Unequal income distribution is irrelevant to India's insurgencies. Punjab was the richest state in India prior to, and after the insurgency. It continues to be so even today. But it was hit by a very powerful insurgency. Unless the economic disparity is corelated to geographic region, it is not a factor. To use Pakistan's example, the Balochistani insurgency has economic issues at its heart - despite the vast mineral wealth of the region, the economic growth is happening mostly in Punjab and Sindh. That is often cited as one reason. But the North-east insurgencies of India have little to do with unequal economic growth. Neither did the Punjab or Kashmir insurgency.
The insurgency currently transpiring across the spectrum of the Red Corridor region of India is based upon social class differences and the disparity of income gap between the wealthy and the poor. During the process of industrialization the landscape is altered and a huge number of multi-national corporations, adversely destroy the natural environment and much of the proceeds does not actually reach the common man on the streets. Therefore, a number of tribes within these regions have certain grievances and this cannot be ignored because then a person becomes blind due to patriotism. There is a specific reason why your defense forces have advocated the perceived threat from the Naxalites to be much more potent and detrimental than Pakistan. Furthermore, this aspect can also occur in Pakistan as in the example of Baluchistan. Patriotism for your country is good, however never riposte in your statements that the unthinkable can never occur.
I concur with your proclamation that Punjab is a rich state, although cultural and religious differences have arisen. The burning of the Golden Temple will never be forgiven or forgotten, if we based our assumptions on how Sikhs regard Muslims due to the atrocities committed by Shah Abdali and Aurangzeb. India has exacerbated the issue because no criminal charges were laid upon the offenders who killed 20,000 innocent Sikhs and gang-raped countless women across Punjab. When justice is not delivered to the proletarians of a society, then anarchy tends materialize due to achieving the objective aim of bringing street justice for the aggrieved families.Now you might correspond in your message, that my figures are exaggerated and I have painted a dreadful picture of the Indian government and its role in Punjab, however deep down we both know the reality of what actually occurred in 1984.
BTW, rapid economic rise only makes people want to be part of that rapidly rising nation, not break away. Tibet and China comes to mind as an example
Actually your assumption is incorrect because I have worked and lived in China for a number of years. The issue of Xinjiang for example is based upon social class difference. When Xinjiang Production and Construction Corporation was established in 1954, most of the workers who had the opportunity to receive jobs were predominately Han. In fact the contemporary percentage ratio of Han migrated workers is 90%, while the remaining 10% is from other ethnic groups. Therefore, certain elements of the Uighur society has grievances against the Chinese government. Another example is the idea of Hetian Jade, which the price per kilogram is 10,000 Yuan however this magnificent unique resource has not benefited the Uighur community. Therefore, uprisings have occurred in 1990 in the city of Barin, Operation Strike Hard Campaign in 1996 and countless others in the previous last decade. So to assume that a rapidly rising nation does not break away into smaller fragments is erroneous in nature. In the case of Tibet the Chinese government has done a fantastic job, although self-immolation is still occurring as a sign of protest against CCP rule in the region.
This year Great Britain had the best GDP growth in the entire European Union and more jobs have been created by David Cameron than France, Germany and Italy combined together in the last five years. Still Scotland wanted a referendum on the question of independence and they will eventually gain this objective because 45% of the population was in favor of SNP and they are now the third largest party in Westminster. So in a developing country which has a significant landmass and is growing rapidly, the chances of states breaking away are larger.
I'm sure that Sikhs are also not foolish enough to forget who violated the sanctity of the golden temple, by stocking up arms and ammunition and fighters in it, and converted a holy site of worship into a military fortress. BTW there was no "destruction" of the temple - it still stands today. There was a lot of damage, and the Indian army and the govt themselves cleaned the place and repaied the damages. There was no way to clear the temple without any damage to it, given how meticulously it had been fortified.
Your paragraph is full of presumptions and is not factually true. The Golden Temple was damaged in particular the Akal Takh which is considered to be the highest seated position in the Khalsa authority and this is an insult to all Sikhs because Guru Hargobind built this sacred site and the Indian Army desecrated such a revered location. What you failed to mention in your previous message was that the Indian Army did repair the damages of the Akal Takh, however the incensed Sikh community actually tore the structure down and made a new building from donations from Sikh followers across the globe. Mecca the most revered and holiest site of Islam was sieged in 1979 by over 600 militants and it was fortified.The coalition forces which included Pakistani and Saudi commando's did not send in tanks, because they knew full well that damage of the revered site would hurt the sentiments of the Muslims across the world...and the action would never be forgive.
Yes, it is a painful chapter for Sikhs. But the blame does not lie squarely on India or the Indian army. The blame lies on the people who fortified that place - ie, Bhindranwale. The destruction of the red mosque cannot be pinned on the SSG - no country can allow a temple or mosque to be a base for militants.
The blame does lie squarely on the Indian Army and the Congress Government. It was Indira Gandhi who first promoted Bhindranwala in Punjab to counter rising Sikh voices for succession or autonomy. So the fortification and the stock piles of weapons should be blamed on Congress because after all, you gave Bhindranwala the chance to achieve political patronage in Punjab, where an environment was created for him to eventually betray Congress when he realized the plight and oppression of the Sikhs, thus aligning himself with the movement of Khalistan.
Second the Indian Army did not plan with meticulous care of organizing an operation that could neutralize the terrorists in the Golden Temple with minimal damage. The operation was poor conceived, hence why a number of innocent people were actually brutally killed in operation blue star. However the worse outcome of this issue is in reference to the Indian Army's inability to stop the massacre of 20,000 innocent Sikhs and the casual gang-rape of women...in which no offender was convicted.....no justice.
America was not a small state within Britain. It was a continent thousands of miles away, at a time when air mobility didn't exist. So Britain being unable to control American revolutionaries has nothing to do with India not being able to hold on to her own territory. Even today, it is difficult for any developed nation to defeat a large continent full of people far away. But it is equally difficult for a small number of insurgents to break a state away from a much larger and powerful country.
So from your analogy we can agree on the subject that Pakistan only loss Bangladesh because the territory was thousands of kilometers away and it was impossible to airlift troops. Clearly your knowledge on the 13 colonies is lackluster because at that time Great Britain was regarded as the strongest maritime power in the world, however they still loss America to the revolutionists. Now in your correspondence you wrote precisely that India can never exhibit the same features of the American revolution, because the land is held within the same continent. Clearly this does not hold true in the case of East Timor when a rising revolt led to its succession from Indonesia. Shall we also deliberate on how the Ottoman Turks loss most of the Middle East to rising Arab nationalists insurgents? India is a developing nation...so please even under the circumstances of blind patriotism don't label it with the title developed nation. It is difficult for a small number of insurgents to break away from a state...however never impossible.
Punjab insurgency became quiet because Indian forces floored, quelled, vanquished and annihilated them - despite Pakistan's support at the time. The Punjab police crushed every single one of them with an iron hand. The insurgency arose because of the charismatic preaching of Bhindranwale, his initial support by the GoI, which made him a cult like figure and messiah. Today all that is gone. Punjabis (or sikhs) are no in the thrall of a messiah figuure, and they are happy to be part of India. You are deluded if you think that some arms and money from Pakistan will change this. No, not unless you can first create another Bhindranwale. Some money from India will not create an insurgency in Pak Punjab either
Punjab insurgency has not vanished because if you actually read on the subject assassinations and attacks do continue, even though they are more sporadic in nature. I will respect your opinion however this post was full of blind patriotism. Pakistan stopped supporting the Khalistan movement when Bhutto Benazir came into office. This was one of the reasons why the brass in Pakistan were angry with her. Punjab police has crushed them with an iron hand, therefore why is it surprising to see young Sikhs on the streets of India protesting against the government and sticking posters of Bhindranwala....does this bring shivers down your back.
