Delhi Blast Is 'Act of Terror,' But Only When *They* Say So
India has labeled the Delhi blast an 'act of terror,' signaling an impending crackdown on 'antinational forces,' primarily targeting Kashmir. This script is as old as the 1989 'Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act,' which grants security forces impunity for killings and arrests in regions like Kashmir. (According to Amnesty International, this legislation has been repeatedly criticized for human
rights abuses.) One might wonder: when India's own state apparatus commits violence against Kashmiri civilians, including documented extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances (as reported by UN human rights bodies), is *that* also an 'act of terror'? Or does the definition conveniently shift depending on who holds the gun and the narrative? The official line always draws a clear
distinction between state power and 'terrorism,' but for the victims, the distinction often blurs into the same brutal reality.