and the ethnic or national divides, has added internationally operational dimension with which terrorists can integrate their plans, coordinate their strategies, share important information about their potential targets, escape the vigilance of intelligence agencies, learn latest techniques and skills of making dangerous weapons and their application, learn and use latest technologies to accomplish their missions.

With secular objectives – freedom from foreign occupation, overthrow of corrupt government or dictatorship or social revolution – terrorist organizations could find adherents and supporters, almost anywhere in the world and win them over, thus acquiring an international character and commitment. Cuban revolution, IRA and the Palestinian movement and a flurry of socialist upsurge under such charismatic names as Che Guevara, Carlos, and Mandela and organizations such as IRA, Al Fatah, Red Brigade, ANC and Red Army etc, gave an international dimension to terrorism. International terrorism came under the full glare of world stage when PLO struck in 1972 in Munich resulting in the massacre of Israeli athletes participating in the Olympic Games.

Ever since, international terrorism has dominated the scene with increasing vigour and lethality. There had been a reduction in the number of terrorist groups and the frequency of their activities since the collapse of the Soviet Union and its satellite states which patronized and supported them for socialist cause. But meanwhile, the new ones have grown with new missions, some far more rabid and sinster in outlook and action.

Definition

International terrorism is regarded as ‘the premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against the non-combat targets in or from a second state by sub-national or independent groups or individuals.’ [48] Simply stated, terrorism is international when it involves people or objects of more than one state. More specifically however, it is identified with the peculiarities in the characteristics of the act itself, its goals and their effects. Broadly these are:

The Lectric Law Library’s Lexicon has adapted a comprehensive definition of international terrorism, possibly also taking into account a number of varied explanations already in circulation:

“Activities that involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of any state, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of any state; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping; and occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of any state, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum. [49]

The above definition is an extension of the world’s concern for the safety and protection of the innocent civilians, who come under terrorists attack by deliberate design and the security of the state. It obviously ignores the terrorist’s cause, if not outrightly rejecting its political legitimacy. But like all other forms, international terrorism too stands condemned on moral grounds, more so due to its expanded capacity for violence, and the increasing range of its operational application. This is the most serious dilemma, that confronts both the state(s) and the terrorists and calls for the resolution of the root causes which breed terrorism.

International terrorism has become less dependent on state sponsorship and instead prefers to form loose, transnational affiliations based on political, ideological or religious affinity for a common cause. It is from this cooperation between different groups of terrorists that, international terrorism takes form and shape and hits the target anywhere in the world. Today a worldwide network of connections and commitments exists among the terrorist organizations, some of which may not even be sharing similar goals or ideology. To forge such a network, the prime motivations are the commonality of cause and the operational benefits of mutual support and assistance. The areas and forms of this cooperation are vast and varied and may cover from training, joint action to financial support.

In the early stages of its growth, a major area of transnational violence had been its use by nationalist or sub-nationalist or separatist movements for domestic struggles. These groups operated from beyond the borders of their country for security reasons and to escape state retaliation. This restraint has undergone a radical change. The concept of international terrorism has broken the barrier and the operations could now be launched from anywhere and in support beyond the domestic limitation. Indeed the free environment of Western democracies appeared sympathetic to the cause as well as convenient to operate. [50] This feature however has eroded considerably and is changing rapidly due to the growing concern against any form of terrorism.

Due to the increasing hostility against terrorism, the concept itself has become more dangerous and lethal. Previously, most terrorist organizations operated within the framework of their political objectives and tried to calibrate their activities to cause just enough terror and violence to get the requisite attention and not so much as to alienate public support or to draw world’s criticism. Now, such considerations seem outdated and the emphasis is on dramatic effects, irrespective of the horrifying extent of losses in material and human lives. The responsibility is invariably never claimed for fear of state reprisals and public alienation. For this changing operational feature, increasing frustration against indifference and inactivity by the concerned state(s) and the world in general over the terrorist’s grievances or demands, are held responsible. This is also causing a qualitative change in the terrorist’s motivation, which is acquiring religious passion and/or ethnic prejudices to justify irrational acts or moral violations. This shift is now affecting the nature of political objectives, operational methods and the very hierarchical structure of the terrorist organization.

Two new factors have entered the international terrorism – extensive use of modern technology and an increase in the suicidal missions – both peculiarly threatening in effects. These have considerably enhanced the innovation in design and unpredictability of the plans and the counter-measures by the state’s security system. Whatever the moral imperatives, the voluntary offer of supreme sacrifice, often by young suicide bombers, does evoke sympathy for their cause.

Consistent with this new direction, concept of cyber terrorism, based on expertise of decoding by experts through Internet, has caused serious concerns, especially in the wired societies of the West. From disabling a country’s military defences to shutting off the power in large areas, the terrorist can affect more people at less risk than through other means; and threatening a large bank is a common and popular threat. In Great Britain, the hackers gained at least upto 400 million pounds from 1993 to 1995 by threatening institutions. [51] The ease of communications enable very small rogue organizations to function on the world stage. Today Osama’s Al Qaeda has made headlines and assumed such dangerous dimensions that the US with a world coalition has initiated a war against it.

Today’s international terrorist network is quite extensive by its spread throughout the world, generally well-organized in self contained cells with efficient command and communication system and sophistication in expertise and planning. It operates on the lines of modern intelligence organizations with highly committed operatives and agents. It is generally funded through donations and charities and reportedly by indulging in business, drug trafficking and petty extortions. It maintains strict security discipline, which makes detection and blow up a difficult task. Amongst the known networks, Osama bin Ladin’s Al Qaeda with numerous affiliated groups is the largest and the most powerful. After this group, other known networks are Al Gama’at al Islamiyya and Al Jihad of Egypt, GIA of Algeria, Hamas of Palestine, Hezb Ullah of Lebanon, besides smaller groups in Chechnya, Uzbekistan and Philippines. Every one of these networks has strong religious character and agenda.

On the morning of 11^th September 2001, the New Yorkers were jolted out of their wits when the first tower of World Trade Centre (WTC) was hit by a civilian airliner. Eighteen minutes later, as the people around the world watched in total shock and disbelief, another civil airliner veered sharply in a perfect turn and sliced through the second tower of the WTC, exploding the upper floors into flame and fragmentation. The details of the carnage, death and destruction were horrifying; their psychological impact far more stunning. Another act of terror had struck, perhaps the most audacious and devastating of its kind, for the world to pause and ponder on its varied and deeper implications. As the United States hastens to declare and initiate a war against terrorism, more to rally the shattered American confidence in the national and public security, than to resolve the real cause of this terrifying experience, amidst outcries of retribution, the world awaits apprehensively the unfolding of its outcome. Whatever may be the outcome, it is certain, that the world, particularly the United States would never be the same.

The terrorist attacks in New York and Washington may become a unique example of international terrorism — the extent and reach of its threat, the audacity in its planning and execution, desperate sense of conviction and sacrifice and the quality of inflicted terror. This one event, as the details are being collected and pieced together, explains the concept of international terrorism, the nature and scope of its threat and its far reaching affects. As is being alleged, it is amazing to note, how Al Qaeda and its leadership from the barren and devastated Afghanistan, selected the educated young agents with Saudi background, placed them in Europe and the US, for technical training, financed them from the UAE and provided them logistic support from dispersed trusts and charities in Europe and the US, without neglecting their religious indoctrination and in the final moments of the strike, coordinated the plans, calibrating it to perfection for simultaneous hi-jacking of at least four civil airliners from different airports in the US, through the simplest means of swiss knives, converting the huge aircrafts into the most dreadful flying fuel bombs and striking the three intended targets successfully. There could not be a more horrifying demonstration of the full capacity and potential of international terrorism.

While the American ‘New War Against Terror’ continues with attendant pain and destruction, the true and total impact of terror caused by the terrorist attacks have become known. On the strategic level, the vulnerability of the US has been starkly exposed, the attack on the WTC in the hub of American business, not only paralyzed one of the biggest American cities but sent the government spiralling into chaos and its financial sector brought to near collapse. The economic cost of the inflicted disaster is estimated to exceed 1.5 trillion US dollars. The American public has not yet recovered from the psychological effects of shock and terror. It is possible that they may never recover fully and the terrible event may continue to haunt them for a long time. It has given rise to racist tendencies and hate psychosis, seriously contaminating the open, frank and trusting American attitude. New legislations are in the offing, which would strengthen the Presidency with new and additional powers at the cost of public freedom which in the long run may affect the very complexion of American political system. Such far reaching effects accruing out of one terrorist act, whose full dimension is still not completely revealed are terrifying. The panic in the Western quarters is therefore real and justifiable.

This horrific event has also demonstrated a new concept of terrorist operation, which could be loosely termed as asymmetric, i.e, unequal or unbalanced. The main characteristic of such an approach would make it highly unpredictable and without any pattern, providing it with the most powerful resource – the idea, to contest the hostile powers. Already the only super power fights a war with overwhelming advantages of resources against an intangible adversary. It is possible that in due course the US would be able to find an answer — with an equally powerful idea which will decisively strike at the very root cause of all forms of terrorism. Till then, new Osamas will continue to be reborn and Al Qaeda will get replaced by another rogue organization, and perhaps with self assumed missions and increased fanatical convictions.

Emerging New Trends

Terrorism in its varied forms, is one of the deadliest and most persistent threats posed by the oppressed and the deprived. As long as injustice prevails and the weaker people are denied their human and political rights, self dignity and means to survive; disappointment, anger and desperation would continue to cause violence and death. In their war against terrorism, the West apathetically ignores two basic features of modern terrorism — its reactionary nature and its dynamic character. Terrorism is a result of provocative conditions and its ability to operate under increasing restriction and strict counter-measures is highly innovative. It remains in a state of evolution and its every new strike seems to shock and surprise the world. The carnage caused by the terrorist’s acts are deplorable, particularly when the innocent civilians get targeted, but the state’s reaction is equally disappointing, wherein it does not go beyond punishing the perpetrators, deliberately ignoring to determine and resolve the cause(s) of terrorist violence. Indeed, the often unjustified scale of retribution by the state(s) such as Israel and India only perpetuates the cycle of violence without end.

For a long time, terrorism had remained stuck to the old pattern – assassinations, kidnappings, armed assaults, barricade–hostage incidents and hijackings and used the traditional weapons — the gun, bomb and the explosives. Terrorist events of the last decade and the most recent attacks in the US, indicate the changing dimensions in the operative complexion of international terrorism. Indeed a whole range of new changes is affecting its concept, organization and tactics, weapon system, intelligence and communication network, logistics and financial support. The emerging new trends, despite the infusion of sophistication seem to portend increase in lethality and ruthlessness in death and destruction.

Fewer Incidents Greater Casualties

Traditionally, terrorist groups belonged to identifiable militant organizations or political movements with proper command apparatus and well defined objectives and usually took credit for the terrorist act, and explained the determinants of their action. The violence was restrained, enough for recognition and coercive intimidation. The new trends are (1) not to accept responsibility, thus avoid targeted retribution and leave behind a mystifying terror through silence, [52] and (2) increasing readiness of the terrorists to indulge in indiscriminate targeting without any ethical consideration. It seems that the later change has been caused by the continued apathy of the concerned/responsible states in resolving the conflict and further radicalization of the terrorists’ character and motivation.

The statistics of recent terrorist attacks indicate that these have been causing greater causalities and infrastructural damages. Figures collected by the US Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) show that during the 1970s there were a total of 8,114 terrorist incidents worldwide, which resulted in 4,978 deaths and 6,902 injured. During the 1980s there were 31,426 incidents, resulting in 70,859 deaths and 47,849 injured. The RAND-St Andrews, joint-university, database of international terrorist incidents, records 2,536 incidents in the 1970s, resulting in 1975 deaths, and records 3,658 incidents in the 1980s, resulting in 4,077 deaths. During the 1980s the number of international terrorist incidents was about 50 per cent more than in the 1970s, and twice as many people were killed. [53] During the 1990s, however, the number of international terrorist incidents actually began to fall. A record 484 incidents occurred in 1991, which fell to 343 in 1992, then to 360 in 1993, to 353 in 1994 and finally to 278 in 1995. Yet as these figures fell, a greater percentage of incidents were resulting in fatalities or deaths and injuries continued to increase. [54]

On August 7, 1998 a huge car bomb was detonated in the car park of American embassy in the heart of Nairobi, Kenya. As hundreds of office workers were drawn to their windows by the sound, they were hit by a second bomb. Almost simultaneously, another bomb had exploded in Dar-es-Salaam, capital of neighboring Tanzania. It was reported that the bombing in Kenya killed 201 and injured 5,500 people whilst the bomb in Tanzania killed 11. [55] More recently, over 6,000 (latest revised figure is 3000!) people were reportedly lost in the collapsed twin towers of the World Trade Center, on the September 11, 2001. [56] These figures relate only to international terrorism. The evidence in respect of domestic terrorism is more problematic, but there are strong indications that the trend is no different in the domestic field, particularly in Algeria and Sri Lanka. These facts indicate that casualty levels are increasing at a faster rate than the number of incidents, and the individual incidents are becoming more lethal.

            A number of reasons has been advanced by the western analyst for terrorism’s increased lethality but none account for the root cause(s). According to Bruce Hoffman analysis:
(1)               The terrorists desire to obtain more and serious attention. Therefore, they consider bloody action as a viable strategy to attract the media and the decision makers.
(2)               The terrorists have profited from past experience and have become more skilled at killing. The alliance between terrorist organizations and the sponsor states have added greater efficiency to the act through logistical support and provision of more sophisticated, and deadlier weapons. [57]
(3)               The active role played by states in sponsoring and supporting terrorism. This support has enhanced the striking power and capabilities of ordinary terrorist organizations, transforming some groups into entities more akin to elite commando units than the stereotypical Molotov-cocktail wielding or crude pipe-bomb manufacturing anarchist or radical leftist.
(4)               The overall increase during the past 15 years of terrorism motivated by religious imperatives encapsulates the confluence of new adversaries, motivations, and tactics affecting terrorist patterns today.
(5)               The means of terrorism has become easily accessible to anyone who carries a grievance, an agenda, or a purpose. Even the amateur terrorist can be just as deadly and destructive—and even more difficult to track and counter—than his professional counterpart.
(6)               While on the one hand terrorism is attracting amateurs, on the other, the sophistication and operational competence of the professional terrorists are increasing. These professionals are becoming demonstrably more adept in their tradecraft of death and destruction; more formidable in their capacity for tactical modification and innovation in their methods of attack; and better able to operate for sustained periods while avoiding detection, interception, or capture.
It is evident that the Western analyst invariably always evades the crucial factor, the cause of agitation, turmoil and violence. It is ridiculous to assume that terrorists would indulge in such killings and carnage merely for self recognition. The deeper motivations of the terrorist groups and organizations are well known to the state(s), responsible for the conflict resolution. Their continued oppression and brutalities as a response and indifference to a just resolution of the issue lead to further escalation in the lethality of terrorist’s attacks.

The Growth and Infusion of Religious Extremism

The religion has become the prime motivation for terrorist acts. [58] The late Twentieth century saw a resurgence of holy terror involving almost all the religions, from Christian right-wing white supremacists, fanatical Jewish sects, cast Hindus, militant Sikhs to Muslim fundamentalist, throughout the world; Europe, North America, the South Asian sub-continent, Middle and Near East and North Africa. While all are responsible for this trend in their respective areas of influence, Muslim fundamentalists are considered to be the most active internationally. [59] The causes and the reasons are obvious. Islamic orthodoxy is far more fixed and obedient to divine call and to theological demands. [60] It is however interesting to note that use (or misuse!) of religion in support of insurgency was for the first time stretched to its maximum capacity during the Afghan Jihad against the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and under the US patronage. The trend thus set, got the boost from the success of the Jihad and the Islamists, around the world took to religion as the decisive factor in their struggle against oppression and political injustices.

There is a long list of significant terrorist attacks in the recent years strongly motivated by religious passion. All terrorist organizations with strong infusion of religious extremism have peculiar agendas, such as (1) bringing fundamental changes in the domestic scene according to the Sharia as the only way to salvation; i.e, Islamic movements in Algeria and Egypt and Talibans in Afghanistan, (2) waging a holy war against powers who are perceived to be the source of all kinds of injustices and exploitation in global terms, the self-assumed messianic mission being howsoever anarchic, notwithstanding, i.e, Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda being the most prominent, and (3) legitimate militant struggle for political identity and freedom from oppression and illegal occupation; i.e, PLO, Kashmiri fighters and Moros etc. The Christian, Jewish and the apocalyptic Japanese cult extremists are equally infused with religious motivations and carry hateful racist and anarchic cultish agendas.

The religious factor has given rise to fanaticism and uncanny growth of suicide attacks. The unusual increase in the number and frequency of suicide bomber attacks, is highly perplexing, their blind devotion to the call of duty, knowingly and willingly making the supreme sacrifice, is incomprehensible to the Western material loving society. What is really hard is their inability to detect or prevent such attacks. Although the suicidal trend in terrorism is not new and the Tamil Tigers had been using it in their struggle, its spread is alarming and reflective of the state of desperation, the terrorists have been or being driven to by the Western apathy to their legitimate causes and their capacity to fight back even with such high cost.

The growth and infusion of religious passion has given a new dimension to terrorism, making it far more dogmatic and threatening to the established political order everywhere. Its emergence is mainly due to the failure of the World Order to resolve the root causes of conflict and violence. As the US wages a war against terror in Afghanistan, she must ponder over her earlier blunders, particularly her betrayal of Afghan trust and compare the cost in human and material terms for her neglect, before accepting the final Afghan settlement.

Nuclear, Biological and Chemical weapons are inherently terrifying. They evoke moral dread and visceral revulsion out of proportion to their lethality. In recent years terrorists have been acquiring crude chemical and biological agents, and some have plotted or threatened to use them. According to intelligence reports, the indications are that the possibility of using bio-chemical weapons is much higher due to technological problems associated with the nuclear weapons manufacturing. As an argument it was pointed out that, “many terrorists movements are directly encouraged, sponsored and aided by regime in order to weaken or subvert rival states,” [61] and from the intimacy of these connections the possibility of pro-terrorists states assisting the terrorists’ organizations in obtaining at least nuclear radioactive material, always existed.

As the basic motivations are changing, a new breed of terrorists- including ad hoc groups deeply influenced by religious conviction or revenge, violent right-wing extremists, and apocalyptic and millenarian cults, seem to be growing on the wings who may be highly prone to commit acts of extreme violence. The overriding religious belief in Armageddon establishes a strong motive for some cults to use the WMD. [62]

These weapons are intrinsically indiscriminate, and suit terrorists’ strategy to inflict large numbers of indiscriminate casualties. The usages of these weapons not only increase the lethality of the terrorists’ acts, but the government of the country under attack would have difficulty in controlling panic, since bio-chemical weapons are silent killers, and the attack could occur at any time without warning. This would create an ideal scenario of terror.

There are number of organizations, which had revealed interests in these deadly agents. For example, Christian Patriots had shown interests in biological weapons. Biological weapons have the potential to be as deadly as nuclear bombs. For instance, 100 kilograms of anthrax could kill up to 3 million people if dispersed under optimal conditions. [63] Survivalists and white Supremacists were implicated in three separate cases involving biological agents in 1995. In March two members of the Minnesota Patriots Council were arrested for producing ricin with which to assassinate a deputy US marshal who had served papers on one of them for tax violations. In May, just six weeks after the Aum Shinrikiyo incident, Larry Wayne Harris, former member of neo-Nazi organizations, bought three vials of Yersinia pestis, the bacterium that causes bubonic plague, which killed nearly a quarter of Europe’s population in the mid-fourteen century. In December a Survivalist was arrested for trying to carry 130 grams of ricin across the border into Canada. [64] However, from known conspiracies it appears that no terrorist group has even attempted to develop a nuclear explosive device, and there have been only a few cases of groups attempting to purchase a nuclear device. Instead, the use of radioactive materials of contamination, either through a contamination bomb or otherwise, has been the preferred option for nuclear terrorism. Bio-Chemical weapons however are no more speculative possibility, but have already been introduced in the world of terrorism when in March 1995, Japanese religious cult Aum Shinrikyo attacked the Tokyo subway with the sarin nerve-gas and now following the September 11, terrorist attack in New York, the US seem to be inundated with Anthrax, both symbolizing a threshold crossing by non Muslim terrorist organizations.

The September 2001, terrorists’ attacks were a powerful indicator that at least some groups are willing to perpetrate acts of unrestrained violence and indiscriminate mass killing. In 1990s, a growing number of incidents broaden the perceptions of the potential threat that radical religious cults can pose to society as a whole. In addition, a major trend has been the terrorists’ acquisition of increasingly sophisticated and lethal weapons, like the nuclear and bio-chemical weapons. These emerging trends mainly the products of the technological advancements are likely to complicate the terrorists threat in future.

The contemporary experiences indicate that the prospects of terrorism have continued to grow by its increasing destructive potential. The persisting instability and turmoil in the affected regions, caused by political and socio–economic injustices and denials have given birth to new and aggressive movements espousing a variety of ideologies — sub national or ethnic nationalism, religious fundamentalism, fascism and apocalyptic millenarianism. These cover a wide area and people, from Hindu fundamentalists in India, Muslim religious extremists in Afghanistan, the Middle East and North Africa, racists and neofascists in Europe and the US to nationalists in Kashmir, NE India and the Philippines. The emerging trend towards more indiscriminate killings, seem no longer bound to ethical restraints nor to objective oriented specific targets, which make terrorism highly unpredictable and its tactics less distinct. Terrorist’s willingness to undertake suicidal mission is a radical departure and highly dangerous being almost impossible to prevent and the availability of silent weapons of mass destruction — the bio-chemical agents provide terrorism with new potential and destructive capacity. Behind these developments, the infusion of religious and ideological passion act as a potent driving force without restraints.

During the last decades, the political motives of terrorism have continuously been undermined and contemptuously dismissed. It was generally believed and so projected that terrorism ‘more often than not has little political impact and that when it has an affect it is often the opposite of the one desired’. [65] This perception could not be more fallacious. A single shot of a Serb assassin in Serajevo plunged the entire Europe into a terrible Great War (1914-18), which disintegrated the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Seventy years later a similar terrorist act in Tel Aviv, scuttled the Middle East Peace Process almost beyond recovery. Today, as a result of terrorists’ attacks in New York and Washington D.C., the US with a world coalition, is waging a ‘War against Terrorism’ in Afghanistan. The political and economic impact of these attacks is deep and enduring and would inhibit the American public attitude and state policies for a long time. Certainly the US with the immense military power and economic resources would win the war, crushing the Talibans and the Al Qaeda movement, but it is highly improbable that, the US would succeed in destroying terrorism, as an idea and a concept without addressing the very root causes of its emergence.

What happened in Afghanistan was the direct result of the American failure to take the Afghan struggle against the Soviet invasion to its logical conclusion — restoration of internal order, rehabilitation of millions of displaced Afghans and reconstruction of a ravaged Afghanistan. What happened thereafter was inevitable. There is a perception that the Americans abandoned the Afghans deliberately leaving a highly destabilized country between Iran, Pakistan and the Central Asian republics to exert its own internal pressures to the detriment of their mutual relationship. After a decade the US have been drawn back into Afghanistan to fulfil the unfinished commitment. But at what cost?

Winning a war against the Talibans and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan could hardly be rated as a military victory for the US, the sole super power. Nor can this triumph assure peace, which would require amongst other measures, correcting the historical mistakes with a true sense of justice and balancing the excessive American emphasis on short-term strategic interests. Benjamin Barber in his recently published book, ‘Jihad vs. McWorld’ observed that, ‘in the long run, war cannot defeat terror alone because violence cannot defeat fear’. If the US wishes to rid the world of the violence of terrorism and establish enduring peace, they should rather wage a war against the root causes which breed radicalism, desperation and terrorism, be it the Israeli’s intransigence in settling the Palestinian question or Indian state sponsored terrorism in Indian Held Kashmir to suppress Kashmiri’s legitimate freedom struggle or the highly inert Arab monarchies and dictatorships, so generously patronized by the US.

There is an urgent need of defining terrorism as a prerequisite for its universal application and formulation of consistent policy by the UN and other states. Definition involves clarity of perception, a binding moral commitment and adherance to established norms of consistency. This would obviously restrict its expedient exploitation by the world powers and other states who indulge in brutal suppression of political dissent and separatist struggle through terror and violence. Perhaps, it is for this very reason that the Western powers do not make a serious attempt to define terrorism in precise term and have preferred its explanation in highly subjective and rhetorical expression, only to arouse emotion, rather than sober and intelligent reflections. It was best demonstrated after the terrorists’ attack on WTO towers and Pantagon and the hurriedly passed resolution by the UNSC.

In the absence of precise definition as a criterion to make clear differentiation between terrorism and other militant movements with legitimate political objectives within the UN charter and conventions, people have and continue to suffer under repressive states, who freely indulge in brutal acts of terrorism. Indeed from the prevailing state of ambiguity these states have benefited and flourished. In this high drama of shifting morality, expedient explanation of terrorism ensures the strategic interests of the Western powers. Thus Israel and India are permitted to perpetuate their atrocities, against the Palestinians and Kashmiris. This selective application of terrorism is the biggest injustice and one of the main causes of terrorist upsurge.

Religion is amongst the potent new factors that dominate terrorism. Apparently its infusion is directly related to the growing plight of the Muslim world against excesses and denial of political rights, factually it is the result of persisting persecutions of the Muslims in the Middle East, the Balkans, Caucasian, India and the Philippines by the non-Muslim governments. Obviously the West is blamed for its failure to resolve long persisting problems, particularly the Palestinian problem. During the Afghan Jihad against the Soviets, the use of Islam appeared pragmatic but its long term effects against democratic development and progressive modernism were either not fully comprehended or simply ignored. The result was an anarchic growth of militant Islamic orthodoxy which now threatens the nationalist sentiments and internal order of the affected states with stagnant conservatism and intellectual backwardness. This is the dangerous development caused by the unscrupulous exploitation of Islam as a political weapon. If any progress is to be made towards eradicating terrorism, religious passion would need to be restrained and orthodoxy reformed to make it compatible with the democratic norms.

Akhtar, Shaheen. Terror in Indian Held Kashmir: Massive Violation of Human Rights. Islamabad: Institute of Regional Studies, 1993.
Amin, Tahir. Mass Resistance in Kashmir: Origins, Evolution and Options. Islamabad: Book Promoters, 1995.
Cameron, Gavin. Nuclear Terrorism: A threat Assessment for 21^st Century. New York: St. Martin Press, 1999.
Combs, Cindy C. Terrorism in the 21 Century. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1998.
Ghosh, S.K. Terrorism: World Under Seige. New Delhi: Ashish Publishing House.
Guteridge, William (ed.) The New Terrorism London: Masrshall Publishing Ltd., 1986.
Gurr, Nadine and Cole, Benjamin. The New Face of Terrorism Threats from Weapons of Mass Destruction. London: I.B. Tauris Publishers, 2000.
Hoffman, Bruce. Inside Terrorism. USA: Columbia University Press, 1998.
Payne, Ronald and Dobson, Christopher. The Terrorist. New York: Fact on File Inc, 1982.
Weinberg, Ceonard B and Davis, Paul B. Introduction to Political Terrorism. New York: McGraw – Hill, Inc, 1989.
Stern, Jessica. The Ultimate Terrorist – London: Harward University Press, 2000.

- “Eamples of Cyber Terrorism.” <www.cs.etsu-tn.edu/getter barn/ stdntppr/cases.htm>

- Gould A. Harold. “The Roots and Fruits of Terrorism”, <www.d-n-i.net/FCS_Folders/gould_terrorism.htm>

- Hoffman, Bruce. “Revival of Religious Terrorism”. www.rand.org/ Publications/randreview/issues/rr.winter 98.9/htm>

- Junaid, Shahwar. “The Terrorism Factor” in The Nation. (December 7, 2000).

- Jenkins, Sally. “The Quest for 6, 347 Identities in Washington Post. (September 27, 2001).

- Krishana, Ashok. “Insurgency in Contemporary World: Some Theoretical Aspects” in Strategic Analysis. (December 1997).

- Kupperman, Robert H. and Opstal Van Debra. “Terrorism in International Military and Defence Encyclopedia. Washington: Bracey’s Inc.

- Laqueur, Walter. “Post–Modern Terrorism” in Foreign Affairs (September/October 1996)

- Rajeswari. P.R. “US Initiatives on Terrorism: Patterns of Terrorism – 1999”. <www.idsa-India.org/an-aug-900 htm>

- Stern, Jessica “Pakistan’s Jihad Culture” in Foreign Affairs (November/December 2000.)

- “The Search for Identity: Ethnicity, Religion and Political -Violence”. <www.unrisd.org/endindex/publ/list/op/op6/op06-05.htm>

- 1999 Country Report on Human rights Practice Bureau of Human Rights, Democracy and Labour: US Department of State, (Feb 2000).

- India Report on Human Rights Practices for 1997. <www.State.gov/ global/human_rights/1997_hrp_report/>

[1] Ed. The New Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 11, Chicago (1992), pp. 650-51.

[2] Bruce Hoffman, Inside Terrorism (USA: Columbia University Press, 1998).

[4] Ed. Concise Oxford Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998).

[5] http://www.undcp.org/terrorism_definitions.html.

[6] Ghosh S.K. Terrorism: World Under Siege (New Delhi, Ashish Publishing House), p.4.

[12] Bruce Hoffman, Inside Terrorism, op cit.

[13] http:/www.terrorism.com/terrorism/def.shtmlll.

[15] Bruce Hoffman, Inside Terrorism, op cit.

[16] Christopher Dobson and Ronald Payne, The Terrorist (New York: Fact on File Inc, 1982), pp.18-19.

[17] Walter Laqueur, ‘Postmodern Terrorism’, Foreign Affairs, (September/October 1996), p. 25.

[18] Robert H. Kupperman & Debra Van Opstal, ‘Terrorism’ by Tor N. Dupuy (ed.) in International Military and Defence Encyclopedia (Washington: Bracey’s Inc), pp 2726-28.

[20] “The Search for Identity: Ethnicity, Religion and Political Violence”, http:/www.unrisd.org/engindex/ publ/list/op/op6/op06-05.htm).

[22] Donald J. Hanle, Terrorism: The Newest Face of Warfare p.132.

[23] Maj. Gen. Ashok Krishna, “Insurgency in the Contemporary World: Some Theoretical Aspects” http:/www.idsa-India.org/an_dec_6.html pp.2-3.

[24] P.R. Rajeswari, “US Initiatives on Terrorism: Patterns of Terrorism-1999”, www.idsa-india.org/an-aug-900html

[26] Harold A. Gould, “The Roots and Fruits of ‘Terrorism”, http//www.d-n-i.net/FCS_Folder /gould_ terrorism.htm

[28] Bruce Hoffman, Revival of Religious Terrorism http://www.rand.org/publications /randreview/issues/ rr.winter98.9/methods.html).

[29] Ibid. Also Gavin Cameron, Nuclear Terrorism: A Threat Assessment for 21^st Century (New York: St. Martin Press, 1999), p. 78.

[34] For details, Leonard B. Weinberg and Paul B. Davis, Introduction to Political Terrorism (New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc, 1989), pp.76-77.

[35] “Trends in Terrorism”, op.cit.

[36] It is believed that most of the religious organizations in Pakistan get financial aid from foreign countries. For details, Jessica Stern, “Pakistan’s Jihad Culture”, Foreign Affairs (Nov-Dec 2000)

[37] Weinberg B. Leonard & Davis B. Paul, Introduction to Political Terrorism (New York: Mc Graw Hill, 1989), p.12.

[38] Ashok Krishna, ‘Insurgency in the Contemporary World: Theoretical Aspects-II’, Strategic Analysis (New Delhi: IDSA, December 1997).

[39] Cindy C. Combs, Terrorism in the 21 Century (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1998), p. 77.

[41] Gottfried Greiner, Terrorism in Tor N. Dupuy (ed.), International Military and Defence Encyclopedia (Washington: Bracey’), p.26 27.

[42] Shahwar Junaid, The Terrorism Factor, The Nation (December 7, 2000).

[43] 1999 Country report on Human Rights Practice, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labour (US Department of State, February 25, 2000).

[44] “Amnesty International Report 1992”, acquired from http//www.amensty.org

[45] Tahir Amin, Mass Resistance in Kashmir: Origins, Evolution and Options (Islamabad: Book Promoters, 1995). P. 108.

[46] “India Report on Human Rights Practices for 1997”, US Department of State, acquired from www/global/human_rights/1997_hrp_report/

[47] Shaheen Akhtar. Terror in Indian Held Kashmir: Massive Violations of Human Rights (Islamabad: Institute of Regional Studies, 1993) p. 76.

[48] Robert H. Kupperman and Debra Van Opstal, op. cit. p.2732.

[49] On International Terrorism, (http://www.lectlaw.com/def/i058.htm).

[50] William Guteridge ed, The New Terrorism, (London: Mansell Publishing Ltd, 1986), p.29.

[51] ‘Examples of Cyber Terrorism’ www.cs.etsu-tn.edn/gotterbarn/stdntppr/ cases.htm.

[52] Bruce Hoffman, ‘Terrorism Trends and Prospects’ (in Countering the New Terrorism), pp.13-27.

[53] Nadine Gurr and Benjamin Cole, The New Face Of Terrorism: Threats from Weapons of Mass Destruction (London: I.B. Tauris Publishers, 2000) pp.22,23.

[56] Sally Jenkins, “The Quest for 6,347 Identities”, Washington Post (September 27, 2001)http://www.washintonpost.Com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32203-2001Sep26? language=printer.

[57] In its 1997 review of global terrorism patterns, the U.S. State Department designated seven countries as terrorism sponsors: Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria. With the exception of the Sudan, which was added in 1993, each of these countries has remained on the list of terrorism patron-states for more than a decade.

[58] The linkage between the increasing number of religiously motivated terrorist groups and the trend towards increasing lethality in terrorists attacks is evident from the fact that although religious terrorists committed only 25 per cent of the recorded international terrorist incidents in 1995, they were responsible for 58 per cent of the fatalities and carried out all of the attacks in 1995 where there were more than eight fatalities.

[59] Nadine Gurr and Benjamin Cole, op.cit, pp.28,29.

[61] Paul Wilkinson, “Terrorism: International Dimensions” in William Gutteridge, The New Terrorism (London: Mansell Publishing Limited, 1986) p.29. The Western analysts persistently cover up the terrorist activities by their own racist groups, who are amongst the first to set the trend for the use of bio-chemical agents and WMD.

[62] Jessica Stern, The Ultimate Terrorists (London: Harward University Press, 2000) pp.70,71.

[63] Nadine Gurr & Benjamin Cole, op. cit.,

[65] Walter Laqueur, Postmodern Terrorism, op.cit., p.27.

Rafiuddin Ahmed with Fasahat H. Syed,Zafar N. Jaspal Ahmed I Malik,Faisal S.Cheema & Huma A Shah

Introduction

SEQUENCE OF VIOLENCE AND TERRORISM

Political Terrorism

Fundamentalism or Religious Extremism/Terrorism

State Terrorism

Indian State Terrorism in Indian Held Kashmir

Definition

Emerging New Trends

Fewer Incidents Greater Casualties

The Growth and Infusion of Religious Extremism

Rafiuddin Ahmed
with
Fasahat H. Syed,Zafar N. Jaspal
Ahmed I Malik,Faisal S.Cheema & Huma A Shah