No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Showing Character: Nehru, Reputation, and the Sino-Indian Dispute, 1957–1962
Abstract
In the approach to the Sino-Indian war of 1962, the Indian government made some surprising policy choices. Most significant was Nehru’s decision to contest what was viewed by him and his officials as unimportant territory in the western sector, rejecting in the process Chou en-Lai’s 1960 “package” offer. Instead, Delhi chose to initiate in 1961 the Forward Policy, in full awareness of the severely disadvantageous position of the Indian military in the disputed border areas. Using Indian primary documents, this article makes the case that reputational considerations—particularly Nehru’s fear that any concessions to China would be viewed as weakness and provoke further aggression—help explain the puzzling aspects of India’s intransigence on the Sino-Indian territorial dispute during this period.
... Some of these areas have been disputed for several decades with India, China and Pakistan staking claims in the region. The unresolved border issue between India and China could be traced back to 1959 when skirmishes started for the first time between the two countries marking the end of what was called Hindi-Chini, Bhai-Bhai (India and China are brothers) era in their relationship (Shankar 2015;Chaowu 2016). The dispute led to a war between the two sides in 1962 and since then, although the economic cooperation between the neighbours grew, the border row has always shadowed their relationship. ...
Several studies exploring the sociology of news have identified and established a range of factors that influence journalism and shape media narratives. However, little has been known regarding the narrative construction in the English language broadcast media in India. Therefore, this study investigated the relationship between (re)emerging right-wing nationalism and English language television journalism in India. A qualitative thematic discourse analysis was conducted on the monologues on Republic TV and Times Now’s primetime debates during the India–China border conflict, 2020. The study reports a major shift in the nature of TV journalism in India: far from being passive observers of right-wing nationalist ideology in the 1990s, TV journalists in contemporary India are acting as active participants in propagating them. The study complements existing works on sociology of news by demonstrating how journalism is shaped by dominant political sentiments.
... In light of intercultural theory, the most likely reason is that China, as a face culture, shows greater respect than western dignity culture for lower-status honor cultures. (Miller 2013, 54-81;Shankar 2015). ...
This article introduces an intercultural theory of international relations based on three distinctive ways of establishing self-worth: honor, face, and dignity. In each culture of self-worth, concerns with status and humiliation intervene differently in producing political outcomes. The theory explains important variation in the way states and nations relate to members of their own culture of self-worth, as well as members of other such cultures.
This is a chapter in my book Armed Coexistence: The Dynamics of the Intractable Sino-Indian Border Dispute, published by Palgrave Macmillan.
In this chapter, poliheuristic choice theory is used to explain how the different leaders from Mao Zedong and Jawaharlal Nehru to Xi Jinping and Narendra Modi. Poliheuristic choice theory argues that a state leader chooses which foreign policy to pursue by relying on several heuristics, or rules of thumb, in order to determine what would likely be the best option. When it comes to interstate border disputes, the key heuristics that a leader will utilise are the impact a policy will have on their political survival, whether it would advance their grand strategy for the country and which policy would be most likely to work. This chapter then applies this basic model to explain the actions of the key state leaders in China and India.
This is a chapter in my book Armed Coexistence: The Dynamics of the Intractable Sino-Indian Border Dispute, published by Palgrave Macmillan.
This chapter explores how the State’s interests as determined by its geopolitical environment, and strategic culture through which it comprehends its position, impact the decision making towards the Sino-Indian border dispute. In essence, there are three main considerations they typically come from the State’s strategic culture and context: the salience of the disputed territory, the geopolitical context the dispute is happening within and the normative concerns of prestige and sovereignty. These three considerations have weighed on China and India, ensuring that they have more frequently than not felt compelled to adopt status quo policies than seek to resolve the dispute via escalation or compromise.
How do nations act in a crisis? This book seeks to answer that question both theoretically and historically. It tests and synthesizes theories of political behavior by comparing them with the historical record. The authors apply theories of bargaining, game theory, information processing, decision-making, and international systems to case histories of sixteen crises that occurred during a seventy-five year period. The result is a revision and integration of diverse concepts and the development of a new empirical theory of international conflict.
The Geography of Ethnic Violenceis the first among numerous distinguished books on ethnic violence to clarify the vital role of territory in explaining such conflict. Monica Toft introduces and tests a theory of ethnic violence, one that provides a compelling general explanation of not only most ethnic violence, civil wars, and terrorism but many interstate wars as well. This understanding can foster new policy initiatives with real potential to make ethnic violence either less likely or less destructive. It can also guide policymakers to solutions that endure.The book offers a distinctively powerful synthesis of comparative politics and international relations theories, as well as a striking blend of statistical and historical case study methodologies. By skillfully combining a statistical analysis of a large number of ethnic conflicts with a focused comparison of historical cases of ethnic violence and nonviolence--including four major conflicts in the former Soviet Union--it achieves a rare balance of general applicability and deep insight.Toft concludes that only by understanding how legitimacy and power interact can we hope to learn why some ethnic conflicts turn violent while others do not. Concentrated groups defending a self-defined homeland often fight to the death, while dispersed or urbanized groups almost never risk violence to redress their grievances. Clearly written and rigorously documented, this book represents a major contribution to an ongoing debate that spans a range of disciplines including international relations, comparative politics, sociology, and history.
This article attempts to show that future players and future stakes—two factors generally ignored by political scientists—strongly influence government decisions to cooperate or fight at least against ethnic minorities seeking self-determination. Data on all separatist movements between 1956 and 2002 reveals that governments are significantly less likely to accommodate one challenge if the number of ethnic groups in a country and the combined value of the land that may come under dispute in the future is high. Governments that refused to accommodate one challenger were also significantly less likely to face a second or third challenge down the road. This provides some of the first systematic evidence that governments invest in reputation building a least in the domain of domestic ethnic relations.