| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
151221
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Violence presents us with an interesting motif to study colonial politics, aptly captured in James Milne’s telling metaphor. Its inextricable association with colonialism implied a gradual conflation of political order with civilisation that is discernible in extant writings. The conventional paradigm in International Relations (IR) regards order as coterminous with the domestic domain and anarchy to be the structural attribute of international politics. This dichotomous divide permits little space for the hybrid states of existence of both anarchy and order that were often witnessed in the colonies and written about. The article examines the manner in which colonialism applied the notion of violence to the Indian context that was in denial of such complexities. It further argues that bringing imperial relations within the ambit of IR would help explain the differentiated interpretations of sovereignty that marked the parallel existence of the sovereign state system and the imperial political system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
182411
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Postcolonialism has proven to be a fertile ground for interdisciplinary enquiries into the loci of power and agents of change. It has provoked intellectuals to ask probing questions about the exclusions, disparities and invisibilities they detect as pervading international politics, both elite and everyday. This sensibility has informed analyses that examined imperial associations with globalization,1 identity,2 memory,3 development,4 and indeed, with the international itself,5 among other issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
182412
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The article looks at British India’s Burma campaign of 1941–45 and asks why the decisive battles of Imphal and Kohima appear to be virtually invisible from India’s national imagination today. It further critiques dominant readings of the twin battles for their failure to accommodate the heterogeneity of experiences and contributions of the hill tribes of the India-Burma borderlands who fought in it. The omission appears even more intriguing given that despite being on the winning side, the border communities end up losing the memory battle. While it questions the conventional notion that memory is the postcolonial state’s prerogative, it also recognizes that counter-memories are by no means monolithic. It makes the case for acknowledging alternative constructions and communities of practice that imaginatively decenter the construction of memory in the borderlands. Without connecting with the lives, and in turn, the memories of the border communities who inhabit the physical sites of the war, the cliché of the “forgotten war” will remain an overused, and ultimately, an offensive trope.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|