The causes of terrorism are in-exhaustive taking into account the changes in social and political scenario in every country. This article enumerates and elaborates those causes which illustrate the multiplicity of casual factors and are generally agreed upon by the academic community. It is generally agreed that a lack of democracy, civil liberties and the rule of law are preconditions for many forms of domestic terrorism. Generally, the most democratic and the most totalitarian societies have the lowest levels of oppositional violence. Failed or weak states on the other hand, lack the capacity – or sometimes the will – to exercise territorial control. This often leaves a power vacuum that can be exploited by terrorist organizations to maintain safe havens and training facilities or serve as bases for launching terrorist campaigns. However, this should not be perceived as simply a lack of democracy or democratic processes. Long standing liberal democracies with established traditions of free speech and tolerance have been the targets of both domestic and foreign terrorism. As Crenshaw contends democracy and terrorism are not polar opposites: saying ‘yes' to democracy, unfortunately, does not mean saying ‘no' to terrorism". Rapid modernization and urbanization in the form of high economic growth has also been found to correlate strongly with the emergence of ideological terrorism, but not with ethno-nationalist terrorism. This may be particularly important in countries where sudden wealth (e.g. from oil) has precipitated a change from tribal to high-tech societies in one generation or less. When traditional norms and social patterns crumble or are made to seem irrelevant, new radical ideologies that are sometimes based on religion or perhaps nostalgia for a glorious past, may become attractive to certain segments of society. Extremist ideologies of a secular or religious nature are at least an intermediate cause of terrorism, although people usually adopt such extremist ideologies as a consequence of more fundamental political or personal reasons. When these worldviews are adopted and applied in order to interpret situations and guide action, they tend to take on a dynamics of their own, and may serve to dehumanize the enemy and justify atrocities. Illegitimate or corrupt governments frequently give rise to opposition that may turn to terrorist means if other avenues are not seen as realistic options for replacing these regimes with a more credible and legitimate government or a regime which represents the values and interests of the opposition movement. Powerful external actors upholding illegitimate governments may be seen as an insurmountable obstacle to needed regime change. Such external support to illegitimate governments is frequently seen as foreign domination through puppet regimes serving the political and economic interests of foreign sponsors.

The experience of discrimination on the basis of ethnic or religious origin is the chief root cause of ethno-nationalist terrorism. Ethnic nationalisms are more likely to give rise to (and justify) terrorism than are moderate and inclusive civic nationalisms. Failure or unwillingness by the state to integrate dissident groups or emerging social classes may lead to their alienation from the political system. Some groups are excluded because they hold views or represent political traditions considered irreconcilable with the basic values of the state. Relative deprivation or great differences in income distribution (rather than absolute deprivation or poverty) in a society have in some studies been found to correlate rather strongly with the emergence of social revolutionary political violence and ideological terrorism, but less with ethno-nationalist terrorism. The presence of charismatic ideological leaders able to transform widespread grievances and frustrations into a political agenda for violent struggle is a decisive factor behind the emergence of a terrorist movement or group.

The events of 9/11 marked what U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan called a "seismic shift in international relations."Anti-terrorism laws have become a part of the legislation of most nations especially after the appalling incident of 9/11.  As a result the Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Ordinance was promulgated.  Following the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (amended in 2004) clauses, the government said it could take actions against banned organizations: (1) their offices, if any would be sealed; (2) their assets and accounts would be frozen; (3) all literature and electronic media material would be seized; (4) the publication, printing or dissemination of press statements, press conferences, or public utterances by or on behalf of, or in support of, a proscribed organizations would be prohibited. The proscribed groups would also be required to submit accounts of their income and expenditure for their political and social activities and disclose all funding sources to those relevant authorities designated by the federal government. Though the public fundraising, recruitment, and propaganda of the banned outfits have been curtailed to some extent, organizations have found innovative ways to survive and flourish. For instance, Jamaat-ud-dawwa (JD), placed on the Watch List on Nov. 15, 2003, has invested largely in legitimate business interests such as health, education, and real estate. Additionally, foreign donations through Hawala channel and Forex Exchange also help them survive. Thus it is evident that the suppression of anti-terrorism groups by vigilance and introduction of draconian laws does not fetch a solution. It is important to shift or focus on deep rooted causes like education and poverty in order to change the mindset that favours violence. Especially in the South Asian countries of Pakistan, Afghanistan, India etc. there is an essential need to invest in public education about the usefulness of such measures. Here, the role of civil society and media in projecting the viability of anti-terrorism remains to be harnessed to its maximum potential to ensure that anti-terrorism laws are successfully implemented. While condemning terrorism unequivocally and recognizing the duty of States to protect those living within their jurisdictions from terrorism, it is important to place a priority on the question of protecting human rights in the context of counter-terrorism measures. The response to terrorism can neither be selective nor lead to unleashing a wave of unbridled repression, which would, as a consequence, enormously infringe upon the rights of the citizens. Thus, it is critical to strike a just balance between ensuring the security and integrity of the country and safeguarding the human rights of the people.