editorial

Violence in South Asia

EACH country in South Asia seems to be hostage to violence. Look at the map and it appears that violence has become part of body politics and the very measure of life. These are not the fresh, occasional bouts of violence, but rather endemic.

Look at the largest of the countries, India.  Except a few initial years of independence and there too, Kashmir witnessed large scale Kabiali  [tribal] assault backed by a nascent government in Pakistan.  That could have been forgotten but for two full scale wars and the continuing insurgency in the state of Jammu and Kashmir which had forced India to push over half a million troops for the past decade or so. Elsewhere, for over a decade Punjab virtually burned, threatening the very secular foundations of the Indian state. Now in over 200 districts of seven states, the leftist guerillas, the Naxalites, finding other means to be of little use are leading a low war. In between, India has suffered the communal violence of lesser or bigger magnitude.  The state has often intervened with force to meet the democratic aspirations of the people, killing and maiming large number of protesting people. Despite progress on several fronts and rising yearly growth rate, poverty desperation and inequalities abound, leading to social tensions and upheavals.

Pakistan has suffered the worst with frequent military coup de tats, insurgency and sectarian clashes. Often enough, the prolonged military dictatorships had clashed with people with brutal force, leading to bloodshed and acrimony. It faces the charge of exporting terrorism not only to India, but the West. It had the tacit support of the American camp earlier, but now after September 11, 2001 bombing, and it hurts the USA and its allies and hence some squeeze on Pakistan. For many it is a failed state, but in terms economic welfare and social good, it is the same as other countries of the region.

Take other countries like Sri Lanka or Nepal or even Bangladesh; the picture that emerges is no better. For over close to two decades Sri Lanka has witnessed worst violence where Singhalese and Tamils have been at each other’s throat. Sri Lankan army has been trying its best to control the well-armed Tamil tigers [LTTE] and in between when India pushed its army to bring peace, it too suffered the ignominy. Armed clashes and assassins have been too frequent an affair with India getting embroiled.

Poverty struck Bangladesh, created with the help of India in 1971 has been restless. Sectarian clashes; poor economic development and the rise of fundamental religious and political forces with the help of political parties and the state have only pushed the country rearward.

Nepal, ruled by feudal lords and the kings for the past 250 years is currently passing through bloody clashes between the King who is alleged to have got his brother and ruling king’s family massacred to capture power and Maoists.   The King and his ramshackle Nepal Royal Army has unleashed a reign of terror and the seven political parties committed to democracy are currently fighting the battle to over throw the monarchy along with the Maoists rebels and establish a multi party Republic.  The mountain country has remained the most backward. Both in economic and social terms and much of its survival depends on whatever little the Nepalese workers send back home from working in India or foreign aid.

The picturesque   mountainous Bhutan is perhaps the only country that can claim absence of violence of the magnitude witnessed elsewhere in South Asia. It has serious problem with the people of Nepali origin, yet there are no visible marks of violence. The King has promised an elected democracy and a constitutional monarchy in next two years. It is a sign of enlightenment, but the unstated reaction from India shows that the King is advised to go slow. Bhutan has been trying hard to balance between India and China.