India and Terror

[NorthSideSox72]

India is, to me, presents a fascinating juxtaposition to the current worldwide trend towards further cleaving of the major religions. India has more than one hundred million each of Muslims, Hindu and Christians. There are also tens of millions of Buddhists, and wide variety of exotic religious and political fiefdoms.

 

And yet, despite the seemingly intractable path the world is on towards a cage match between Jesus and Muhammad, India has remained generally peaceful. Of course, as most of you know, India is in a constant low-level war with Pakistan over the Kashmir. But this battle has zero to do with religion and everything to do with resources, geography and power. Violent crime in India is among the lowest of any nation in the world, despite its overcrowded cities, proximity to the Middle East and deep pockets of poverty. Having travelled in India, one could find religious symbols, ceremonies and places of worship for all the major religions very near to one another. And when one asks about this, for the most part, they shrug their shoulders or give the patented Indian head roll in nonchalant response. There are some small pockets of occasional unrest near Bangladesh - Naxalites and Communist seperatists - but there is usual little in the way of deadly violence involved.

 

But in the last year, there has been a sudden rash of terror. From September 11 through 2005, I can recall just one significant act of terror in India - the Parliament bombing, in late 2001. This year, though, there was the mass train bombing in Mumbai that killed hundreds of people. Today, another bombing in a central Indian city (the article incorrectly refers to Maharashtra as a Western state) killed dozens. And there was another bombing in Delhi just weeks ago.

 

Here is my discussion point - is India's long lasting but fragile peace in jeapordy? We are talking here about a country of more than a billion people, at the nexus of the Middle East, China and Southeast Asia. One of the major economic powerhouses in the world at this point, and the world's largest democracy. What does it mean to the world picture of its 2nd largest growing economy falls into religious infighting? What about all the western outsourcing business in India - what if it cannot continue to operate safely?

 

My take on India is that its people are among the most peaceful I have met. But they are also passionate and strong-willed. It would be a shame to see such a strong model of religious tolerance and economic growth pulled back a few decades by violence. Perhaps this is a country the US should be keeping a close eye on politically, not just in business. On that note, I have to say I was glad to see Bush's visit - a strong connection there is, I think, crucial for us in the region.

 

Any thoughts? Or is this just too obscure?

[southsider2k5]

The stories of the flights from/to Pakistan after the partitician and the history of the immediately after are amazing. Lots of their history paralells the history of Israel, as a country was just carved out of somewhere that wasn't there before, and then the human flight of people trying to get where they wanted to be. Much of the history of violence, hatred and nearly perpetual war also seems to follow the history of the middle east. I think the one difference is that in this case the big difference is that India just has more human power and sheer size than Israel, which doesn't allow for full scale wars that we routinely see in the middle east. I also believe that India has been much luckier in the peaceful leaders they have seen over the years, all though I think part of that goes back to the ability to overwealm an enemy that India naturally posesses.

 

The problem in my eyes is that the underlaying cause of violence is religious and not purely political in my eyes, which means it will never truely go away. I think it is each countries best long term interests to simply ignore each other, but fringe groups, mostly from the fundementalist Islamic side, won't allow this to happen.

[NorthSideSox72]

The stories of the flights from/to Pakistan after the partitician and the history of the immediately after are amazing. Lots of their history paralells the history of Israel, as a country was just carved out of somewhere that wasn't there before, and then the human flight of people trying to get where they wanted to be. Much of the history of violence, hatred and nearly perpetual war also seems to follow the history of the middle east. I think the one difference is that in this case the big difference is that India just has more human power and sheer size than Israel, which doesn't allow for full scale wars that we routinely see in the middle east. I also believe that India has been much luckier in the peaceful leaders they have seen over the years, all though I think part of that goes back to the ability to overwealm an enemy that India naturally posesses.

 

The problem in my eyes is that the underlaying cause of violence is religious and not purely political in my eyes, which means it will never truely go away. I think it is each countries best long term interests to simply ignore each other, but fringe groups, mostly from the fundementalist Islamic side, won't allow this to happen.

I agree with much of this. India's sheer size, military and industrial strength are major deterrents. Peaceful democratic leaders have helped too. The history of the split of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh is indeed frought with war, but also amazing stories of how much worse it could have gone.

 

I think the underlying cause of violence between India and Pakistan started as religious, then morphed into much more of a pure political thing. But, after 9/11, the pendulum may be swinging back. And that is the way the fundamentalists want it.

 

Another factor I failed to mention, which is part of the puzzle, is the influence of Hinduism. As a religion, it is profoundly opposed to violence for any reason. Being the largest religion in the country, I think that carries some weight.

[Balta1701]

The stories of the flights from/to Pakistan after the partitician and the history of the immediately after are amazing. Lots of their history paralells the history of Israel, as a country was just carved out of somewhere that wasn't there before, and then the human flight of people trying to get where they wanted to be. Much of the history of violence, hatred and nearly perpetual war also seems to follow the history of the middle east. I think the one difference is that in this case the big difference is that India just has more human power and sheer size than Israel, which doesn't allow for full scale wars that we routinely see in the middle east. I also believe that India has been much luckier in the peaceful leaders they have seen over the years, all though I think part of that goes back to the ability to overwealm an enemy that India naturally posesses.

I don't know if the facts truly back that up. India and Pakistan first went to war right after partition, in the late 40's, just like the Middle East, and that was followed up by another full scale war between India and Pakistan in 1965 and another one in 1971. There was also a war in 1962 between India and China.

 

The thing that has prevented a lot of the "full scale wars" we've seen in the Middle East from happening since the 70s is, IMO, the bomb, which India first developed in the 70's (they tested a "Peaceful nuclear device, whatever the Hell that is) and Pakistan developed sometime afterwards. Unlike Israel, which has no one who can counter them if they strike, India and Pakistan can only go so far militarily any more without tens of millions of people vaporizing. Israel for 25 years has been able to strike at anyone with impunity, because no one can strike back and defeat them.

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't know if the facts truly back that up. India and Pakistan first went to war right after partition, in the late 40's, just like the Middle East, and that was followed up by another full scale war between India and Pakistan in 1965 and another one in 1971. There was also a war in 1962 between India and China.

 

The thing that has prevented a lot of the "full scale wars" we've seen in the Middle East from happening since the 70s is, IMO, the bomb, which India first developed in the 70's (they tested a "Peaceful nuclear device, whatever the Hell that is) and Pakistan developed sometime afterwards. Unlike Israel, which has no one who can counter them if they strike, India and Pakistan can only go so far militarily any more without tens of millions of people vaporizing. Israel for 25 years has been able to strike at anyone with impunity, because no one can strike back and defeat them.

The nukes are definitely part of the puzzle. There hasn't been much worse than border skirmishes between the two since the 70's, and that is not coincidental.

 

But I am also impressed with India's ability in the last 30 years to marginalize violence. The stuff in Sri Lanka once effected the mainland a lot, but they extracted themselves from that battle. The Naxalites are just a shell of their former force. The Kashmir has had a semi-stable line for some time. Its not just the Nukes - there is more they have accomplished than that.

 

One of the ways they have curbed violence internally is a huge emphasis on education and business. And I think the successes of that are apparent now. Aside from the new "Help Desk" Class, it is interesting to note that even the poorest of poor India usually have a basic education and can read.

[southsider2k5]

I don't know if the facts truly back that up. India and Pakistan first went to war right after partition, in the late 40's, just like the Middle East, and that was followed up by another full scale war between India and Pakistan in 1965 and another one in 1971. There was also a war in 1962 between India and China.

 

The thing that has prevented a lot of the "full scale wars" we've seen in the Middle East from happening since the 70s is, IMO, the bomb, which India first developed in the 70's (they tested a "Peaceful nuclear device, whatever the Hell that is) and Pakistan developed sometime afterwards. Unlike Israel, which has no one who can counter them if they strike, India and Pakistan can only go so far militarily any more without tens of millions of people vaporizing. Israel for 25 years has been able to strike at anyone with impunity, because no one can strike back and defeat them.

After the partitian the wars were basically over and in the Kashmir region. There really hasn't been a full scale attack or invasion of the countries outside of the disputed regions.

 

The 1971 war was more over Bengledesh, and trying to secure their freedom from Pakistan than anything else, more to free up one of its borders from a mortal enemy. This war only lasted about two weeks.

[Balta1701]

After the partitian the wars were basically over and in the Kashmir region. There really hasn't been a full scale attack or invasion of the countries outside of the disputed regions.

 

The 1971 war was more over Bengledesh, and trying to secure their freedom from Pakistan than anything else, more to free up one of its borders from a mortal enemy. This war only lasted about two weeks.

That doesn't mean it wasn't a large scale conflict, that involved a massive defeat of the Pakistani armed forces.

Via the Wikipedia entry

The cost of the war for Pakistan in monetary and human resources was high. In the book Can Pakistan Survive? Pakistan based author Tariq Ali writes, "Pakistan lost half its navy, a quarter of its airforce and a third of its army." India took 93,000 prisoners of war that included Pakistani soldiers as well as some of their East Pakistani collaborators. It was one of the largest surrenders after World War II. India originally wished to try them for war crimes for the brutality in East Pakistan, but eventually acceded to releasing them as a gesture of reconciliation. The Simla Agreement created the following year, also saw most of Pakistani territory (more than 13,000 sq. km) being given back to Pakistan to create "lasting peace" between the two nations.

Edit: anyway, that's just a side point, so i'll stop derailing any actual discussion here.

Edited September 8, 2006 by Balta1701