Roots of extremism

[Jani Abro]

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema


The new Governor of NWFP Awais Ahmad Ghani recently stated that the roots of terrorism lie in Afghanistan and peace cannot be maintained in the region unless extremism is eliminated from Afghanistan. The Governor stressed that NATO has failed to control Taliban and drug smugglers in Afghanistan. In an implied form he also suggested that the US and NATO should also employ political approach which should include all groups in Afghanistan and not be only dependent upon military operations only.

The Afghan President Hamid Karazai also acknowledged in an interview with CNN that more is needed to tackle the growing extremism in the countries including Pakistan and Afghanistan. However he also stressed that fight against terrorism should be more focused in Pakistan than in Afghanistan. He expressed concerns over growing terrorism in neighboring Pakistan. He hoped that Pakistan would take harder and clearer measures to eradicate extremism.

After repeated denials President Karazai has now begun to acknowledge, though indirectly, Afghan’s inability to inject stability in Afghanistan and that Taliban are funded by drug money. The failure to eradicate poppy cultivation along with a combination of religious extremists, criminals, and misguided policy objectives have sustained Taliban struggle. However he has begun to stress that to deal with the problem in both Pakistan and Afghanistan need to undertake concerted efforts.

Scanning through the above mentioned statements, one gets the feeling that not only two different interpretations are being advanced but also both word terrorism and extremism are being used synonymously. It needs to be stressed that the two words have different meanings as well as connoting same meaning within a specific context. Sometimes in a generalized form they are employed to generate the same meaning.

According to Oxford dictionary the word terror means extreme fear. If we accept this meaning then a terrorist is the one who attempts to instill extreme fear among the target audience as suggested above. Terrorism is defined 'as an act or threat of violence against non combatants with the objective of exacting revenge, intimidating or otherwise influencing an audience'.

A 'terrorist' is a person who uses or favors violent and intimidating methods of coercion. The essence of this definition is the employment of violent methods in order to instill fear and influence the targets, which may be a government or a community or a particular individual. Terrorists are defined not by their goals but by how they opt to attain them. It needs to be highlighted that by this definition only a non state actor is portrayed as a terrorist, which is not necessarily true.

A plethora of definitions is available with each one of them reflecting requirements of the changing political environments in different countries. How one defines terrorism reflects the thinking and profoundly affects the likely response. The US considers 'premeditated politically motivated violence perpetrated against non combatant targets by sub national groups or clandestine agents' whereas there are others who define terrorism as 'a process of deliberate employment of psychological intimidation and physical violence by sovereign states and sub national groups to attain strategic and political objectives in violation of the law.

Extremism can be defined as a state of being extreme. It can be described as immoderate and uncompromising attitude. Many factors can cause the advent of extremism. Among these factors are included socio-political environment, oppressive cultural norms, social injustice, ideological contradictions, rigid religious beliefs and outsider’s interferences. The contributory factors include poverty, unemployment especially unequal employment opportunities, illiteracy etc.

The rise of extremism in South Asia is primarily the product of three factors. First is the slow economic progress along with a fairly high population growth rate. Second, the phenomenon of poor governance which was unable to address the socio-economic issues confronting the people of regional states. Third and perhaps the most significant is the foreign interference. The operative global environment along with the incumbent international political system is conducive to foreign interference.

President Karazai’s interview clearly tends to put the blame more on developments in Pakistan as responsible for causing the growth of extremism and terrorism whereas Governor Ghani’s remarks tend to put the blame on incumbent Afghan government’s inability to stamp out extremism in Afghanistan. President Karazai’ expressed concerns over growing terrorism in Pakistan where, according to him, President Musharraf is confronted with mounting opposition to quit amid spreading militant violence whereas Governor Ghani categorically stated that extremism would not evaporate unless it is eliminated from Afghanistan.

An objective analysis of the situation reveals that both countries are facing problems of the twin menace of extremism and terrorism. The Afghan government along with its NATO and ISAF partners has not been able to either control the Taliban or even effectively check infiltrations. In fact, in many ways, Pakistan government’s successes are neutralized when the militants use their hideouts in Afghanistan for regrouping, training and re-equipping purposes.

According to many independent sources, the Pakistanis were able to check the infiltrations to some extent but the fleeing militants take refuge in Afghanistan and their foreign supporters help them in a comprehensive way and then send them back to undertake their nefarious missions. There is no doubt that as long as Afghanistan continues to remain unstable, it would be quite difficult to stamp out the twin menace altogether.

While it may not be easy to quickly eradicate extremism, one thing is certain that the best course of action lies in the collaborative efforts of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It would be appropriate for both to shed the notion of blaming other but focus more on how collectively they can stamp out this menace. An honest joint approach could pay the desired dividends much earlier.

In almost all recent interviews and statements, President Karazai has been painting a gloomy picture of both Pakistan and Pakistan and urging the international community to pay heed to the ground realities and to make concerted efforts to defeat the extremists. Undoubtedly the earnest joint efforts could enormously help in stamping out the twin menace. However it is advisable for President Karazai to avoid giving statements that contain insinuations and can impede collective efforts. Although President Karazai has been relatively careful in recent times and appears to be embarked upon a more appropriate path but he still has to shed his habit of employing diversionary tactics and putting blame on Pakistan in order to cover his own shortcomings and inabilities.

[Jani Abro]

Understanding categories of terrorists

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema


Terrorists neither recognize geographical boundaries nor the value systems of religions or humanitarianism. They tend to exploit all that is available with a view to advance their own objectives. In their quest to attain the objectives, the loss of innocent civilians’ lives does not invoke any remorse among them. However one needs to distinguish between various categories of terrorists as the motivations for each category may differ from the other.

Terrorism is not an ideology but a strategy which may be used by individuals, groups or states for different purposes. While the states, sub national groups and individuals use violent means as part of their well calculated strategy, the state authorities also use terrorism to brutalize the target audience in order to suppress the freedom struggle. While the use of force by the state would be viewed as legitimate, the employment of violence for intimidation purposes by sub national group or individual often invoke strong reactions.

An individual could be motivated by many factors. A continuous experience of blatant injustice could easily influence the behavior pattern of an aggrieved individual. He could be driven to undertake such extreme measures by the unjust deprivation. Failure to impart justice is known to have influenced many individuals and caused acts of terrorism. While in some cases the individual may demonstrate irrational behavior instantly, a calculated move can only be attributed to organized sub national groups and states.

An individual terrorist is likely to commit acts that can attract much publicity. He could be motivated to undermine the authority. An individual could also indulge in terrorist activities merely to free his colleagues. Extreme state of frustration could also motivate the individuals to undertake extreme measures. Taking a hostage or exploding a bomb in front of a public building or a store, high jacking a bus or other modes of public transportation are some of method frequently employed by individual terrorists. An individual terrorist often refrains from lobbying a bomb in a crowded place. However a distinction needs to be made between an estranged individual and an individual who has been trained and sent to target country for disruption, chaos and destabilization.

Sub national groups form the second major category of terrorists. These groups consist of people belonging to a particular school of thought. Not only the acts that are undertaken by this category are invariably calculated and planned, the objectives are also well known to the targets. The members of the group are mostly committed people who believe that the violent means are just one of the effective means to have goals their publicized. Sometimes the media in third world countries is inadvertently trapped in providing the requisite publicity these groups are seeking.

Not only the terrorist groups carefully plan to execute an act of terrorism but also meticulously assess the impact of their action well in advance. Unlikely an individual terrorist who may indulge in terrorist action instantly, these groups always carefully study the target and employ the appropriate weapons to attain their objective which send instructions to field agents with modern means of communication?

Factors motivating these groups are many and varied. Among these factors the projection of certain cause which may include influencing the government to concede to their demands, a response to repression, to create disorder in the society, to redress the injustice, to undermine authority, to free jailed colleagues and friends etc. Sometimes financial gains motivate them to commit acts of terrorism.

Among the known categories of terrorism perhaps the most important and hotly debated category of terrorism is called State terrorism. State sponsored terrorism is one of the oldest forms of terrorism. In ancient times it was an established practice in almost all empires. However the modern history is also filled with innumerable examples of state terrorism. For instance, Britain used it against the French in the Indian wars in America and vice versa. A state not only carefully plans to undertake a systematic extermination and persecution of the target individuals or groups but also tends to project such action as routine response. Since the state has the legitimate authority to employ force in order to impose its decision, its brutal acts are just projected as incidental excesses.

It is obvious when the state acts against any particular group; it feels justified to undertake such an action in the greater national interest of the country. However when a state commits excesses repeatedly, it becomes a subject of controversy. It needs to be mentioned here that both the state government and the Central government are known to have indulged in such nefarious activities. Admittedly very few governments of particular bend indulge in state terrorism and very often governments that may reverse the policy and opt for more peaceful means succeed such governments.

A systematic extermination of important individuals who are spearheading a movement against the established authority is often interpreted as state's efforts to eliminate them and weaken the movement. However it needs to be highlighted that in some cases the movement is a genuine freedom struggle and state's attempt to crush the movement is not viewed sympathetically. But on the other hand the states that are opposed to such freedom struggles and are involved in the processes of crushing the movements, they always tend to project them as terrorist movements. Both Indian policy in Kashmir and Israel’s pursuits with regard to Palestinians are two appropriate examples in the recent times.

Pakistan is confronted with terrorism sponsored by particular groups and states. Not only the alienated groups, for one reasons or the other, within our society have challenged the writ of the state authorities but they also appear to enjoy the support of interested outsiders as well. While we may call them as tools of outsiders, the terrorists themselves may look differently primarily either because of their extremely narrow vision or being overwhelmed by revenge feelings.

To curb the rising tide of terrorism within our country it is imperative that all segments of society initially recognize it as a menace that can radically affect the fabric of our society and then join hands to undertake collective remedial measures. In this connection one should enlists the support of political leaders, religious leaders, human right activists, NGOs, civil society, media and even the man in the street.

In fact it is the duty of all us to work towards this end. It is my understanding that all segments of society would be forthcoming to battle any danger that can hurt the society and the country. Already realization regarding the adverse impact of this menace exists and time has now come to work collectively to rid the nation of this growing menace. If we undertake a united stand, no outsider would be able to successfully accomplish its nefarious designs.