| Summary/Abstract |
In the decade following independence, India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka all saw ethnic protests as a result of nationalist language policies. The outcomes of these protests varied from peaceful co-optation by the state to civil war. What explains this? Research on ethnic unrest in the region has focused on structural factors, using identity cleavages, social networks, and ethnic fractionalization to explain how an ethnic group may behave during periods of unrest. In contrast, this paper examines three cases of ethnic protests in the context of state response. Tracing the process of the unrest, I identify specific positive or negative state actions as determinants of how the unrest resolves. Where the state bars protesters from access to the democratic sphere, violent conflict results. Where the state actively engages with protesters in the democratic sphere, the protests are peacefully co-opted. The findings show the costs to a state of taking hardline stances with protesters in situations of ethnic unrest and how they may engage with protesters to defuse unrest.
This is the content viewer section. Skip to metadata section.
|