Securing Capital and 'Harvesting Deaths' - Warwick ID No.1666129 PDF

SECURING CAPITAL AND ‘HARVESTING DEATHS’
Warwick ID No. 1666129
CONTENTS
1. Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................2
2. Theories of bio-politics and securitization ........................................................................................................3
3. Global War on Terror post 9/11 and re-securitization of bio-politics ..............................................................5
4. Re-naming bordering practices in contemporary era .......................................................................................8
5. Indian state and the creation of borderlands lands in re-securitization practice ..........................................10
6. Conclusion .........................................................................................................................................................16
1
1. INTRODUCTION
The securitization and bio-political bordering practices are changing in context of “war on terror”
and the neoliberal global regime of power. The (re)securitization and bordering practices have
undergone vast changes as it is no longer limited to containing territorial threats or securing subjects
(citizens), rather the current bio-political bordering is only concerned with securing the interest of
capital, regulating the subject and containing the “other”. In this essay, I will talk about re-
securitization and bio-political bordering of taking place in some parts of India such as “Red
Corridor” in context of neoliberal desires and “war on terror”. In order to investigate this issue
certain questions need to be asked such as, how the process of bordering takes place and where does
the power to identify and border the “others” lie? What are the new techniques of power that are
being used for bordering? And what is being secured against whom and to what end? In the essay, I
argue that in order to re-securitize the capital while it is bordering the “others” unwanted and
dissenting abject, the Indian State has created a fear in the society by exaggerating the threat by
naming it as “Naxal insurgency” or “terrorism”, not only that it has de-politicized any form of
dissent in the society by doing so as well as it has used “war on terror” and UN Security Council
Resolution (No. 1373) for making “state of exception” a permanent state. In the first part, I discuss
the theories of Foucault and Agamben to understand the bio-political (b)ordering from a theoretical
perspective; in the second and third part, I discuss changing technologies of bio-political bordering
practices in context of global “war on terror” and how it has affected the naming and placing of
subjects, abjects and desirable figures; in the fourth part, I discuss the re-securitization and bio-
political bordering practices in India (particularly focusing on the situations in Chhattisgarh and
Jharkhand) and how it has securitized global capital while exposing its people to the uncertain future
filled with violence; and at last I conclude that global neoliberal capital is the new sovereign which is
2
molding the security practices of the states for its own interest and unleashing terror on dissenters
who do not confirm to free market values.
2. THEORIES OF BIO-POLITICS AND SECURITIZATION

In order to make sense of re-securitization and bio-political bordering in contemporary world we
must take into account Foucault‟s „technologies of power‟1 and Agamben‟s production of „bare life‟2
for getting a sense of bio-political bordering. Foucault argues that bio-politics bordering of the
subjects emerged and underwent many transformations with the formation of modern western
state 3. Approaching bio-politics from the perspective of technologies and mechanisms of power
rather looking at it from the juridical-political lens he argued that bio-politics uses techniques of
discipline (used at micro-level to train and put surveillance on individual bodies to produce a
normalized individual) and technique of regulation (at the macro-level by producing scientific and
statistical information about populations) to „regularize humans as species/population‟, so, it treats
life as machine that can be regularized and controlled in order to produce a static and normalized
society.4 But, he also argues that while regularizing populations sovereign divides human population
into sub-species as superior-inferior and naturalizes them on the basis of technical and scientific
knowledge, social Darwinism and historicism (historico-political account of struggles) and produces
“others” and sovereign take away the life of “others” in order to „regularize‟ and securitize life in
general5. Thus he suggests that technologies of power divides population, creates others, it creates
1
Michel Foucault, “Societies Must be Defended”: Lectures at the College De France (1st edn, St. Martin's
Press 2003), pp. 239-265
2
Giorgio Agamben, Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life (1st edn, Stanford University Press 1998),
pp. 71-74
3
ibid (n 1) pp. 254
4
ibid (n 1) pp. 239-265
5
ibid (n 1) pp. 254-260
3
conditions for the desirable to live while lets undesirable “others” to die. (Societies must be defended,
Michel Foucault).
Though Foucault argued that techniques of power and bio-political security developed over a period
of time, for Agamben „politics has always existed in the bio-political domain‟ which got exposed
through the sovereign practices of modern state6. He draws on Aristotle who differentiated between
natural life and political life and claimed that both and separate and exclusive7. But, Agamben says
that by the very creation of division between natural and political life, natural is included in political
by “inclusive-exclusion”8. In contemporary age the distinction between natural and political life has
become blurry because of the production of “bare life” by the sovereign in the zone of in-distinction
where life is neither human not political9. “Bare life” is produced through bio-political division of
humans into one who is worthy of living and the other who is not. The very existence of “bare life”
is framed as an exception situation that should be dealt with by the sovereign by making “state of
exception” the permanent state of being, living and existing10. Drawing on Agamben, William takes
the argument further and says that in the contemporary context along with the bodies the borders
have also become mobile and a „generalized bio-political border‟ is formed, re-formed and un-
formed on the bodies of subjects everywhere at the whims and fancies of the sovereign11.
While making sense of the works of Foucault and Agamben it is quite evident that both have
divergent views about bio-political securitization. While, the former argues that it is the technologies
6
ibid (n 2) pp. 15-29, 126-135
7
ibid (n 2) pp. 126-135
8
ibid (n 2) pp. 126-135
9
ibid (n 2) pp. 71-74, 126-135
10
ibid (n 2)
11
Nick V Williams, The generalised bio-political border? Re-conceptualising the limits of sovereign power, Review
of International Studies (2009), 35, 729–749
4
of power which evolved over a period of time has produced subjectivities and bordering of “others”
for a regularized security, while the latter argues that bio-political was always political and sovereign
produced “bare bodies”, bordered them for legitimacy of its claim over decision making power.
Thus, the question that should be asked is that how the process of bordering takes place and where
does the power to identify and border the “others” lie? What are the new techniques of power that
are being used for bordering? And what is being secured against whom and to what end? In order to
understand the re-securitization and bio-political bordering is taking place we need to ask these
questions. In the next section I have discussed in detail drawing on the recent works of theories that
have tried to sovereignty and provide an alternative account of bio-political bordering in the global
securitization regime in context of war on terror and neoliberal global ordering.
3. GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR POST 9/11 AND RE-

SECURITIZATION OF BIO-POLITICS
In this section drawing on Foucault, Baxi and Nayar, I argue that sovereignty is not a static thing
which produces subjects and borders 12. Rather, the location of sovereign (which in a traditional
sense is assumed to be state) in the contemporary scenario is changing with growing intervention of
national/transnational capital in the practices and functioning of the state, its interests in the bio-
12
Upendra Baxi, The Future of Human Rights (Oxford 2006); Michel Foucault, “Societies Must be
Defended”: Lectures at the College De France (St. Martin's Press 2003); Jayan Nayar, On the Elusive Subject of
Sovereignty, Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2014/17, accessed on 1st January 2017
https://www.academia.edu/11222539/On_the_Elusive_Subject_of_Sovereignty
5
political bordering practices and securitization of the global and national capital13. Now I will deal
with the question of what is being secured, how and by whom against what?
Further, the security state in contemporary context perpetuates its control and decides the existence
of being and living in conformity with the neoliberal order by means of evolving “technologies of
powers” (such as, biometric identification, corporeal and electronic surveillance techniques, crime
records)14. It enables the neoliberal state to re-define and re-differentiate humans on the pretext of
promoting the interest of global capital15. In the global neoliberal order the bordering practices are
changing and lives are divided into compliant modern subjects, non-compliant “banned” others and
the license figures for securitizing territories and capitals from the “banned” or “othered” abject
figure16. This reconfiguration is taking place because of reconfiguration of state, its function and
sovereign powers. It is popular assumption that sovereign state‟s authority is absolute, paramount
and unquestionable and the state has the right to life and death17. But, in contemporary context
naming and placing of subjects, their right to life and death is no longer decided by the state rather
these functions and powers have shifted in the hands of the global neoliberal order run by the
license figure while state still remains relevant for enforcing those decisions because of it being a
13
Anupama Roy & Ujjwal Kumar Singh, The Masculinist Security State and Anti-Terror Law Regimes in
India, Asian Studies Review, Vol. 39, No. 2, 2015, 305-323; Will Jackson, Securitization as De-
politicization: De-politicization as Pacification, Socialist Studies 9 (2) Winter 2013, pp. 146-166
14
Will Jackson, Securitization as De-politicization: De-politicization as Pacification, Socialist Studies 9 (2)
Winter 2013, pp. 146-166
15
ibid (13) pp. 305-323, 146-166
16
Jayan Nayar, On the Elusive Subject of Sovereignty, Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2014/17,
accessed on 1st January 2017
17
ibid (16)
6
naturalized sovereign18. The process of naming and placing of lives as compliant subjects (who is
modern and is a consumer) and “banned” or the “othered” (traditional, pre-modern i.e., Tribals,
Muslims, Dalits who dissent against the hegemonic control of market over their lives and livelihood)
is facilitated by the technologies of power19. Thereafter, in order to promote and secure the interest
of global capital and for the containment of “banned” or the “othered”, “state of exception” which
is assumed to be a temporary is re-constructed by the state as the permanent state of being and
living 20 . The permanency of “state of exception” prioritizes capital interest in the garb of
development agendas and in this process produces “others” in the “zone of in-distinction” by
detention, torture, interrogation, suspension of rule of law, denial of the right to free trial, executions
and mass killings which is made possible by the extra-ordinary juridical-political regimes in order to
contain the spill over and promotion of market interest21. The neoliberal global order that is hostile
to any deviation from its policies is quite instrumental in the production of “others” and it facilitates
the reconfiguration of borders as generalized bio-political borders that are configured and re-
configured on the bodies of individuals in order to crush any form of dissent and deviation from the
market friendly approach 22 . In my view, “war on terror”, counter-insurgency operations, fake
encounter killings in public, sexual violence in custody and in public, detention of political activists
and individuals belonging to certain communities are some of the examples of „generalized bio-
political bordering‟.
18
ibid (16)
19
Pavan Kumar Malreddy, Domesticating the “New Terrorism”: The Case of the Maoist Insurgency in India,
The European Legacy, (2014) Vol. 19, No. 5, pp. 590–605
20
India, Asian Studies Review, Vol. 39, No. 2, 2015, 305-323
21
ibid (n 20) 305-323
22
ibid (n 20) 305-323, 146-166
7
4. RE-NAMING BORDERING PRACTICES IN CONTEMPORARY ERA
Now I would like to draw some light at how the process of re-naming, “othering”, generalized bio-
political bordering and creating bare lives is realized. First of all, it is important to notice that we live
in the age of “war on terror” where the “terrorist” is defined and re-defined as neo-traditional, non-
traditional and so on, in order to suit the interest of the neoliberal state and to curb any form of
resistance to the national/global neoliberal order 23 . The “neo-traditional terrorist” is new in the
sense that it is someone who does not have the rationality and it is driven by extremist ideologies
informed by religious fundamentalism 24 . Identifying “neo-traditional terrorist” as fanatic, cultural
and religious makes them apolitical in the liberal world because religion itself in the liberal world is
depoliticized 25 . Also, the developed states who have waged “war on terror” in the hegemonic
leadership of USA never acknowledge their historical involvement in the acts of terrorism in form of
“Right to Protect” which is nothing more than an attempt to turn the world into the global
homogenized order of liberal states in the garb of development and securitizing the world26. In this
new configuration of bio-political bordering any kind of dissent which is expressed by political
movements and activists whether it is related to climate change, global poverty, land grabbing,
environmental protection is de-politicized by the state and market forces by speech act where the
movements gets discredited by showing that only way to deal with these problem is never ending
upward march to unsustainable growth and market friendly approach 27. Once the debates about
23
ibid (n 20) 305-323, 146-166
24
ibid (n 14) 146-166
25
ibid (n 14) 146-166
26
ibid (n 14) 146-166
27
ibid (n 14) 146-166
8
these human concerns are de-politicized then the state names and places the non-conformists in the
category of “internal threats”, “extremists” and “terrorist”28.
The de-politicization of terrorists is followed by account of omnipresent and invisible threat which
can unleash the feared acts of violence anywhere and at any point of time 29. States generates fear
among compliant subject and projects itself as their savior and uses abstract existence of
extraordinary threat to generate fear in order to obtain consent of compliant subjects in order to
make “state of exception” or the “culture of impunity”30, as the permanent state of being and living
which in turn exposes subjects to technologies of power such as, surveillance, investigation,
interrogation, policing in everyday life where they have to prove their innocence and confess their
complicity to the status quo 31 . Although, living in the permanent state of exception anyone and
everyone can potentially become “othered” if they deviate from being compliant subject, but, as
Butler pointed out that taking into account structural discrimination and differences makes some
lives more prone of becoming bare lives than others32. Thus, by creating extraordinary regimes of
power security state exposes certain communities such as Tribals, Muslims and other marginalized
sections of population to the danger of becoming suspect communities and thus at any given point
of time the individuals belonging to these communities can become “other” and sometimes whole
28
ibid (n 20) 305-323
29
ibid (n 20) 305-323
30
ibid (n 20) 305-323
31
India, Asian Studies Review, Vol. 39, No. 2, 2015, 305-323; Pavan Kumar Malreddy, Domesticating the
“New Terrorism”: The Case of the Maoist Insurgency in India, The European Legacy, (2014) Vol. 19, No. 5,
pp. 590–605; Gautam Navlakha, Days and Nights in the Heartland of Rebellion, accessed on 1st January
2017 https://www.scribd.com/document/65600159/Gautam-Navlakha-Days-and-Nights-in-the-Heartland-of-
Rebellion
32
ibid (n 11) 729–749
9
community gets “bordered” and pushed to peripheries by the process of “othering” 33 . These
security practices create “borderlands” within the borders where the “others” are produced and
reproduced on a permanent basis at the whims and fancies of the global capital.
5. INDIAN STATE AND THE CREATION OF BORDERLANDS LANDS

IN RE -SECURITIZATION PRACTICE
In this section I will deal with the re-securitization practices and bio-political bordering in India and
will draw its link with the global security ordering, therefore I will discuss the relation between New
Economic Policy (NEP) implications, creation of SEZs and the regime of extra-ordinary terrorism
laws. First of all it is important to state that, after the economic liberalization and policy changes that
happened in the 1990s India entered in an era of creation of Special Economic Zones (SEZs),
privatization, destatization, increased foreign investments, budgetary cuts for welfare schemes.
These policy changes such as, creation of SEZs, land acquisition, displacement of people from their
land due to development projects were resisted with great vigor by the tribals and dalits and other
marginalized sections of population34. Be it land grabbing and dislocating farmers under the garb of
SEZ policy by the West Bengal State in Nandigram for setting up chemical hub35 or the struggle of
Tribals in Jharkhand, Orrisa, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh for protecting their
habitat, land and forest against the mighty state which is working in collusion with transnational
33
Paula Chakravartty, Translating Terror in India, Television and New Media Vol. 3 No. 2, May 2002,
pp. 205–212; Pavan Kumar Malreddy, Domesticating the “New Terrorism”: The Case of the Maoist
Insurgency in India, The European Legacy, (2014) Vol. 19, No. 5, pp. 590–605
34
Anand Teltumbde, Khairlanji: A Strange and Bitter Crop (Navayana Publishing 2008) pp. 111-133
35
Gautam Navlakha, Days and Nights in the Heartland of Rebellion, accessed on 1st January 2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/65600159/Gautam-Navlakha-Days-and-Nights-in-the-Heartland-of-
Rebellion
10
capital for extracting those minerals36. In order to silence any form of dissent against its neoliberal
agenda the state (central government) took advantage of the global “war on terror” discourse to
name some communities as “terrorists” and “insurgents” that are acting in bad faith against the
national interest37.
Thus with the speech act of the state where it names and border some communities as trouble
makers helps to carry forward its agenda of re-securitizing and bio-politically re-bordering.
Although, in the current re-securitization regime we all are prone to becoming “others” due to the
enactment of extra-ordinary laws as permanent laws, but in this regime some (non-compliant
subjects) are more to becoming “others” then the compliant subjects such as, the tribals and dalits
of Chhattisgarh, Orrisa, Jharkhand, Muslims in general and human rights activists38. After creating
the atmosphere of fear in the „Indian Psyche‟ the state passed exceptional terror legislations and also
encouraged the local (state) governments to enforce exceptional measures and laws (such as, The
Chhattisgarh Public Safety Act, 2005) in their respective states. Indian state was quite active in
36
37
Anand Teltumbde, Khairlanji: A Strange and Bitter Crop (Navayana Publishing 2008) pp. 111-133;
India, Asian Studies Review, Vol. 39, No. 2, 2015, 305-323; Pavan Kumar Malreddy, Domesticating the
“New Terrorism”: The Case of the Maoist Insurgency in India, The European Legacy, (2014) Vol. 19, No. 5,
pp. 590–605
38
Ujjwal Kuman Singh, War in the Heart of India, (Sage Publications India Pvt Ltd 2009); Living in the
Shadow of Terror, Coordination of Democratic Rights Organisation (CDRO), 2013, accessed on 1st
January 2017
http://pudr.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/Jharkhand%20report%20for%20web%20site.pdf; Who is
the state Hunting, Coordination of Democratic Rights Organisation (CDRO), 2012, accessed on 1st
January 2017 http://pudr.org/sites/default/files/chhattisgarh%20report%202012.pdf
11
complying with the United Nations Security Council Resolution No. 137339 which places obligations
on the states party to prevent terrorist activities in their territories. This gave the neoliberal Indian
state a golden chance to enacted exceptional laws such as POTA (Prevention of Terrorism Act,
2002) and UAPA (Prevention of Unlawful Activities Act, 1967) arguing that it was under obligation
to enact POTA otherwise it will be a breach of international obligations40. And with the enactment
of POTA the state of exception was made a permanent state of being and living in the state of
fearfulness as it gives extra-ordinary powers to the state for taking exceptional measures in the name
of promoting national interest 41 . POTA has many similarities with USA‟s Patriot Act, it even
criminalizes motive and authorizes state apparatus to intercept, surveillance, remand suspect to
custody, refrain from giving bail42. When POTA was repealed after protest the state incorporated
39
Security Council Resolution No. 1373 (2001 accessed on 1st January 2017
http://www.un.org/en/sc/ctc/specialmeetings/2012/docs/United%20Nations%20Security%20Co
uncil%20Resolution%201373%20%282001%29.pdf
40
Anil Kalhan, Gerald P Conroy, Mamta Kaushal, Sam Scott Miller & Jed S Rakoff, Colonial
Continuities: Human Rights, Terrorism, and Security Laws in India, Columbia Journal of Asian Law, vol.
20, no. 1, 2006. p. 93-234, accessed on 1st January 2017 http://0-
www.heinonline.org.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/colas20&div=6&
start_page=93&collection=journals&set_as_cursor=0&men_tab=srchresults
41
ibid (n 20) 305-323
42
The European Legacy, (2014) Vol. 19, No. 5, pp. 590–605; Anil Kalhan, Gerald P Conroy, Mamta
Kaushal, Sam Scott Miller & Jed S Rakoff, Colonial Continuities: Human Rights, Terrorism, and Security
Laws in India, Columbia Journal of Asian Law, vol. 20, no. 1, 2006. p. 93-234, accessed on 1st January
2017 http://0-
www.heinonline.org.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/colas20&div=6&
start_page=93&collection=journals&set_as_cursor=0&men_tab=srchresults
12
many provisions of POTA into UAPA (Prevention of Unlawful Activities Act, 1967) through
amendment43 . The creation of these laws in the name of promotion of national interest creates
“borderlands” and produces some sections of the population that dissent against the policy of the
state as “others”. On mere suspicion individuals who are suspected of carrying on any terrorist or
unlawful activity can be arrested, interrogated, put into custody and denied bail44. The provisions of
these laws are so stringent and draconic that at the first place it denies right to free trial for the
suspect, thus, they are not even left with the right to defend themselves45. Law in this sense enables
and legitimizes the use of modern technologies of power for surveillance, monitoring, interrogation,
investigation, detain and torture subjects in their everyday life.
The most prominent example of bio-political bordering and re-securitization is the Jharkhand and
Chhattisgarh which has been turned into “borderland” within the “borders” by the very naming of it
as “Red Corridor or Naxal belt”46. Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand are mineral rich states and most of
their area is covered with dense forest which is inhabited by the Tribal population mostly and some
Dalit as well 47 . Tribal population in India is one of the most marginalized groups due to the
structural discrimination they have faced. Historically, Tribals were coerced and forced to live in the
forests or far away from the settlements of caste Hindus. While Dalits lived on the peripheries,
Tribals were “invisible” and existed in the mythological tales of Hindus which carves out their
ancestors as savage, brutal, non-compliant and irrational48. The history of tribals and their struggle is
43
ibid (n 40)
44
ibid (n 42) 590-605,
45
ibid (n 40)
46
47
ibid (n 35)
48
Nandini Sundar, Debating Dussehra and Reinterpreting Rebellion in Bastar District (Central India), Journal
of Royal Anthropological Institute (N.S.) 7, 19-35
13
very complex and which cannot be covered here, but, it is important to notice here that Tribals were
always the “other” of the mainstream population in India and continue to be “othered” in new ways
in the contemporary scenario. In the 2000s the state of Chhattisgarh signed MoUs with transnational
corporations such as Tata steel and ESSAR for opening plants on the lands inhabited by Tribals49
which led to wide spread resistance against these development projects in this region especially in
Bastar and Bijapur in the form of Naxal insurgency and violent confrontation with the state
apparatus50. In order to curb the insurgency and to make it safe zone for capital investment, the state
is unleashing terror on the tribal population by keeping constant and continued military, para-
military and police presence in the region 51 . The army, police and people‟s militia (Salwa Judum
volunteer) are given free hand to kill tribals in extra-judicial encounters, rampaging and burning the
villages, raping women, beating villagers and destroying their farm produce in order to curb any
form of dissent and to secure the land for transnational firms by driving out the tribal population
from the region in the name of “Salwa Judum” (2006 till date), “operation green hunt” (2009) and
“Mission 2016” (2016)52. This in turn has encouraged the tribal to join Naxal insurgency in order to
49
The European Legacy, (2014) Vol. 19, No. 5, pp. 590–605; Anand Teltumbde, Khairlanji: A Strange
and Bitter Crop (Navayana Publishing 2008) pp. 111-133
50
Who is the state Hunting, Coordination of Democratic Rights Organisation (CDRO), 2012, accessed
on 1st January 2017 http://pudr.org/sites/default/files/chhattisgarh%20report%202012.pdf
51
The European Legacy, (2014) Vol. 19, No. 5, pp. 590–605; Who is the state Hunting, Coordination of
Democratic Rights Organisation (CDRO), 2012, accessed on 1st January 2017
http://pudr.org/sites/default/files/chhattisgarh%20report%202012.pdf
52
ibid (n 51)
14
resist state violence and encroachment on their land 53 . At present, Chhattisgarh has been
transformed into a “war zone” with huge military presence and state has with the help of corporate
funding formed and funded private army in the name of Salwa Judum which had pure impunity to
commit terrible acts of violence and subject the Tribals to all sorts of humiliation in the name of
uprooting “Naxalism” out of the area54. There is no estimate and record of killings, displacement
and rape that took place since the very inception of Salwa Judum till date as killing has been
privatized (members of private militia were being given Rupees 1500/- per month for their service)
and state does not take accountability for the atrocities and horrendous acts of violence that took
place and is still going on. This shows that how state along with capital and local forces creates
“others” or the non-worthy human being in order to preserve the interest of transnational
corporations. It not only kills them but in order to contain them it creates check-posts and borders
in the form of camp run by private militia and army where they are forcefully kept, humiliated,
beaten up, sexually violated and tamed be good subjects and not supporting the Naxal insurgency55.
In this process, whole tribal community in Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand has been named and
branded as “Naxal” who need to be eliminated. Their bodies have itself become borders which can
be is inscribed every time a tribal is short dead in fake encounter, in custody, or burnt alive. The very
politics of Tribals and Naxals gets de-politicized when they are branded as “terrorist” and „single
largest threat to the national security‟56.
53
ibid (n 35)
54
ibid (n 35)
55
Ujjwal Kumar Singh, War in the Heart of India, (Sage Publications India Pvt Ltd 2009)
56
Anand Teltumbde, Khairlanji: A Strange and Bitter Crop (Navayana Publishing 2008) pp. 111-133;
Ujjwal Kumar Singh, War in the Heart of India, (Sage Publications India Pvt Ltd 2009); Ujjwal Kumar
Singh, Terrorism, State Terrorism and Democratic Rights (Sage Publications India Pvt Ltd 2009)
15
6. CONCLUSION
The bio-political bordering practices in India have changed after the “war on terror” discourse
became dominant. While the “war on terror” and “right to protect” principle is being applied on a
global level by in the leadership of USA to turn the world into liberal state for smooth flow of global
capital around the world and to secure safe and secure environment for the neoliberal desires to
flourish, the Indian state which is increasingly becoming more and more open to global capital and
is functioning as a puppet to advance the desires of national/global capital. So, to contain and crush
the resistance being faced by them in Chhaittisgarh and Jharkhand has used the “war on terror” for
naming “Naxal/insurgents” as “terrorist” and largest threat to the Indian Democracy and the
development agenda for legitimizing the enforcement of exceptional laws (such as POTA, UAPA,
Chhattisgarh Special Public Safety Act, 2005) permanent measures.
Thus, I argue that the bio-political bordering and re-securitization in the contemporary Indian
context has gone through huge transformation. First of all, “state of exception” was produced to be
the everyday reality of life post- 9/11 which gave way to the enforcement of extra-ordinary laws.
Second, before the economic liberalization, privatization, destatization the welfare state was in
existence which was assumed to guarantee the rights and entitlements of its citizens and was
accountable for realizing its welfare goals. But, after the economic liberalization, a new neo-liberal
state emerged whose primary role was promotion of interest of the national and transnational capital
(what Baxi calls it - Trade Related Market Friendly Human Rights (TRMFHR)), managing its middle
class urban population as subjects and othering “banned” by naming them as “Naxals insurgents”,
“extremists” or “terrorist”. Third, the “state of exception” or the special laws are being used by the
state to curb protests, resistant against global capital. At last, I will conclude by saying that global
neoliberal order is the new sovereign which is molding the security practices of the states for its own
interest and unleashing terror on dissenters who do not confirm to free market values and we have
16
entered in a period where „harvesting deaths‟ have become a normalized and daily routine which
ensures security of the global capital. In this process, tribals are facing the most brutal form of
suppression and annihilation though all individuals in India may run into a risk of being harassed by
such laws if they resist the might global capital.
17
Bibliography
1. Agamben G, Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life (Stanford University Press 1998)
2. Baxi U, The Future of Human Rights (Oxford 2006)
3. Chakravartty P, Translating Terror in India, Television and New Media Vol. 3 No. 2, May 2002,
pp. 205–212
4. Dillon M & Guerrero L L, Biopolitics of Security in the 21st Century: An Introduction, Review of
International Studies, Vol. 34, No. 2 (Apr., 2008), pp. 265-292
5. Foucault M, “Societies Must be Defended”: Lectures at the College De France (St. Martin's Press
2003)
6. Jones R, Agents of exception: border security and the marginalization of Muslims in India, Environment
and Planning D: Society and Space 2009, vol. 27, pages 879-897
7. Kalhan A, Conroy G P, Kaushal M, Miller S S & Rakoff J S, Colonial Continuities: Human
Rights, Terrorism, and Security Laws in India, Columbia Journal of Asian Law, vol. 20, no. 1,
2006. p. 93-234, accessed on 1st January 2017
http://0-
www.heinonline.org.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/colas20&
div=6&start_page=93&collection=journals&set_as_cursor=0&men_tab=srchresults
8. Lentzos F & Nikolas Rose N, Governing insecurity: contingency planning, protection, resilience,
Economy and Society Volume 38 Number 2 May 2009: 230_254
9. Malreddy P K, Domesticating the “New Terrorism”: The Case of the Maoist Insurgency in India, The
European Legacy, (2014) Vol. 19, No. 5, pp. 590–605
10. Navlakha G, Days and Nights in the Heartland of Rebellion, accessed on 1st January 2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/65600159/Gautam-Navlakha-Days-and-Nights-in-the-Heartland-of-
Rebellion
11. Nayar J, On the Elusive Subject of Sovereignty, Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2014/17,
12. Who is the state Hunting, Coordination of Democratic Rights Organisation (CDRO), 2012,
http://pudr.org/sites/default/files/chhattisgarh%20report%202012.pdf
18
13. Living in the Shadow of Terror, Coordination of Democratic Rights Organisation (CDRO),
2013, accessed on 1st January 2017
http://pudr.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/Jharkhand%20report%20for%20web%20site.pdf
14. Roy A & Singh U K, The Masculinist Security State and Anti-Terror Law Regimes in India, Asian
Studies Review, Vol. 39, No. 2, 2015, 305-323
15. Singh U K, Political Prisoners in India (Oxford 1998)
16. Singh U K, Terrorism, State Terrorism and Democratic Rights (Sage Publications India Pvt Ltd
2009)
17. Singh U K, War in the Heart of India, (Sage Publications India Pvt Ltd 2009)
18. Sundar N, Debating Dussehra and Reinterpreting Rebellion in Bastar District (Central India), Journal
of Royal Anthropological Institute (N.S.) 7, 19-35
19. Security Council Resolution No. 1373 (2001 accessed on 1st January 2017
http://www.un.org/en/sc/ctc/specialmeetings/2012/docs/United%20Nations%20Security
%20Council%20Resolution%201373%20%282001%29.pdf
20. Jackson W, Securitization as De-politicization: De-politicization as Pacification, Socialist Studies 9 (2)
Winter 2013, pp. 146-166
21. The Terror of Law: UAPA and the Myth of National Security, (CDRO), Coordination of
Democratic Rights Organisation April 2012, accessed on 1st January 2017
http://pudr.org/sites/default/files/UAPA.pdf
22. Teltumbde A, Khairlanji: A Strange and Bitter Crop (Navayana Publishing 2008)
23. Williams N V, The generalised bio-political border? Re-conceptualising the limits of sovereign power,
Review of International Studies (2009), 35, 729–749
19

Securing Capital and 'Harvesting Deaths' - Warwick ID No.1666129 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Securing Capital and 'Harvesting Deaths' - Warwick ID No.1666129 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SECURING CAPITAL AND ‘HARVESTING DEATHS’

Warwick ID No. 1666129

who do not confirm to free market values.

2. THEORIES OF BIO-POLITICS AND SECURITIZATION

statistical information about populations) to „regularize humans as species/population‟, so, it treats

securitization regime in context of war on terror and neoliberal global ordering.

3. GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR POST 9/11 AND RE-

market friendly approach 22 . In my view, “war on terror”, counter-insurgency operations, fake

4. RE-NAMING BORDERING PRACTICES IN CONTEMPORARY ERA

informed by religious fundamentalism 24 . Identifying “neo-traditional terrorist” as fanatic, cultural

category of “internal threats”, “extremists” and “terrorist”28.

5. INDIAN STATE AND THE CREATION OF BORDERLANDS LANDS

investigation, detain and torture subjects in their everyday life.

largest threat to the national security‟56.

Chhattisgarh Special Public Safety Act, 2005) permanent measures.

such laws if they resist the might global capital.

You might also like