The Talibanization of Afghanistan and Pakistan is a direct result of allowing a region and a group of people to descend into destitution and medieval standards of living. After the Soviets left Afghanistan the world turned its back and allowed it to take its natural course. Which was for the warlords to take control of a power vacuum and maintain a brutal status-quo with the help of a smorgasbord of nefarious groups all benefiting from the poppy trade. The drug trade flourished and formed the very backbone of the problem we face today. It took an attack on Manhattan for the world to wake up.
Suddenly the Taliban were in the news who were no different than the Saudis. They were as brutal and medieval in their ways in implementing the Sharia, its just that they did not have oil under them to gain global legitimacy. They were practicing a form of government which had gained popular support because it at least delivered security and a semblance of a nation. The only miscalculation they made was to give Osama Bin Ladin a place to pitch his tent. This as we know drew the wrath of America, which went after two nations in search of a small band of terrorists with all the force at its disposal, resulting in the murder of innocent lives on all sides, which goes on unabated to this date.
The Maoists in India and Nepal share some similarities in their genesis with the Taliban. First and foremost they grew out of some of the most impoverished, medieval and backward parts of the nation, where discrimination and neglect had pretty much pushed a population over the edge. The Maoist or Naxalite movement as it is popularly known in India, started in the late 60s with a peasant uprising in a small village called Naxalbari in northern West Bengal. The movement orchestrated by the communist party over the years evolved into a nexus between, armed guerrillas, political factions, ideologues and other power brokers who all had something to gain by undermining the establishment. One thing is indisputable, the movement gathered ground because it had formidable support from the rural and tribal folk of the region who were being victimized by a feudal system decades after independence. In the 80s the movement also had popular support from the ideological urban youth who had lost faith in their government and believed in a sense of justice. For long the establishment skirted the Maoist movement as a local law and order issue only to wake up recently to realize it is the most serious internal security threat facing the nation.
The Maoists have been waging a guerrilla war for nearly four decades now and are finally making international headlines. In Nepal they have been successful in taking over the government. As the Indian government prepares to tackle this problem head on, violence which is already a daily part of life in these backward areas has become more pronounced and will exacerbate. The Maoists and their political wing has been outlawed and the various factions are too far gone to enter into a political settlement. As the big guns take on the small guns, and extra judicial killings become the daily norm, India begins to go down the same slippery road Afghanistan and Pakistan are on at the moment.
In the south the Sri Lankan government declared victory over a three decade long guerrilla war by crushing the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam) with brute force and brutality. What went on during the final stages of the war was hidden as journalists were banned from the war zone by the Army. So the killing fields remain a mystery and the human loss and the nature of the war remains heavily disputed. More than 69,000 people lost their lives during the course of the long war which again started as an armed struggle for land, self determination and an end to ethnic discrimination. The Tamils for whom the guerrilla force LTTE said they fought for, have origins on the island nation which are as old as the majority Sinhalese. But they had been discriminated all along and so began their struggle for an independent piece of land they could call their own.
The LTTE started as a popular movement and somewhere along the way got hijacked by the megalomaniac misgivings of its leader and lost traction and direction. From a guerrilla group the LTTE became a terrorist group recruiting child soldiers and pioneering suicide bombings wreaking havoc amongst its own people and the nation. They were ultimately snuffed out early this year in a bloody battle. The aftermath of the war resulted in the creation of the largest internment camp for internally displaced Tamils fleeing the conflict. More than 40,000 Tamils languish in a camp imprisoned by the Sri Lankan government with the pretext that some of the LTTE members could be hiding within the refugee population. And so the Tamils suffer inhumane conditions on their own land prompting many to call it a deliberate act of slow genocide. Again the international community relinquishes its responsibility as there is no vested interest here. Another Darfur in the making, another armed conflict gone terribly wrong.
All these conflicts show that on a human moral level, they can never be justified, cause the casualties of war are always those who are at the lowest rung of the food chain. Armed conflicts on the other hand are always good for business, the arms business. All guerrilla groups are always well funded. They have easy access to weaponry. The LTTE had even managed to procure airplanes to fight the government. So someone is making money at the cost of wreaking mayhem. On the other hand the establishment always has an enemy they can use to scare their people into supporting their agenda. And so the battles rage on.
The reason why we do not have violent uprisings threatening to overthrow the establishment in the materially developed west, is because even in the most desperate situation a citizen can hope for a better future. They can still rely on their state and their legal system for some help. In most places where there is armed conflict, the people put their faith in who ever gives them immediate relief, and in most cases it is never the government. When the devastating earthquake hit Pakistan last year, it was the political wing of the terrorist group Lashkar-e-Toiba that provided relief in the eyes of the people. In parts of India the Maoists have forcibly taken land from the feudal landlords and redistributed it among the landless Dalits (out castes), bringing a sense of Robin Hood style justice to centuries of oppression.
In the west poverty is more of an emotional state than a physical one. Where as in these impoverished regions of the world poverty and neglect is all that is left. When you have nothing to lose you have little concern in causing harm to those who have everything to lose. Using bigger guns in these regions in search of an end game, is making a situation that is dire even worse. In a recent poll in Pakistan people in the affected areas were asked who they considered a bigger threat, the Taliban or the US. Overwhelmingly people said the US. This goes to prove that a military solution can never be a solution, it can only be a band-aid that burns and leaves deep open wounds. Democracy at the barrel of a gun does not last long.
In todays world more than ever, where you live does decide whether you live or whether you die. This very aspect gives people clarity to understand where they stand in relation to the planet. It is what it is.
The Maoists in India and Nepal share some similarities in their genesis with the Taliban. First and foremost they grew out of some of the most impoverished, medieval and backward parts of the nation, where discrimination and neglect had pretty much pushed a population over the edge. The Maoist or Naxalite movement as it is popularly known in India, started in the late 60s with a peasant uprising in a small village called Naxalbari in northern West Bengal. The movement orchestrated by the communist party over the years evolved into a nexus between, armed guerrillas, political factions, ideologues and other power brokers who all had something to gain by undermining the establishment. One thing is indisputable, the movement gathered ground because it had formidable support from the rural and tribal folk of the region who were being victimized by a feudal system decades after independence. In the 80s the movement also had popular support from the ideological urban youth who had lost faith in their government and believed in a sense of justice. For long the establishment skirted the Maoist movement as a local law and order issue only to wake up recently to realize it is the most serious internal security threat facing the nation.
The Maoists have been waging a guerrilla war for nearly four decades now and are finally making international headlines. In Nepal they have been successful in taking over the government. As the Indian government prepares to tackle this problem head on, violence which is already a daily part of life in these backward areas has become more pronounced and will exacerbate. The Maoists and their political wing has been outlawed and the various factions are too far gone to enter into a political settlement. As the big guns take on the small guns, and extra judicial killings become the daily norm, India begins to go down the same slippery road Afghanistan and Pakistan are on at the moment.
In the south the Sri Lankan government declared victory over a three decade long guerrilla war by crushing the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam) with brute force and brutality. What went on during the final stages of the war was hidden as journalists were banned from the war zone by the Army. So the killing fields remain a mystery and the human loss and the nature of the war remains heavily disputed. More than 69,000 people lost their lives during the course of the long war which again started as an armed struggle for land, self determination and an end to ethnic discrimination. The Tamils for whom the guerrilla force LTTE said they fought for, have origins on the island nation which are as old as the majority Sinhalese. But they had been discriminated all along and so began their struggle for an independent piece of land they could call their own.
The LTTE started as a popular movement and somewhere along the way got hijacked by the megalomaniac misgivings of its leader and lost traction and direction. From a guerrilla group the LTTE became a terrorist group recruiting child soldiers and pioneering suicide bombings wreaking havoc amongst its own people and the nation. They were ultimately snuffed out early this year in a bloody battle. The aftermath of the war resulted in the creation of the largest internment camp for internally displaced Tamils fleeing the conflict. More than 40,000 Tamils languish in a camp imprisoned by the Sri Lankan government with the pretext that some of the LTTE members could be hiding within the refugee population. And so the Tamils suffer inhumane conditions on their own land prompting many to call it a deliberate act of slow genocide. Again the international community relinquishes its responsibility as there is no vested interest here. Another Darfur in the making, another armed conflict gone terribly wrong.
All these conflicts show that on a human moral level, they can never be justified, cause the casualties of war are always those who are at the lowest rung of the food chain. Armed conflicts on the other hand are always good for business, the arms business. All guerrilla groups are always well funded. They have easy access to weaponry. The LTTE had even managed to procure airplanes to fight the government. So someone is making money at the cost of wreaking mayhem. On the other hand the establishment always has an enemy they can use to scare their people into supporting their agenda. And so the battles rage on.
The reason why we do not have violent uprisings threatening to overthrow the establishment in the materially developed west, is because even in the most desperate situation a citizen can hope for a better future. They can still rely on their state and their legal system for some help. In most places where there is armed conflict, the people put their faith in who ever gives them immediate relief, and in most cases it is never the government. When the devastating earthquake hit Pakistan last year, it was the political wing of the terrorist group Lashkar-e-Toiba that provided relief in the eyes of the people. In parts of India the Maoists have forcibly taken land from the feudal landlords and redistributed it among the landless Dalits (out castes), bringing a sense of Robin Hood style justice to centuries of oppression.
In the west poverty is more of an emotional state than a physical one. Where as in these impoverished regions of the world poverty and neglect is all that is left. When you have nothing to lose you have little concern in causing harm to those who have everything to lose. Using bigger guns in these regions in search of an end game, is making a situation that is dire even worse. In a recent poll in Pakistan people in the affected areas were asked who they considered a bigger threat, the Taliban or the US. Overwhelmingly people said the US. This goes to prove that a military solution can never be a solution, it can only be a band-aid that burns and leaves deep open wounds. Democracy at the barrel of a gun does not last long.
In todays world more than ever, where you live does decide whether you live or whether you die. This very aspect gives people clarity to understand where they stand in relation to the planet. It is what it is.
A great essay as always but I disagree on one count--some groups you mention can in no way be seen as legitimate, even if militant, popular uprisings. They are instruments of state policies of terror. Behind the good they do for their people as you say, there is ultimately a record of unforgivable violence against innocent civilians in other countries.
ReplyDeleteIn no way am I legitamizing any single group.
ReplyDeleteI am trying to see things from vantage points you and I really cannot. The argument I am making is that even state sponsored violence in the form of armed invasion or police action is to be condemned. When governments fail to deliver, armed uprisings gain legitimacy by acquiring popular support from its citizens. That is the natural order of things. One mans terrorist is always becomes another mans freedom fighter. In terms of Lashkar, they claim they are attacking a state that is an enemy of Islam in Kashmir. It does not make sense to you and me, but it does to the people they seek support from. There will always be people who find justice in violence no matter how warped their logic is. States have always done it. When smaller entities do it they are called terrorists because they do it in a way that is seen as irrational and inhuman. Ultimately all so called terrorist groups at some level are sponsored by a state. When planes drop bombs on civilians they are never seen in the same light.