Article annotations
Jain, B. M. (2003). India-China Relations: Issues, Trends, and Emerging Scenarios (China-India Project Occasional Paper No. 1). Hong Kong: Centre of Asian Studies, University of Hong Kong.
Jain proceeds through the history of Sino-Indian relations, starting from the starry eyed 1950s of Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai, to the nadir of 1962 and the decades of mistrust that endured until the late 1980s. In 1987, upon Arunachal's formation as a state of India, the Chinese advance into the Somdurang Chu Valley almost precipitated another war, which prompted Rajiv Gandhi to renew attempts to find a lasting peace. In September 1993, Narasimha Rao's visit to Beijing "culminated in the signing of an agreement on the LAC" and launch of bilateral border trade. However, in 1998 upon India's nuclear tests, relations went into a deep freeze until 2001, when Vajpayee again tried to extend his hand in friendship.
Jain's last point, is also his most geopolitically salient, as he lays the case for forging a partnership that can counter the increasingly unilateralist position of the world's remaining superpower. Ironically, it was the US during the Cold War that played an integral part in the Asian Stalemate where the Soviet-Indian alliance was countered with Pakistan and China in tight partnership (including the exchange of nuclear technologies!) Now China is increasingly worried about the US's tilt towards India as a means to triangulate and pin down China in the 21st century. But Tibet remains a major irritant, as China seems "allergic" to the Dalai Lama for his successful campaign to make Tibet cause-celebre, which by its very nature marks the Chinese as human-rights violators and god forbid, Imperialists!
However, for my purposes, the article doesn't elaborate on the bilateral trade situation beyond common strategy at the WTO and other global economic issues. [link]
Murshed, S. M., & Gates, S. (2004). Spatial-Horizontal Inequality and the Maoist Insurgency in Nepal (Discussion Paper No. 2004/43). Helsinki, Finland: UNU-WIDER.
Murshed and Gates point a couple of key features of the ongoing insurgency in Nepal in this article. Section 2 looks at this theoretical determinants of uprisings in the past, positing them between grievance on one hand where ethnic, class, caste, etc. discrimination and victimization play a part, to greed on the other where the contest for resources such as oil, diamonds, etc. prompt a deadly civil war. Ethnic identification in particular is cited as a strong organizing factor, far superior to class in inducing collective action. The authors also bring up the social contract that prevents grievances from spilling over into violence. Most importantly though, the authors point out that a military solution to the insurgency is exactly the wrong approach as it encourages the very same autocracy that has laid the groundwork for the uprising. Moreover, the conflict has an important spatial aspect in that certain regions of Nepal are poorer than others and thus more likely to rise against the government. Thus the authors have corrollated the socio-economic position of each district with the intensity of the conflict. [link]
Srikantia, S. V. (2000). Restriction on maps: A denial of valid geographic information. Current Science, 79(4), 484-488.
Srikantia decries the official secrecy that has denied Indian scientists and geographers accurate data about their country for more than 30 years. All topographic and geographic maps of the area within 80km of the border, on the scale 1:1,000,000 and larger have been restricted since at least 1967. Thus even today, no definite map of the border areas is available in India, although oddly enough maps are available elsewhere. The author makes the case that these restrictions no longer make sense in the age of satellite imagery, and should be repealed, especially so that scientists can deal with the pressing issues involving the border regions. I second that wholeheartedly! [link]
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home