Counter-terrorism has emerged as one of the most significant priorities of governments and international organizations in the twenty-first century. From military interventions and surveillance systems to preventive legislation and border security mechanisms, states have invested enormous resources in protecting societies from terrorist violence. While many of these measures have succeeded in disrupting terrorist networks and preventing attacks, an important question continues to challenge policymakers and scholars alike: can strategies designed to eliminate terrorism inadvertently contribute to the very conditions that sustain it? This article examines the paradoxical dimensions of contemporary counter-terrorism by exploring how certain security measures, despite their protective intent, may generate unintended political, social, and psychological consequences. Excessive securitization, broad surveillance frameworks, discriminatory profiling, prolonged military campaigns, restrictions on civil liberties, and heavy-handed law enforcement responses often create grievances that extremist organizations exploit for recruitment and mobilization. In many instances, efforts aimed at strengthening security have simultaneously weakened public trust, intensified social polarization, and reinforced narratives of victimization among vulnerable communities. Drawing upon contemporary global experiences, the study highlights the complex relationship between security and freedom, state authority and democratic accountability, and prevention and radicalization. It argues that terrorism cannot be addressed solely through coercive instruments because extremist ideologies frequently flourish within environments characterized by exclusion, alienation, injustice, and political discontent. Effective counter-terrorism therefore requires a balanced framework that combines security operations with community engagement, social resilience, legal safeguards, educational initiatives, and respect for human rights. The article contributes to ongoing debates by demonstrating that the success of counter-terrorism should not be measured only by the number of attacks prevented or militants neutralized. Rather, long-term effectiveness depends on the ability of states to maintain public legitimacy, uphold democratic values, and address the structural conditions that enable extremism to thrive. By examining the contradictions embedded within contemporary counter-terrorism practices, this study advocates for a more nuanced, sustainable, and human-centered approach to security governance in an increasingly complex global environment.
Ms Sneha Kulkarni (Mon,) studied this question.