Search

Begin New Search Topic History Political Geography India Content Type Journal Article Publication Year within 10 Years Publication Year within 5 Years

1. The Long Shadow of the 1962 War and the China-India Border Dispute

Author:
Sudha Ramachandran
Publication Date:
11-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
China Brief
Institution:
The Jamestown Foundation
Abstract:
In the war that India and China fought between October 20 and November 20, 1962, India not only suffered a humiliating defeat but also lost a chunk of territory in Aksai Chin in Ladakh in eastern Jammu and Kashmir. Sixty years later, the Indian Army and China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) are locked in a standoff along the Line of Actual Control (LAC), the de facto border, at Ladakh, which began in mid-2020 and continues through the present (Jamestown Foundation, March 1). Both sides’ corps commanders have held sixteen rounds of bilateral talks thus far and have reached agreements on the disengagement of troops from several points of friction and the establishment of several “buffer zones” in these areas (Xinhua, July 28). However, China has refused to return to the April 2020 status quo and the buffer zones have been carved largely out of Indian territory. Sixty years after it lost a large swath of territory in Ladakh, is India ceding ground there again to China?
Topic:
War, History, Territorial Disputes, and Borders
Political Geography:
China, India, and Asia

2. Political Rights of Christian Minority in Pakistan before 1973

Author:
Tooba Ahmad, Ghulam Mustafa, and Rahila Asfa
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
South Asian Studies
Institution:
Department of Political Science, University of the Punjab
Abstract:
When Muslim Leaders of the Subcontinent of India were trying to create a different independent state for Muslims, the Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah repeatedly used the phrase “Separate state for the Minorities of India”. He demanded a state where all types of minorities could live freely according to their religious teachings and norms. These demands were very pleasing for all types of religious minorities of the Subcontinent, so few of them supported the idea of Pakistan where anyone could live freely. The Christian community supported the idea of Pakistan and made efforts to become part of it. There are different speeches of Quaid-e-Azam that consist of praises of Christian leaders who were helping the Muslim leadership. Despite the fact that Pakistan’s Objective Resolution and Constitution of 1956 and 1962 gave equal rights to every citizen and religious liberty to minorities, the Objective Resolution and Constitution of 1956 and 1962 are the most condemned document which made Pakistan a theocracy. After liberty and freedom, political rights are the most important rights for any person. This paper will try to find out the answer to the question of how objective resolution, Constitution of 1956 and 1962 dealt with the minority rights and their political rights. For this purpose in-depth study of all three documents occurred along with different articles, news, research reports and books.
Topic:
Islam, Politics, Minorities, History, Christianity, and Hinduism
Political Geography:
Pakistan, South Asia, and India

3. Journal of Advanced Military Studies: Special Issue on Strategic Culture

Author:
Ali Parchami, Ofer Fridman, Neil Munro, W. A. Rivera, Evan Kerrane, Matthew Brummer, Eitan Oren, Katie C. Finlinson, Mark Briskey, Ben Connable, Benjamin Potter, Emilee Matheson, Jeffrey Taylor, and Dr. Jose de Arimateia da Cruz
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Advanced Military Studies
Institution:
Marine Corps University Press, National Defense University
Abstract:
An ironic feature of U.S. strategic culture is a rather distinctive disinterest in the study of our own or others’ strategic cultures. The U.S. security institutions find themselves energized about cultural study during irregular conflicts in which the cost of cultural ignorance is made plain, but they persist in under developing the ability to apply that same cultural acumen to great power conflict and key relationships with allies. During the last 100 years of fighting, U.S. defense institutions have repeated a pattern of investing in cultural study during short bursts of counterinsurgency fighting and then abandoning it along with its lessons learned at the termination of conflict. As a consequence, U.S. planning efforts—including those now being designed for future great power conflict—suffer from an unnecessarily narrow optic and fail to account for the full range of perspectives and plausible courses of action considered by an adversary. America’s allies know it and are frustrated by it. More importantly, U.S. adversaries know it and plan to exploit it. The study of strategic culture accounts for the ways in which the culture of a group, whether it be the constructed culture of a nascent terrorist organization or the enduring culture of a nation, impacts thinking and decision making regarding defensive and offensive approaches to security. Within a complex state like Russia or China, one must account for sweeping national narratives that cultivate collective mentalities and impact decision making but must also include the internal cultures of key organizations within the nation’s security community. These organizations often develop distinctive identities, values, perceptions, and habits of practice that can be consequential in moments when the organization’s leaders wield instruments of state power. In the first section of this special edition of the Journal of Advanced Military Studies (JAMS) on strategic culture, Drs. Ali Parchami, Ofer Fridman, Neil Munro, W. A. Rivera, and Major Evan Kerrane provide strategic culture profiles on key U.S. adversaries: Iran, Russia, and China. Their work reflects the complexity involved in identifying and analyzing the narratives and drivers that compete for dominance across these three strategic culture landscapes. Acquainting ourselves with the multivariate and often-contested internal constructs that produce the behavior of our adversaries helps expand our own thinking about the range of possible and plausible competitive strategies we are likely to see from them. The second section of this issue highlights the utility of understanding not only U.S. adversaries but also American allies and partners. Drs. Matthew Brummer and Eitan Oren examine the effort by Japan’s military leaders to shift their own strategic culture through an influence campaign aimed at altering domestic perceptions concerning the appropriate role for the military and thereby expanding its ability to more actively cooperate with the United States in maintaining peace and stability in Asia. Whether they are successful has direct implications for U.S. alliance constructs in the Pacific and the action that might be reasonably expected from Japan should U.S. conflict with China become kinetic. Katie C. Finlinson offers analysis that benefits U.S. deterrence and nonproliferation efforts. She employs a two-tiered research approach— leveraging both strategic culture and analysis of national role conception—as a useful framework for assessing the propensity of the United Arab Emirates to consider weaponizing civilian nuclear knowledge and infrastructure. Finlinson offers an approach repeatable for other potential over-the-horizon states and demonstrates the interplay between a state’s strategic culture and powerful exogenous factors—like security assurances from the United States and potential nuclear acquisition by Iran—in determining outcomes. Finally, Dr. Mark Briskey offers a look at the aspects of Pakistan’s strategic culture that exist as an outgrowth of its army’s most formative historic experiences and have resulted in deeply entrenched perceptions of self, of key adversaries, and perceptions of the past that must be understood by Western partners seeking Pakistan’s cooperation and partnership in the region. Our third section offers a close look at the ways in which cultural analysis can illuminate policy options on particularly difficult problem sets. One of these is assessing will to fight on the part of both allies and adversaries. Dr. Ben Connable recommends a diagnostic tool developed and trialed by the Rand Corporation that demonstrates promise in advancing the ability of defense institutions to anticipate will to fight in kinetic conflicts but also will to act in consequential ways by great powers engaged in strategic competition. Benjamin Potter, Emilee Matheson, and Jeffrey Taylor follow with applications of the Cultural Topography Framework, an approach to cultural data assessment and application that benefits from the insights supplied by the sort of comprehensive strategic culture profiles offered in section one of this issue and translates these into actionable intelligence against discrete problem sets. Their work, respectively, illuminates policy options for containing a potentially escalatory situation in Transnistria, decreasing violence and looting through a more effective reintegration strategy for former members of the Lord’s Resistance Army in Central Africa, and reexamining the value of technological advances in the U.S. nuclear arsenal, which may be having a deleterious impact on its deterrence strategy. The special issue concludes with a review essay by Dr. José de Arimatéia da Cruz, which offers readers critical analysis of three volumes of strategic culture scholarship. The articles collected for the special issue demonstrate a range of ways in which the study of strategic culture delivers critical insights to policy planners and strategists. Understanding other great powers on their own terms—the identities they seek to establish or defend, the values that inform their policies, the norms of strategic competition or warfighting that they deem acceptable and effective, and the worldview they espouse (whether an accurate fit with objective realities or not)—prepares policy makers to craft plans and strategies in ways that are tailored for maximum advantage vis-à-vis a particular adversary. Given the steady shutdown of cultural inquiry labs and training facilities across the U.S. defense and security community, it is worth issuing a stern reminder that the advantage of knowing one’s enemy is far more consequential when engaged in great power conflict than in the irregular conflicts in which U.S. institutions have learned its worth. This issue of JAMS is provided as a resource to both reinforce that point and supply a wealth of initial material in advancing it.
Topic:
Nuclear Weapons, War, History, Power Politics, Realism, Strategic Competition, Resistance, Identity, and Strategic Culture
Political Geography:
Pakistan, Russia, Japan, Iran, Middle East, India, United Arab Emirates, and United States of America

4. Kashmir: The Major Source of Conflict between Pakistan and India

Author:
Abdul Majid, Shoukat Ali, Fazal Abbas, and Shazia Kousar
Publication Date:
07-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
South Asian Studies
Institution:
Department of Political Science, University of the Punjab
Abstract:
Kashmir is the most serious dispute between Pakistan and India that originated with the British decision to give independence to British India that later divided into two states i.e. Pakistan and India. Being a Muslim majority princely state, the people wanted to join Pakistan. However the non-Muslim ruler of Kashmir opted India. The people of Kashmir revolted against this decision which set the stage for the first Kashmir war between Pakistan and India. Since then India has maintained its control over Kashmir by use of force and a heavy presence of Indian security forces. India and Pakistan fought another war on Kashmir in 1965. Despite India’s coercive policies, Kashmiris continued to resist Indian domination. The current uprising in Kashmir is the latest manifestation of Kashmiri revolt against India. Pakistan and India need to hold talks for a peaceful resolution of Kashmir which is also acceptable to the Kashmiris. They do not want to live under Indian rule and want to decide about the future of Kashmir through plebiscite, as promised in the UN resolutions of 1948-49.
Topic:
United Nations, History, Territorial Disputes, Conflict, and Protests
Political Geography:
Pakistan, United Kingdom, South Asia, India, and Kashmir

5. Christians in Pakistan- A Developmental Approach: (Pre & Post Partition of India)

Author:
Ammara Tabassum and Umbreen Javaid
Publication Date:
01-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
South Asian Studies
Institution:
Department of Political Science, University of the Punjab
Abstract:
St. Thomas, one of the twelve disciples of Jesus Christ, came to India by ship following the sea routes. While some historians also believe that St. Thomas came to India by crossing Asia Minor West Taxila, north Thatta, and afterwards, he settled in India. There is a consensus among historians that St. Thomas first reached Taxila which was then ruled by a Buddhist king, Gonophores. All of the historians relate the meeting of St. Thomas met with Gonophores. According to the current historical publications, it was in the 3rd century when Christians reached India and settled in the North West and they were called Thomai or Christians of St. Thomas while they are named as Thomai in the present day. In 72 A.D Hindu Brahmins martyred St. Thomas in Mylapore and now the Shrine of St. Thomas is situated in Chennai, India. Thousands of people come to Chennai and visit his shrine. The shrine of St. Thomas is the evidence of Christian presence in India in the 1st century. A king, Kanishka, attacked Taxila; he plundered, devastated and robbed the people, causing ruin. This forced the early Christian settlers to disperse and migrate towards Northern Punjab and Central India. Though Mughal Empire governed the Subcontinent for 200 years yet in this long period they were unable to affect the Hinduism and Christianity. Islam is considered as minority during the period of Mughal Empire. During the period of Mughal Empire some Muslim Emperor forced the Punjabi Christians to enter the fold of Islam and many Christians accepted Islam and those who did not, were targeted and scattered
Topic:
Religion, History, Christianity, and Catholic Church
Political Geography:
Pakistan, South Asia, India, and Punjab

6. India-China relations reconsidered: A realist perspective on India´s border dispute with its neighbour

Author:
Jayanta Kumar Ray
Publication Date:
01-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Revista UNISCI/UNISCI Journal
Institution:
Unidad de investigación sobre seguridad y cooperación (UNISCI)
Abstract:
India’s relations with Communist China have evolved through various twists and turns. India’s lack of realist approach and naiveté about emerging global politics helped China in gaining an upper hand over India in achieving regional dominance particularly displayed through the bilateral disputes over the border determination. While the defeat of 1962 is a distant past, it has continued to wield great influence over India’s overall approach towards China. This article, thus, goes for a reappraisal of the border issues which have and still continue to influence Indo-China relations.
Topic:
Communism, History, Bilateral Relations, and Borders
Political Geography:
China, South Asia, India, and Asia

7. Journal of Advanced Military Studies: Great Power Competition

Author:
Christopher C. Harmon, T. J. Linzy, Jack Vahram Kalpakian, Bruce I. Gudmundsson, Ryan Burke, Jahara "Franky" Matisek, Zsofia Budai, Kevin Johnston, Blagovest Tashev, Michael Purcell, David McLaughlin, Kashish Parpiani, Daniel De Wit, and Timothy Chess
Publication Date:
09-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Advanced Military Studies
Institution:
Marine Corps University Press, National Defense University
Abstract:
In this issue of MCU Journal, the authors discuss various concepts of power and great power competition. For generations, scholars have debated changes in power and how that evolution could potentially impact the United States, its allies, and those hovering on the edge of greatness in whatever form that may take. The concept of power has taken on many meanings as the character of warfare has adapted to the time—hard power, soft power, sea power, airpower, space power, great power, combat power, etc. So how do we define such an abstract concept as power? The Department of Defense (DOD) defines combat power as “the total means of destructive and/or disruptive force which a military unit/formation can apply against the opponent at a given time.” Clearly, power must be projected; and for our purposes, that means an entity has the “ability . . . to apply all or some of its elements of national power—political, economic, informational, or military—to rapidly and effectively deploy and sustain forces in and from multiple dispersed locations to respond to crises, to contribute to deterrence, and to enhance regional stability.”
Topic:
Security, NATO, Climate Change, International Cooperation, Migration, History, Power Politics, Armed Forces, Navy, Populism, Grand Strategy, Alliance, Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), Strategic Competition, Geography, Ottoman Empire, Information Technology, and Clash of Civilizations
Political Geography:
Africa, Russia, China, Europe, Sudan, India, Norway, Asia, France, North America, Egypt, Arctic, United States of America, and Antarctica