| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
079886
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2007.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
There are three possible future articulations of India's Look East policy, each underpinned by a different conceptual orientation. Firstly, the Look East policy might be conceived as an extended security trajectory to project India's legitimate power and resist growing Chinese domination of the region. A second vision sees the Look East drive primarily as a strategy of economic cooperation based on globalisation and the pursuit of similar liberal policies by all the major states of the region. The third vision argues for a communitarian reading of the Look East venture, interpreting it in terms of sub-nationalisms and soft border exercises. While power, prosperity and community can be desired in equal measure, their policy implications vary, resulting in uneasy compromises, awkward bottlenecks and policy indecisions. Till India decides which image of space it wants to pursue, the power, market and community visions of the Look East initiative would keep playing against each other, generating complementarities as well as frictions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
061326
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Jan-Jun 2005.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
182415
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Public histories are narratives straddling across space and time, challenging the inside/outside distinction. Indian foreign policy makers have engaged in a selective remembering of the past in an attempt to script the making of a postcolonial state. The study takes up three cases from India’s foreign policy in elucidating how different imaginations of India’s identity has been refashioned to legitimize its foreign policy. These three cases point to Nehru’s decision to join the Commonwealth, Vajpayee’s strides for nuclearization and Modi’s approach toward the diaspora. We argue that foreign policy makers in India have either refrained from engaging with ‘public history’ due to their uncritical positioning in structural realism or erected versions of the past that happily rationalize their contemporary practices. The deployment of public histories has taken place to invoke India rightful place in the international order and as instruments in shaping public consensus which advances the interests of the elites in validating their foreign policy choices. This elite-driven exercise is shot through the dominant Western imaginations and cognitive categories although these elites self- consciously took charge of the destiny of a nation that had to be refashioned as ‘post- colonial.’
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
191716
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
India has used civilizational discourses as part of its foreign policy to articulate its rise and rightful place in the world order. This article primarily examines India's civilizational arguments in south Asia. India's civilizational arguments in the region demand scrutiny as the neighbourhood is a theatre of contestation between territorial India and the claims of its civilizational space. Analysing historical accounts on Indian civilization, official documents and domestic narratives in India about south Asia, the article makes three points. First, India's civilizational articulation oscillates between two paradigmatic and contrasting representations of Nehruvianism and Hindutva variants. Second, it is argued that despite the ascendancy of Hindutva's civilizational symbolism since 2014, India's south Asia policy shows no paradigmatic change. Finally, it points to how the Hindutva project may be detrimental to India's self-image and dealings in south Asia. The article argues that while there is no official corroboration of Hindutva's claims in India's south Asia policy, the increasing salience of the domestic discussions around Akhand Bharat (undivided India) invites complications for India in its neighbourhood. India's Hindutva-driven civilizational claims raise anxieties of an Indian cultural hegemony in an asymmetric region splintered across territorial and nationalistic lines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
135802
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The central argument of the article is that West Bengal’s regionalism is a two level game. The state’s predominant regionalism is financial, set in antagonistic terms vis-à-vis the Centre. This financial or economic regionalism is paradigmatic to West Bengal. The tragedy of Partition; exceptional sensitivity to any prospect of further loss of territory; a sense of betrayal and helplessness; blaming others rather than engaging in critical introspection about its secular decline as a front ranking industrial state; and the political dominance of the middle class espousing a so called “bhadralok” identity are pivotal factors in explaining the relentless dynamics of West Bengal’s financial regionalism, regardless of the party in power. West Bengal has constructed a sub-textual identity raised on soft Bengali nationalism bereft of overt and exclusivist cultural markers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
053247
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Kolkata, Deptt of international relations, 2004.
|
| Description |
541p.
|
| Standard Number |
8170950996
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 048458 | 327.1/MAJ 048458 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
151199
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Conventional international relations (IR) builds on Western problems and remain fixated on the Western understanding of war and conflict. Such ontology is grossly misleading to reflect upon and make sense of conflicts of the non-Western world. Western theories are based on ontological imaginations that are removed from the historical and sociological experiences of the non-Western world. Understanding non-Western conflicts requires an ontology based on the experiential reality of the post-colonial other. However, unless local variants are sufficiently factored in, it may also become as hegemonic as the Western imagination/s that it wishes to resist, counter and transcend. Conflicts in post-colonial societies demand explanatory frames sensitive to their historical and sociological specificities. The challenge before academic IR remains to question its Eurocentric ontology and historicise the subjectivity of the non-Western world. Epistemology is not the site for this much-needed breakthrough. Understanding the non-West is prior to understanding its conflicts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|