Entry details

Curzon
Author

Curzon

Date

June 11th, 2006

Tags

Comments

12 Comments so far.
Add yours.

You realize this is how the Mexican-American War started, right?

From the Reuters newswire:

Indian and Bangladeshi troops exchanged heavy fire, officials said on Saturday, but the two sides told different accounts of the clash across the 4,000-km border that divides the usually friendly countries.

Bangladesh accused India of an unprovoked attack. But a top Indian official said Friday night’s border skirmish, the most serious in nearly two months, came after a Bangladeshi smuggler was shot dead by Border Security Force (BSF).

BSF Inspector General Somesh Goyal told Reuters that the Bangladeshi, identified as Mohammad Yousuf, was killed after he attacked an Indian soldier with a knife to evade arrest. Troops of the Bangladesh Rifles (BDR) then opened fire on a BSF patrol, and Indian forces returned fire. Goyal said the incident took place at the Gede-Nimatala frontier, about 140 km north of Kolkata.

Bangladeshi security officials said the clash erupted after Indian soldiers opened fire on a Bangladeshi patrol. “The unprovoked firing caught us off guard, but we returned (fire) immediately. A heavy exchange of machineguns and mortars continued until early Saturday,” a BDR official said. He said one man was killed and three seriously wounded in the firing, and hundreds of frightened villagers fled their homes.

“The situation is still tense and we are trying to communicate with the Indians for a meeting with a view to stopping further escalation of the incident,” the official said.

Comments to this entry

Catholicgauze
June 11, 2006
4:57 am
Odd. I always thought India and Bangladesh were on good terms.
Dan tdaxp
June 11, 2006
5:31 am
An Afro-Islamic Gap state dragging down a New Core neighbor. How odd...
Tagore
June 11, 2006
7:35 am
I don't think the Mexican-American analogy is appropriate. India may desire regional hegemony, but it does not want to annex any part of Bangladesh. If India did want to annex Bangladeshi territory, it could have done so when it liberated the country from West Pakistan.

This is a serious event, but I think its effects will resonate more in Dhaka than Delhi.
Elizabeth
June 11, 2006
8:48 am
Not only the Mexican-American war, but many, many, many other wars. Including the one I witnessed between my niece and nephew this morning concerning who first started spitting milk across the breakfast table.

(Dan- Afro-Islamic core state? Please expound.)
Eddie
June 11, 2006
12:23 pm
I don't see where the analogy fits. No sane figure in India wants anything to do with annexing some or all of Bangladesh, which is an economic downturn away from being a failed state. With all the problems India continues to have within its own borders with proxy guerrilla groups and separtists, more territory= more headaches.

Add in serious crises in Pakistan and Sri Lanka (not to mention Afghanistan and Nepal) and India probably has more headaches about its neighborhood than any other power on Earth. They're soon to have the same realization Austrailia has had.... get serious about rebuilding these faltering nations or face "war forever". India will have no choice but to start shrinking the Gap in the Indian Ocean sooner than later.
Curzon
June 11, 2006
1:51 pm
I don't see where the analogy fits.


The Mexican-American war started when either 1.) Mexicans crossed the Rio Grande and shot at Americans, or 2.) Americans crossed the Rio Grande and shot at Mexicans -- it depends who you ask.
Eddie
June 11, 2006
2:08 pm
Curzon: Apples and oranges. Though an Indian concept similar to "Manifest Destiny" would be rather interesting if it ever came to light. Granted, India is already an empire but still.....
Dan tdaxp
June 11, 2006
9:15 pm
(Dan- Afro-Islamic core state? Please expound.)


Elizabeth,

I've never backed away from self promotion, so gladly :-)

Tom Barnett divided the world into a Functioning Core (composed of an "Old Core" - Western Europe, America, and Japan, and a "New Core" of everyone else) and a Nonintegrating Gap.

For a graduate class, I presented alternate models. Using the same measures that Barnett used to defend his Old Core - New Core - Gap thesis, I presented alternate definitions. The best alternative was junking his system all together, defining the Gap as every state that was African or Muslim, and every other state as Core.

Later I went back and synthesized the models. Using the following definitions:

Old Core: Barnett's "Old Core"
New Core: Barnett's "New Core" minus South Africa
Seam State: Every non-African, non-Islamic state from Barnett's "Gap," plus South Africa
Gap: Every African or Islamic State

you get a model that works extremely well.

As in Barnett's model countries from the lower rungs of connnectedness export violence to countries in the higher rungs, it's no surprise seeing Bangladesh (a Gap state) export violence to India (a New Core state).
Curzon
June 12, 2006
6:20 am
Eddie: The issue is not whether India has designs on Bangladeshi territory akin to America's designs on Mexican territory, but how tense borders can escalate into wars all due to misunderstandings. Wars don't require the intent to invade. Rather, the combination of high tensions, troops ready to engage the enemy, and a misunderstanding or overreaction over the cause and relevant details of a firefight can make a minor skirmish quickly result in a full-fledged war. The same threat currently exists in the tense Ethiopia-Eritrea border.

(Superlatively, there is no other country more similar to the United States in its founding principles than India -- both being inclusive federations with broad ideas of nationality and citizenship -- but that's not really relevant to this topic.)
Eddie
June 12, 2006
11:25 am
I see the parallels of "accidental" war of a sort with Ethiopia and Eritrea, but one must also consider the deep anger among some Ethiopians over the loss of their province and also the economic impact that Eritrea can have on Ethiopia, closing off their access to the sea. Bangladesh has no such trump card on India that I'm aware of.

But your point is well taken. Nations like Colombia, Thailand, etc will have to be wary of this potential disaster.
Elizabeth
June 13, 2006
10:05 am
Dan- Thank you. What about Bermuda? And surely you would not count Belarus as closer to the core than Turkey? Or is Turkey non-Islamic in your view, because of the army's veto power?
Dan tdaxp
June 13, 2006
1:18 pm
Elizabeth, I threw Bermuda in as a "New Core" state - Core because it fell inside that portion of Barnett's map, and "New" because it is neither North American, Western European, or Japanese. (I don't pretend my list is 100% accurate -- I posted it online to get criticism -- but I think in general it is pretty good).

Turkey is considered "Islamic" because she is a member of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. I used membership in the OIC and the African Union to define my original "AfroIslamic Gap."