State Violence in India: Insurgencies, Ethnic Conflicts, and Economic Disparity

India’s story of state violence is complex, woven through regions torn by insurgency, ethnic tensions, and widening inequality. From the hills of Northeast India to the contested valleys of Kashmir and the tribal heartlands where Maoist insurgents operate, these conflicts reveal how the state’s response to internal challenges often perpetuates cycles of violence rather than resolving them.

Northeast India’s web of insurgencies
The Armed Forces Special Powers Act dilemma
Kashmir’s intractable conflict
Economic liberalization and growing inequality
Violence born of disparity
Beyond military solutions

Northeast India’s web of insurgencies

Manipur presents one of the most complex insurgency landscapes in India. Multiple armed groups operate in the state, with the region witnessing the activities of various separatist organizations since the 1960s. The state’s troubled history began when it was merged into India in 1949, a move that many viewed as forced and involuntary.

The situation escalated dramatically, with various insurgent groups establishing parallel governance structures. In areas beyond state capitals like Imphal, insurgent groups often control territory, running their own justice systems and collecting taxes from residents. These groups maintain sophisticated networks, connecting with counterparts in neighboring states and across international borders in Bangladesh and Myanmar for arms, ammunition, and other supplies.

The ethnic dimension adds another layer of complexity. Violence that erupted in May 2023 between the Meitei and Kuki-Zo communities has resulted in over 260 deaths and displaced around 60,000 people. This conflict marked a resurgence of insurgent groups, with militant organizations witnessing increased recruitment as communities armed themselves.

The Armed Forces Special Powers Act dilemma

India’s response to these insurgencies has heavily relied on the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, enacted in 1958. This controversial legislation grants extraordinary powers to armed forces in areas declared “disturbed,” including the authority to shoot to kill, arrest without warrant, and search premises based on suspicion.

The law’s colonial origins trace back to British ordinances designed to suppress the Quit India Movement in 1942. While the government argues AFSPA is necessary for maintaining order in insurgency-affected regions, human rights organizations have documented numerous cases of alleged extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, and torture under the Act’s protection.

The immunity provisions in AFSPA have proven particularly contentious. Section 6 protects security personnel from prosecution without the Central Government’s sanction, creating what critics call a culture of impunity. However, the Supreme Court ruled in 2016 that this immunity is not absolute, stating that accountability for excessive force is mandatory.

The government’s approach combines this heavy-handed security response with development initiatives and quotas for educated youth. Yet this carrot-and-stick policy has failed to resolve the underlying grievances. As AFSPA continues in parts of Assam, Nagaland, Manipur, and Arunachal Pradesh, the disconnect between security measures and genuine resolution remains stark.

Kashmir’s intractable conflict

The Kashmir dispute represents perhaps India’s most enduring security challenge. The conflict began with Partition in 1947, when both India and Pakistan claimed the entire former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. Today, India controls approximately 55% of the region, Pakistan about 30%, and China 15%.

The conflict embodies competing fundamental allegiances. Indian nationalists view Kashmir as an integral part of India, basing their claim on the Instrument of Accession signed by Maharaja Hari Singh in 1947. Pakistani advocates argue the Muslim-majority region should be part of Pakistan, consistent with Partition’s logic. A third group supports an independent Kashmir, free from both nations.

Violence intensified in the late 1980s when armed insurgency erupted in the Kashmir Valley. India has accused Pakistan of supporting militant groups, while Pakistan maintains it provides only moral and diplomatic support for Kashmiris’ right to self-determination. The rigged 1987 state elections proved a tipping point, fueling support for armed separatist movements.

The 2019 abrogation of Article 370, which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir, marked a major shift in India’s approach. The move, accompanied by a communications blackout and mass detentions, deepened existing tensions. Recent violence, including the April 2025 Pahalgam attack that killed 26 people, demonstrates how the underlying conflict remains unresolved despite military presence and constitutional changes.

Economic liberalization and growing inequality

India’s 1991 economic liberalization promised growth and prosperity, but it also unleashed forces that widened existing disparities. The income share of the top 10% increased from 35% in 1991 to 57.1% by 2014, while the bottom 50% saw their share decrease from 20.1% to 13.1% over the same period.

This wealth concentration has been dramatic. Research shows that by 2014-15, the top 1% earned more than 21% of national income, while wealth inequality accelerated even faster. The bottom 50% experienced stagnation or relative decline in both income and asset accumulation.

Regional disparities widened significantly. States like Maharashtra and Karnataka attracted substantial foreign investment, while rural areas and eastern states like Bihar and Odisha lagged behind. The Gini coefficient rose from 0.32 in 1991 to 0.38 by 2018, reflecting growing income disparities.

The agricultural sector, employing 45% of the workforce, grew at a sluggish 2.5% annually post-1991, compared to 7% for services. This divergence left vast rural populations behind, creating what many call “jobless growth” – economic expansion that failed to generate adequate employment opportunities.

Violence born of disparity

The widening economic gap has fueled radical movements, particularly the Naxalite-Maoist insurgency. Originating from a 1967 peasant uprising in Naxalbari village, this movement now affects parts of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Odisha, Bihar, and other states in what’s known as the “Red Corridor.”

The movement’s causes are deeply rooted in socio-economic inequalities: landlessness among marginalized communities, exploitation of tribal populations, displacement from mining and development projects, and government neglect of basic services in affected regions. Tribal communities in resource-rich areas often derive minimal benefits from extractive industries, fostering grievances that Naxalite ideology exploits.

Research analyzing the Maoist conflict found that land inequality and lower incomes are significant factors behind violence. The study revealed that growth in incomes among Scheduled Tribes significantly decreases conflict intensity, highlighting how economic development can reduce insurgency.

The government’s response has combined military operations with development initiatives. However, as one analysis noted, by attacking development and infrastructure projects, Naxalites directly impede economic progress while perpetuating the cycle of poverty and marginalization they claim to fight against.

Beyond military solutions

India’s experience with state violence reveals a troubling pattern: reliance on military force and emergency laws without addressing root causes. Whether in Manipur’s ethnic conflicts, Kashmir’s competing nationalisms, or regions affected by Naxalite insurgency, purely security-focused approaches have proven insufficient.

The post-1991 liberalization period exacerbated these challenges. As the economy grew and wealth concentrated at the top, large populations in deprived areas found themselves left behind. This disparity created fertile ground for radical ideologies and violence, threatening the social fabric that development was meant to strengthen.

Sustainable peace requires more than military operations or temporary ceasefires. It demands addressing systemic inequalities, ensuring meaningful political representation, protecting minority rights, and distributing economic benefits more equitably. Until India reconciles its pursuit of economic growth with inclusive development and addresses historical grievances through dialogue rather than force, these cycles of violence are likely to continue.

What do you think? Can military-focused approaches ever truly resolve conflicts rooted in economic inequality and political marginalization? How might India balance security concerns with the need for systemic reforms that address the underlying causes of insurgency and violence?

References

PDF 📄

State Violence in India: Insurgencies, Ethnic Conflicts, and Economic Disparity

Table of Contents

Northeast India’s web of insurgencies 🔗

The Armed Forces Special Powers Act dilemma 🔗

Kashmir’s intractable conflict 🔗

Economic liberalization and growing inequality 🔗

Violence born of disparity 🔗

Beyond military solutions 🔗