Why is South Asia so tense?
By Shahid R. Siddiqi
Sunday, 03 Jan, 2010
For the past 63 years, South Asia has remained in a state of The eight countries that make up this geopolitically sensitive region do not share a friendly and harmonious relationship with each other.
I guess that India will soon be blamed for the antagonistic relations between Burma and Bangladesh as well. Also the Chinese civil unrest problems will be lapped onto India. We already are being accused of funding the TTP which was founded by the former Pakistani establishment. Now we are being blamed for Bangladeshi youngsters getting high on cough mixture. Is there anything I left out?
This is despite their efforts to come on a single platform of Saarc to develop a major economic and political bloc. All smaller countries were enthusiastic about this model of cooperation to succeed in gaining progress and getting rid of pervasive poverty. But in the end it just collapsed.
Isn't India just an observor nation in Saarc?
All these countries have a closely interwoven history and common ethnic, linguistic, cultural and religious heritage but still they failed. It happened because all the contiguous states on Indias periphery are fearful of its hegemonic designs and its policy to dominate and dictate.
So if we say that we want to be left alone does that make it our hegemonic design of wanting to dominate and dictate" ?
In case of India and Pakistan, given the historical divide between Hindus and Muslims, it is understandable that a certain amount of acrimony and distrust would impact their relationship. Instead of accepting Pakistans emergence in 1947 as a reality and resolving bilateral disputes in a spirit of understanding, India adopted a belligerent course. The resulting discord and three wars have plagued their relationship to this day, both countries diverting huge and precious financial resources to defence and development of nuclear weapons.
Nope it has nothing to do with "Muslim - Hindu" but I am glad that the writer sets out his bias on that issue at the outset. It has everything to do with land and resources though. The author needs to re evaluate his political science knowledge and refrain from adding his bigoted religious views into issue of politics. On that note were the "3 wars" Muslim-Hindu wars" ? Indians certainly don't view in that light. I wonder what my Pakistani kin think ?
Even if Indo-Pakistan relationship is set aside for a moment as one of peculiar nature and even if Pakistan is presumed to be responsible for all the wicked behaviour, the question arises why do other countries of the region find it so difficult to forge a closer relationship with India? Why is it that India has failed to evoke trust and confidence among its neighbours to make any worthwhile collaboration impossible, including Saarc? Isnt it time for hostilities to give way to a congenial environment among South Asian neighbours too?
Yup it is time for hostilities to give way to a congenial environment. This cannot be done by way of armed bandits entering Indian territory and certain of India's neighbours claiming land which belongs to India. Kashmir cannot be resolved overnight but many Indian PMs have been magnaminous enough to say that "Kashmir issue must be resolved
The fact is that for regional alliances, political or economic, to succeed it is imperative for all stakeholders to treat each other as equals, irrespective of their size or strength. This comes with respecting each others sovereignty, willingness to set aside political differences and showing a degree of flexibility to promote a common cause. In case of South Asia, this has not happened. India has disputes with almost every neighbour, which has strained their relationships for years at end.
Disputes with certain neighbors. Other disputes have been resolved or are pending resolution. Ask Sheikh Hassina and Sri Lanka. Size and strength doesn't matter to India. Principle does. And once again our principle is to leave us alone
In Sri Lanka, India overtly and covertly supported the insurgency against the state by LTTE, a nationalist Tamil group in the northern Jaffna region of this small island country, which kept it politically and economically destabilised for decades. In the end, India paid a price for interference when its prime minister, Rajiv Gandhi, was assassinated by a Tamil activist for having betrayed the movement.
Rajiv paid with his life an admitted mistake of the Indian government. At lease we are able to say "yes we funded these people but we realise that they are killing civilians and that is wrong. Therefore we will stop funding them and in fact try and help you to get rid of them. We did not go on a policy of "good LTTE" and "bad LTTE"
With Bangladesh it is locked in an unresolved dispute over Farakka barrage that deprives Bangladesh of its water share. Despite the gratitude Bangladesh owes to India for having militarily dismembered Pakistan in 1971 to midwife its birth, relations between the two have often sunk to the rock bottom on a host of issues, including border dispute.
The issues will be resolved unless we get another Bangladeshi government which believes that it owes its allegiance to the Muslim Ummah by supporting Islamic terrorists with designs against India and not to peace with its neighbor
The tiny mountain state of Nepal has complained of persistent Indian dictation and interference in its internal affairs. That India employs economic blockades and manipulates transit facilities to this poor landlocked country for arm twisting is no secret
Again, make little screams of how you hate our country and don't expect us to send you flowers
Although not a part of South Asia, Chinas relations with India for decades have remained frosty, at best. They went to war in 1962 over a border dispute. Competing for regional leadership, it does not hesitate to antagonise China by hoisting Dalai Lama off and on to keep the issue of Tibet alive. Lately, having aligned itself with America to contain China, India is bargaining for a tense Sino-Indian relationship in the years to come.
India will not kow tow to China. India has its borders and faced a long period of colonial dominance before it broke off those shackles. Pakistanis will understand when we say that nobody will take an inch of our land since our forefathers fought for every inch with their blood and their souls
With Pakistan, India maintains the worst of relations mainly because of Pakistans political and military standing and its ability to reject Indian domination. Outstanding disputes including Kashmir, water distribution, dams that India constructs in violation Indus Water Treaty and border issues have remained unresolved.
Kashmir is too lengthy a topic to discuss here. Bottom line is that Kashmir will not be freed by a few rag tag brainwashed hoodlums toting a gun. Kashmir must be discussed between India and Pakistan since only those 2 nations will have an impact on its future. Kashmir cannot be discussed until Pakistan pulls back its sponsored terrorism. The IWT was taken to an international court which decided in India's favour. None of the judges were Indian or Israeli
By joining the American bandwagon in Afghanistan and positioning its troops in the name of infrastructure development, India created enough concerns for Pakistan. But by its collusion with CIA and Mossad to take out Pakistans nuclear assets through subversion in Fata, the NWFP and other areas using the militants of Tehrik-i-Taliban, India is slamming shut the door on the peace process that Pakistan has been persistently trying to keep open ever since 1947. With a history of constant endeavours to balkanise Pakistan, Indian military build up in Afghanistan is seen by Pakistans military as an effort to put it in a nutcracker.
India's foreign policy cannot be dictated by Pakistan's concerns and neither can Pakistan's by India's concerns. If that was the situation then China would not be in Pakistan and in fact Pakistan would not be fighting a civil war. Unless Pakistan has evidence of India destabilising Pakistan via Afghanistan then Pakistan should with respect put up or shut up
That growing Indian influence in Afghanistan is a destabilising factor in the region, is acknowledged even by Gen McChrystal in his recent review of the war in Afghanistan. The make and types of sophisticated weapons, communications equipment and satellite pictures of troop movements recovered from the militants provide undeniable evidence about Indian involvement.
Wow gutter journalism when you attribute a statement to a person implicitly by following up your own hypothesis with something he did not say in one line. All Mac did say was that "India's presence in Afghanistan is irking the Pakistanis and making it harder for him to work with the Pakistanis.
Mr. Ehsanullah Aryanzai, advisor to the Afghan regime has said that India is using Afghan soil to conduct anti-Pakistan activities. The executive editor of News Indian Express has acknowledged the evidence of Indian activities in Balochistan in the issue of July 31, And evidence was recently handed over by Pakistani prime minister to his Indian counterpart.
Mr Aryanzai should advise his President to boot out India in that case. The executive editor should state what the "activities" are and if they are illegal then the Pakistani government should demand that he be charged for formenting strife in its territory since he seems to have confessed to his involvement in strife in Balochistan. No other Indian has made that admission save for this executive editor. The PM of Paksitan just "handed over" evidence of Indian involvement to his Indian counterpart?? Our PM seems to have shelved that "evidence"
The Indian psyche that breeds arrogance and expansionism is clear from the words of Pundit Nehru, Indias first prime minister, who said India must dominate or perish. Perish it will not. So dominate it must. To Hindu extremists, all others on this land are aliens who do not belong there and this includes Muslims and Christians. This justifies the commonly witnessed ethnic cleansing of non-Hindus and leads to the ultimate dream of the creation of Vrihata Bharat a Greater India.
Damn. We have two "aliens" leading this Hindutva dream of a Vrihata Bharat currently. Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh. I wonder whether they are Pakistani or Chinese agents sent in to derail our strategem of a Vrihata Bharat
To ensure that this fatherland is reunited under Hindu rule, India pursues designs of expanding its boundaries to eventually include Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Burma, Nepal, and Bhutan and create the huge Indian empire.
Why would any Indian Hindu, let alone Indian national want to incorporate the problems of Pakistan into India. It is bad enough that you get pulled over at international airports just because some westerner does not know the difference between Indian and Pakistani. Now honestly, why would we want so many Muslim extremists incorporated into India? Please God, keep Pakistan safe and guard her independence and sovereignity till death do us part. Those other nations could be chewed up by India overnight if India had any designs on them. But then again, why would India want to inherit problems? Not like any of them are sinking in oil or have a flourishing economy bouyed by civilians who believe that they are Indians. Until then, the Indian army stays in India unless invited over there
It would be very naive not to see the direction towards which India is headed. Far from becoming the sole ruler of the entire Indian Ocean, India is destabilising South Asia and working its way towards its own disintegration. This is not only because it is surrounding itself with angry and insecure neighbours, but also due to its troubles at home.
Only naivety I see is in this article. Writer should introspect rather than extrospect. All we hear is blah blah blah about India's destabalising its neighbors. Whilst India provides tons of proof to its neighbors of nefarious activities within their borders, they are yet to provide any proof or link on India's side. Except for cough mixture and lost court cases that is
shahidrsiddiqi@gmail.com
Shahid. Dr Joesph Goebbels of the Nazi Paty once said that if you repeat something often enough, those listening to you will eventually believe it no matter how much of rubbish it contains. Journalism is not propaganda unless you work for a state institution.