Also, historically, South Asia is viewed as a region of protracted animosity due to a host of reasons like political, ethno-cultural and religious conflicts of various nature, occasional terrorist activities with cross-border ramifications, illegal trafficking of small arms, etc. The region, therefore, remains politically volatile with the potentialities to threaten peace and stability in the areas both within and beyond it. Needless to mention, recurring ethno-religious problems in India, Maoist insurgency in Nepal, Tamil problem in Sri Lanka, series of bomb attacks in Bangladesh, have drawn the rapt attention of many in recent times. The region’s proximity to Afghanistan – the hideout of the Talibans – is also a factor to be reckoned with in so far as combat against international terrorism is concerned.
What, perhaps, is more important to take note is that, in most instances, the terrorist activities that plague South Asian states have cross-border dimension mainly due to the fact that their origins and causes interconnect and overlap political boundaries. Quite dismayingly, the governments in South Asia have taken very little initiatives to combat terrorism in their respective countries, either individually or collectively. The result being that the countries of the region, i.e., Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, Nepal continue to remain caught up in terrorism and that too at an alarming rate.
Internal security problems in South Asia and their ramifications for regional security have been influenced by a host of international and internal factors. The destabilization of Cold War equations and the haphazard emergence of a variety of conflicting international ‘strategic interests’ in the region, the acquisition of nuclear weapons by both India and Pakistan, and a paradigm shift in the nature of international conflict, have all exacerbated regional tensions. The existence of nuclear weapons has diminished the probabilities of large-scale conventional wars. Consequently, a range of ‘non-standard’, ‘irregular’ ‘low-intensity’ or ‘sub-conventional’ wars has now become the most prevalent manifestation of inter-state confrontations.
In the wake of the September 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, President
Bush launched major military operations in South and Southwest Asia as part of the global U.S.-led anti-terrorism effort. Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan has seen substantive success with the vital assistance of neighboring Pakistan. The scale and complexity of the September 11 attacks, and the location of the forces that engineered this outrage, made the US engage Pakistan as an ally in its campaign against international terrorism. Apart from being a safe haven for the terrorist groups who operate disregarding borders, Pakistan has also to contend with the sectarian violence unleashed by several sectarian terrorist groups internally. Between 1989 and 2003 (till September 5), 1,469 persons had been killed and 3,370 others injured in almost 1,815 incidents in Pakistan that occurred on sectarian issues. Other than this, menace of suicidal bombings has made Pakistan truly insecure country from all aspects, killing thousands of innocent people for no reason.
India, while supporting the US-led international coalition against terrorism and the military strikes against the Taliban, Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda network, has repeatedly emphasized that the ‘global war against terrorism’ should not be restricted to these target groups alone. The Indian position is that any effective strategy to counter the threat posed by the Islamist terrorist networks needs to take into account the range and complexity of its international linkages, and Pakistan’s inextricable relationship with, and role in creating and nurturing, these forces. Since Pakistan’s powerful and largely autonomous ISI is widely believed to have provided significant support for militant Kashmiri separatists over the past decade in what is perceived as a proxy war against India.
In Sri Lanka, an uncertain peace continues to prevail. In over 18 years of ethnic conflict in the island nation, over 64,000 civilians, security force personnel and LTTE cadres lost their lives. In an apparent bid to end the conflict, the Sri Lankan Government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in 2002, signed the Norwegian-brokered ‘Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on the Permanent Cessation of Hostilities’. Peace talks were combined with efforts to mobilize donor funds to rebuild the country, in particular, the North and East. Earlier, the LTTE pulled out of the peace talks in protest against the exclusion of its accredited representatives from the crucial international aid conference in Washington, which was held on April 14, 2003.
Following to which, the peace process encountered a number of bottlenecks down the road. And the peace process remains stalled and the political enigma continues to haunt this beautiful tourist destination.
Though Bangladesh remains largely peaceful and free from terrorist violence, increasing use of its territory by religious extremists and pan-Islamist insurgents operating in India’s Northeast, remain the most serious threat not only to the internal security of the country, but also to the regional security environment. Moreover, rising discontentment in the Chittagong Hills Tracts (CHT), where an Accord in 1997 had brought an end to an ongoing violent movement, has once again become a matter of concern.
Various terrorist groups operating in India’s Northeast continue to find safe haven and have operational bases on Bangladesh territory. Groups like the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) have been emboldened by the BNP Government in Bangladesh, which in its previous term was also seen to be supportive of these groups.
In the Himalayan kingdom of Nepal, a new phase has started with the newly elected government, however, once previously all hopes and wishes for a peaceful resolution of the Maoist conflict were shattered in 2003, when Maoists unilaterally and ‘temporarily’ pulled out from the seven-month old cease-fire with the Nepalese Government. Following to which, Maoists resumed violent activities, provoking the Government to declare the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoists) a terrorist organization. The country witnessed a Maoist insurgency for the past seven years that claimed almost over 8,000 lives.
However, miraculously, things have changed and let’s hope they stay for better. Bhutan has remained largely free from terrorist violence. However, the activities of terrorist groups who have established their camps on Bhutanese soil and operate in India’s Northeast continue to arouse serious apprehensions. The United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) and the National Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDFB) had set up camps in Bhutan after they were driven into the Bhutanese foothills by a major Indian military offensive in 1990-1991. However, the Royal Government of Bhutan has been applying pressure on ULFA, the NDFB and a third group, the Kamtapur Liberation Organisation (KLO), to remove their camps from Bhutanese territory.
Another outstanding problem in Bhutan is the issue of refugees (ngolops), which still remains unresolved. Ngolops, referred to by Bhutanese authorities as anti-nationals, are people of Nepalese origin who claim that they are Bhutanese citizens forcibly evicted by the Royal Government of Bhutan. Both Nepal and Bhutan have agreed to solve this problem bilaterally. But these refugees still await any decision in this matter.
Thus it is evident that the stability of South Asia, and the success and failure of initiatives for the resolution of existing conflicts depends on the exploration of new ideologies and strategies that provide concrete and effective alternatives to violence as a means to political ends. These alternatives will have to appeal, equally, to the establishment and to the alienated groupings that currently believe that violence is the only method to secure some relief within the prevailing system.
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed