Max Weber defined the state as the "monopoly of legitimate violence" in society. This monopoly and the centralisation that it entails allows the state to become the enforcer of law and order, the provider of public services and to serve as the petri dish of economic activity.
If the state fails to achieve any of these aims, the society sooner or later descends into chaos. India has recently seen a spike in violence emanating essentially from the calloused religious philosophies, that threaten to derail the growth of a modern state.
With the coming of power of the BJP, the far right fringe of our country has had no hesitation in wielding the cudgel of violence upon those who they think are opposed to their philosophy. Essentially, this has meant that the vigilantes are allowed to supplant the state with the 'hood-winking' from authorities concerned as the beating of Dalits and massacre of Muslims show.
Another threat to the legitimacy of the state comes in violence stricken areas like Kashmir and Manipur, where the brutal AFSPA act has allowed presumed subvention of justice. This has made the infuriated citizenry to rise up in arms and deny the state the legitimacy to control the situation.
So far, the explanations given for the failure of the state to maintain its hold in these areas has been to blame external actors, to blame cultural/religious factors or even to blame the people themselves who have suffered the most out of the failure of the state's institutions.
In Daron and James's 'Why nations fail', attention has been focused on the economic and the political institutions that govern any country and their role in success or failure of the nation. Wherever crises has presented a strong economic incentive, a political sub structure has automatically cropped up. These structures enable the elites controlling the political structure to choose concomitant economic institutions without any constraints. This feedback loop forms the bedrock of an 'extractive' economic setup; enriching the same elites who use political power for their economic ends.
Incomplete Business of Independence
In more ways than one, the problem of Kashmir traces back to the very root of the problem that India as a nation is facing. Solving it would help us unravel the obstacles hindering our march to growth and prosperity. The violence of the partition and the quick war that followed forced Sardar Patel to retain the colonial administrative structure in order to consolidate the newly emerged nation's power.
This might have been helpful in the initial dark days, but since then, this decision of Sardar has brought on darker days. The legacy of the Raj, the Indian Administrative Services, retained the inegalitarian ethos and the mentality of an extractive institution. Same sort of oppression was used against the local populace, but this time the beneficiary was different. The articulation of post independence governance structures has been to perpetuate the inequity and to consolidate the power of the new elites.
It is for this reason that India cannot be said to have attained it's true independence even now. The elites might have changed their garb after independence, but the on ground situation for the millions of oppressed and deprived is yet to change.
The ineffectual judicial process, the biased policing and the corrupted political process cannot give rights and resources to the people in general. This leads to dissatisfaction, which can lead to violence and which in turn allows the draconian institutions to extend their power for the supposed reason to contain the violence that they helped create in the first place.
The economics of Kashmiri unrest
If there were no gains to be made by anyone, no revolution or revolt would ever start. The Kashmir problem has taken the shape of a village fair, where the same performances are repeated year after year for an enormous amount of profit for some and losses for others. The real question is to ascertain who profits from this entire show, year after year.
There is no doubt that the state of J&K is one of the most corrupt and mal-administered. There are pilferages at every stage and if there was no Kashmir issue, and no consequent central help packages, the state would have floundered long ago. Separatist leaders, Pakistani handlers, terrorist recruits all derive their profits in one way or the other; otherwise they wouldn't have orchestrated the massive propaganda campaign.
AFSPA keeps terrorist activity under control, however it also generates more terrorists, acting as a causa sui and thereby perpetuating another deadly cycle. Since almost no civil servant has been held accountable for the violence, the mishandling of the situation, the inability to counter the propaganda and the general mishandling of the state's economy; there is absolutely no incentive for the administration to improve the situation except for personal or moral reasons.
On the other hand, the powers and revenue mobilised to control the problems gives administrators more powers than they would have otherwise had. There are ways to control the crowd amicably, there are ways to set up intelligence networks to trap the key perpetuators of violence, to engage the society and so on. What is not there is the will to control the situation from within, for the elites and their extractive policies allow them to prosper out of this very situation; from extractions made on businesses, to cowing down people who raise dissent, to solidifying political positions, everything is as it should be, but only for some people.
Hollow Idealisms and Solid Money
It is like the middle ages all over again where princes fight for lands and glory, while the soldiers die. How would a common Kashmiri, a common Pakistani or a common Indian be better off with or without Kashmir? The children of the separatist leaders, of the political leaders on both sides of the border won't die and suffer. The biggest irony is that even if Kashmir goes to Pakistan (or becomes independent and then gets invaded by Pakistan), the common man would suffer more economic and political hardships like their brethren do in Pakistan Administered Kashmir. Then, the idealism of 'Azaadi' is revealed as hollow.
In the same vein, the rise of the right wing extremists is also because of the economic incentives gained by suppressing a certain class of people. Here the elites want to maintain their traditional socio-political hegemony by employing the spectre of the cow and religion.
Since the religion invoked sanctions won't work any longer, vigilantes try to enforce the inequity by force, making Dalits and Muslims suffer. Since the perpetuators and the ones who are in charge of controlling the situation both belong to the elite sections, the entire pogrom seems to be a ruse in order to increase economic and social powers of the elite.
The real problem is therefore that of political and economic structures and the real solution is a realignment of society more equitably. The vicious circle of poverty, poor education, lack of opportunities, frustration-violence, fringe political mobilisation has to be breached at every level simultaneously.
For this to be done, immense political will is required. Politics works on the incentives of the voters and thus ultimately, the burden of responsibilities comes down to us. The civil society needs to hold it's political representatives accountable for their actions and not be swayed by atavistic divisive campaigns.
A change has to begin with the civil society, but it has to begin with the individuals constituting it first. Unless each and every one of us becomes more compassionate, egalitarian, truthful in our daily lives, we will continue to suffer under a manufactured tyranny of those who choose to scare the masses and by whom the masses choose to be scared. an
