Transcript Anti State violence

ANTI STATE VIOLENCE
Contemporary Issues
Sneha Subhedar
Department of Mass Media
Ramnarain Ruia College

State terrorism refers to acts of terrorism
conducted by governments.
DEFINITIONS

Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated
violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine
individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic,
criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to
assassination - the direct targets of violence are not
the main targets. The immediate human victims of
violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of
opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic
targets) from a target population, and serve as
message generators. Threat- and violence-based
communication processes between terrorist
(organization), (imperiled) victims, and main targets
are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)),
turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands,
or a target of attention, depending on whether
intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily
sought. —Alex P. Schmid,
The term "Establishment" and "Structural
terrorism" is sometimes used to describe state
terrorism that posits the existence of 'a form of
political violence" in the structure of contemporary
international politics.
 This includes policies or actions by governments that
encourage the use of fear and violence in pursuit of
political ends.
 As such, state terrorism is conceived to have become
an integral element of many state's foreign policies
(Michael Stolhl)

PROF. STOLHL AND GEORGE A. LOPEZ DESIGNATE
THREE PARTICULAR FORMS OF STATE TERRORISM
EXHIBITED IN FOREIGN POLICY BEHAVIOUR



1. Coercive terrorist diplomacy: (eg. discreet and
controlled, and makes non-compliance intolerable)
2. Covert state terrorism:
a)Clandestine state terrorism (eg. direct participation
of states, ex. to weaken a governments or intimidate
government officials of another state etc)
b)State-sponsored terrorism (eg. "states or private
groups being employed to undertake terrorist actions
on behalf of sponsoring state."
3. Surrogate terrorism: (eg. assistance to another
state or group that improves their capability to
practice terrorism)
a)State-sponsored terrorism (eg. as above)
b)State acquiescence to terrorism (eg. group
undertakes terrorism and is not explicitly backed by a
state but not condemned either.)
State terrorism is said to be morally worse than
non-state terrorism.
 First, because of the nature of the modern state
and "the amount and variety of resources"
available even for small states, the state mode of
terrorism claims vastly more victims than does
terrorism by non-state actors.
 Secondly, because "state terrorism is bound to be
compounded by secrecy, deception and
hypocrisy," terrorist states typically act with
clandestine brutality while publicly professing
adherence to "values and principles which rule it
out."
 Thirdly, because unlike non-state actors, states
are signatories in international laws and
conventions prohibiting terrorism, when a state
commits acts of terrorism it is "in breach of its
own solemn international commitments.”



India has long been accused by its immediate neighbors of
fomenting terrorism in their respective territories by using
its external-intelligence agency, the Research & Analysis
Wing [RAW].
India first became involved in 1971 when the Pakistani
Civil War was brewing. India saw it as an opportunity to
dismember its historic rival state and also to payback for
the 1965 humiliation. RAW was tasked with training,
financing, armament and equipping the Mukti Bahini force
which was to carry out attacks not only on West Pakistani
troops in East Pakistan but also to engage in torture,
murder, rape of innocent civilians of any origin who showed
any support for West Pakistani forces.

Later on, RAW utilized this experience to aid the
LTTE [Tamil Tigers] in SriLanka prior to India's
U-turn in its foreign policy vis-a-vis when it sent
'peacekeepers' to SriLanka to fight the LTTE (but
were later withdrawn hurriedly in the face of
abject failure). Indian media regularly carried
reports chastising the state government of Tamil
Nadu as well as the federal government for
failing to act against the LTTE which drew
support and funds from well connected Indian
politicians who harbored sympathies for the
Tamil minority of SriLanka. (Thomas, Gordon
(2007). Gideon's Spies. Macmillan. pp. 536)