Abstract
Ethnic conflicts issue has perturbed China for quite a long period, hence China is not a one-Unified nation, PRC is very clear that Xinjiang was and is part of China just like its other disputed territorial claims and it does not recognize the Uyghurs as the indigenous people of Xinjiang calling them settlers. In this paper, I have studied the PRC’s official history of Xinjiang and the historians’ history who are specialized in Xinjiang and the Silk Road history to understand the two different narratives that are fundamentally different and incompatible from each other. The framework used is the typology of qualitative studies as this is helpful to assess the situation theoretically and categorize accordingly. Beijing is very harsh towards the Uyghurs and has detained over one- million of the Uyghurs for ‘re-education’ to show its legitimacy and they are considered a threat to the state’s existence, post 9/11 China has been using this global Islamophobia wave justifying that all steps taken by the state are to combat radicalization. This paper is not about the Uyghurs trace being found connected to external non-state actors, whereas the study takes a dig in securitization discourse discussing that, the Uyghurs does not have a structured way of attacks like terrorists, its more of showing dissatisfaction against the authorities because neither they have the autonomy nor have any rights to exercise. The Chinese policies are countering them back in terms of attacks because the Uyghurs are relatively deprived and they are in a constant source of competition with the Han Chinese.
Highlights
This study is about finding out the causes of the ethnic conflict in Xinjiang and when does the conflict turn violent or whether ethnic divisions inevitably generate violence and why China is using securitization theory discourse as a shield against the atrocities done on the Uyghurs and other Turkic ethnic groups
Xinjiang region geographically is placed at a strategic location and it has the potential of a re-escalation of conflicts in the future much scholarly attention should be given to this particular restive region
Using power by the state to curb the disturbing forces because that is a threat to sovereignty but every time this tool does not work, securitizing an issue is an extreme version of politicization the issue is framed either as a special kind of politics or as above politics
Summary
This study is about finding out the causes of the ethnic conflict in Xinjiang and when does the conflict turn violent or whether ethnic divisions inevitably generate violence and why China is using securitization theory discourse as a shield against the atrocities done on the Uyghurs and other Turkic ethnic groups. Chinese history and why Xinjiang region is so important to Beijing that it will stand firm on the methods it has adopted to eradicate a particular ethnic group despite all the international pressure and will not succumb to it. Ethnic unrest has been a part of international society through history and it is a highly contested phenomenon and still is a part of 21st C, generally, the scholarly debated on ethnic conflict is categorized into three major theories of ethnic conflict i.e. Primordialism, Instrumentalism, and Constructivism (Williams, 2015)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
