International Relations of South Asia has yet to earn independant status in the region itself. Not only that, South Asian contributions in the mainstream International Relations barring a few important exceptions have been also minimal. During the process of searching universities that offers program in International Relations especially at the Master level that specialized or at least offers this subject are still limited.
Listed below are the universities that offers International Relations of South Asia:-
1. George Washington University, United States. Master Degree in International Affairs, The Elliot School of International Affairs. Name of the subject : IR of South Asia
2. Columbia University , United States. MA in International Affairs under the South Asia Institute. Name of the subject:- Indian Economy in Transition, Political Economy of Pakistan, Democracy in India, Globalization and Religion in South Asia, Comparative Politics of South Asia, Security in South Asia.
3. Chulalongkorn University, Thailand. MA in International Relations. Name of the subject : South Asian Politics.
4. Boston University, United States. MA in International Relations. Name of the subject : South Asia politics.
5. Tufts Unuversity , United States. MA in International Affairs under The Fletcher School. Name of the subject: South Asia politics.
6.School of Oriental and African Studies, United Kingdom. MA in International Politics. Name of the subject: Politics of Modern South Asia.
7. American Graduate School, Paris. MA in International Relations and Diplomacy. Name of the subject: South & Central Asian Politics.
There are also universities that offers regional studies in South Asia such as:-
1. The University of Chicago, United States. MA in International Relations under The Committee in International Relations.
2. University of Cambridge, U.K.
3. University of Michigan, U.S.
4. Brandeis University, U.S.
The theoretical Framework in understanding South Asian IR
The epistemic foundations of South Asian IR are on a weak footing as theoretical work remains a much ‘dreaded and despised’ enterprise across the region. This is partly due to ‘the persisting ethnocentrism or Americanocentrism of Western theories that often leads to alienation when its tools prove to be ineffective in understanding the ground realities that are rooted in a very different historical, social and cultural milieu’ ( Archarya: 2003). It is argued that all intellectual endeavours situated within the Western system of thought that seek to apply them ‘creatively’ in their specific local contexts qualify in IR theorizing. Scholars in South Asian IR have produced a lot of such work in theorizing IR though mostly at the sub-systematic level. This includes studies such as nuclear detterence, regionalism in South Asia and conflict and peace processes.
Behera argued that the critics however points to their limitations, as most scholarly analyses do not independantly decide what to ask and, how to answer. The fundamental problematiques of IR and theoretical frameworks for analysing these are already ‘given’ by the Western theories. The task of scholars is, therefore mostly confined to collecting relevant data in their respective domestic contexts and, if need to be, modify the parameters if their inquiry. But the terms modification are already decided by Western debates and modelling. This inhibits independant and creative analysis of Asian patterns and trends. (Behera: 2003) Only in eve of the debate over the rising power of Asia, with famously involves China and India has changed the paradigm of the traditionalist view in IR that opened the gate for in-depth study of South Asian politics.
The case of the concept non-alignment
This can be seen during 1950s to 1970s on the concept of non-alignment in IR disicpline. Scholar like Jawarhal Nehru is widely regarded as the founding father of non-alignment. He conceived it both as:-
i. a principle—of exercising autonomy in foreign affairs
ii. a mechanism or an ‘order-building’ instrument by trying to create a ‘third’ area of peace outside the two power of blocs so as to secure a more just and equitable world order.
Although dubbed as ‘immoral’ by the former US Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, non-alignment was never meant to be a moral code of conduct in IR. Its essence lay in freedom of exercising options on the basis of perceived national interests. Non-aligned movement created a coalition of more than 100states from Asia, Africa, Europe, Arab World, Latin America and the Caribbean that supported the decolonization process that literally changed the world’s geo-political landscape (Behera: 2003) However, the theoretical writings on this topic, non-alignment, rarely figured in the core IR journals published from North America and Europe throughout 1950s to 1970s. By that time, Indian scholars had little choice but to write books on non-alignment that was only distributed by Indian publishers which probably never found its way to the West. Indian scholars at that time are mostly only able to contribute journals to Indian Foreign Affairs, International Studies, Socialist India, Seminar, Yugoslav Survey, Yhe Indonesian Quarterly, Economic and Political Weekly and Africa Report—most of which are not mainstream journals in IR.
So, non-alignment figured in the context of IR theory are supposedly to adopt an alternative set of criteria that :’it be self-identified’ (Acharya and Buzan: forthcoming) by its creators as being IR theory even if its not widely acknowledged within the IR mainstream at that time. Sadly to say, the non-alignment was never recorded the status or recognition as a ‘systematic’ IR theory because it did not suit the interests of power that be.
The theoretical endeavors of South Asian IR are hummed by 3 sets of ‘given’ (Behera: 2008):-
1. The infallibility of their respective states modelled after the Westphalian nation-state
2. A thorough internationalization of the philosophy of political realism
3. A ‘positive’ faith in the wisdom of modernity
Bounded by these limiting assumptions, the terrain of traditional IRstands severely depleted as it has also impeded its undertakings in theorizing IR.With its constitutive ideas and practices and an abiding faith in the liberating the concept of ‘reason’ as it threw off the the shackles of ‘traditions’ and myth (Davetak: 1995: 31). The domain of IR was bounded in a manner that South Asia’s ‘traditional past’ got delegitimized as a possible source of knowledge creation in IR. A positivist enterprise precluded a debate about what issues of inquiry could be included in IR.
Several conceptualizations and critiques of nationalism by Mahatma Gandhi, Jawarhal Nehru, Rabindranath Tagore, M.S Golwalkar , V.D Savarkar, Bankim Chandra Chartejjee, Sri Aurobindo Ghish were at play in the political arena in the pre-independence India.
Ghosh wrote:-
“For what is a nation? What is our mother country? It is not a piece of earth , nor a figure of speech, nor a fiction of the mind. It is a mighty “Shaktis” (power) composed of all the “Shaktis” of all the millions unit of units that make up the nation..” (Cited in Singh 1967: 70-71)
He looked up India as a living and pulsating spiritual entity and nationalism was envisioned as a ‘deep and fervent religious ‘sadhana’ , a spiritual imperative essential for the emanticipation of the motherland from the colonial rule.
Savarkar argued that the Hindus are not only a nation but ‘race-jati’ . The word ‘jati’ derived from the root ‘jan’ means a brotherhood , a race determined by a common origin , possessing a common blood. He rejected the idea of a nation-state based on an abstract social contract with individualized citizens dwelling within its administrative frontiers.
A most powerful critiques came from Tagore :-
“What is a Nation ? It is the aspect of a whole people as an organized power. This organization incessantly keeps up the insistence of the population on becoming strong and efficient. But this strenuous effort after strength and efficiency drains man’s energy from his higher nature where he is self-sacrificing and creative. For thereby man’s power of sacrifice is diverted from his ultimate object , which is moral, to the maintenance of this organisation, which is mechanical. Thus, nation ‘controls the life of the individual insofar as the needs of the State or Nation make it necessary’
Traditional IR does not debate the philosophical underpinnings political strategies and goals of these conceptualizations based on historical traditions aand political philosophy taught as an IR syllabus. This ‘sliences’ are difficult to explain unless it may be argued that these problematiques ‘do not’ belong to the domain of IR because many of these ideas like spiritual connotations that has no place in the rational and scientific world of IR dismissed (Behera: 2003). This also illustrates the ‘epistemic violence’ , of political realism (Spivak : 2000). The ‘episteme’ , Spivak quotes Foccoult to point out ‘is the false’ , but of what may not be characterized as scientific. And what matters is that the spiritual notions of nationalism cannot become part of scientific, realist IR. The exercise of what is ‘excluded’ cannot be fully understood without understanding what is included. Political realism recognizes only one kind of nationalism ‘ala’ Eurocentric that led to the creation of the modern nation-state, which provide the bases of IR discipline (Behera : 2003.
Hence it is vital important to understand and examine the background of South Asian IR that is different from the traditional IR. Unlike the other social sciences, which is mostly learned from its ‘traditional past’ and shapes its future, the case of India and Pakistan indifferently need to be examine from its umbilical relationship with their respective states that shapes its nationalism.
