Problem Areas in India's Neighbourhood Policy

Muni, S. D.

doi:10.1177/097152310301000202

Cited by 14 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…But Nehru's idea of neighbours had a broader Asian framework with a geostrategic spectrum that included Iran, Russia, and Central Asia. Similarly, India projected its interest to maintain autonomous state-level relationships with Tibet and Xinjiang during 1950-1951. Muni (2003 argued that Nehru wanted to build an 'East Federation' of India along with the major Asian countries.…”

Section: Nehru's Approach To Neighbourhood: a Mixture Of Ignorance An...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolution of ‘India’s Neighbourhood First Policy’ Since Independence

Aryal

Bharti

2023

Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ‘Neighbourhood First Policy’ is the anchor point of India’s general foreign policy since independence in 1947. Subsequently, the Neighbourhood First Policy has evolved, was debilitated, and has been reformed under the various prime ministers of India. Based on preferences and perceptions about the South Asian neighbourhood, the Neighbourhood First Policy has been implemented differently. This article aims to analyse the Neighbourhood First Policy of India under four different prime ministers (Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Inder Kumar Gujral, and Narendra Modi). The article investigates the pretexts behind each premier’s way of handling the Neighbourhood First Policy followed by an empirical analysis.

show abstract

Section: Nehru's Approach To Neighbourhood: a Mixture Of Ignorance An...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolution of ‘India’s Neighbourhood First Policy’ Since Independence

Aryal

Bharti

2023

Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…No imagination of South Asia is complete without the reference to India, which, owing to its size, position, economy, resource potential, population size, historical ties and events, military might, etc., has acquired the role of a natural leader in the region. Muni (2003), in identifying the commonalities of the South Asian region, said that constituent countries have 'hardly anything in common with each other except India ' (p.187). As the natural leader, India has bilateral and collective responsibilities towards her immediate neighbours and the region, respectively.…”

Section: Why India and China?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Non-traditional Security Threat of COVID-19 in South Asia: An Analysis of the Indian and Chinese Leverage in Health Diplomacy

Saha

Chakrabarti

2021

South Asian Survey

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

South Asia has emerged as a major challenge in dealing with COVID-19 virus in terms of its demographics, economy, social values, political ambition and geographical location. The pandemic viewed through the prism of non-traditional security (NTS) threat presents new challenges and demands reworking of conventional governance mechanisms. India is the South Asian hegemon, and China is the single largest immediate neighbour with expansionist ambition in the region. Two most populous countries—one has been the epicentre of the virus, while the other is one of the most widely affected. Their public health and governance trajectory during the pandemic and their health diplomacy in the region have overtures for security architecture of South Asia in post-COVID-19 world. A lone statist approach and legal–institutional officialdom fail to appreciate the instrumentalities of an unconventional security threat like COVID-19. This calls for a more inclusive and comprehensive approach to deal with NTS threat, in general, and epidemiological disease, in particular. This by no means indicating a retreat of the state rather a proactive role in articulating interests of more inclusive categories and, in doing so, the state consolidates its role of governance and becomes a significant point of integration.

show abstract

“…The most remarkable shifts in the post-1990s transformation was the unveiling of the Gujral doctrine, wherein India shed off its demands for reciprocity to unilateral accommodation for improved relations with India’s smaller neighbours. Gujral Doctrine of 1996–1998 sought to accommodate the interests and aspirations of the neighbouring states ‘admitting that as the larger and more powerful member of the South Asian community, it (India) should travel more than half the distance in accommodating the neighbors’ (Muni, 2003, p. 186). However, with the Kargil conflict in 1999, hijacking of Indian Airlines from Kathmandu in 1999, the civil war in Afghanistan from 1996 onwards, cumulatively underscored the crises of unilateralism, as well as effect of regional crises and instability on India.…”

Section: India: a Regional Powermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies on India’s engagement in South Asian countries have largely focused on three themes: domestic imperatives, India’s bilateral relations with smaller countries in its neighbourhood and Indian responses to American or Chinese engagement in the region (Cohen, 2001; Ganguly, 2012; Hagerty, 1991; Muni, 2003). These works reflect the twin pillars of India’s regional policy: primacy of regional hegemony and countering extra-regional influence (Mazumdar, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

India in South Asia: Interaction with Liberal Peacebuilding Projects

Adhikari¹

2018

India Quarterly: A Journal of International Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In fragile and conflict-affected States1 (henceforth FCAS) in South Asia, two distinct forms of international engagement have worked simultaneously—the engagement of India, the regional hegemon, and that of Western states that promote liberal peacebuilding projects. From Norwegian engagement in Sri Lanka to European Union (EU) and United Nations (UN) engagement in Myanmar, to the UN-led international engagement in Nepal, liberal peacebuilding, despite its fault lines, has ubiquitous presence in South Asia, a region fraught with different forms of conflict and fragility. The norms, practices and modalities of engagement of India as well as of liberal peacebuilding projects have their distinct specificities in their normative foundations, practices and modalities of engagement. This article contends that the current interaction, though often unacknowledged, is marked by uncertainties, contrasts, instrumental use of norms, lack of coordination and even unexpected overlaps. This article primarily argues that in order for India to play a constructive role in the region, it needs to devise a policy on how it engages with liberal peacebuilding norms and its diffusion in practice through a variety of organisational and institutional networks.

show abstract

Problem Areas in India's Neighbourhood Policy

Cited by 14 publications

References 0 publications

Evolution of ‘India’s Neighbourhood First Policy’ Since Independence

Evolution of ‘India’s Neighbourhood First Policy’ Since Independence

The Non-traditional Security Threat of COVID-19 in South Asia: An Analysis of the Indian and Chinese Leverage in Health Diplomacy

India in South Asia: Interaction with Liberal Peacebuilding Projects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About