Bombs or Ballots: How Do Aggrieved Ethnic Groups Determine Their Political Strategy?

Abstract

Why do some groups with ethnic-based grievances in democracy choose terrorism while others select peaceful tactics such as forming a political party? To understand the decision-making process, I conduct a detailed district level analysis of ethno-nationalist terrorism in India.

Using an original district level database, I find that infrastructure plays an important role in creating institutions, civil society, and democratic norms over time. Areas with a developed infrastructure are more likely to have strong institutions and democratic norms, which ultimately create trust in the ability of democratic process to address grievances. Aggrieved ethnic groups in areas with developed infrastructure are consequently more likely to form political parties. In contrast, areas with an underdeveloped infrastructure lack the same institutions and norms and are more likely to resort to violence, specifically terrorism.

Historically, the terrain of the land played a substantial role in determining which areas developed a strong infrastructure in India. The British Raj essentially ignored areas with rugged terrain as they built their expansive infrastructure. This left areas isolated, underdeveloped, and with weak institutions. What is unique about the underdeveloped regions is that the same environment that prevented infrastructure and institutional development also provides an ideal environment for terrorist movements.

Keywords: terrorism, india, ethno-nationalist