1. A NTI S TATE VIOLENCE Contemporary Issues Sneha Subhedar Department of Mass Media Ramnarain Ruia College

2. State terrorism refers to acts of terrorism conducted by governments.

3. D EFINITIONS 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,

4. 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)

5. P ROF. S TOLHL AND G EORGE A. L OPEZ 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.)

6. 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.”

7. 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.

8. 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)