India does not have to be involved in other areas to get attention.
It has had plenty of incidents over the last 2 decades that have pissed off a lot of Islamists.
Oh, and we wouldn't want to do anything that would upset the Islamists. If one were to tell them that they shouldn't be allowed to kill apostates, abolish human rights, then it's only right if they decide to blow up a few of your citizens in response.
Interesting that you mention India and the Kashmir situation, considering that the entire conflict would never have occurred were it not for Islamic expansionism. Likewise, the Taliban itself would not exist were it not for the conquests that the Caliphate made.
It's notable also that you say that modern Islamic radicalism wouldn't exist were it not for Western imperialism, but if you reason like that, then you surely must concede that the Hindu radicalism in India is a response to Islamic extremism.
As I said, all these Islamist groups came about as a REACTION to outside interference/threats/intimidation. Because their religion allows them to take action by anything perceived as a 'threat' (from apostasy to imperialism), has actually made it easier for the rise of militants and Jihadis as to these people violence is the only way to save themselves and 'their people'!
I think to deduce that Islamic radicalism is nothing more than a response to outside interference by Western powers is frankly untenable, for reasons which should be obvious from Islamic history.
But you also mention that the Western nations suppressed rival powers and organisations. Yes. And that is arguably why, after the departure of the imperial powers from these places, leaving a power vacuum, these radical organisations were then able to form once again.
But these organisations have everything to do with politics pertaining to the Middle East, they are not merely a response to imperialism. Take the Muslim Brotherhood. The entire purpose of the organisation at its founding was to work to re-establish the Caliphate, not to avenge some grievance of the Islamic world.
None of these groups existed or operated even during the European colonial eras...mainly because of how brutal and malicious European colonial armies were in dealing with rebellions etc. It was after independence when a lot of European-backed dictators and sheikhs took charge that carried on the legacy of violent oppression of dissent, and the backing of Israel of course, that modern day Islamism came about as a REACTION to such events!
Regardless of Western complicity, do you honestly believe that these dictators and organisations in the Middle East would not have come about were it not for the imperialism of the West? Do you think that these places were bulwarks of freedom, democracy and human rights until the West came along and screwed everything up?
Seems to me that your entire argument is predicated upon a
post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. You think that since these particular radical organisations formed afterwards, that therefore Western imperialism is entirely to blame for these modern Islamist movements, as though such radicalism were new.
Topic: Are We Partly to Blame for Islamic terrorism?