In India, the world’s largest democracy, there are numerous examples of groups choosing to articulate their goals by forming political parties, or choosing terrorism. There are over 1,400 registered political parties in India, many which claim to represent specific regional or ideological interests. Despite a myriad of specialized political groups, India has still experienced more terrorist attacks than almost any other country, with nearly 7,500 attacks since 1970. Compare this to Canada, which has only experienced 64 attacks in the same time period. With so many political parties available, it seems like most groups could address their grievances through the democratic system, yet terrorism remains all too common across the subcontinent.
To understand the divergence in choice, it is necessary to go beyond the traditional understanding of democracy and terrorism. Two factors can help broaden the international community’s understanding of terrorism in India, as well as other democracies experiencing terrorism. The first factor is uneven historical development of political systems and infrastructure; the second factor is rugged terrain. At first glance, both of these factors may appear unrelated, but a more in depth analysis of the two reveals their complex roles in democratic and undemocratic development.
Specifically, rugged terrain and isolation impeded economic, social, and political development under the British and independent Indian rule. Low levels of development, including low literacy rates, high unemployment, and high levels of poverty, have ultimately impeded the selection of democratic pathways. Underdeveloped areas in which strong institutions failed to take hold resulted in citizens choosing to remain loyal to local tribes rather than the national state, whereas developed areas with a higher likelihood of establishing strong institutions and democratic norms instilled a public trust in the ability of the democratic process to address grievances. Aggrieved groups in developed areas are consequently more likely to support the democratic process, while disenfranchised groups in underdeveloped areas lacking such institutions are more likely to resort to violence and terrorism.
Scholars of democratization are well aware of how important economic and social development is for democratic survival. Although India is considered a less developed country globally, there are high levels of uneven development within the country. Areas that were central to British rule and trade are among the most developed locations in India, both historically and contemporarily. The British chose to develop locations with easy access to international seaports. Areas that were geographically rugged with forests or mountains, such as the northeast, central India (Naxal belt), and Kashmir were much less developed. Naturally, these areas of commercial interest ended up having a well-developed infrastructure, including the vital train system and related political administrative systems.
India’s railway system played a critical role in the transport of goods and people and connected diverse parts of India with opportunities for participation in the domestic and international economy. Hubs of the railway system were also the locations of bureaucratic offices, and their access along trade routes helped develop their importance to the domestic and international market. Areas not connected to the railway system have failed to develop strong infrastructures and have remained economically underdeveloped. The British Raj’s expansive bureaucracy also played an important role in the rates of political development. Bureaucratic offices were at the forefront of the political and democratic system, and any of India’s independence and future political leaders began their careers in civil service. Working in civil service provided exposure to democratic workings and values. In more developed provinces like Madras and Bombay, the bureaucracy began integrating Indian locals early on.
This political exposure through the bureaucracy allowed many elites to continue administration of the democratic system once India gained independence from colonial rule in 1947. Without this experience, the elites may have been more likely to regress into authoritarian or semi-authoritarian rule. Inversely, many less developed provinces and districts did not have bureaucratic offices, and those that did often lacked a local Indian civil servant. A nonexistent or limited bureaucracy lessened the population’s exposure to the political system and made them less likely to develop democratic values.
The British and independent India chose to not develop many regions for several reasons. For one, many of the regions were so rugged and isolated that it was considered inefficient to invest substantial funds in such an area with little economic promise. This was a self-fulfilling prophecy. Secondly, tribal groups that were considered to be ‘backward’ inhabited many of these locations. In an attempt to avoid conflict with these tribes, in the name of ‘cultural protection’, nearly all aspects of modern development, including railways and bureaucratic offices, were never built. Although it seemed economical and rational at the time, this decision was ultimately unwise, as the underdevelopment of formal political systems led to the development of terrorist campaigns and insurgencies.
What is notable about these underdeveloped regions is that the same environment that prevented infrastructure and institutional development also provides an ideal environment for terrorist movements. Because rugged terrain originally prevented strong institutions and infrastructure development, it is difficult for the local governing systems that do exist to respond to terrorist groups. Rugged terrain inhibits effective counter-terrorism measures like helicopter surveillance, and minimizes the ease of movement for essential military counter components such as tanks, armored cars, and ground troops. It also makes non-violent aspects of counter-terrorism such as citizen outreach and peacekeeping effort incredibly difficult.
Furthermore, most rugged areas in India are located near international borders. International borders are incredibly advantageous for anti-government, insurgent, and terrorist movements because they allow sanctuaries that cannot be easily reached by government forces. Not only do these international locales provide sanctuary, but they also allow groups to be reached by outside stakeholders and foreign governments, such as Pakistan, who may wish to aid the separatist movements in an attempt to weaken India through proxy wars.
Finally, rugged terrain provides valuable black market resources to many of the groups. Resources such as marijuana, opium, and timber are easily cultivatable in the region and provide revenue to the group. Without this funding, they would not be able to continue operating. Some may suggest tribal and minority groups are to blame, but a detailed look at terrorism and insurgency in India reveals that most minority groups do not participate in violence. Instead, it is the groups living in the underdeveloped rugged districts.
The findings may provide a somewhat negative outlook by suggesting that geography is destiny. Although geography is certainly an important component of development, terrorism, and counterterrorism, it does not doom an area to underdevelopment or violence. In the case of India, there is still the opportunity to mitigate the negative effects of violent movements. However, an investment in infrastructure and economic development is essential. Development in terrorism-prone regions of India will not only provide opportunities ranging from employment to trade, but most importantly it can help in the reduction of violence.
Andrea Malji is a PhD candidate and instructor at University of Kentucky. She is completing her dissertation in political science and focuses on terrorism in the Indian sub-continent.
This article was originally published in the Diplomatic Courier's January/February 2014 print edition.
a global affairs media network
Trains, Terrain, and Terrorism
January 23, 2014
In India, the world’s largest democracy, there are numerous examples of groups choosing to articulate their goals by forming political parties, or choosing terrorism. There are over 1,400 registered political parties in India, many which claim to represent specific regional or ideological interests. Despite a myriad of specialized political groups, India has still experienced more terrorist attacks than almost any other country, with nearly 7,500 attacks since 1970. Compare this to Canada, which has only experienced 64 attacks in the same time period. With so many political parties available, it seems like most groups could address their grievances through the democratic system, yet terrorism remains all too common across the subcontinent.
To understand the divergence in choice, it is necessary to go beyond the traditional understanding of democracy and terrorism. Two factors can help broaden the international community’s understanding of terrorism in India, as well as other democracies experiencing terrorism. The first factor is uneven historical development of political systems and infrastructure; the second factor is rugged terrain. At first glance, both of these factors may appear unrelated, but a more in depth analysis of the two reveals their complex roles in democratic and undemocratic development.
Specifically, rugged terrain and isolation impeded economic, social, and political development under the British and independent Indian rule. Low levels of development, including low literacy rates, high unemployment, and high levels of poverty, have ultimately impeded the selection of democratic pathways. Underdeveloped areas in which strong institutions failed to take hold resulted in citizens choosing to remain loyal to local tribes rather than the national state, whereas developed areas with a higher likelihood of establishing strong institutions and democratic norms instilled a public trust in the ability of the democratic process to address grievances. Aggrieved groups in developed areas are consequently more likely to support the democratic process, while disenfranchised groups in underdeveloped areas lacking such institutions are more likely to resort to violence and terrorism.
Scholars of democratization are well aware of how important economic and social development is for democratic survival. Although India is considered a less developed country globally, there are high levels of uneven development within the country. Areas that were central to British rule and trade are among the most developed locations in India, both historically and contemporarily. The British chose to develop locations with easy access to international seaports. Areas that were geographically rugged with forests or mountains, such as the northeast, central India (Naxal belt), and Kashmir were much less developed. Naturally, these areas of commercial interest ended up having a well-developed infrastructure, including the vital train system and related political administrative systems.
India’s railway system played a critical role in the transport of goods and people and connected diverse parts of India with opportunities for participation in the domestic and international economy. Hubs of the railway system were also the locations of bureaucratic offices, and their access along trade routes helped develop their importance to the domestic and international market. Areas not connected to the railway system have failed to develop strong infrastructures and have remained economically underdeveloped. The British Raj’s expansive bureaucracy also played an important role in the rates of political development. Bureaucratic offices were at the forefront of the political and democratic system, and any of India’s independence and future political leaders began their careers in civil service. Working in civil service provided exposure to democratic workings and values. In more developed provinces like Madras and Bombay, the bureaucracy began integrating Indian locals early on.
This political exposure through the bureaucracy allowed many elites to continue administration of the democratic system once India gained independence from colonial rule in 1947. Without this experience, the elites may have been more likely to regress into authoritarian or semi-authoritarian rule. Inversely, many less developed provinces and districts did not have bureaucratic offices, and those that did often lacked a local Indian civil servant. A nonexistent or limited bureaucracy lessened the population’s exposure to the political system and made them less likely to develop democratic values.
The British and independent India chose to not develop many regions for several reasons. For one, many of the regions were so rugged and isolated that it was considered inefficient to invest substantial funds in such an area with little economic promise. This was a self-fulfilling prophecy. Secondly, tribal groups that were considered to be ‘backward’ inhabited many of these locations. In an attempt to avoid conflict with these tribes, in the name of ‘cultural protection’, nearly all aspects of modern development, including railways and bureaucratic offices, were never built. Although it seemed economical and rational at the time, this decision was ultimately unwise, as the underdevelopment of formal political systems led to the development of terrorist campaigns and insurgencies.
What is notable about these underdeveloped regions is that the same environment that prevented infrastructure and institutional development also provides an ideal environment for terrorist movements. Because rugged terrain originally prevented strong institutions and infrastructure development, it is difficult for the local governing systems that do exist to respond to terrorist groups. Rugged terrain inhibits effective counter-terrorism measures like helicopter surveillance, and minimizes the ease of movement for essential military counter components such as tanks, armored cars, and ground troops. It also makes non-violent aspects of counter-terrorism such as citizen outreach and peacekeeping effort incredibly difficult.
Furthermore, most rugged areas in India are located near international borders. International borders are incredibly advantageous for anti-government, insurgent, and terrorist movements because they allow sanctuaries that cannot be easily reached by government forces. Not only do these international locales provide sanctuary, but they also allow groups to be reached by outside stakeholders and foreign governments, such as Pakistan, who may wish to aid the separatist movements in an attempt to weaken India through proxy wars.
Finally, rugged terrain provides valuable black market resources to many of the groups. Resources such as marijuana, opium, and timber are easily cultivatable in the region and provide revenue to the group. Without this funding, they would not be able to continue operating. Some may suggest tribal and minority groups are to blame, but a detailed look at terrorism and insurgency in India reveals that most minority groups do not participate in violence. Instead, it is the groups living in the underdeveloped rugged districts.
The findings may provide a somewhat negative outlook by suggesting that geography is destiny. Although geography is certainly an important component of development, terrorism, and counterterrorism, it does not doom an area to underdevelopment or violence. In the case of India, there is still the opportunity to mitigate the negative effects of violent movements. However, an investment in infrastructure and economic development is essential. Development in terrorism-prone regions of India will not only provide opportunities ranging from employment to trade, but most importantly it can help in the reduction of violence.
Andrea Malji is a PhD candidate and instructor at University of Kentucky. She is completing her dissertation in political science and focuses on terrorism in the Indian sub-continent.
This article was originally published in the Diplomatic Courier's January/February 2014 print edition.
