Thai war widows bear heavy burden of insurgency

[webfact]

Thai war widows bear heavy burden of insurgency
by Aidan JONES

NARATHIWAT, February 24, 2014 (AFP) - Widowed and blinded in one eye by vengeful rebels, Tungrudee Jaiin was left to raise four children alone in insurgency-ravaged southern Thailand, where women carry a heavy burden of a seemingly endless war.

A scar knotting her brow marks where she lost an eye to a bullet fired by suspected militants who had already gunned down her husband in a punishment killing.

It left Tungrudee among the ranks of widows in a decade-long conflict, which has seen 5,900 people killed in Thailand's Muslim-majority southernmost provinces.

The majority of the victims of this complex, vicious and highly localised war have been civilians who are squeezed between Thai security forces and ruthless insurgents seeking greater autonomy from Thailand, which annexed the deep south more than a century ago.

Around 400 of the dead are women, while authorities say there are 2,700 registered war widows after their men were killed by rebels or security forces across Narathiwat, Yala and Pattani -- the flashpoints of the insurgency.

Countless other wives, sisters and daughters have been thrust into the role of family breadwinners after the man of the house was jailed, fled to avoid arrest or joined the rebel movement.

- Where violence rules -

In a soft voice remarkably free of rancour, Tungrudee -- who converted to Islam to marry her husband -- recalled the chilling events that befell her family five years ago when the rebels killed him for being a government informer.

"Two weeks later they came back and they shot me and left me to die," the 39-year-old said, pointing to her eye, abdomen and legs where the bullets struck. "Then they set fire to our home."

Her eldest son was badly burnt in the fire.

Destitute, Tungrudee and her children -- now aged between four and 15 -- found refuge in the army-protected "widows' village" of Rotan Batu, which has expanded in parallel with the conflict to house some 140 women and 300 children.

"Sometimes I feel weak and think how can I live without my husband? But when I see my children I think, who will take care of them without me?" said Tungrudee, whose attackers have never been caught.

She supplements her $140 monthly widows' stipend from the state by selling vegetables in a local town.

Her quiet defiance is emblematic of the strength expected of women in the face of the conflict -- one that is set to rage on after political turmoil in Bangkok kicked peace talks between the government and rebel groups into limbo.

- Cultural barriers -

Experts say Muslim women face particular hardship in the conservative region, which is culturally distinct to the rest of predominantly Buddhist Thailand.

In the absence of their men, Muslim women are duty bound to provide for large families.

Yet women are restricted when it comes to speaking out, as politics and the insurgency are often topics controlled by the men of the house.

"Women often have no voice," said Angkhana Neelapaijit, of the Justice for Peace Foundation, a human rights organisation.

"The expectation is for them to look after the family," she said.

"They may have little say over politics. For example, if their child expresses sympathy with the movement (rebellion), they cannot control them."

A recent survey by the foundation found poor education compounds the travails of women, squeezing them into low-paid work or unemployment.

Others lack sufficient literacy in Thai to navigate complex legal processes in an area where security forces routinely round up suspected rebels -- and many innocents in the process.

Despite some state support women find it "almost impossible" to feed their families or fund children's education, the study said, deepening the poverty cycle.

But there are encouraging signs that women are stepping into the political space vacated by men.

Women are joining civil society groups calling for justice -- in a part of Thailand where rights groups accuse both security forces and insurgents of acting with impunity.

"The role of women is getting bigger because the role of many men has been greatly diminished as they are under suspicion by the authorities, jailed or dead," said filmmaker Noi Thammasathien, who has worked extensively on women's issues in the region.

Muslim women are leading a bold cultural shift through their actions, agrees Anghkana, adding they must be better represented at stuttering peace talks.

Her own husband is feared dead after being abducted in 2004 while bringing legal cases of torture against Thai authorities.

More than 50 people have been killed since the start of the year, including two Buddhist women shot dead and then set on fire in separate incidents less than a week apart.

With prospects for peace remote, the widows of Rotan Batu are resigned to welcoming more to the village.

Bonded by a shared grief that crosses religious lines, the women trade jokes as they carry out their daily tasks in the sprawling commune of vegetable plots and workshops, studded by modest bungalows.

"Women suffer a lot here," said Mariyah Nibosu, as she carefully shaped a clay pot for sale in a workshop in the village.

"But we are strong. We have to feed our children by ourselves. We have to survive."


-- (c) Copyright AFP 2014-02-24

[ultimate weapon]

The majority of the victims of this complex, vicious and highly localised war have been civilians who are squeezed between Thai security forces and ruthless insurgents seeking greater autonomy from Thailand, which annexed the deep south more than a century ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yala_Province

Sultanate of Patani gained full independence but under King Rama I (reigned 1782–1809) again came under Siam's control in 1785.

2014 - 1785 = 229 it's more than 2 centuries actually so they should have been pretty thaified.

[WhizBang]

I really do wish the military would get their act together and hunt down these terrorists (NOT insurgents).

Get outside help if necessary, but do something to put an end to this meaningless slaughter.

I also wish the media would stop calling these terrorists insurgents.

They are soulless murderers.

[Pib]

In any war or civil strife action innocent Civilian causalities/deaths always far outnumber the Military/Police or Terrorists causalities/deaths. So sad.

Edited February 24, 2014 by Pib

[ultimate weapon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattani_province

For centuries a tributary state of Siam, Pattani has been governed by Siam since its conquest in 1785.

this means that prior to 1785 it was paying tribute to siam but officially came under its rule in 1785.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narathiwat_Province

Historically, Narathiwat was the part of the semi-independent Malay Sultanate of Patani, paying tribute to the Thai kingdoms of Sukhothai and Siamese kingdom of Ayuthia. After Ayutthaya fell in 1767, Sultanate of Patani gained full independence, but under King Rama I it again came under Thai control 18 years later and in the early 1800s was divided into 7 smaller kingdoms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Songkhla_Province

Songkhla was the seat of an old Malay Kingdom with heavy Srivijayan influence. In ancient times (200 AD - 1400 AD), Songkhla formed the northern extremity of the Malay Kingdom of Langkasuka. The city-state then became a tributary of Nakhon Si Thammarat, suffering damage during several attempts to gain independence.

Since the 18th century, Songkla has been firmly under Thai suzerainty. In 1909, Songkhla was formally annexed by Siam as part of Anglo-Siamese Treaty of 1909, negotiated with the British Empire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Siamese_Treaty_of_1909

The agreement effectively divided the northern Malay states into two parts. The area around modern Pattani (Malay: ڤتنا (Patani)), Narathiwat (Malay: منارة (Menara)), southernmost Songkhla (Malay: سيڠڬورا (Singgora)), Satun (Malay: مقيم ستل (Mukim Setul)) and Yala (Malay: جال (Jala)) remained under Thai control, while Thailand relinquished its claims to sovereignty over Kedah (Thai: ไทรบุรี (Saiburi)), Kelantan (Thai: กลันตัน (Kalantan)), Perlis (Thai: ปะลิส (Palit)) and Terengganu (Thai: ตรังกานู (Trangkanu)) which integrated the British sphere of influence as protectorates. These four states, along with Johor, later became known as the Unfederated Malay States.

Were it not for this treaty in 1909 the 4 malaysian states would still be under thai control.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burney_Treaty

In 1822, John Crawfurd undertook a mission to the court of King Rama II to determine Siam's position on the Malay states.^[1] The treaty acknowledged Siamese claims over the four northern Malay states of Kedah, Kelantan, Perlis and Terengganu—the future Unfederated Malay States. The treaty further guaranteed British possession of Penang and their rights to trade in Kelantan and Terengganu without Siamese interference. The four Malay states were not represented in the treaty negotiation. In 1909 the parties of the agreement signed a new treaty that superseded that of 1826 and transferred the four Malay states from Siamese to British control.^[2][3]

In fact this shows that 4 malaysian states used to be under thai control until 1909 where they became british possessions.

Question is this proves that thailand has been controlling them for a long time back in the old days when you were allowed to conquer and take over kingdoms it shows how weak the patani kingdom and the other malay kingdoms were to be under siamese rule more than 100 years ago so why the sudden so called fight for independence. It doesn't truly make any sense after being under thai rule for so long they should have taken on thai nationalistic characteristics.

[simple1]

Question is this proves that thailand has been controlling them for a long time back in the old days when you were allowed to conquer and take over kingdoms it shows how weak the patani kingdom and the other malay kingdoms were to be under siamese rule more than 100 years ago so why the sudden so called fight for independence. It doesn't truly make any sense after being under thai rule for so long they should have taken on thai nationalistic characteristics.

Well the Southern Irish were under British rule for around 700 years, they certainly did not take on British 'nationalistic characteristics'. I guess for the same reasons as those who are members of the insurgent/miltant ethnic Malays groups in the deep South.

[EyesWideOpen]

The majority of the victims of this complex, vicious and highly localised war have been civilians who are squeezed between Thai security forces and ruthless insurgents seeking greater autonomy from Thailand, which annexed the deep south more than a century ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yala_Province

Sultanate of Patani gained full independence but under King Rama I (reigned 1782–1809) again came under Siam's control in 1785.

2014 - 1785 = 229 it's more than 2 centuries actually so they should have been pretty thaified.

With 200 years of attempting to convert the locals to the Thai way, it would seem things are not going that well. Perhaps time for a new strategy....

[ultimate weapon]

The majority of the victims of this complex, vicious and highly localised war have been civilians who are squeezed between Thai security forces and ruthless insurgents seeking greater autonomy from Thailand, which annexed the deep south more than a century ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yala_Province

Sultanate of Patani gained full independence but under King Rama I (reigned 1782–1809) again came under Siam's control in 1785.

2014 - 1785 = 229 it's more than 2 centuries actually so they should have been pretty thaified.

With 200 years of attempting to convert the locals to the Thai way, it would seem things are not going that well. Perhaps time for a new strategy....

but you see things only started getting heated up only recently. I doubt they have been resisting for 200 plus years. It must be influence from the malaysian side.

[jcisco]

It doesn't truly make any sense after being under thai rule for so long they should have taken on thai nationalistic characteristics.

Probably the most ignorant statement you have ever made, it is probably the same question vexing the Thai authorities.

Not quite sure you appreciate the rather high proverbial wall Thai-ness builds that is not conducive to assimilation from the Thai side. And the same can be said towards the Thai administration from the Islamic side for the Thai Islamic, and Malay Islamic people.

[simple1]

The majority of the victims of this complex, vicious and highly localised war have been civilians who are squeezed between Thai security forces and ruthless insurgents seeking greater autonomy from Thailand, which annexed the deep south more than a century ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yala_Province

Sultanate of Patani gained full independence but under King Rama I (reigned 1782–1809) again came under Siam's control in 1785.

2014 - 1785 = 229 it's more than 2 centuries actually so they should have been pretty thaified.

With 200 years of attempting to convert the locals to the Thai way, it would seem things are not going that well. Perhaps time for a new strategy....

but you see things only started getting heated up only recently. I doubt they have been resisting for 200 plus years. It must be influence from the malaysian side.

If you are genuinely interested in the history and lack of resolution for the conflict in the deep South, have a read of the content at the URLs below for some background.

http://www.slideshare.net/ikhwanng/history-and-politics-of-the-muslims-in-thailand

http://www.openbriefing.org/thinktank/publications/prospects-for-peace-in-thailands-deep-south/

http://www.defence.gov.au/adc/docs/Publications2012/SheddenPapers12_120306_ConflictinThailand_Nurakkate.pdf

[rreddin]

I really do wish the military would get their act together and hunt down these terrorists (NOT insurgents).

Get outside help if necessary, but do something to put an end to this meaningless slaughter.

I also wish the media would stop calling these terrorists insurgents.

They are soulless murderers.

The only lasting solution is a poloitical solution. To his credit Abhisit attempted to start that process moving. At the time, it was widely believed that a certain moderate, Middle Eastern kingdom could use its influence to persuade the insurgents to seek a non-violent solution. Unfortunately, Thailand has no diplomatic ties with that Kingdom, so dealings were through intermediaries. As in all things, there was a price to pay regarding certain stolen jewellery and the murder of certain diplomats - a price that Thailand was unable to pay.

Suthep's protests have also resulted in the current peace process discussions being shelved indefinately. Finding a peaceful solution to that problem is not one of his priorities. As a consequence, the insurgents are persuing their own agenda and we are back to a situaion where the only talking is through bombs and bullets. It is very sad that the limited achievements that have been made, both under Abhisit and Yingluk, should be undone.

[nbm47]

Why are they using the term "War Widows" when in reality they are victims of act of terrorism, Terrorism is not war just hype by media to make it so.

[peecee]

Question is this proves that thailand has been controlling them for a long time back in the old days when you were allowed to conquer and take over kingdoms it shows how weak the patani kingdom and the other malay kingdoms were to be under siamese rule more than 100 years ago so why the sudden so called fight for independence. It doesn't truly make any sense after being under thai rule for so long they should have taken on thai nationalistic characteristics.

Well the Southern Irish were under British rule for around 700 years, they certainly did not take on British 'nationalistic characteristics'. I guess for the same reasons as those who are members of the insurgent/miltant ethnic Malays groups in the deep South.

So it's the far North to the ethnic Malay's? They will always remain a headache for Thailand until they get autonomy. I don't doubt that a referendum would prefer this as just handing over to Malaysia seems out of the question.

[Escapologist]

Another Western journalist attempts to paint Muslim terrorists and their accomplices as victims. Maybe he's building a portfolio for his job interview with the BBC?

[simple1]

Question is this proves that thailand has been controlling them for a long time back in the old days when you were allowed to conquer and take over kingdoms it shows how weak the patani kingdom and the other malay kingdoms were to be under siamese rule more than 100 years ago so why the sudden so called fight for independence. It doesn't truly make any sense after being under thai rule for so long they should have taken on thai nationalistic characteristics.

Well the Southern Irish were under British rule for around 700 years, they certainly did not take on British 'nationalistic characteristics'. I guess for the same reasons as those who are members of the insurgent/miltant ethnic Malays groups in the deep South.

So it's the far North to the ethnic Malay's? They will always remain a headache for Thailand until they get autonomy. I don't doubt that a referendum would prefer this as just handing over to Malaysia seems out of the question.

As far as I know there has never been a call by the insurgents political representatives to be integrated with Malaysia. As I recall in the last list of 'demands' was some for of autonomy, they back tracked on independence - I guess they knew that would never happen in their lifetime.

Edited February 24, 2014 by simple1

[ericthai]

The majority of the victims of this complex, vicious and highly localised war have been civilians who are squeezed between Thai security forces and ruthless insurgents seeking greater autonomy from Thailand, which annexed the deep south more than a century ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yala_Province

Sultanate of Patani gained full independence but under King Rama I (reigned 17821809) again came under Siam's control in 1785.

2014 - 1785 = 229 it's more than 2 centuries actually so they should have been pretty thaified.

With 200 years of attempting to convert the locals to the Thai way, it would seem things are not going that well. Perhaps time for a new strategy....

but you see things only started getting heated up only recently. I doubt they have been resisting for 200 plus years. It must be influence from the malaysian side.

What are you talking about?? It started to escalate early-mid 2000's, I believe around 2003-2004 and got really bad after the coup around 2006-2007.

I think the last few years have not been as bad compared to then.

So at least 10 years of intense fighting. The situition itself is over 100 years

[Eddy B]

You only have to look at England now and see "autonomy" of the Muslims in full action.They have their own rules and laws, how does a country work that way? A country has laws and guides lines to follow set by the natives of that land. If I want to live in a different country I have have to follow it; regardless of beliefs. Autonomy sounds the same to me as "MAFIA". Our rule or you die!

[noitom]

So the Thai press now refers to the Thai south slaughter for a dozen years as a "war." That's a big step forward to solving the problem. Now the Thais need a strategy. When you are in a war, you need a strategy and you also expect to win. You also need an exit strategy and an on-going peace plan. It seems that Thais have none of these elements.

[RNguy]

The Romans dealt with the people of Carthage for generations before finally coming up with a solution to their constant insurgency. A Carthaginian peace is likely the only peace that is possible with any group with Islamic tendencies.

[simple1]

You only have to look at England now and see "autonomy" of the Muslims in full action.They have their own rules and laws, how does a country work that way? A country has laws and guides lines to follow set by the natives of that land. If I want to live in a different country I have have to follow it; regardless of beliefs. Autonomy sounds the same to me as "MAFIA". Our rule or you die!

Sharia Law has no legal standing under UK law, there is not a plural legal system

Edited February 24, 2014 by simple1

[Escapologist]

You only have to look at England now and see "autonomy" of the Muslims in full action.They have their own rules and laws, how does a country work that way? A country has laws and guides lines to follow set by the natives of that land. If I want to live in a different country I have have to follow it; regardless of beliefs. Autonomy sounds the same to me as "MAFIA". Our rule or you die!

Sharia Law has no legal standing under UK law, there is not a plural legal system

Indeed Sharia law is not recognised by the State. Yet there are Sharia courts operating all over England and entire Muslim areas which make zero calls for police assistance. Strange, no?

[simple1]

You only have to look at England now and see "autonomy" of the Muslims in full action.They have their own rules and laws, how does a country work that way? A country has laws and guides lines to follow set by the natives of that land. If I want to live in a different country I have have to follow it; regardless of beliefs. Autonomy sounds the same to me as "MAFIA". Our rule or you die!

Sharia Law has no legal standing under UK law, there is not a plural legal system

Indeed Sharia law is not recognised by the State. Yet there are Sharia courts operating all over England and entire Muslim areas which make zero calls for police assistance. Strange, no?

I guess you're referring to the Daily Mail article? Seems there are two sides to every story. A quote from a senior police representative:

Elsewhere the administering of justice often is ineffective and there is a great deal of incompetence in the system. ‘People don’t feel they can count on their police. Instead of placing blame with ethnic minorities, we should ask what it is that is wrong with the criminal justice system.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2541635/Murders-rapes-going-unreported-no-zones-police-minority-communities-launch-justice-systems.html