| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
165011
|
|
|
|
|
| Edition |
South Asia Ed.
|
| Publication |
Oxon, Routledge, 2018.
|
| Description |
xix, 469p.: tables, abbrev.hbk
|
| Standard Number |
9781138363960
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 059632 | 305.9541/OIN 059632 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
131432
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article examines what motivated the dominions to make such a sustained and costly contribution to the war effort of the British empire during the First World War. With particular reference to Australia, it argues that imperial loyalty, now discounted as anachronistic, was the dominant ideology. Not only did it inspire the initial generous support for the British war effort but, for many Australians, the empire's cause invested with meaning the battle losses which were proportionately the highest of any dominion army. The Gallipoli campaign of 1915 is now celebrated as having given birth to the foundational narrative of the young Australian nation, but at the time this embryonic nationalism too was positioned within the framework of imperial loyalty. Moreover, with the conservative forces dominating federal politics after the divisive debates about conscription in 1916 and 1917, 'loyalty' became entrenched as the litmus test of political reliability. Hence, while Australia's Prime Minister W. M. (Billy) Hughes aggressively asserted the rights of the dominions to a new and more independent role within the imperial relationship in 1918 and 1919, this agenda for change found little support at home. It is therefore ahistorical to see the First World War as the birth of Australian nationalism in the sense that the term is understood today. Rather, imperial loyalty was affirmed by the British victory as the dominant ideology and proved able to accommodate the growing sense of national singularity that the war fuelled.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
165250
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Between 2009 and 2014, Thirumavalavan, the leader of the largest Dalit party in Tamil Nadu, served as an MP in Delhi. This paper draws on research with the Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK or Liberation Panther Party) to raise a number of key questions about representation and democracy in a multi-level federal system. Although they are a minor party, their experience of national politics offers insights into the workings of party systems in India. The paper considers the extent to which they are constrained by alliance partners and political rules-of-the-game. It then considers the question of representation, and asks what the VCK managed to achieve in Thirumavalavan’s constituency of Chidambaram and the extent to which they could raise issues at the national level both through formal and disruptive means. Finally, the paper reflects on the advantages and disadvantages for a small party of having a foothold in the Centre and draws out the lessons of the VCK’s experience for our understanding of Indian politics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|