Article contents
Massacres, Majorities and Money: Reparation after Sectarian Violence in India
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 April 2016
Abstract
This article evaluates reparation by the state after four of the worst episodes of violence against religious minorities in independent India. Examining official records obtained through India’s law on the right to information, I analyze government aid to victims after identity-based massacres over a 20-year period. I argue that there is a well-established repertoire of assistive measures after sectarian violence but, despite the resources available within a politically stable state, aid for victims of mass violence in India is unimaginative and meagre. I argue further that the political opportunity structure for reparations is limited by the fact that sectarian mobilization is embedded within electoral politics in India. Just as sectarian politics led governments to tolerate mass violence, it constricts the checks and balances that might lead to adequate reparation after violence subsides. I then suggest that opportunities to negotiate better reparation for victims expand over time, and propose that a law on reparation would constrain state bias and strengthen opportunities for victims to demand the support that they need.
- Type
- Law and Society in South Asia
- Information
- Copyright
- © Cambridge University Press and KoGuan Law School, Shanghai Jiao Tong University
Footnotes
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, Chinese University of Hong Kong. I first explored some of the ideas in this article while co-ordinating a project at the Centre for Equity Studies in New Delhi on the Indian state’s response to mass violence. I am very grateful to Harsh Mander at the Centre for Equity Studies for his support and advice. I would also like to thank the International Development Research Centre, and Navsharan Singh in particular, for supporting this project. Project findings were presented in Chopra (2014a). This article—Section 4 in particular—draws upon my work in Chopra (2014b), pp. 311–31, but rather than the more descriptive focus of my previous work, seeks to analyze the flaws in Indian reparation programmes and consider why they recur. Correspondence to Surabhi Chopra, Asia Regional Office, 208 Jor Bagh, New Delhi 110 003, India. E-mail address: [email protected].
References
- 1
- Cited by