History of Thailand’s violent Southern Insurgency

[snoop1130]

PHOTO: Long running Southern insurgency in Thailand

 

According to data from the Deep South Watch, an independent organization that monitors the conflict in Thailand’s southern provinces, between 2004 and 2021, over 7,000 people have been killed and over 13,000 injured in the southern insurgency. The majority of the victims have been civilians, including teachers, religious leaders, and government officials.

 

The conflict has also resulted in the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people and has had a significant economic and social impact on the region.

 

The Deep South of Thailand, also known as the restive south or the southern insurgency region, has a complex and tumultuous history that spans over a century. The region encompasses the provinces of Pattani, Yala, Narathiwat, and parts of Songkhla and Satun on the border of Thailand and Malaysia. The conflict in the Deep South is rooted in a history of political, economic, and social marginalization, as well as religious and ethnic differences between the Muslim Malay population and the Buddhist Thai state.

 

The region was once part of the Malay Sultanate of Pattani, which had a long history of trade and cultural exchange with neighboring Southeast Asian countries. However, in the late 19th century, the region came under the control of Siam (now Thailand) as part of a territorial expansion campaign. The Siamese government imposed strict laws and policies aimed at assimilating the Malay population into Thai Buddhist culture, including a ban on the Malay language and Islamic traditions.

 

In the early 20th century, a nationalist movement emerged among the Malay-Muslim population, calling for greater autonomy and recognition of their cultural and religious identity. The movement gained momentum in the 1940s, leading to the establishment of the Patani United Liberation Organization (PULO) in 1960, which aimed to create an independent Islamic state in the region.

 

The 1960s and 1970s saw a wave of violent protests and demonstrations by Malay nationalists and separatists, as well as a crackdown by the Thai government. The situation escalated in 1976, when a group of Malay-Muslim students were killed by Thai security forces during a demonstration in Pattani. This event marked a turning point in the conflict, and led to the emergence of a militant wing of the separatist movement.

 

In the 1980s and 1990s, the insurgency became increasingly violent, with bombings, assassinations, and attacks on government officials and civilians becoming more common. The separatist movement fragmented into several factions, each with its own goals and strategies. Some groups, such as PULO and the Barisan Revolusi Nasional (BRN), continued to call for an independent Islamic state, while others, such as the Gerakan Mujahideen Islam Pattani (GMIP), advocated for greater autonomy within the Thai state.

 

The 2000s saw a resurgence of violence in the Deep South, with attacks becoming more frequent and deadly. The Thai government responded with a policy of heavy-handed military crackdowns, which only served to fuel the insurgency and increase support for separatist groups. The government also implemented a number of measures aimed at suppressing Malay-Muslim culture and identity, such as a ban on the wearing of headscarves in schools and a campaign to promote Thai Buddhist values.

 

In 2004, the situation in the Deep South reached a new level of intensity when a coordinated attack on police and military installations in several provinces left over 100 people dead. This event marked the beginning of a new phase in the conflict, characterized by a more organized and coordinated insurgency. The government responded with a state of emergency and a massive military buildup in the region, but these measures failed to bring an end to the violence.

 

The insurgency in the Deep South has continued to simmer in the years since, with periodic flare-ups of violence and occasional attempts at peace negotiations. The conflict has taken a heavy toll on the region, with thousands of people killed and many more displaced. The economic and social impact of the conflict has been devastating, with the region lagging behind the rest of the country in terms of development and prosperity.

 

In recent years, there have been some signs of progress towards a resolution of the conflict. The Thai government has taken steps to address some of the root causes of the insurgency, such as discrimination against.

 

Source: https://phuket-go.com/phuket-news/national-news/history-of-thailands-violent-southern-insurgency/

 

-- © Copyright Phuket GO 2023-03-06

 

- Cigna offers a range of visa-compliant plans that meet the minimum requirement of medical treatment, including COVID-19, up to THB 3m. For more information on all expat health insurance plans click here.

 

The most versatile and flexible rental investment and holiday home solution in Thailand - click for more information.

[Stocky]

That's a reasonable synopsis. 

[stoner]

53 minutes ago, snoop1130 said:

as part of a territorial expansion campaign

otherwise known as conquering. 

[RandiRona]

If you want to see where majority of conflicts in the world are, then follow the book! There is no reconciliation or compromise when they are hell bent on following teachings where women is a property and non believe is a ‘Kufr’ who needs to be either converted or eliminated.

[Enoon]

9 hours ago, RandiRona said:

If you want to see where majority of conflicts in the world are, then follow the book! There is no reconciliation or compromise when they are hell bent on following teachings where women is a property and non believe is a ‘Kufr’ who needs to be either converted or eliminated.

The Siamese started it:

 

"The Siamese government imposed strict laws and policies aimed at assimilating the Malay population into Thai Buddhist culture, including a ban on the Malay language and Islamic traditions."

 

A major factor in the enduring longevity of Ancient empires was that they did not try and de-ethnicise the peoples that came under their control.  The subject peoples were allowed to retain their cultures, languages, traditions and Gods.  All they had to do was pay their taxes and not attempt to overthrow their masters.

 

But that's not good enough for "Nationalists".  They have to eradicate any difference and variety and impose their own narrow view of what their crappy "Nation" should look and sound like.

 

And that is why Thailand is where it is now.

 

Nothing but harm has come of the Thai occupation of the Malay territories and its imposition of "Thaification" upon them:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaification

 

Nothing but harm will come to Thailand while it persists in it's retarded, 19th century outlook.

 

 

[Srikcir]

10 hours ago, Stocky said:

That's a reasonable synopsis. 

Except for the "signs of progress" and does not correctly cover how the Kingdom of Patani went from a Kingdom of Siam Royal Court recognized sovereign nation to Thailand provinces. Long story short, KOP people had no say in the annexation and loss of sovereignty. Very similar to present day Russian annexation of Crimea.

 

Regarding the "signs of progress", the Yingluck regime made the most progress towards peace by considering semi-autonomy for the former KOP. But coincidently the Thai military led by Gen, Prayut, when it appeared that Yingluck would be re-elected as PM in 2014, overthrew her regime in a coup in May 2014 just before the national election scheduled later in May 2014.

 

The subsequent Prayut regime refuses any kind of semi-autonomy, calling it a security breach of Thailand's sovereignty. Instead Prayut has imposed a State of Emergency on the three provinces from 2014 to the present to tightly control/subjugate the Patani provinces.

[BananaStrong]

11 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

over 7,000 people have been killed and over 13,000 injured in the southern insurgency

Declare war on the Malaysia and appeal to the Western powers.  Soon you will get 100 zillion baht, some planes, tanks, etc.....  it's clearly a war.   

[wombat]

No mention of the root cause.

England reneged on its deal of giving Pattani its independence @ the end of WW2 if Pattani  fought on the side of the allies.

Instead they (UK) gave it to Thailand.

The way I read history if UK had honored its promise none of what's happened down south would have.

I stand to be corrected ...

what I have written is a verbal history from my grandfather who was chased out of Pattani Province by bandits/rebels/communist insurgents when he tried to settle there apre WW2

[RichardColeman]

 

25 minutes ago, wombat said:

The way I read history if UK had honored its promise none of what's happened down south would have.

Hogwash - you saying UK is responsible for every single muslim area/country violence in the world - take away the insane religion aspects and you would have your peace - worldwide

[RichardColeman]

 

25 minutes ago, wombat said:

The way I read history if UK had honored its promise none of what's happened down south would have.

Hogwash - you saying UK is responsible for every single muslim area/country violence in the world - take away the insane religion aspects and you would have your peace - worldwide

[herfiehandbag]

32 minutes ago, wombat said:

No mention of the root cause.

England reneged on its deal of giving Pattani its independence @ the end of WW2 if Pattani  fought on the side of the allies.

Instead they (UK) gave it to Thailand.

The way I read history if UK had honored its promise none of what's happened down south would have.

I stand to be corrected ...

what I have written is a verbal history from my grandfather who was chased out of Pattani Province by bandits/rebels/communist insurgents when he tried to settle there apre WW2

During the Second World War Thailand declared war on the allies and entered the war ( ineffectually) on the side of the Japanese Empire.

 

The Thai government, elements of which were less than enthusiastic allies of Japan) maintained secret links with the allies, especially the USA. In 1945 a peace treaty was negotiated between the UK and Thailand ( in parallel with similar treaties with Australia) which were signed in Singapore in 1946. One of the original intentions of these treaties were to return the four annexed " Unfederated Malay States" to Malaysia.

 

The USA took a different tack, choosing to ignore Thailand's declaration of War in 1942, on the fairly specious grounds that is was not unanimously supported by all of Thailand's political groups. Right from the end of hostilities with the Empire of Japan in 1945 they took economic and political action to bring Thailand rapidly into the developing American sphere of influence in South East Asia. As part of that policy they opposed and confounded the British intention to return the four states to Malaysia under the Singapore Treaty.

[Stocky]

3 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

In 1945 a peace treaty was negotiated between the UK and Thailand ( in parallel with similar treaties with Australia) which were signed in Singapore in 1946. One of the original intentions of these treaties were to return the four annexed " Unfederated Malay States" to Malaysia.

 

The USA took a different tack, choosing to ignore Thailand's declaration of War in 1942, on the fairly specious grounds that is was not unanimously supported by all of Thailand's political groups. Right from the end of hostilities with the Empire of Japan in 1945 they took economic and political action to bring Thailand rapidly into the developing American sphere of influence in South East Asia. As part of that policy they opposed and confounded the British intention to return the four states to Malaysia under the Singapore Treaty.

But Malaysia didn't exist in 1946, at the end of WW2 what had been British Malaya, until the Japanese occupation, became the Malayan Union, which was still a British Colony with a governor appointed by the British government. Malaysia didn't come into existence until 1963. So the actions of the United States were designed to stymie what they saw as a further expansion of British colonial rule, in favour of Siam.

 

But no one thought to ask the people of the Pattani States what they thought.

 

.

[proton]

3 hours ago, RichardColeman said:

 

Hogwash - you saying UK is responsible for every single muslim area/country violence in the world - take away the insane religion aspects and you would have your peace - worldwide

Brits offered the Arabs 80% of Palestine as their own country in the 30's due to them rioting over incoming Jews from Europe.They refused as the other 20% would be for the Jews. Here we are almost 90 years later with the Brits still being blamed! 

[herfiehandbag]

2 hours ago, Stocky said:

But Malaysia didn't exist in 1946, at the end of WW2 what had been British Malaya, until the Japanese occupation, became the Malayan Union, which was still a British Colony with a governor appointed by the British government. Malaysia didn't come into existence until 1963. So the actions of the United States were designed to stymie what they saw as a further expansion of British colonial rule, in favour of Siam.

 

But no one thought to ask the people of the Pattani States what they thought.

 

.

OK- Malaya, Malayan Union or Malaysia - doesn't alter the fact that the USA took Thailand into it's "fold" in 1945, in which it blocked the return of the "Pattani States".

[MarcelV]

Since I moved to the deep south myself, I have prayed everyday for the insurgency to end and for the amazing, resilient people of the south to put away their differences and work on a new, common future.

By the grace of God (insha'Allah), the negotiations will be successful and peace will return. I don't want to live in fear anymore and neither does anyone else.