| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
114659
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In this article, I seek to examine some key mechanisms underlying the dichotomisation between Hindus and Muslims in Hindu nationalist history writing. Two arguments are central to this study. One is that the strict dichotomisation between Hindus and Muslims presupposes homogeneous categories. This is particularly clear if one examines how Hindu nationalist intellectuals made sense of ambiguities, of individuals and cultural traditions that did not fit directly into the categories, 'Hindus' and 'Muslims'. Moreover, I discuss the role of the so-called hidden 'Others'. I argue that these hidden 'Others' represent, in the form of alternative principles of grouping, the largest obstacle to the Hindu nationalist construction of a Hindu-Muslim dichotomy, both at the political level and within the field of history writing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
096965
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In conflict situations the protagonists are driven by rival visions of the past. The protracted conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is a particularly extreme case to illustrate this point. In protracted conflict like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict historians themselves are acting as combatants. In this regard, the article argues that history writing, particularly in the cases of protracted conflicts, constitutes an important part of the construction and reconstruction of security discourses whether by supporting mainstream security discourses or by challenging them. By discussing the role of history writing in the securitization process, this article aims to contribute to the centuries-long debates over the history-writing-politics nexus by taking a security studies perspective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|