Terrorism is not merely a theoretical issue but an operative concern of the first order. It is no longer a local problem of specific countries but an issue involving the entire world community. Regrettably, western media has made it an issue of Islamic community alone. Due to this illusion, perhaps Islam is the most misunderstood religion around the globe, today. Those who do not understand Islam and have an interest in distorting the truth have been trying to make the word terrorists and terrorism synonymous to the religion of Islam, a mistake that had been common in the media in the West.
The profiling of Muslims as congenital ‘terrorists’ has been such a cleverly done psychological operation that although proven several times as plain lie, the Muslim terrorist image has been made the basis of western foreign policy. And countries seeking to pursue independent social, cultural, economic or foreign policies are dubbed terrorist countries and subjected to various sanctions, even naked aggression. Such determination of a country as terrorist was unilateral, outside international law, not open to any independent verification.
As a matter of fact, terrorist organizations are usually the hub of suppressed people of different identities and religions like Muslim, Christian, Hindus, and Jews etc. They may perpetrate attacks in a variety of countries; the victims of attacks can be of different nationalities; the offices, headquarters, and training camps of terrorist organizations function in various countries. They receive direct and indirect assistance from different states, enlist support from different ethnic communities, and secure financial help throughout the world. But to suddenly arrive at exhaustive conclusion that violence around the globe is actually the Islamic terrorism is redundant.
People have committed terrorism as an act of violence from all religious and political backgrounds. Terrorists who happened to be Christians (e.g. in Bosnia, England, Ireland, Germany, Spain...etc.) and those who happened to be Jewish (e.g. in Israel, Palestine and Lebanon) used their religious beliefs to claim legitimacy for the violence and terrorism they commit. Thousands of women, children and men, young and old have been killed in attempts to achieve or hold on to special interests whether political, social or “religious”. But attributing every act of violence to Islam and Muslims is not justified.
There have been a number of non-Muslim organizations around the world actively involved in bombings, kidnappings and killings but never their religious identities have been exploited by media. In this context, Karen Armstrong argues well that ‘Fundamentalism is often a form of nationalism in religious disguise’. She adds, we rarely, if ever, called the IRA (Irish Republican Army) bombings “Catholic” terrorism because we knew enough to realize that this was not essentially a religious campaign. Perhaps that is why bomb attacks by Euskadi ta Askatasuna-Basque Homeland and Freedom (ETA) killing innocent civilians in Spain have been overlooked by the major powers of the world?
The non-Muslim terrorist organizations like catholic IRA, Red Brigade (BR) of Italy, Russian cult AUM Shinrikyo in Japan, ETA, Marxist National Liberation Army (ELN) in Columbia; Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) etc are no less threat to peace and human beings than Al-Qaeda. On 21 July 1972, a sequel of 22 bombings in just 65 minutes is still remembered as a black sin on the face of Irish Republicanism. Red Brigade openly claims responsibility of killing Massimo D’Antona, an advisor to the cabinet of near-left Prime Minister Massimo D’Alema in 1999, professor Marco Biagi, an economic advisor to right-wing Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi in year 2002 besides killings of many unknown innocent civilians. Brigade also kidnapped US Army Brigadier General James Dozier in 1981, and claimed responsibility for murdering Leamon Hunt, US chief of the Sinai Multinational Force and Observer Group, in 1984. Japanese religious cult AUM Shinrikyo mostly launching chemical attacks on Tokyo subways, is a sign of terror in Japan. The AUM cult, led by Shoko Asahara maintains a number of offices and training centers in Russia but never noticed.
The Basque ETA, whose members are predominantly young men, is among the nastiest terrorist groups. Its objective is to target Spanish and migrant workers, or those holidaying from across the world by bombings. Analysts fear that with this Western Europe organization future of Spain will remain bleak and violent.
National Liberation Army (ELN) consisting of Venezuela Marxist insurgent group inspired by Fidel Castro and Che Guevara Targets foreign employees in Columbia from large corporations through acts of kidnapping, hijacking, bombing, and extortion.
The world’s largest democracy - India - has proven to be the worst arbitrators ever in the world. According to the latest figures, so far over 66, 158 Kashmiris have been killed since January 1989 at the hands of Indian security forces. Incidents of indiscriminate firing, burning alive, torture to death, people drowned in rivers are very common in Kashmir. The number of people reported missing or disappeared or forced to leave their homes is countless. 70,600 men and women are imprisoned, 38, 450 people have been rendered disabled or crippled for life, innumerable girls and women have been raped everyday. Are there any other worst examples of terrorism any where in the world? It is perhaps the Muslim community around the world that has been denied justice every where and yet the ‘ultimate terrorist’.
Political scientists define terrorism as the intentional use of or threat to use violence against civilians or against civilian targets, in order to attain political aims. By definition aren’t these acts of terrorism? A coalition force could have been formed to eliminate these terrorist organizations but it was never formed? An ‘operation freedom’ could have launched to earlier to liberate the suppressed people from Algeria to southern Philippines?
Combating Islam in the name of fighting terrorism required creating an ‘Islamic terrorist’ profile, which we have seen is not so difficult. The world community is going through a critical phase. At this juncture, especially media-men owe responsibility of playing their required role in restoring peace and tranquility to world. Sooner terrorism is understood as international phenomenon better it would be to combat it collectively and effectively.

Demilitarisation of Kashmir
Amjed Jaaved

President Pervez Musharraf has recently proposed demilitarisation of the Jammu and Kashmir State. He is a tough-minded optimist. He believes that demilitarisation would not only facilitate relief activities but also solution of the Kashmir issue. What President Musharraf desires is in line with the UN resolutions. The UN resolutions envisaged demilitarisation as a necessary prelude to holding the plebiscite. Demilitarisation was considered necessary to create an environment in which the Kashmiris could vote on plebiscite questions without fear. Several UN representatives tried their best to make India agree to demilitarisation. But, India refused all reasonable suggestions about number of troops that each country would retain in Kashmir.
If India’s attitude had been more flexible, the Kashmir issue would have been solved a long time ago. Demilitarization of Kashmir has been the basis of United Nations Security Council resolutions on Kashmir. The UN Security Council stipulated 30 days’ period for India and Pakistan to agree on demilitarization. This deadline was incorporated in UN Security Council 98 of 23 December 1952. The resolution called upon India to reduce its troops in Kashmir to a range between 12,000-18,000. Pakistan was required to reduce her troops to between 3000-6000-for internal security. In order to facilitate demilitarisation of the disputed state, the UN disbanded the United Nations Commission on India and Pakistan (UNCIP). Several UN representatives were sent to the region to expedite agreement between the two rival countries _ Australian Sir Owen Dixon, Dr Frank P Graham, and Gunner Jarring. None of them was successful.
History tells that the demilitarisation could not be effected because of India’s obduracy. India kept insisting upon keeping a minimum of 21,000 troops. The UN resolution has specified limit of 18,000 troops. India, currently, has over seven lac troops in the occupied Kashmir. Under the UN 12-point demilitarization plan, Pakistan was allowed to keep only 6,000 Azad Kashmir forces, a gross disadvantage. The simultaneous withdrawal of excess troops from Kashmir was to be completed within 90 days “in a single continuous process.” The United Nations Plebiscite Administrator was to be inducted “no later than the last day of the demilitarization period.”
India’s refusal to insist upon keeping three thousand more troops caused dispute to linger on for over five decades Even now, there is no noticeable change in Indian attitude. A few extracts from Josef Korbel’s book Danger in Kashmir (Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 1954) are given in subsequent paragraphs. These extracts speak volumes on India’s insincere attitude. “Page 159. So the problem of demilitarization was a real one, but it should not have presented any great difficulties if there had been goodwill and some mutual confidence….The Government of Pakistan also had a number of objections to the Commission’s plan of demilitarizing the country; nevertheless it agreed to accept the final judgment of an arbitrator’
‘Page 168. The resolution was carried on March 14, 1950. It called upon India and Pakistan “to prepare and execute within a period of fie months from the date of this resolution a programmed of demilitarization on the basis of the principles of paragraph 2 of General McNaughton’s proposal”. …Pakistan accepted the resolution; India reiterated her strongly critical position, but also accepted….One is also bound to state, at this juncture, that throughout the endless deliberations of the Security Council on the Kashmir issue, the majority of the Council was closer to the Pakistan point of view than to that of India. Not only were its permanent members_ the United States, Great Britain, France, and China, with the Soviet Union largely neutral_ inclined to support a procedure acceptable to Pakistan rather than to India, but the elected members also, as they served their term, associated themselves with this same general position’.
‘Page 171-172. Sir Owen…asked that the Pakistan troops be withdrawn. This was followed by a request to both sides to demilitarise the territory to a minimum of forces (Azad, state troops, Indian army, and local militia) consistent with law and order. The prime minister of Pakistan agreed to take the first step to withdraw the Pakistan army. But Sir Owen’s gratification was short-lived. The plan for demilitarization was rejected by India’. ‘Pages 176-177. Three proposals were suggested by the Australian Prime Minister, Robert Gordon Menzes: (1) to station Commonwealth troops in Kashmir; (2) to have a joint Indo-Pakistan force there; (3) to entitle the plebiscite administrator to raise local troops. Pakistan accepted any of the three propositions. India refused them all.’
‘Page 186. The United Nations representative first proposed, as a basis for discussion, that 12,000 to 18,000 soldiers be retained on the Indian side, plus the local state militia of 6,000 men; and 3,000 to 6,000 Azad soldiers on the Pakistan side, plus 3,500 scouts in the northern area. Then he modified this proposal, suggesting 18,000 and 6,000 men respectively. Neither of his proposals was acceptable to India. She insisted that 21,000 soldiers was an absolute minimum and refused to include in this figure the state militia. In addition, she insisted on the complete demilitarization of the Azad Kashmir and the substitution of the present armed forces there by a civil force of 4,000 men (one-half armed and one-half unarmed), this force to be composed of 2,000 men normally resident in the Azad territory who were not followers of the Azad government’, President Musharraf is right. Given sincerity, the Kashmir issue could be solved in a day.

Gowadia outwits A. Q. Khan
Saifullah Khan

Pakistan has been under tremendous pressure in the matter of nuclear proliferation by Dr. A Q Khan. It is alleged that he divulged information on nuclear technology. The international media normally attributes Iranian nuclear capability totally to A Q Khan. According to President Musharraf, the Iranians developed their nuclear programme through assistance from the West, not from A Q Khan, the father of Pakistan’s atomic bomb. He may have only passed some centrifuges to Iran whereas the underworld also included a lot of industries, personalities of the West, of Europe and of the East too. “Dr Khan gave ideas while materialisation was being done by people from the West,” Musharraf said in an interview, according to the March 3, 2005 issue of the Pakistani newspaper ‘The News’.
While A Q Khan has been accused of nuclear proliferation by passing information to 3 countries for monetary gains, Gowadia, an Indian born American scientist is accused of espionage by passing Top Secret US State secrets to 8 countries. Noshir Gowadia, was arrested in Maui, Hawaii on 25 October 2005. He admitted to selling classified military secrets to at least eight foreign countries. The case against the longtime stealth bomber engineer is expected to grow. The investigation is in its early stages and for the time being he has been indicted on 3 counts for “transmitting national defence information and exporting classified technical data related to defence articles to foreign persons.” 3 additional counts accuse the former Northrop Corp. design engineer of violating the Arms Export Control Act. Each of the six counts carries a 10-year maximum prison sentence and a fine up to $250,000. Information has not been made public about the countries to which he supplied the information. Gowadia marketed himself as the father of the B-2’s unique infrared suppressing propulsion system. This capability enables the stealth bomber to hide from heat seeking missiles.
Sixty-one-year-old Noshir Gowadia was born in India and is a naturalized U.S. citizen. He worked for nearly 20 years at New Mexico’s Los Alamos National Laboratory and for defense contractor Northrop Grumman Corporation. According to the FBI, Gowadia marketed himself to foreign military entities and other foreign persons over the last several years and disclosed United States military technology secrets. During questioning, Gowadia confessed to the crime saying that he had disclosed classified information with the knowledge that information was classified and knew that it was wrong and that he had done it for the money.
The US federal government has also alleged that Gowadia traveled abroad to train foreign nationals using the secret information. Vast amounts of classified information were found on computers seized during a search of Gowadia’s home. More than 14,000 files that are of concern to the Air Force were found on one computer. This information may have been copied and stored elsewhere. India and China are known to have received the classified information besides 6 other countries. It is believed that with the sensitive information, these countries would get an invaluable jump in developing stealth aircraft of their own or in countering the advantage the U.S. now has with its bombers. The US has lost years of research and billions of dollars spent on developing the technology. Gowadia has outwitted A Q Khan in selling state secrets for petty gains. US citizens of Indian origin may now face intensive scrutiny before being entrusted with sensitive information.