|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
112479
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This paper offers a history of belonging in Dahagram, a sovereign Bangladeshi enclave situated within India but close to the India-Bangladesh border. I recount Dahagram's post-Partition history, focusing particularly on the long and localized struggles between 1974 and 1992 to open the Tin Bigha Corridor, a land bridge through Indian territory that links Dahagram to the Bangladeshi mainland. Drawing on the memories and experiences of residents, I examine Dahagram's past(s) as narratives of postcolonial belonging: to fragmented conceptions of state and nation, to surrounding areas, and to the enclave itself. I focus on the overlapping tensions between national and local struggles to 'claim' Dahagram as Bangladeshi or Indian territory, and uneven processes of political inclusion within and around the enclaves and within the Bangladeshi State. I use 'belonging' as a double-entendre, as these tensions are all intimately linked to possession of land/territory, goods, and access to markets. The notion of belonging(s) helps to illuminate Dahagram's historical and contemporary cultural politics and political-economy, as well as its articulations with broader events in postcolonial South Asia. Yet, belonging is also an analytic for understanding how history is remembered and articulated as a claim to territory, rights, and membership in unstable places.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
109879
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The fencing of the India-Bangladesh border suggests finality in the territorial partitioning of South Asia. This article examines the converging and competing narratives surrounding the fence at the national level in India and in the borderland itself, focussing on the federal state of Meghalaya. From this comparison two main arguments are made. First, at the national level, narratives around migration, national security, counterinsurgency and trade underpin a powerful logic that is difficult to contest. By contrast, in Meghalaya the narratives are less cohesive and the logic of the fence is far more contingent on local politics. Second, not only is there a difference between the ways the fence is viewed at the national level and in the borderland, but there is differentiation within the borderland itself. These narratives provide insights into the different ways borders, citizenship and insecurity are viewed and politicised in contemporary Asia and beyond.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|