Domesticating the “New Terrorism”: The Case of the Maoist Insurgency in India

Malreddy, Pavan Kumar

doi:10.1080/10848770.2014.943529

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There is a consistent deployment of exceptional laws designed to protect the fragile sovereignty of the state (such as the Armed Forces Special Powers Act 1990, the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2002 and Sedition Law 124A of the Indian Penal Code). Suspension of civil rights, abrogation of constitutionally guaranteed citizenship rights and impunity for the security forces to indulge in indiscriminate violence against civilians are the dominant features (Chenoy, 2002; Malreddy, 2014; Sundar, 2014).…”

Section: Excessive Militarism and (In)securities: A Conceptual Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several studies have demonstrated that the Indian state, much like its colonial predecessor, continues to unleash indiscriminate violence on its ‘disobedient citizenry’ (Malreddy, 2014: 599) through laws, regulations, policies, armed forces and paramilitary units (Kazi, 2014; Malreddy, 2014; Sundar, 2014). State authorities often cite the objectives of preserving territorial integrity and maintaining national security as the justification for these atrocities.…”

Section: ‘Humanizing’ Militarism Against Popular Dissentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The present-day Maoist rebels, comprised mainly of adivasis (indigenous people), derive inspiration from the Naxalites and believe in overthrowing the Indian state through armed insurrection (Gupta, 2007: 169). The armed militia of the Maoists, the People’s Liberation Guerrilla Army, has an estimated strength of around 40,000, with over one million sympathizers (Malreddy, 2014: 596). The Maoists have launched a number of serious attacks on Indian security forces and paramilitary troops, killing both civilians and armed personnel.…”

Section: Militarism and The Security–development Nexusmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Discursive (in)securities and postcolonial anxiety: Enabling excessive militarism in India

Parashar

2018

Security Dialogue

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article queries the intimate relationship between militarism and the state, which is seen as the by-product of ‘postcolonial anxiety’ (Krishna, 1999) related to the survival of the nation-state in the Third World. This anxiety enables militarism at various levels of governance and state interventions in the everyday lives of the citizenry. The article engages with the historical trajectory of the Indian state to argue that its ‘postcolonial anxiety’ engenders militarism not in the immediate aftermath of independence from colonial rule, as in other postcolonial states, but as an anomaly since the end of the Cold War and the advent of globalization. The Indian state rejected militarism immediately after independence, but subsequently used it sporadically to deal with armed insurgencies in the 1970s and 1980s. The popular endorsement of militarism in India coincides with the globalized world order of the 1990s, the move to democratize ‘security’ in discourse and practice, and the adoption of neoliberal developmentalism to ‘catch up’ with the ‘modern’ trajectory of the European nation-states. I argue that this has led to ‘excessive militarism’ that thrives on the shared consensus between the state and citizens that security is a collective enterprise in which the material and affective labour of militarism must be performed by both sides. Citizens embrace military logics and military ethos, both to contest the state’s violence and to confer legitimacy on the state and secure development benefits. The article concludes that militarism opens up new spaces for understanding the complex statebuilding processes of postcolonial societies, the fraught and textured relationship between the state and citizens, and the constant tensions and negotiations between civilian lives and military culture.

show abstract

Section: Excessive Militarism and (In)securities: A Conceptual Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: ‘Humanizing’ Militarism Against Popular Dissentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Militarism and The Security–development Nexusmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Discursive (in)securities and postcolonial anxiety: Enabling excessive militarism in India

Parashar

2018

Security Dialogue

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The state describes the movement as a 'menace' and as 'left-wing extremism' . It engages in the domestic othering of the Naxalite area of influence ('the Red Corridor') as 'unpatriotic', 'undemocratic', a 'diseased zone' (Malreddy, 2014). For the state,…”

Section: The State Response To the Naxalite Movementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The state describes the movement as a ‘menace’ and as ‘left-wing extremism ’ . It engages in the domestic othering of the Naxalite area of influence (‘the Red Corridor’) as ‘unpatriotic’, ‘undemocratic’, a ‘diseased zone’ (Malreddy, 2014). For the state, The perversion of Naxalism has to be traced to its very roots in the ideological concepts like class struggle and class violence and a demonology created by them.…”

Section: The State Response To the Naxalite Movementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Movements and State Repression in India

Das

2016

Journal of Asian and African Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

State repression is particularly likely when social movements target property relations that cause ordinary citizens to suffer. Whether these movements are violent, and whether the state is a liberal democracy is a contingent matter. This is illustrated by India’s ‘Maoist movement’ (which is also known as the Naxalite movement because it originated in an area called Naxalbari, located in India’s West Bengal State). Where necessary, sections of this movement use violent methods to fight for justice for aboriginal peoples and peasants. This strategy, which the author, incidentally, does not endorse, has been seen by the state as the greatest internal military threat to it. Such a perception invites state violence. What is often under-emphasized or ignored is that the movement is an economic, political and ideological threat, and not just a military threat, and it is so through its localized alternative developmental activities, and this is also a reason for the state’s violent response to it.

show abstract

Portraying Middle Easterners in English-Speaking TV Series: From Stereotypes to Nuanced Portrayals

Ameri

2024

The Palgrave Handbook of Multilingualism and Language Varieties on Screen

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Domesticating the “New Terrorism”: The Case of the Maoist Insurgency in India

Abstract: In this essay,

Cited by 7 publications

References 8 publications

Discursive (in)securities and postcolonial anxiety: Enabling excessive militarism in India

Discursive (in)securities and postcolonial anxiety: Enabling excessive militarism in India

Social Movements and State Repression in India

Portraying Middle Easterners in English-Speaking TV Series: From Stereotypes to Nuanced Portrayals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About