Just published in the Journal of Peasant Studies
This
article explores the way in which the Indian state and the incipient Maoist
state in central India mimic while repudiating each other. As against theories
of sovereignty which see it either as authored from below (contract theory) or
scripted from above (domination), or irrelevant to the extent that subject and state
are co-constituted by regimes of power (cf. Foucault), I argue that in civil
war, the display and practical exercise of statehood and sovereignty is critical.
However, this is primarily aimed not at putative citizens but at the enemy. I
look at the way in which the Indian state impersonates guerilla tactics in
order to fight the Maoists, and the way in which the Maoists mimic state
practices of governmentality. Each side identifies its own ‘citizens’ through
uniforms, lists of people killed, and inscribes its ‘territory’ with memorials
to its martyrs. For the presumed citizens
of these mimetic states, however, it is precisely these markers of identity and
legibility which make them more vulnerable. Membership of parallel regimes holds
out both promise and precarity.
