PUBLICATIONS IN JOURNALS / WORKING PAPER SERIES

“Pre-Colonial Warfare and Long-Run Development in India” (co-authored with Dincecco, Fenske, Menon); The Economic Journal, published online at https://academic.oup.com/ej/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ej/ueab089/6429308; earlier version published as University of Warwick CAGE Working Paper, June 2019.

Abstract: We analyze the relationship between pre-colonial warfare and long-run development patterns in India. We construct a new geocoded database of historical interstate conflicts on the Indian subcontinent, from which we compute measures of local exposure to pre-colonial warfare. We document a positive and significant relationship between pre-colonial conflict exposure and local economic development across India today. This result is robust to numerous checks, including controls for geographic endowments, initial state capacity, colonial-era institutions, ethnic and religious fractionalization, and colonial and post-colonial conflict, and an instrumental variables analysis that exploits variation in pre-colonial conflict exposure driven by cost distance to the Khyber Pass. Drawing on archival and secondary data, we show that districts that were more exposed to pre-colonial conflict experienced greater local pre-colonial and colonial-era statemaking, and less political violence and higher infrastructure investments in the long term. We argue that reductions in local levels of violence and greater investments in physical capital were at least in part a function of more powerful local government institutions.

“Colonial Origins of Sons of the Soil Insurgency: Maoist Rebellion in Central India.” Asian Security, April 2021.

Abstract: What is the role of colonial institutions in creating the conditions for nativist sons of the soil (SoS) insurgency? The literature on sons of the soil conflicts has not explored the historical legacies of colonial institutions for insurgency, neither has it analyzed SoS insurgencies in ideological leftist cases. Also, the mechanism of land-related sons of the soil conflict that Boone (2017) studies has not been sufficiently analyzed by this literature. I address this gap, by proposing a theory of how different types of British colonial indirect rule in India created extractive land tenure institutions and land resource exploitation of indigenous tribes by ethnic outsiders, which persisted through path dependence (Mahoney 2000), and how such SoS grievances were mobilized by Maoists to foment rebellion. I use the case of Maoist rebels in the former princely state of Bastar in central India to do process tracing of the mechanisms leading from colonial indirect rule to SoS insurgency (Goertz 2017), and also briefly engage with other cases of leftist insurgency in Colombia, Mexico and Philippines where the same mechanism can be observed.

“Colonial Legacies and Insurgency in India: Developing an instrument for colonial choice of indirect rule based on historical wars”, CLIO: Newsletter of Politics and History Section, APSA, Volume 29, issue 1 (Winter 2019-2020).

“Colonial Origins of Maoist Insurgency in India: Historical Indirect Rule Institutions and Civil War.” Journal of Conflict Resolution, Volume 62, Issue 10, October 2018.

• Awarded an 'Honorable Mention' for the Mary Parker Follett Best Article Award, Politics and History Section, APSA 2019

Abstract: What are the long-term effects of colonial institutions on insurgency? My paper shows the historical origins of insurgency by addressing the puzzle of why the persistent Maoist insurgency, considered to be India’s biggest internal security threat, affects some districts along the central eastern corridor of India, but not others. Combining archival and interview data from field work in Maoist zones with an original district level quantitative dataset, I demonstrate that different types of British colonial indirect rule set up the structural conditions of ethnic inequality and state weakness that facilitate emergence of Maoist control. I address the issue of selection bias, by developing a new instrument for the British choice of indirect rule through princely states, based on the exogenous effect of wars in Europe on British decisions in India. This paper re-conceptualizes colonial indirect rule, and also presents new data on rebel control, and pre-colonial rebellions.

“Historical Legacies of Colonial Indirect Rule: Princely States and Maoist insurgency in Central India.” World Development, 2018, 111 (113-129).

Abstract: What are the long-term effects of colonial institutions on insurgency? The literature on civil wars has not explored the historical legacies of colonial institutions for insurgency. I address this gap in the literature, by exploiting sub-national variation in the most important internal security threat in the world’s largest democracy—the Maoist insurgency in India. Within India, I focus on the crucial case of the Maoist rebels in the tribal state of Chhattisgarh in central India which epitomizes the causal mechanism of indirect rule through native princely states creating enclaves of weak state capacity and low development with tribal grievances within a relatively strong state. I test my theory on a new dataset at the sub district level within Chhattisgarh, and use instrumental variable regression to address endogeneity due to selection bias, combined with historical analysis and interview data to demonstrate path dependence. This study demonstrates historical origins of ethnic inequality and weak state capacity which are important explanations for civil war onset. It also sets the agenda for further research on other cases where colonial institutions create conditions for insurgency, like the Taliban in FATA in Pakistan, the ethnic insurgencies in Burma’s peripheries, and leftist insurgencies in Nepal, Peru and Colombia.

“Insurgencies in India – Origins and Causes”, in Sumit Ganguly, Manjeet Pardesi, Nicolas Blarel (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of India’s National Security. 2018.

“Insurgency and counter insurgency in South Asia”, in Sumit Ganguly, Joseph Liow and Andrew Scobell (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Asian Security Studies, 2nd edition. October 2017.

“Why are the Longest Insurgencies Low Violence? Politician Motivations, Sons of the Soil and Civil War Duration”. Civil Wars, Volume 16, Issue 2, 2014.

Abstract: There is a puzzle yet unanswered by theorists of civil war—why are the longest insurgencies low levels of violence? I argue that medium capacity states with multiple insurgencies tend to choose a counter insurgency strategy of containment vis-à-vis peripheral sons of the soil insurgencies, causing them to become stalemated low scale conflicts. While the current literature focuses on commitment problems, or low state capacity to explain such persistent low intensity insurgencies, my theory suggests that central politicians of these medium capacity states try to follow a policy of containment, particularly vis-à-vis the peripheral ethnic ‘sons of the soil’ insurgencies which are of low priority in terms of threat to political survival of these central politicians. The theory is tested on the Fearon (2004) dataset, and shows that those medium capacity states which have multiple conflicts and sons of the soil insurgencies tend to have low intensity long lasting insurgencies. This paper contributes to the literature on civil war duration, and also to the literature on sons of the soil conflicts. It investigates the different conditions under which state elites do not have sufficient incentives to try and eliminate rebels, because it is unacceptably costly to do so.

 “Colonial Origins of Maoist Insurgency in India: Long Term Effects of Indirect Rule—Chapter 5: Econometric analysis of spatial variation in Maoist insurgency in India”, CASI Working Paper Series No. 13-01, January 2013.

Abstract: This is the previous version of the Journal of Conflict Resolution article, which focused mostly on the quantitative testing using IV2SLS analysis to address selection issues, and was published in the Center for Advanced Studies of India (CASI) Working Paper Series, University of Pennsylvania.

WORKING PAPERS

“Varieties of indirect rule and insurgency in India.”

o   Stage of Preparation: Paper presented at APSA 2020 and ISA 2021 conferences.

“Subnational variation in counter insurgency against the Maoist insurgency in India.”

o   Stage of preparation: this is based on my second research project for which I received the SSHRC-IDG grant. I will be working on this while writing chapters for my next book project in 2021-22 during my sabbatical.

“Legacies of Maoist conflict and control on land reforms in India” (co-authored with Patricia Justino, UNU-WIDER)

o   Paper proposed for the Institutional Legacies of Violent Conflict, UNU-WIDER Working Paper Series, https://www.wider.unu.edu/project/institutional-legacies-violent-conflict

BOOK REVIEWS:

Review of Rumela Sen, Farewell to Arms: How Rebels Retire without Getting Killed, Oxford University Press, 2021, at South Asia Reading Group (SARG), Summer 2021, The Center for Contemporary India, University of California, Berkeley; at https://indiacenter.berkeley.edu/sarg/sarg-2021

POLICY PAPERS/ MEDIA:

·       “India-Pakistan crisis following terrorist attack in Pulwama, Kashmir”, Interview with Jennifer Burke, CTV News Channel, March 1, 2019, https://www.facebook.com/CTVNewsChannel/videos/291062724906013/

·       Aditi Malik and Shivaji Mukherjee. “Why Kashmir may see Increased Violence after the Revocation of Article 370,” The Monkey Cage Blog, The Washington Post, August 14, 2019.

·       Shivaji Mukherjee, “India’s actions in Kashmir are increasing chances of conflict,” Toronto Star, August 14, 2019, https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/2019/08/14/indias-actions-in-kashmir-are-increasing-chances-of-conflict.html

·       Aditi Malik, Shivaji Mukherjee & Ajay Verghese. “In India, thousands are protesting the new citizenship law. Here are 4 things to know.” The Monkey Cage Blog, The Washington Post, December 31, 2019.