| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
187166
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article seeks to explore the colonial encounters with Pashtuns of the erstwhile North West Frontier Province (now renamed as Khyber Pakhtunkhwa), Pakistan and their mythical Orientalist constructions in the colonial historical and ethnographic accounts of the late 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. The recurring colonial images and the transformation of colonial discourses and post-colonial effects on Pashtun identity and society are analyzed in this research article. Noticeably, it looks into the paradigm shift from the anthropocentric views of Pashtuns to Orientalized and Europocentric ideas by applying Edward Said’s influential thesis of ‘Orientalism’ and integrating the work of other post-colonial thinkers. This research article draws upon archival, anthropological, ethnographic field data to supplement the textual analysis and challenge the Orientalist and colonial representation of Pashtuns. The ethnographic field data were gathered through in-depth interviews with various Pashtun intellectuals, poets, writers, and authors from various institutions in Peshawar and Charsadda. However, this research article demonstrates that there are colonial biases and Eurocentric constructions of Pashtuns in the colonial accounts and texts. The colonial biassed representations of Pashtuns are transformed into postcolonial discourses. Pashtuns and Pashtun society are still uncritically analyzed through colonial lenses and spectacles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
146766
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The article explores the concept of political postcolonialism and how political groups appropriate and contest this discourse. Elites and contesting political groups utilise postcolonial rhetoric to legitimate their political goals by projecting that their country, in this case Kazakhstan, was colonised by the Tsarist Russia and then by the Soviet Union. For President Nursultan A. Nazarbayev’s nationalising regime the status of Kazakhstan as a colony represented a vital item in post-1991 nation-building projects. Political opposition and Kazakh national-patriots contested this official discourse, blaming the regime for scarce efforts towards ‘full decolonisation’. The absence of major intellectual discussion allowed these elites and political players to reappropriate these discourses in the political rather than critical intellectual domain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|