| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
161980
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
067234
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
135148
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article argues that Jawaharlal Nehru’s vision of Asian identity was central to his view of India’s foreign policy. His vision enthused many in the last phases of World War II but the seemingly contradictory elements inherent in this vision ensured that it also had its critics within India, Asia and the world. However, by century’s end, the ideational framework that Nehru had so assiduously constructed since 1920 gained meaning in different contexts after Nehru’s demise. The vision of Asian identity that he put together began to inform Asian regional and subregional institutions and organisations. The analytical framework that he evolved, through non-alignment and the Panchsheel principles, presented an alternative to Cold War binaries. As a result, his view of Asian identity had positive implications for issues of conflict management, economic interdependence and community, the maintainence of peace by abjuring military alliances, guarding against the surrender of sovereign rights and, more recently, for a definition of security as human security. At home the task remains to reinvent his vision for a new phase in India’s foreign policy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
174935
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The Mausam Initiative has not met the expectations with which it was announced. As a flagship initiative of the Government of India, its programmatic framework remains unclear and the understanding of the Initiative unifocal. Apart from the effort to transcribe it in the UNESCO’s world heritage list, there is little clarity on how the ancient, mediaeval and premodern histories of the Indian Ocean (IO) may resonate with our times and concerns. There is also little thought put to what this can mean in writing a revisionist history of the Indian Ocean World and what that revisionist writing would mean to India’s relations with its IO neighbours. This article will outline briefly the Mausam Initiative as it stands and what a revisionist history of the IO region could suggest. Many of the discussions around this are already present around the IO intellectual and scholarly circuit, dislocating notions of dominance, sovereignty and statecraft. It remains for policymakers to take note of these to nuance the Mausam Initiative and make it an actually effective arm of policy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|