Search

The independence from the British rule was accompanied with partition of the Indian subcontinent on religious lines. Since partition in 1947, the two nation-states India and Pakistan have been hostile toward each other. Communalism has also been a major challenge in both these countries. The current study locates this continued hostility or the "enemy" narrative that the countries harbor not just of each other, but which also shapes the experience of a religious community within their territory. Limiting the inquiry to the Indian side, this paper explores the production of the "enemy" narrative through the discursive knowledge around partition and how it locates Muslims. The paper analyzes textbooks of two education boards in India and argues that the narrative excludes the contribution of Muslims in the nationalist movement, charts out an uncritical history of the demand for partition, and stigmatizes the Muslim community as "communal" and "unpatriotic." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ideology and cinematic representation are crucially linked even though a film's positioning of itself with respect to dominant state ideology may differ thus contesting the idea that films always serve as ideological state apparatus. In this context, the paper reflects on the complex ways in which the ideological positioning – advertently or inadvertently – of cinematic representations of Partition in Hindi films of the 2000s interacts with dominant state ideology to frame the relationship between self and other with the terms denoting India/Hindu and Pakistan/Muslim, respectively. Through an analysis of the representation of the India–Pakistan border in four films – Pinjar (2003), Veer-Zaara (2004), Uri: The Surgical Strike (2019) and Kya Dilli Kya Lahore (2014) – the paper argues that mainstream Hindi films are largely reflective of the state ideology, although to varying degrees and at times in spite of themselves. In contrast, a low-budget film as Kya Dilli Kya Lahore completely subverts the dominant ideology through its sensitive but incisive critique of the border. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

No other issue has influenced the India–Pakistan relationship more adversely than the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. To understand the discourse surrounding the dispute, and how it has evolved within the foreign policies of both countries, this research undertakes a critical discourse analysis of both countries' official statements at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) between 1948 and 2020. The findings of this study are crucial to not only understanding how the two states have been internationalizing the Kashmir dispute but also what lessons can be learned from the past as both countries attempt to slowly reengage with one another. Our analysis points to the fact that both India and Pakistan's stances on the Kashmir dispute, despite their varying phases throughout the conflict, have essentially remained the same. We argue that, despite seeming to have converged toward some form of resolution during the first decade of the twenty-first century, the current context of India–Pakistan relations presents a worsening trajectory that has not been witnessed since their last major war in 1971. In highlighting the cyclical, almost scripted nature of this debate, this paper attempts to suggest ways to break free from age-old tropes and help pave the way toward more meaningful ways to redefine the issue in light of a radically altered geo-political context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nuclear deterrence theory, featuring near equal powers and positing symmetrical consequences of nuclear hostilities, is based principally on the US-USSR confrontation during the Cold War. Except for the theorizing by the French Army Generals Pierre Gallois and Andre Beaufre to provide a rationale for France's force de frappe, there has been little thinking about nuclear deterrence between two states differing vastly in size and resources. This paper analyzes the weaknesses in the classical nuclear deterrence concepts and the Gallois-Beaufre theories generally in terms of their inapplicability to India-Pakistan wars, crises and nuclear conflict scenarios. It argues that factors other than deterrence are at work, like the sentiments of a partitioned Muslim community, kinship ties, shared ethnicity and culture, and the growing clout of the Indian Muslim voter. What has evolved is a unique system of restraints and conflict containment despite gross disparities between India and Pakistan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyzes the nuclear deterrence relationship between India and Pakistan in the context of a larger political conflict, and in the light of contemporary international relations theory. It finds mainstream deterrence theory and neorealist theory defective as the behavior patterns of India and Pakistan do not fit them in three important ways. It then examines the critiques of neorealist theory applied to the developing world and finds that a combination of a subaltern realist perspective and regional security complex theory best fits the India-Pakistan conflict, including its nuclearization. Lastly, it explores the conditions under which nuclear deterrence in South Asia can lead to a broad-based peace. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Outlines the contents of papers on nuclear deterrence, from the University of Pennsylvania, Institute for the Advanced Study of India, presented during a conference in New Delhi, India held in August 2005. Argument of E. Sridharan regarding nuclear deterrence; Association between international relations theory and nuclear deterrence, according to Rajesh M. Basrur; Issues raised by Rasul Bakhsh Rais relating to Pakistan's nuclear stability; View presented by Bharat Karnad regarding nuclear deterrence theory.

Presents abstracts of papers on international relations. "International Relations Theory and the India-Pakistan Conflict," by E. Sridhara; "International Relations Theory and Minimum Deterrence," by Rajesh M. Basrur; "Conceptualizing Nuclear Deterrence: Pakistan's Posture," by Rasul Bakhsh Rais; "South Asia: The Irrelevance of Classical Nuclear Deterrence Theory," by Bharat Karnad.