India 's Struggle For Maintaining Stability

The defining characteristic of the state is the ability to wield power. The use of power, both inside and outside of one’s border, directly speaks to the sovereignty of the nation. If a nation is incapable of disciplining or punishing its citizens it will invariably become a failed state. Moreover if a country isn’t recognized as powerful in the global political arena, that country stands a very good chance of being dominated by a nation who has the capacity to enforce its own will. The use, or at least the perception, of power is so fundamental in nationhood that those who wield the most power can easily dictate world events.

As a society many are not aware that development can be more compelling through knowledge about other society’s life experiences. Even when becoming aware, societies continue with the lack of knowledge. This results in consequences in these societies and with international relations. There are tremendous forms of ethnocentrism that can cause crucial social problems, such as ethnic cleansing, colonialism, and racism. Many of these views are destined by world communities, however many frequently see the cases.

Britain had a desire to have a more economic, political, and social influence over India. Even though the British never preserved a notable military existence in India, they were able to maintain political control. Many changes were made, which benefitted India, but there were also some changes, which contributed to its deterioration. Despite the negative impacts Britain left on India, imperialism is best understood as a strong country extending its authority, in order to increase its wealth, by bringing more of the world under its control, because Britain helped in the development of India from a nation-state, to a unified country, which is modernly the world’s largest democracy.

India and China are two republics that have experienced very opposing political regimes throughout history. China has been fundamentally stable country with a lack of a distinct authority figure (Desai, 2003). Being a single party state China has been controlled by the Chinese Communist Party since the 5th National Congress held in 1927 (Wang, 2013). Correspondingly India, have always been a federal parliamentary democratic republic where the President of India elected is head of state and the Prime Minister elected is the head of government (U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, 2013). This

On the other hand, India has spent a majority of its history as a colony of England. It was not until 1947 that India became an independent nation state, after a grassroots nationalist movement started by Gandhi, and even then they were a one party congress. They are also an interesting case of democracy because of how many unfavorable aspects towards it they had, such as high inequality, many peasants, and many different languages and religions (Lecture). In 1956, India was broken up into states by the States Reorganization Act, that made state lines based on linguistic group. India’s founding leaders mirrored the ideas of America, in balancing states rights with a central government (Sil, 2014). They have also more recently gone through a liberalization of their economy. India is unique in the way that their social hierarchy is constructed because of the fact that they have a caste system. The caste system is a combination of religious practice and community organization that is a part of Hinduism (Sil, 2014). This system was officially demolished in the country, but in the country it is still very prevalent, and the focus on helping those who were in lower castes succeed has made people more aware of the way they institute social policies.

India and the US are facing different challenges to ensure political, economic and social stability. The US is a federal constitutional republic where the president of the US is a head of state and government, which makes him a very powerful person. Centralization of power at such a higher position makes a decision process very uniform and at the same time the decision process gets slower because one person has to take lots of decisions. India is a federal parliamentary

China and India share many identities. They are two of the oldest civilizations. Both countries have a complicated relationship with the West because of imperialism. Currently, China has the largest population at around 1.4 billion people. India’s population is likely to succeed China in the coming future. The enormous labor force of China and India has allowed them to

When analyzing the situation in this context, one could possibly begin to understand the government’s reasoning. Their apprehension of how the West and the rest of the word would perceive India as a

This essay attempts to shed some light on the question: "To what extent can the Cold War be looked upon as the main event in shaping the political, economic and military schemes in India and Pakistan 1991?" It starts off by explaining the Cold War, its far reaching implications and the effect it had on two bitter neighbours, India and Pakistan. The focus of the essay then moves onto explaining the nature of the Cold War and its effect upon

While all perspectives are present, liberalism and constructivism influenced this proposal the most. The objectives were deliberately organized to employ more elements of constructivism as the proposal developed. The constructivist perspective was important to this national security challenge because it emphasizes norms, ideas, and that international actors create their own context.6 The case of terrorism in South Asia is a culmination of different norms and ideas that each have a history of their own. The realist perspective focuses on security and state interactions to quell anarchy.6 However, terrorism is not a traditional state and has not operated under the values that are consistent with traditional U.S ideas. Consequently, the liberalist perspective focuses on international organizations, economics, and the spread of democracy.6 Once again, this cannot fully explain the international focus on human rights and how cultural values have presented challenges to mutual exchange. A focus on cultural interactions transcends the liberalist economic focused view. With shortfalls in every IR perspective, the constructivist view provides the most flexible means to view this dynamic situation. This paradigm is also helpful in relating the actors’ different motivations, which are defined best by their ideas and historical context. To explore this further, I will discuss the different perspectives in the context of each strategic

India is also not a stranger to internal conflict. After years under the colonial influence, India finally gained its independence

Many countries have tried to govern the world and all have failed. Prior to World War II it was stated justly, “The sun never set on the British Empire.” For decades this statement held true: the British touched all corners of the sphere (Pierce, 2009). To be precise historians have discovered that only twenty-two countries were left untouched which meant one hundred seventy-six countries were at one point under Britain’s power. India was amongst the countries that Britain invaded and colonized. This transpired when the Nawab of Bengal and the French lost the Battle of Plassey in 1756 to Britain. For the next one hundred ninety years India would be under the control of the British.

Evelyn Goh’s paper on Hierarchical order in South East Asia aims to explain the surprising peace and mutual co-operation which grew out of South East Asia following the post-Cold-War period. Her main argument is that it is the South East Asian states themselves which created this peace and co-operation through two broad ‘pathways’: Omni-enmeshment on a regional and inter-state level and the creation of a ‘complex balance of influence.’ My main criticism with her argument is that the current order in South East Asia has yet to be challenged by a substantial security crisis, leaving us questioning just how robust these pathways are. I also reference to John Mearsheimer’s paper on the ‘false promise of international institutions’ to provide further criticisms. Regardless, I found her analysis on how smaller states can create the regional framework for peace compelling – it runs counter to the two major streams of IR thought (realism and liberalism) while explaining what they could not predict: peace in South East Asia.

In this essay I hope to look at the issues of conflict in South Asia focusing on India and in particular the continuing Hindu-Muslim tensions, and look at possible reasons for the continuing conflict which appears to have escalated since the withdrawal of British Rule from India. Multiple events had shaped the Indian subcontinent with

Second, British India, which included today’s India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, was a region so large that there were areas in which Britain exercised direct control over the subject population and others where it exerted indirect control. It is exceedingly difficult, therefore, to extrapolate from one experience to another. Although it is impossible to determine how India would have developed had England never established a dominating presence there, I find the results of British colonialism to have been a mixed bag for India: the negatives, however, far outweighed the positives.