| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
153123
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
At their meeting in New Delhi in April 2005, the then Indian and Chinese leaders, Manmohan Singh and Wen Jiabao, reaffirmed the elements of consensus underlying the future trajectory of their bilateral relations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
160498
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article discusses the plight of the Indian community in China after the World War II. During the World War II, a sizeable number of Indian immigrants in China had been mobilised under the banner of the Indian National Army (INA), which was fighting for freedom from British colonial rule in alliance with Japan. This article seeks to understand the complex problems faced by the Indians in China in the aftermath of the War both because of the general dislocation they had suffered on account of war and occupation, and also because of their active or passive participation in a movement seen as ‘collaborationist’. It looks at how, for the British, Chinese and even Indian authorities, the issue of their status as ‘collaborators’ coloured the humanitarian issue of providing relief to a severely afflicted community. It also attempts to show how the wartime political activities of Indians in China not only had immediate consequences for them but also in some cases had an afterlife, which lasted for quite a few years after the War.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
152280
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article analyses the contrary approaches and perceptions of India and China across the economic, political and military domains including the unresolved border and territorial issues, China’s South Asia policy, military modernisation and nuclear competition, border infrastructure and its impact on military build-up in the border areas. In particular, the article investigates how India–China relations have changed under Chinese President Xi Jinping. Although some continuity is discerned in China’s policies, there is also greater aggressiveness and more vigorous efforts to balance India on China’s part.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
164693
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This introduction explains the rationale for this special issue of Asian Security. It begins with a short discussion about the relevance and the utility of the term “security dilemma” in international relations. The concept, which emerged during the Cold War, has since been used extensively to describe India-China relations. This special issue attempts to add to our understanding of the India–China relationship as well as to contribute to enriching the theoretical literature in a number of ways. First, it represents the first detailed effort to present a set of analyses that encompasses theory, history, and the full spectrum of strategic issue areas to explain the dynamics of a key contemporary inter-state relationship involving China and India. Second, the analysis reveals the complexity of security dilemma politics by highlighting how states respond to their predicament in different ways. Third, this special issue draws attention to an area that has been largely neglected in the literature: the relationship between the security dilemma as a concept and domestic politics. Finally, a case can be made that a security dilemma-type response in a situation that does not demand it may actually create a dilemma where none existed before. These and other complexities are abundant in this collection of articles. The chapter concludes by summarizing the main arguments presented by the contributors to this special issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
164697
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article examines whether the concept of a security dilemma is useful in understanding the trajectory of India–China relations over the past seven decades. It considers several phases through which this relationship has passed and it argues that the security dilemma has never been at work. The relationship is characterized not by a security dilemma but by fundamental conflicts of interests. These have been exacerbated or ameliorated by changes in domestic politics and the wider strategic context. Going forward, too, these factors are likely to influence relationship.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|