CIVILIAN PARTICIPATION IN POLITICS AND VIOLENT REVOLUTION: IDEOLOGY, NETWORKS, AND ACTION IN PERU AND INDIA A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of Georgetown University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Government By Devin M. Finn, M.A. Washington, DC May 25, 2016 Copyright 2017 by Devin M. Finn All Rights Reserved ii CIVILIAN PARTICIPATION IN POLITICS AND VIOLENT REVOLUTION: IDEOLOGY, NETWORKS, AND ACTION IN PERU AND INDIA Devin Finn, M.A. Thesis Advisor: Charles King, Ph.D. ABSTRACT How and why do ordinary people in democratic states participate in violent revolution? This dissertation explores variation in the confluence of civilians’ participation in status quo politics – through electoral channels and civil society action – and in violent insurgencies that seek to conquer the state. Through a comparative juxtaposition of Peru’s Shining Path and the Naxalite movement in India, I argue that an insurgency’s particular ideological interpretations and conceptions of membership shape civilian support by influencing everyday social relations between rebels and civilians and changing networks of participation. During war, civilians are agents of political mobilization, and rebels exploit social networks, which draw on historical forms of organization and activism and a long trajectory of political ideas about race, citizenship, and class. I examine people’s varied participation in violent politics in three settings: the regions of Ayacucho and Puno, Peru (1960-1992), and Telangana, a region of southern India (1946-51). Where communities in Peru drew on existing political resources – diverse networks that expressed peasants’ demands for reform and representation, and which emphasized commitment to democratic contestation over armed struggle – people could choose to resist rebels’ mobilizing efforts. Where communities lacked integrated political organization, insurgents implemented violent ideologies by repurposing local networks. iii Mobilization in Telangana, in contrast to Ayacucho and Puno, exhibited a fluidity of method that was sustained by peasants’ agency in building a wide-ranging movement, even as it crossed the line into violence. The study draws on ten months of field research in India and Peru, where I examined local and national archival records and testimonies and conducted interviews with former left party leaders, activists, and civilians in rural and urban areas affected by violence. I develop an ethnography of people’s participation in a range of political activities, from protests and voting to civil resistance and searching for the bodies of victims of massacres. The study emphasizes a distinct ontology of the practice of politics: as a continuum of acts that may emerge as violent, illicit, licit, and non-violent in differing moments and social and cultural contexts, and acknowledges the possibility that violent and nonviolent mobilization may reinforce one another. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS During several years of research, I have incurred considerable reasons to be thankful and multiple debts. These debts constitute opportunities for me to continue working, exploring, and sharing journeys with the people who have inspired and helped me the most. With that in mind, I am very grateful to my committee members for their challenging counsel, understanding support, and faith. It really has made all the difference. Charles King, as a mentor, has provided encouragement from day one, nurturing my approach to seeing and studying politics and violence. Charles has shown me that words matter, as well as place; that our work deserves care, creativity, and time; and that good social science is principled, systematic, and grounded in historical realities. He introduced to me the idea that doing research is like engaging in a “critical refinement of reality” with our interlocutors in the field, which has allowed me to understand a bit more what and why I am doing as a student of politics. Charles made it possible, by doing whatever was necessary for several years, for me to succeed and learn. For that there is no sufficient thank-you, but I am committed to continuing to do the kind of research that we both value. While I undertook research in the field in Peru, I worked with and learned from several individuals who are exceedingly generous and dedicated. Percy Rojas welcomed me with open arms, opened his world of activism and memory-making, and made it possible for me to gather the experiences of many people I otherwise could not have reached. We have traversed many mountain roads together. Gisela Ortíz Perea created a space for accompaniment and learning, and her interpretations, so rooted in the struggle for justice and truth, have left an indelible mark on v my understanding of how victims and their relatives process their experiences and make politics out of violence. The Equipo Peruano de Antropología Forense (EPAF) – Peruvian Forensic Anthropology Team – provided an intellectual home for me for many trips to Ayacucho over several years. José Pablo Baraybar and Hayden Gore supported my initial investigations and desires to travel with EPAF. I also owe deep thanks for accompaniment and companionship while traveling on the rainy roads and in the tiny hamlets of Ayacucho to Solange Jacobs and Edith González, who are leaders in their own artistic and humanitarian work. They helped me ask – and begin to figure out – what we were all doing out there. Ricardo Caro Cárdenas is a historian, friend, and formidable scholar. He introduced me to a fascinating and raw archive at a critical moment in my research, exhibiting a kind of trust that humbled me. I am thankful for his many wry interventions. José Luis Rénique generously provided advice and contacts as I prepared for research and interviews in Puno. For this I will always be grateful to him. Ana Pino Jordán is a curious scholar who opened her personal library, her home, and her stories and theories to me as I tried to find my footing in Puno and la región Sur Andino. I thank Gustavo Gorriti for sharing his experiences and guiding the line of my research in direct and strategic ways – and for correcting my pronunciation of “Hualla.” Jo-Marie Burt, through her inspiring devotion to studying Peru and advocating for justice, has set the highest of standards for research and activism that contributes to the defense of human rights. For this I am incredibly thankful; it has guided the emphasis and tenor of my work. Javier Puente provided great ideas, insider archive knowledge, and early support to my work in Peru. Ponciano del Pino vi generated theoretical insights and shared rich empirical knowledge in response to my questions about violence and politics in Ayacucho. Ruth Borja Santa Cruz, who encouraged and supported my first forays in the documentation and testimonies at the Centro de Información para la Memoria Colectivo y Derechos Humanos (CIMCDH) when she was the director of the archive there, may not be aware of how her kindness and example sustained my investigations. Years later, Ruth provided guidance on subsequent research and indulged my interest in working in the Archive of the Confederación Campesina del Perú, which she and her students rescued, quite literally, from the dustbin of history. Another source of early support for my overall project and research was the late Father Jeffrey Klaiber, whose profound knowledge of Peru transcended old stories and the right contacts, and who led me to the kinds of people and narratives that would deepen my project. I regret not having thanked him in person for all he offered me. Oscar García at the Biblioteca Nacional del Perú responded to my inquiries about periodical sources from the decades prior to the war with generosity and helped me navigate the hemeroteca. In Puno, Peru, I benefited greatly from the involvement of the Federación Departamental de Campesinos de Puno (FDCP) in my day-to-day research. Their willingness to facilitate contacts, grant me interviews, and provide me with historical materials revealed the organization’s extraordinary commitment to activism. Father Robert Hoffman, who responded to my many questions about the Church’s role in Puno with patience and a reflective attitude, was encouraging and knowledgeable. I would like to express my gratitude to those activists, journalists, political leaders, academics, and party militants in Peru and India who spoke candidly with me in interviews. vii Their memories and analyses will remain with me as I continue with this project and take on new investigations. While working in the uncharted (for me) realm of research in Delhi and Hyderabad, I benefited from the counsel of several people. Matthew Rudolph drew on his deep knowledge of politics and history and place to help me shape and reshape the framework of my research many times. He also provided many valuable contacts for intellectual and social support. Manny Teitelbaum provided support throughout the process of developing the project and conducting research in India, and as a committee member, reliably asked the difficult questions that made the project better. I appreciate his commitment to the project and to my growth in the profession. Milan Vaishnav presented me with ideas for contacts and fellow researchers working in some of the same strange and fascinating places in southern India. Amitabh Mukhopadhyay shared his life story with me, which traversed the complicated threads of political activism that I aim to highlight. Father Marianus Kujur welcomed me into the world of research on tribals and provided ideas, resources, and invitations to the field. Without the support of several institutions I would not have been able to complete the dissertation. The Georgetown University Department of Government, the Sié Chéou- Kang Center at the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver, and EPAF provided years of support to me and the dissertation project as it evolved.