Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenor:
-
Urs Geiser
(University of Zurich)
- Location:
- 25H92
- Start time:
- 25 July, 2014 at
Time zone: Europe/Zurich
- Session slots:
- 1
Short Abstract:
This panel analyses the different ways in which the modern state in South Asia governs and manages 'problematic' populations. It focuses on the growing tendency of the state to use violence to manage dissenting groups and the questions raised by the linkages between governance and militarisation.
Long Abstract:
This panel analyses the ways in which the postcolonial state in South Asia manages 'problematic' populations. In particular, it investigates the use of violence for containing certain groups, and how such practices are increasingly becoming part of techniques of governance. Although there is a significant body of literature that has used Foucauldian perspectives on governmentality to analyse the colonial state, academic work on how the South Asian state has managed 'problematic' groups is limited. The work that does exist has also tended to use a Foucauldian approach, and has thus predominantly focused on non-violent ways in which the state reforms or contains 'problematic' groups. As a result, the linkages between militarisation and governance have remained unexplored. Examples from the region - ranging from the state-led attack against the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka to the Pakistani military's operation in the country's tribal areas - are indicative of a tendency of the state to use force to manage dissenting groups. Moreover, such operations are often used by ruling parties as examples of their effectiveness and capability to govern. Such incidences open up a host of questions that this panel seeks to answer. What are the linkages between militarisation and governance, and how have such interactions affected notions of governance? Why is violence against particular groups accepted in the mainstream while aggression against others becomes cause for public outrage? And finally, how do such instances of violence reflect upon the nature of the state and its relationship with citizens?
Accepted papers:
Session 1Alina Filimonova (Institute of Asian and African Studies, Lomonosov Moscow State University)
Paper short abstract:
This study explores what reasons have been applied by the central Pakistani government to justify the constant use of violence in Balochistan province to the citizens and how this rationale has been evolving with time.
Paper long abstract:
Since the creation of Pakistan in 1947 the use of violence in Balochistan province has been the most persistent technique used by the state to check insurgent activity. This activity has been almost constant, with the most significant outbreaks in 1947-1948, 1958-1959, 1963-1969, 1973-1977; after 2005 the conflict once again began to gain momentum, and up to now the situation has only been deteriorating. Under these circumstances militarisation of the province came to be regarded as an unavoidable necessity. Even when the government introduced other methods - aimed at economic development and social reconstruction - military operations and physical offence have never been outlawed. Surprisingly, this state of events has usually been accepted by the non-Balochi part of Pakistani society. What is more, there have been direct popular calls for the government to undertake drastic actions in order to restore law and order in the province. Split along religious, ethnic, linguistic and economic lines, Pakistani Balochistan became a long-standing proving ground for both war techniques and ideological constructions essential for building up the required common perception of military operations.
The purpose of this study is to explore what reasons have been applied by the central government to justify the use of violence in Balochistan to the Pakistani citizens, how this rationale has been evolving with time and why the created ideological pattern became commonly acceptable.
Denise Ripamonti (Ca' Foscari University of Venice, Italy)
Paper short abstract:
The present paper investigates India’s state response to the ongoing Maoist insurgency as an example of the dynamic relationship existing between the nature of the state and political violence in the complex security environment of South Asia.
Paper long abstract:
The South Asian region offers an example of a conflict-ridden area where the nature and construction of the state remains problematic, representing the core origin of internal tensions in the majority of the states in the region. Strong nationalisms, secessionist ethnic movements, communalism, and land-based insurgencies are some of the major hostile expressions of a process of state consolidation that still needs to be accomplished and that is challenged by threats that are mostly non-military in nature.
In fact, such internal threats represent non-military sources of national insecurity and imply a direct opposition between the state and its people, whose demands, articulated in the language of political violence, challenge the state's socio-economic and political institutions, thus eroding its legitimacy. Accordingly, the strengthening of the state system in post-colonial contexts mainly depends on how the state deals with the question of political violence and its manifestations in terms of internal armed conflicts.
Given such a context, the present paper aims at investigating the above described dynamics in India, a country that, compared to the other actors in the region, presents a peculiar course of both state-making and nation-building rooted in a democratic political and institutional setting that is still functioning notwithstanding its unresolved internal vulnerabilities. Specifically, the paper will focus on the Indian state's response to the ongoing Maoist insurgency and its securitization, moving from the assumption that ideological violence directly challenges the raison d'être of the state and therefore it cannot be easily accommodated within the existing political space.
Amarnath Amarasingam (Dalhousie University)
Paper short abstract:
With the end of the civil war in Sri Lanka in May 2009, tens of thousands of Tamil Tiger (or LTTE) militants were killed, captured, or surrendered to the Sri Lankan military. This paper, based on field research with former LTTE combatants in Sri Lanka, argues that the government's purported rehabilitation program has fallen far short of its stated goals.
Paper long abstract:
With the end of the civil war in Sri Lanka in May 2009, tens of thousands of former Tamil Tiger (or LTTE) militants were killed, captured, or surrendered to the Sri Lankan military. This paper, based on field research and ethnographic interviews with former LTTE combatants in the North, argues that the government's purported rehabilitation and reintegration program has fallen far short of its stated goals. Ex-combatants who have gone through the rehabilitation programs recall days of inactivity, punctured by hours of interrogation, and minimal training (often around two weeks) in mason work, automotive mechanics, and the like. After several years of being housed in these rehabilitation centres, former combatants are released into the public with very little follow-up and very little help in terms of employment or well-being. The surveillance continues once they are released and many express a deep sense of isolation, fear, uncertainty, and loneliness. This paper, then, examines the notion of "belonging" with respect to ex-combatants in post-war Sri Lanka, and explores some of the structural constraints precluding their (re)integration into society. While based on a much larger study of post-war challenges experienced by the Tamil community in Sri Lanka, this paper focuses specifically on issues of government surveillance, as well as problems associated with social isolation and societal distrust.