The recent discussion in the Lok Sabha on Left-Wing Extremism was both serious and necessary. For decades, the Indian state has grappled with insurgencies that challenged its authority through violence. Yet the very seriousness of that debate throws into sharp relief a deeper, more uncomfortable question: Can a constitutional democracy afford to be selective in its moral and political anxieties about violence? If our commitment is genuinely to the Constitution, then the answer must be an unequivocal no. To treat violence differently depending on whether it is directed against the state or carried out in the name of the majority is to abandon the very neutrality that the Constitution demands.

Max Weber defined the state as the entity that claims a monopoly over the legitimate use of violence. However, this monopoly is not absolute; it is conditioned by legality and accountability. When non-state actors, whether insurgents or vigilante groups, resort to violence, they undermine this monopoly. But while insurgent violence openly contests the authority of the state, vigilante violence often operates in a grey zone, implicitly drawing legitimacy from majoritarian sentiment or........

© Indian Express