The Politics of Extremism in South Asia
Dissenting from the conventional view that extremism is caused by religious belief, poverty, or repression, Ollapally presents a series of concise yet probing historical analyses of how security concerns, both domestic and international, led South Asian states to foster extremist movements in their own backyards.
Dissenting from the conventional view that extremism is caused by religious belief, poverty, or repression, Ollapally presents a series of concise yet probing historical analyses of how security concerns, both domestic and international, led South Asian states to foster extremist movements in their own backyards, where they had previously barely existed. Two of the stories she tells are relatively well known. In Afghanistan, Pakistan, along with Saudi Arabia and the United States, supported the rise of the Taliban to prosecute the struggle against the Soviet occupation. In Pakistan, the Pakistani military and intelligence authorities sponsored religious militancy in order to legitimize military rule, weaken civilian opponents, contain secessionism, exert influence in Afghanistan and Kashmir, and help spur terrorist incidents in India. Less well known are the cases of Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. In the former, Ollapally argues, the Sinhalese Buddhist majority felt insecure in the face of Tamil dominance in the wider region and gravitated toward a hard-line nationalism that generated an extremist Tamil response. In the latter -- the case in which her causal argument is least clear -- an existing Islamist movement gained strength in part because of concerns about Indian encirclement. Ollapally views India as a moderate, secularist island in the midst of regional identity storms, and she does not address the sources of Hindu militancy there.
Related
More than economics, more than politics, a nation's culture will determine its fate. So says the man who built Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew. Lee is not optimistic that other nations can replicate East Asia's staggering growth. He is critical of the social breakdown that he sees in America: "The expansion of the rights of the individual has come at the expense of orderly society." East Asia is changing in the face of rapid growth, but Lee doubts that American-style individualism will ever catch on there. While critical of American social order, Lee strongly supports America's role as a balancer in East Asia. If it withdraws, other powers, notably Japan, would go their own way. And that would unsettle the region's peace.
Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew has suggested that the "Western concepts" of democracy and human rights will not work in Asia. This is false: Asia has its own venerable traditions of democracy, the rule of law, and respect for the people. Asia's destiny is to improve Western concepts, not ignore them.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.