Terrorism has a long history but it became a menace in the 21st century. ‘How to fight it’ is now another field for professionals. Starting from opinion-makers to security experts, all have different a approach to overcome the problem or at least to reduce its impact on global society.

Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, the focus was on a ‘tit for tat strategy,’ i.e., counterattacks, regulations, controls, etc. But, gradually, the developed world realised that the economic and social conditions are primary source of alluring the under-developed world, especially of the Muslim world, towards extremist ideologies.

For keeping the youth on track and engaged, the areas development programmes, development projects in education, and health sectors, campaigns for empowerment of women and programmes aiming at the development of a counter narrative were initiated.

But all these programs and initiatives, whether control-centered or development-oriented, have a client based-approach. The developed world saw it as an investment, utilised either by the recipient government or by non-governmental organisations as insurance for a better future. The objective was not to elevate the socio-economic system of the target country but to reduce the threat to the population of the developed world.

Dependency theory scholars divided the world into cities and villages where developed countries were cities; the under-developed countries were villages. The villages were hotbed of discontent, militancy, civil wars and radical movements. After the Second World War, the developed world realised the discontent of the under developed world and launched rural integrated programmes, volunteer programmes and aided projects in countries that were prone to radicalism.

This concept of ‘inter-state cooperation’ between the developed world and targeted countries followed one way traffic principle in which the flow was from the developed state to under-developed states, either in the form of ‘guidance’ or in the shape of conditional aid.

The need of a dialogue between ‘citizens’ and ‘villagers’ was deliberately ignored. Nevertheless, with the increase in number of newly independent countries, the concept of ‘Third World’ entered into political and economic literature, which followed the philosophy of division of world into ‘cities’ and ‘villages.’

There was time when the ‘Third World’ and ‘Non-aligned Movement’ were buzz words in development economics and international politics. But with the demise of the Soviet Union, conversion of China into market economy and supremacy of one power in political arena, the ideas of alternate international political and economic system lost currency.

The emphasis shifted to the regulation of international trade through forums of WTO, etc, and moulding political systems through the ideals of democracy and human rights. The problem in this route was that the human problems of hunger, illiteracy and un-employment in the developing countries were downplayed and rights-based approach was adopted.

Though these issues were on the checklist of governments, media and intellectuals but these were being dealt through projects and there was no quest to resolve these problems through a dialogue between the rich and poor states. Consequently, the efforts to find the root cause of under-development in the poor countries and to address poverty as a product of dependency went to the backburner.

In the 1970s and 80s the forums of non-aligned movement, Group of 77, and third world forum worked as mouthpiece to convey loudly the grievances of under-developed world and convinced the developed world to the need of a just and equitable international economic system. In the developed world, the need to address the North-South gap was also realised.

North-South dialogue started and an independent international commission headed by former German Chancellor, Willy Brandt, produced the Brandt Report. In the summit meetings of NAM grievances of under-developed countries were highlighted. Then in the Third World there was a galaxy of political stars and one could listen in news on radio and television -- the names of Nehru, Sukarno, Castro, Nasser, Titto, Boumediene, Bhutto, et al. They were high pitch voices for a change in international political and economic system.

Due to these stars, summits of NAM and other Third World forums were closely watched events. But now the NAM conferences and meetings are hardly any news. No wonder, the news of 17th Nam Summit held in Venezuela in September this year got space in inner pages of newspapers.

This may be debated whether the absence of towering personalities or changed international political environment is the main cause of collapse of three tier approach of world. But the fact cannot be denied that absence of ‘historical personalities’ on the political scene has turned the voice of Third World into a whisper.

In the 1970s and 80s there were ‘the leaders’ who led the national liberation movements or were inspired by the leaders and ideas of national liberation movements in Africa, Asia, and South America. They have visions and ideals for the future of humanity. But now political leaders of the Third World are bounded by chain of their domestic political agendas. If you find Modi to represent India, instead of Nehru, and Mugabe represent Africa in place of Mandela you can imagine the results.

The new world order concept has muzzled angry voices because Third world leaders are reluctant to raise their voices, anticipating the wrath of the developed world.

The real catch is in the First World. The leaders, media, intellectuals and general public to some extent are bent upon silencing the noise of ‘villagers’ and are proud that they have removed the sting of radicalism from Third World Politics. They believe that the current strategy of controls and regulations against immigration and anti-terrorist operations supplemented by financial support to selected countries and NGOs will reduce threats from militants.

But the threat of extremism and terrorism has not receded. The developed world had to prudently anlayse whether without creation of equitable international economic system nourishment of extremist ideologies can be blocked? But at the end, the question will remain unanswered. Who will convince the First World? Will there be personalities like Nehru, Bhutto, and Castro on the political stage who will bluntly say that your terrorism targeted operations, international boundaries control, etc., will not work to eliminate terrorism unless you change your approach towards under-development?

Unless you do that, terrorism will continue to ooze out from one spot or the other as leakages in a battered dam.