The Masculinist Security State and Anti-terror Law Regimes in India

Abstract

The “war on terror” has seen an exponential rise in extraordinary laws enacted for addressing terrorism. These legal regimes for curtailing terrorism enhance the coercive powers of the state. The justification for enhanced powers is two-fold, based on the argument of overwhelming necessity not covered by law, and on the other hand, drawn from the “logic of masculinist protection”, where a strong state is desired for the protection of citizens. An examination of specific cases under the (now repealed) Prevention of Terrorism Act and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act in India shows that the masculinist security state functions through the enhanced legal powers of coercion, but also on the principle of production of gendered subordinate citizens. Even though all citizens are feminised in relationship with the masculinist state, the laws against terror, while figuring the author of “crimes of terror” in gender-neutral terms, produce gender-differentiated effects. This is brought out in the trial of women accused under anti-terror laws and also in the unfolding of the jurisprudence of suspicion, which works on the principle of association, bringing the family, and often the entire community, within the purview of the security apparatus of the state.