Thailand’s violent south

Dreaming of a sultanate

An insurgency worsens as the government promises peace

See article

Readers' comments



I'm a Muslim and usually if someone were to say harsh things about my religion in my presence I'd invite them for a proper discussion. However this medium is the sort that often carries little attention/time of its readers because it's online. So maybe some facts might suffice.

White/Christians have killed more people than any Muslim country or group in the last 100 years. Questioning 100 years? Take 10 then...(went to find WMDs in Iraq but killed 100,000, and Afghanistan?) Saddam didn't even kill half in 10 years.

Islam is practiced by at least 1.5 billion people in the world and it is the fastest growing religion in the world. It is also practised most frequently.

I advise you to seek facts from appropriate sources (you wouldn't seek scientific theory through any medium right?) so please seek Islamic knowledge through the right ways.

If you still think your arguments hold, then I pose this question. Only 15 million Jews in the world, but why were/are they persecuted by Hitler and the general public of England and other countries even some decades ago?

I do not hate Jews so don't get me wrong. I'm trying to say that it all depends on where u see it from - and in a society where we face blanket media coverage, it's hard to see it from a different angle to what the media will want u to see.

Don't hate. Hate infects minds. Infections create disease. Diseases spread and kill.


Maybe the Israelis will con the US into invading, while concocting a radical Al Qaeda link. Pretty easy to do, if you look at recent history. Oh me ! Oh my ! Here we go again.


Many Southerner Jihadists have been encouraged by the Arab Spring wind blowing from Libya, Egypt and Syria etc. In fact, these Moslem insurgent are expecting the Hegemonic allies to step up the conduit of free arms & money flows and for the UN/Hegemon to establish no-fly zone, civilian corridor etc. to bring about a Regime Change in Bangkok.


I commend the stand taken by the Economist, it might not be popular among Western readers. But the fact is this is an insurgency, the people in the region resent Thai rule. And the violence is concentrated exclusively in that region, they have not attacked targets in Bangkok and other parts of Thailand. Which suggest connections with Moro Liberation Front in the Philippines and GAM in Aceh, than with JI or Al Qaeda.

Yes, they attacked civilians, but so did the Uighurs/Tibetan activist in Xinjiang/Tibet. So did the Papuan's guerrilla attack Indonesian settlers. Where they not terrorist also? Both Han Chinese, Thai Buddhist and Indonesian settlers were encroaching into those areas.

In fact, both the Indonesians and Chinese have made Tibet and Papua as respectively autonomous regions. The Thais have never done that in Southern Thailand and most likely never will. The Thai government is not serious at all about negotiation, that is why the attacks and insurgency continue. The Thai's are not willing to make an exception to them, and undermine the unity of the Thai state. If the Thai's had the ethnic diversity of Myanmar, the level of bloodshed would be similar. But the West would most likely turn a blind eye, because they are "Peaceful"

Just because, Westerners go to Thailand shop, do some mongering and go to the beach, does not give the Thai government a free pass.

MrRFox in reply to Bismarck888

Well said, Bis. It has other angles too.

This is conquered territory; historically independent and ethnically distinct from the Lao/Han Thais, it was forcibly absorbed in the early 20th Century.

Both China and the US back the Thai government's actions - some of which are pretty damn hard to swallow. But let's not be bothered with facts - they're Muslims - end of discussion.


Why on earth are the countries with majority christian, jew and hindu population secular while most Islamic countries are not? Saudi Arabia is the most discriminatory country in the world and it is the holiest place in Islam. Why don't the so called moderate Muslims condemn and call for a boycott of Saudi Arabia.

The difference is that the teachings of Christianity or Judaism do not contain a comprehensive guide to life and morality, so they needed to be supplemented by secular laws and eventually secular morals. After many centuries, secular and humanistic values have almost completely replaced the original moral teachings of Christianity and Juduaism. The situation is somewhat similar in Buddhist countries.

For Islam, this has not happened because Islam does contain a comprehensive moral guide to life that did not need to be supplemented with secular laws and values until the 20th century. Hence, the continued centrality of religion in many- but certainly not all- Muslim countries.

Hinduism also contains a comprehensive guide to society and moral life in its various dharmasutras and dharmasastras, but those were all pushed aside and replaced by secular law by the British when they conquered the Indian subcontinent. The Hindu world is secular because the British made it so, not because of internal developments.

Bismarck888 in reply to BurkeanPluralist

Jews have even more comprehensive guide to life and morality than Islam, the Talmud. Talk to Ultra-Orthodox Jews.There is nothing unique to Islam in that sense vis-a-visa Judaism.

Both Islam and Orthodox Judaism share the same fixation with rule. They go into great debates about what is Kosher or Halal.

I think you highlight the importance of Western secularism too much. Is not secularism some fancy word for "nationalism". Did not secularism arise in Europe to undermine religious identity and to forge a more cohesive nation state? 60-70 years ago among the Javanese in Indonesia, it was no big deal to marry a person of another religion, as long as the person was Javanese. Christians married Muslims etc. Now its actually less likely, as the Javanese adopt more conservative forms of Islam, even though they have more exposed to Western Secularism. The debates in Malaysia have gotten so messed up, that conservative Muslim preachers have been saying women always wore the Hijab, and its Western influence that stopped them. Its a gross distortion of facts.

If you go back 300-400 years ago in India, most Indian Muslims would have Sanskrit based names, and in fact

BurkeanPluralist in reply to Bismarck888

Fair enough, perhaps I did overlook the significance of the Talmud; but why doesn't Israel follow religious law? Ultimately, it is probably because of one of two reasons: 1. The Talmud is utterly insufficient for governing a modern state in the modern world. 2. The European Jews have become slowly secularized over the centuries along with the Christians and have rejected religious law even though it is still usable.

Secularism is not a fancy word for nationalism. Nationalism is a secular ideology. So are liberalism, Marxism, Confucianism, Kantianism, and many others.

Everything else you said is interesting, but not relevant to my point.

Bismarck888 in reply to BurkeanPluralist

First off European Jews were not slowly secularized over the centuries. Jews were second class citizens legally in much of Europe until the last 20 years of the 19th century. Jews in Europe embraced secularism because it offered them away into European society. But if they were masters in their own, would they have chosen secularism?

Is Israel a secular state in the way Western Europe / American are? Israel is defined as a Jewish State (whether its a race / religious or both). There are no civil marriages in Israel, the only marriages are religious ones (in the case of Jews, must be conducted by Orthodox Rabbis). At the rate the Hasidim in Israel are reproducing I doubt Israel will be a secular state for very long.

What I am arguing is the secularism in the Western form would not have happened had it not been for the formation of the nation state. The Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 ended 100 years of Religious strife in Europe, and laid the basis for the nation state by laying out clear rules of how states should conduct themselves, no interference in the internal affairs of other states, the respect for territorial borders. The secularist and "humanist" philosophies largely arose because the rulers of those nation states needed temporal justification for their rule, rather than God, they provided a safe environment for debate. Today the largest secular organization is the nation state. There are no non-corporate secular organization with a global reach.. How big is Greenpeace, Oxfam. There are more active Church members in "secular" Sweden than there are members of Oxfam internationally.

The United States, became a "secular" state less by ideals, but by design. While there were some who believed in those "humanist ideals", my opinion is that most wanted the US to become a secular state, because they want to avoid the religious conflicts hat plague Europe. The original 13 states were a patch work of national, religious groups. Some social conservatives in the US have been arguing that founding fathers believed that their was a role for God (in Declaration of Independence), and that what they wanted was a non-sectarian state rather than secular.

As for Talmud being utterly insufficient to govern a modern state, why do you say that. The Talmud offers guidance to how Jews should life their daily lives, it does not talk about creating a religious state. There are only bad belief systems, and religion is an ideology, no different from Communism or Confucianism. Communism despite being the most rational of political philosophies definitely has a worse track record for government than Iran, the Islamic Republic, on the sheer number of people it murdered. Iran, the only state run by a theocracy, surprisingly has excellent universities, far better than the likes of Greece, Bulgaria, Romania etc.

The reason why I made the point about Muslim preachers and the Hajib, is you seem to be buying into your propaganda just like them. The conflict in Thailand is actually recent,

Those secular and humanist values you talk about were really present in the last 100 years for a small minority of the population, and only became widespread in the last 40 years. For example Quebec before 1950 was a virtual hostage of the Catholic Church, the same with Ireland also. Even though they called it secular, it was a very much a Catholic, it permeated society much more so than Islam did in Pakistan in the 1950s.

Just because a Christian nation says its secular does it mean that it is, just because a Islamic nation says its Islamic does it mean it is. Take for example, why is Sunday a holiday in the West? Why can't it be Wednesday instead? In the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Friday is not the weekly holiday, nor is it in Indonesia. Sunday is. In Pakistan the owner of the largest distillery and beer brewery is the Pakistan is the Pakistani government.

While my note I made might not be relevant to your poorly informed diatribe, its much more relevant to the actual article. The people in Southern Thailand are Malays just like those in Malaysia/Indonesia. They face similar trends as do their cousins in Malaysia/Indonesia. 30 years ago in Indonesia, you rarely saw any women wear Islamic head covering. You go back 40 years in Southern Thailand and Malaysia, almost no women wore the hijab. It was also during that time, Hamas presence starts emerge in the Palestine. When I was growing up the PLO was bugbear. What happened?


Its high time people realize the dangers of appeasing minorities. Islam inherently is intolerant of every other religion. In India Hindus, Jains, Sikhs, Christians all live peacefully but the problem arises only with Islam. And then there is always threat of violence, people are attacked by fanatic mobs even for very docile comments.


There's a lot more to this matter than the piece would suggest. Like all stories, this one has two sides as well.
(text redacted)
It appears to be a hopeless situation. I know where my sympathies lie. Wish I could share them with you. (Freedom of the press has different meanings in different places.)


I am greatly disappointed in The Economist' inability to recognize this for what it is, a genuine struggle for the right of self determination. The people of southern Thailand deserve this right as human beings and their religion should have no bearing on this issue.

bolon in reply to HetnREeDsy

I wonder why you are talking of self determination? Aren't the people in the southern provinces citizens of Thailand? Aren't they entitled to vote in general elections?

The possible route described by TE seems to be fair, but probably they would already enjoy certain autonomy (Scottish style perhaps) if there hadn't been violence and terrorism.



Islam is on a global rampage.

forsize in reply to MrRFox

*yawn* you sound like a politician caught w/ a hooker trying to explain to everyone how subtle the situation actually was.

I assume whatever world your from that kind of canned nonsense has serious meaning.


Given the problems of the Thai leadership, the politicized nature of the military and the appeal nationalism has I doubt this was is going to end any time soon.

Curate's Egg

I am going to go out on a limb and say something that would be controversial, and may even be deleted by the Economist censors. This is certainly something that I would not dare to utter in polite circles, but it really needs to be said more often.
You know where this is leading to. Christianity and Buddhism have had their share of atrocities in the past, but at least their founders behaved in a way that is compatible with pluralistic, modern societies. Atrocities perpetrated in the names of these religions were always committed because the followers were too ignorant to actually remember the teachings of their own deities.
This is not so for Islam. The morals of Prophet Mohammed is essentially that of a noble nomad. He is noble, but he is also ruthless. That's how he conquered the entire Arabian peninsula, in the name of Islam, no less. Tell me this doesn't affect the behaviour of devout Muslims who wish to emulate their greatest hero.

Furthermore, Prophet Mohammed was not just a spiritual teacher - he was a ruler and a lawgiver. Through hadiths, Prophet Mohammed legislated the mentality of a conqueror, the genius of a warring tribe, into the very core of Islam itself, and cemented his laws using his divine authority.

Of course, human beings are natural hypocrites, and if Christians deviated from Christ's pacifist teachings often enough, Muslims have also deviated from the spirit and the letters of the teachings of Prophet Mohammed. But on average, the result has been clear. Islam has been an amazingly aggressive religion, highly consistent in its grudging and limited allowance for pluralism - and we have Prophet Mohammed to thank for that.

For a while, even this was highly progressive for its time - how tolerant were the Christians to rival religions? But as modernity dawned, and Christianity reformed, Islam has been stuck in that 7th century mentality. The vagueness of Christ as a spiritual teacher allowed great flexibility for Christian churches, which all transformed into something acceptable by modernity. The same cannot be said for Islam.

In conclusion, Islam, on average, is always going to be a source of trouble unless much of the Islamic world undergoes a process of secularization and/or equitable economic development. But I doubt the Islamic world will still be called as such once secularization sets in. It has often been said that Islam is not just a religion, but a way of life for a civilization. Islam was set up by its founder to rule or perish, and once modernity inevitably makes its way into that corner of the world, Islam will break.

But isn't Judaism also based on conquest and – dare I say it - genocide? I refer, of course, to the taking of Jericho, the best known example of many such conquests mentioned in the Bible. Furthermore, isn't Christianity itself grounded on these same beliefs?

If you believe your logic is correct, you should expand your conclusion to also include Judaism and Christianity as being founded on principles not "compatible with pluralistic, modern societies". Unless, of course, you can prove that people wondering the desert for 40 years before destroying a whole town and its inhabitants are not noble, ruthless, conquering nomads.



J5PREPVzCK in reply to Spectacularj1

Of course, you conveniently ignore the societal ostracism of these communities. Uigher Muslims in China, for example, are economically disadvantaged precisely because they are "Muslim" and that's incompatible with Chinese Communism...just like in Thailand. Fair treatment will result in peace, it's that simple.


So the Economist wants to appease the terrorists by offering them autonomy. Perhaps the Economist would be so kind as to let us know where appeasing terrorism has eliminated terrorists?

Gabashi in reply to djohns

You make a mistake with the word appease. It's words like 'terrorist' and 'insurgency' that make it difficult for us to acknowledge that each case of violence in a foreign world has its own background that misguided control-chimeras such as the U.S. government have little say in affecting.




It is interesting that you begin with historical reference to the annexation of this land, and then refer to an insurgency. Does the generational distance of 100 years lessen the right of a people to demand sovereignty? Tibet would hope not.

MostJustWantPeace in reply to Gabashi

No, time is not what determines it. What determines it is a combination of factors: force of arms, assimilation, etc. For example, how did the US quell Native American groups such as the Plains Indians and Apaches? Time played a role, but a thorough destruction of their society and culture via the reservation system, Indian schools where they were even forbidden from speaking their own languages, etc also took its toll. Of course, one must not forget the immigrants who moved in, especially farmers from Scandinavia.


Same old story. As I repeated thousand times in the past, I fail to comprehend why on earth this communal tribe is at heart of overwhelming number of cases for terrorism. Something surely wrong here. Everywhere, it is hard to believe this one particular group as victim of atrocities committed by other different world affiliations. The sooner we realize this danger, better we shall be protecting our basic tenets of democracy, prosperity and peaceful cohabition with persons of other faiths barring this one. Otherwise, the problem gets bigger within our lifetime and threatens our society towards the core.


‘Thailand is a great thriving country. It is a pity to let this lingering problem in its southern limb poison the whole country as it may do.’--Shamal Karim.
Indeed, such things happened to good natured thai people is disheartening and there is no good reason why it happened.

buddhism the mainstream in thailand is not nearly as repugnant or repulsive of other religions as some other religions like muslim or hinduism are. local grievances of religious and economic nature should be worked out peacefully. that said, the government should increase its poverty eradication effort in some poorer muslim regions.

Bismarck888 in reply to kommonsenses

The Economist at least is not hypocritical as some of the Western posters here. The Thai treatment of Muslims in Southern Thailand is much worse than China's treatment of Tibetans / Uighurs or Indonesia's treatment of Papuans. Yet they are deemed terrorist by most of the Western posters. Did the Uighurs / Tibetans attack Han Chinese settlers in Xinjang / Tibet? The Papuans guerrillas have killed Indonesian settlers in Papua. Why no condemnation ? The Thai military is arming Thai Buddhist settlers, helping them form paramilitaries etc. Both sides are playing dirty, but its OK because they are Muslims. You didn't notice the hypocrisy !!


The to me obvious solution is transfer sovereignty of Pattani to Malaysia. An adjustment of the borders among South-East Asian countries should provoke no more ill feeling than proposed adjustments of the borders among European countries... all right, but those Europeans are being stupid, and Thais may be more persuadable than those Europeans. The real question is how the world should be divided into states at various levels; if we are agreed that South-East Asia is one province of the world, we can next discuss the sensible division of South-East Asia into lower-level units, and Pattani is surely a bit small, although big enough to be a state of Malaysia.

Ghentis in reply to Komarov

Agree with this. Perhaps Malaysia could offer territory or cash in return. If ASEAN was closer to political or economic union this would be much easier, but that is a long way off yet.


Thailand is a great thriving country. It is a pity to let this lingering problem in its southern limb poison the whole country as it may do. In this age there is nothing wrong in giving the south full autonomy and let the local population govern themselves albeit within a federal-like Thailand. I am sure the Malay southerners would be happier and they will feel more part of Thailand. There are lessons around the world and there is no point repeating history’s mistakes and prolong peoples suffering.

Left and Right. in reply to Shamal.K

Again the word Islam crops up and as ever it is in the context of not being willing or able to co-exist with those of other faiths, or none. Malaysia, Pakistan, Sudan, Nigeria, Chad, Egypt, Albania, Kosovo etc etc. There is something amiss with a faith that cannot push children into the firing line fast enough for martyrdom and them blame everyone else? The poverty endemic in Muslim states is self inflicted, the only answers is a secular democracy and education, a long job!

Left and Right, I thinkt he response sounds like this, if a discriminated people have to force themselves to talk, dress and live like you against there will then you can keep your 'co existence', 'democracy' and 'education'.



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

