| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
148847
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This paper is being written against the backdrop of the traumatic
incident of Rohith Vemula’s suicide (17 January 2016)1
that has unleashed
in the media, on the one hand, a national debate on the implications of
being a Dalit in India at present, whereas, on the other, it has blazed a
trail of mutually competing, contesting, converging, condemnatory and
opportunistic views and voices sometimes marked by either grotesque
display of political correctness and sheer opportunism ranging from
revising the ogre of the caste-system and its inner contradictions,
“instant vilification” of almost all Hindus, Hinduism and the ruling party
of the day, the BJP, for all the ills and evils emanating from the castesystem,
conduct of the political establishment and the brazen
politicization of the Rohith-suicide case etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
188073
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Is radicalization inherently conducive to terrorism? This paper addresses this fault-line within discourses on radicalization by analyzing the political awakening and mobilization of British Muslims operating in environments targeted by violent-extremists. The results show that despite undergoing the “root causes” and “triggers” associated with radicalization, and even having direct contact with violent-extremists, research participants still rejected terrorism. This paper analyzes why participants’ radicalism promoted resilience to political violence rather than propel them toward it. It challenges the selection bias within terrorism and radicalization studies which constrain our ability to understand this phenomenon by focusing on the rare cases of people who support terrorism while ignoring its more common trajectories of non-terror related activism (or apathy). In correcting this bias, this paper proposes a more holistic definition of radicalization grounded in the lived realities of people undergoing that process and concludes with a discussion on what the findings mean for the assumptions underpinning academic discourses on this matter and state counterterrorism policies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|