The political dispute over the territory of Kashmir is an intricate problem confronting the modern South Asian leadership. The intricacies of the conflict have led to voluminous writings on the region and evident from them is a greater focus on Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) as compared to the Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). The ‘escape’ of Pakistan–occupied Kashmir from the scholarly radar has begun to change only recently.
The Border Area Development Programme was initiated in the year 1986–87, to strengthen India’s security by ensuring developed and secure borders. Initially, the programme was implemented in the western border states to facilitate deployment of the Border Security Force. Later, the geographical and functional scope of the programme was widened to include eastern and northern sectors of India’s borders and as well as socio-economic aspects such as education, health, agriculture and other allied sectors. But, it is difficult to say that the implementation has been uniform in all the sectors.
Ladakh is one of the largest administrative units in India, in terms of its territory. Due to its contiguity with Xinjiang and Tibet and its close proximity to Central Asia, and enjoying a central position in the network of overland caravan routes that were linked to the Silk Route, Ladakh acted as an important gateway in the Indo-Central Asian exchange of men, materials and ideas through the ages.
Northeast India continues to be an industrially underdeveloped and infrastructurally deficient region. The poor condition of infrastructure in the region demands serious attention. Studies in the region reveal that a people’s perspective of development, i.e., roads, electricity, telecommunications and water, falls rightly within the ambit of critical infrastructure. Critical infrastructure is directly linked to economic development, national security, access and availability of educational and health infrastructure.
This article is a moderate attempt to understand the various ideas associated with ethnicity and ethnic conflicts, and to study the nature, trends and typology of ethnic and insurgent conflicts in the North East Indian states (viz. Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Manipur, Nagaland and Tripura) from 1990 to 2016, using the UCDP/PRIO Armed Conflict Dataset.
The debate over what constitutes terrorism spans a wide, diverse and largely a competing body of intellectual strands. In particular, the lack of consensus on the need (or otherwise) for a universally acceptable definition or no definition at all characterizes the discursive dynamics of the definitional subfield. Conversely, there is a persistent tendency of circumspection to embrace methodologies, e.g. case study frameworks, that can prove to be more helpful in conceptualizing terrorism.
Power trading across borders is not a new concept, even in the subcontinent. However, it has been sporadic and unstructured and often not in strict consonance with the requirements of national security. This article seeks to make out a case for using energy security and cross border power trade, as one of the ‘soft power’ tools to further our national security.
Human security as a concept contends that the appropriate referent for peace and security should be the individual instead of the state. This Essay explores whether a human security-centred approach, i.e., a focus on the individual citizen’s concerns and security complements rather than contradicts state and national security.
Partly the result of a political and physical isolation compounded by decades of conflict in the region, Northeast India is often viewed through the prism of security studies, institutional performance or developmental governance. While important contributions in themselves, a state-centric focus often overlooks the complexity of the causes and dynamics. It ignores the consequences of regional societal forces’ articulation of identity, nationalism, separatism and sovereignty that can shape political boundaries in the region, thus overlooking the salience of subaltern narratives.
Counterinsurgency (COIN) has long been recognised as a political phenomenon, but current theoretical understandings of politics in COIN reflect ideal types, overlooking the depth and complexity of the politics of insurgency and COIN. Drawing from India’s experience in its northeastern region, this article argues that COIN theory overlooks the political agency and multiplicity of actors, as well as overlooking the fundamentally political scope of interactions that take place between them.
