The Indian state has been adopting controversial policies for countering the Maoist insurgency. Even worse, this behaviour seems to mirror Britishcolonial attitudes against India’s population at some level. Consequently, this article attempts to understand this probable ‘paradoxical’ conduct. Withthe support of the post-structuralist theory, I discuss state and outsourced terrorist practices of the Indian state apparatus against this insurgency. Toreach this goal, first, I try to explicate the concept of state terrorism and its application in India. Then, I analyse the historical development of theMaoist movement and India’s concrete policies of state and outsourced terrorism against this counter-hegemonic movement. I believe the British Raj’scolonial practices have had a deep dialectical influence on India’s state apparatus and major political parties to date. So, this inquiry may clarify thepersistence of colonial practices within India.The Indian state has been adopting controversial policies for countering the Maoist insurgency. Even worse, this behaviour seems to mirror Britishcolonial attitudes against India’s population at some level. Consequently, this article attempts to understand this probable ‘paradoxical’ conduct. Withthe support of the post-structuralist theory, I discuss state and outsourced terrorist practices of the Indian state apparatus against this insurgency. Toreach this goal, first, I try to explicate the concept of state terrorism and its application in India. Then, I analyse the historical development of theMaoist movement and India’s concrete policies of state and outsourced terrorism against this counter-hegemonic movement. I believe the British Raj’scolonial practices have had a deep dialectical influence on India’s state apparatus and major political parties to date. So, this inquiry may clarify thepersistence of colonial practices within India.