Indian Scholarship on International Relations and Multilateralism

7/30/2019 Indian Scholarship on International Relations and Multilateralism

1/9

SPECIAL ARTICLE

february 2, 2013 vol xlviII no 5 EPW Economic & Political Weekly50

Indian Scholarship on International Relationsand Multilateralism

Deepshikha Shahi

Despite opinions to the contrary, there is much to take

away from Indian scholarship in the field of international

relations. The originality of Indian scholarship lies in

establishing multilateralism as a temporally and spatially

contingent concept, the normative and institutional

dimensions of which vary in time and space. Indian

scholarship views multilateralism as more regional than

universal, more dynamic than static and more normative

than institutional.

Deepshikha Shahi ([email protected]) teaches political

science at the University of Delhi.

The appraisal of Indias academic and strategic potential to

respond to the changing nature of international relations

(IR) has been marked by a paradox. While discussing

the strengths of India as an emerging power in world politics,

the foreign affairs columnist ofThe New York Times, Thomas L

Friedman, praised Indias English-speaking population and

its real emphasis on education. However, Friedmans appreci-

ative assessment contradicted the gloomy remark of a senior

member of the National Knowledge Commission and professorat Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), Amitabh Mattoo, who

lamented the insufficient development of Indian scholarship

on global issues, especially within the university system.

Though the academic discipline ofIRin India has traditionally

remained fraught with poor conceptualisation due to a variety

of reasons, Indias aspiration to attain major power status in

the contemporary world order offers a promise for its take-off.

The recent Indian theoretical formulations around the theme of

multilateralism support this argument. India is aware of the

asymmetrically interdependent character of the contemporary

world wherein no state can fulfil its aspiration unilaterally.

The question of how India perceives the nature of its collabora-

tion with other regional and global powers in the pursuit of itsaspiration is central to the Indian scholarship on multilateralism.

This Indian scholarship has the following key tenets:

(1) Multilateralism is based not on static but on potentially

dynamic institutions and rules. (2) Multilateralism is more a

function of norms than institutions and the normative shifts in

multilateralism can be captured through the sociological process

of norm localisation which implies the melding of global

norms in accordance with the regional culture. (3) Norm local-

isation is shaped more effectively by regional than global forces.

(4) The leadership provided by the actors of new multilateralism

goes beyond the structural leadership offered by the global

hegemon. These tenets are relatively ignored in the western

discourse on multilateralism. As the west struggles to opera-

tionalise the process of effective multilateralism, it needs to

develop a theoretical clarity on the subject. The incorporation

of the insights provided by the Indian scholarship on multilat-

eralism can create an isomorphic space that can benefit both

Indian and western IRstudies.

This article attempts to demonstrate this. It is divided into

three sections. The first section sets out to trace the state ofIR

theory in India. The second section maps out the distinctive-

ness of Indian theorising on multilateralism. The third section

throws light on Indias experience with multilateralism that


2/9

SPECIAL ARTICLE

Economic & Political Weekly EPW february 2, 2013 vol xlviII no 5 51

could enrich the western understanding on the subject. Fi-

nally, the article draws the conclusion that the originality of

Indian scholarship lies in establishing multilateralism as a

temporally and spatially contingent concept, the normative

and institutional dimensions of which vary in time and space.

The Indian scholarship views multilateralism as more regional

than universal, more dynamicthan static and more normative

than institutional. The appropriate theoretical comprehension

and effective practical implementation of multilateralism

necessitate not just a historically rooted analysis but also a

sociologically grounded inquiry.

Theorising in Indian IR

There is no Indian school ofIRand any evaluation of Indian

scholars contribution to IR theory depends on what counts

as IR theory (Behera 2007). Methodologically, there are

two broad positions on what qualifies as theorising in IR

rationalist and reflectivist.1 Within the realm of Indian

rationalist theorising, two significant contributions can be

mentioned. First, the theory of mandala developed by Kautilyain the Arthashastra (4th centuryBCE); second, the concept

of non-alignment propagated by Jawaharlal Nehru in the

post-independence era.

Kautilyas mandala theory can be labelled as rationalist as

it attempted to reveal the behavioural regularities in the ac-

tivities of the states. Kautilya assumed that every state acted in

its own self-interest and tried to maximise its political, eco-

nomic and military power. Since Kautilyas mandala theory

focused on the spheres of influence, interests and ambitions of

eternally warring and ethically apathetic states, it is often

evoked as an ancient precursor of contemporary realism.

Roger Boesche (2003) opines that Kautilya was a realist in in-

ternational relations who understood balance of power argu-ments long before anyone had invented the phrase balance of

power. While Benoy Sarkar (1919) considered mandala theory

as a portrayal of classical realism, Boesche traced the overlap

between the insights of classical realism and neo-realism to

suggest that Kautilyas mandala theory embraced the traits of

both.2 Though Kautilyas mandala theory seems to be a signifi-

cant contribution in the sphere of rationalist theorising, the

failure to adapt it in accordance with present political realities

is manifest in its absence from any principal IRtheory courses

taught in todays India. Since Kautilyas mandala theory was

based on the behaviour of ancient monarchies, its modifica-

tion according to the conditions of modern nation states is

necessary for enhancing its contemporary relevance.

The concept of non-alignment on the other hand emerged as

a reaction against the bloc politics of great powers. It was real-

ist as it was designed as a mechanism to attain and retain the

sovereignty, territorial integrity, security and national interest

of the third world states. As non-alignment cropped up as an

alternative theoretical construct that refuted the western

intellectual monopoly of balance-of-power discourse, it is

frequently hailed as a proof of Indias innovative attempt to

generalise about the subject matter of IR(Misra 1981; Rana

1969, 2003). Though the western scholars hardly consider

non-alignment as a theory, Appadorai (1981) views it as an

original conceptual contribution of Nehru to the vocabulary

ofIR. Mallavarapu (2009) further argues that non-alignment

might not have resulted in broader theoretical formulations,

but it certainly raised a number of first order issues for further

theorising. However, the lack of universal applicability of non-

alignment (Acharya and Buzan 2007), its unexplained deterio-

rating influence in the 1970s as compared to the 1950s (Swarup

1981), and a general setback to the relevance of literature on

bloc politics in the post-cold war world raise doubts about its

continued significance. K M Pannikar opines that the hostile

tendencies in todays India are trying to systematically dis-

mantle the policy of non-alignment, one of the pillars on which

India had built its nationalism. The notion of non-alignment

can be revised only if it is redefined in accordance with the

transforming strategies of the developing countries in the

post-cold war world (The Hindu 2008).

Though the critiques of the mandala theory and non-

alignment create a fragile image of rationalist theory-building

in India, the contributions of Indian scholars appear far moreimpressive in the domain of application of theory. E Sridharan

(2011), Rajesh Rajagopalan (2005, 2008), Basrur (2008) have

applied the neo-realist theoretical paradigm in the context of

the India-Pakistan conflict, whereas A P Rana (1979) is more

influenced by the idea of international society emanating

from the English School. The scholars rooted in the rationalist

school accept the state-centric framework of Realpolitik in

varying degrees. Bharat Karnad (2008), Sunil Khilnani (2010),

Brahma Chellaney (2010), Uday Bhaskar (2005), Siddharth

Varadarajan (2002), Amitabh Mattoo (2009), C Raja Mohan

(2009) and K Subrahmanyam (1986) are some of the promi-

nent realists who generate knowledge in the form of manuals

of dos and donts for state behaviour with an objective tosafeguard, promote and assert Indias national interest essen-

tially defined in terms of power. It has often been argued that

given the emphasis on classical high politics, there is a ten-

dency to privilege the realist lens in order to be more policy

relevant (Mallavarapu 2009).3

By the reflectivist standards, the four clearly identifiable

branches within Indian critical thinking are: (1) Marxism,

(2) Feminism, (3) International Political Economy (IPE), and

(4) Ecologism. Neo-Marxists like Achin Vanaik (2007) challenge

the very rationality of the concept of national interest and

stress the far more dangerous character of state terrorism

than group terrorism. Feminists like Nivedita Menon (2001),

Urvashi Butalia and Anita Roy (2010) criticise modern states

and the international states system which depends in part on

the maintenance of unequal gender relations in the division

of labour and in power play. Sunanda Sen and Byasdeb

Dasgupta (2009) uses the feminist approach to IPE for

demonstrating the worldwide adverse impact of structural

adjustment programme (SAP) on women. Ecologists like

Vandana Shiva (2000), Sunita Narain et al (2001), Ashish

Kothari (2004) and Praful Bidwai (2009) move the traditional

concept of security beyond the state-centric framework and

emphasise the need to give due weightage to the process of


3/9

SPECIAL ARTICLE


ecological globalisation along with economic globalisation

while framing policies.

However, the attempts of Indian scholars at meaningful

application of Marxism, Feminism, IPE and Ecologism mostly

in the south Asian context qualify as sub-systemic, not systemic,

theorisation as they essentially apply the already developed

western theoretical constructs in the regional context.4 Muni and

Muni (1984) expresses an objection over the location of Indian

IRtheory within the sub-systemic category. Charged with post-

modernist sentiment, he asks, wholabels theories as systemic

or sub-systemic? While Ashis Nandy (1998) declares that the

true power of the west lies in its power to define, Samaddar

(2002) describes how western domination over IR theory

has resulted in its provincial applicability. He argues that

the west-dominated IRtheory was bound by the reality and

rhetoric of the cold war to such an extent that the world that

lay beyond the cold war and the great game of the post-1945

era was ignored; so much so that international concerns

actually became very provincial.

Contradictory Viewpoints

The shaky credentials of Indian IR theory has generated a

debate amongst two groups of Indian scholars who subscribe

to mutually contradictory viewpoints. The first group is com-

paratively more pessimistic in outlook and holds the opinion

that IRtheory remains a casualty in India primarily because of

the absence of familiarity with or interest in theory (Bajpai

2005; Rana and Misra 2005; Behera 2007; Paul 2009). By

contrast, the second group entertains an optimistic vision and

observes that Indian scholars have enormous potential to

engage with IR theory but their theoretical endeavours are

either marred with the use of the west as a referential point or

not acknowledged as full-fledged theory by western scholars(Harshe 2004; Acharya 2008; Mallavarapu 2009).

While the academic debate on the state of Indian IRtheory

remains unsettled, the political preference of the practitioners

continues to be located somewhere between realism/neo-

realism and neo-liberalism. Whether it was the left-of-centre

coalition government (Janata Dal-led National Front from

1989 to 1990, Congress-led minority government with the help

of left parties from 1991 to 1996, and Janata Dal-led United

Front from 1996 to 1998), right-of-centre coalition government

(Bharatiya Janata Party-led National Democratic Alliance from

1998 to 2004) or the centrist coalition government (Congress-

led United Progressive Alliance from 2004-09 and re-elected in

2009), the overall strategy of practitioners in India remained

constricted by the decisive shift towards neo-liberalism that

occurred in 1991 (Bhaduri 2009). The Indian strategists are

guided by the overwhelming idea of India emerging as a major

power and aspire to carve a space for India which would further

enhance its capability to conduct political manoeuvres. The

Indian scholars are increasingly viewing this ambitious turnin

Indias strategic thinking as a moment of opportunity for

uplifting the status ofIRtheory in India. Pratap Bhanu Mehta

(2009) writes: India has a growing footprint on the world. It

will be called on to participate in shaping the world order. If it

is to remain true to its own self-image, it will have to move

from being a consumer of knowledge to being a producer of

knowledge. In a similar vein, Paul (2009) states:

As Indias material power and position advance in the international

system, it will be called upon to make a number of decisions both for

its own interest and in the collective interests of the world. Therefore

the integration of Indian IRwith Global IRis urgently called for.

Mallavarapu (2009) opines that such an integration process

would require theoretical formulations that could explain

what causal mechanisms account for political change and his-

torical transitions, decide on the cast of actors who mattered,

and describe how the broader international community re-

sponds to these developments. The recent Indian theorising on

multilateralism can be considered as a significant achievement

in this direction.

Mapping the Distinctive Voice in Indian IR

The initial efforts towards theorising multilateralism in the

west can be traced to the works of Keohane, Ruggie, Cox and

Rosenau. While Keohane (1990) subscribes to the rationalisttradition, and Cox and Rosenau are committed to the reflectivist

school, Ruggie lies somewhere in between. Keohane (1988,

2000) defines multilateralism as the practice of coordinating

national policies in a group of three or more states through

institutional arrangements having persistentset of rules that

constrain activity, shape expectations and prescribe roles.

Keohanes views find resonance in the writings of Ruggie.

According to Ruggie (1993), multilateralism depicts a generic

institutional form in international relations that coordinates

relations among three or more states on the basis of generalised

principles of conduct. Two corollaries of the generalised prin-

ciples of conduct are: indivisibility among the members of a

collectivity with respect to the range of behaviour in question;and diffuse reciprocity expected by each member to yield a

rough equivalence of benefits in the aggregate and over time.

A careful study of Keohane and Ruggie suggests two necessary

ingredients of the western rationalist theorising on multilater-

alism: (1) perpetual regulatory framework and institutional

structure; (2) universal state-centric appeal. Though the issues

of rules, institutions and state-centrism are reiterated in the

Indian rationalist theorising on multilateralism, their perpetu-

ality and universality are effectively problematised.

Deepak Nayyar (2002) opines that there is a need not only

to change or adapt the existing multilateral rules or institutions,

but also to create the missing rules or institutions particularly

to govern global macroeconomic management, international

financial structure, transnational corporations, cross-border

movement of people and international public goods. He high-

lights three major problems in this regard: First, there are dif-

ferent rules in different spheres. For instance, the World Trade

Organisation (WTO) is more open in the sphere of trade flows

and capital flows but less open in the sphere of technology

flows and labour flows. Second, there are rules for some but

not for others. There are no rules for surplus countries, or even

deficit countries, in the industrialised world which do not

borrow from the multilateral financial institutions, but the


4/9

SPECIAL ARTICLE


International Monetary Fund and the World Bank set rules for

borrowers in the developing world and in the transitional

economies. Third, the agenda for new rules is partisan. The

attempt to create a multilateral agreement on investment in the

WTO, which seeks free access and national treatment for investors

with provision to commitments and obligations to foreign in-

vestors, provides the most obvious example. Surely these rights

of foreign investors must be matched by some obligations. He

concludes by advocating the need to make the rules symmetri-

cal across spheres and uniformly applicable to all states.

Though Nayyars call for uniformity echoes Ruggies empha-

sis on generalised principles of conduct, the applicability of

Nayyars idea of uniformity is much wider as it is not just lim-

ited to multiplicity of states but also embraces plural spheres of

interaction amongst states. Moreover, Nayyars demand for in-

troducing new multilateral rules and institutions questions the

perpetuality of existing multilateral rules and institutions on

the one hand, and reflects impatience towards the idea of

diffuse reciprocity on the other. A profound mistrust towards

the efficacy of diffuse reciprocity in serving collective pur-poses is reflected in the views of Achin Vanaik who writes:

Multilateralism is essentially a neutral rather than definition-

ally positive term as it is so often used for bad ends.5

While J N Dixit (2005) and Shashi Tharoor (2003) largely

associate the concept of multilateralism with the regulatory

problems of multiple coexisting states as members of universal

multilateral institutions like the United Nations (UN), B S Prakash

(2005) warns that the changes in multilateralism are not limited

to the UN system as sub-regionalism or pan-regionalism has

evolved as another multilateral reality that challenges the uni-

versal character of traditional multilateralism. Unlike the western

scholars, who suggest that regional organisations like the Euro-

pean Union (EU)have multilateralism in their DNA(Barroso 2010;Groom 2009; Zadek 2007), and who sense continuity rather

than contradiction between the forces of regionalism and

multilateralism, the Indian scholars consider regionalism as

an obstacle in the move towards multilateralism. The majority of

western scholars Hudgins, Either, Mansfield and Reinhardt,

Sampson and Woolcock, Wei and Frankel, Menno assert that

regionalism is not blocking multilateralism but is facilitating

its development, whereas the majority of Indian scholars like

Jagdish Bhagwati (1992, 1996), Nipun Agarwal (2007) and

Sayantan Gupta (2008) argue that regionalism might not be a

building block or a stepping stone but rather a stumbling block

in the path of multilateralism.6 They argue that the economic

rents produced through multilateral trade diversion adversely

affect the politico-economic interests of many regional special-

interest-lobby groups. Consequently, these groups push the gov-

ernments to stop moving further in the direction of multilater-

alism. The governments face a multi-objective decision-making

scenario wherein they need to maximise cultural, environ-

mental, economic, social and many other factors rather than

just one factor the economic factor as stressed by Adam

Smith and David Ricardo. The complexity of multi-objective

decision-making causes governments to make decisions that

are not always compatible with the goal of multilateralism.

Noticing the fragmentation in the universal character of

multilateralism due to growing regional tilt in multilateral

practice, B S Prakash (2010) observes:

As one surveys the changing face of multilateralism today, we see mu-

tation and multiplication. The underlying reality is that the world is

multipolar and with more poles, you tend to have more constellations.

He asks how one understands the many-lateralism of

multilateralism. Though the Indian scholarship admits some

degree of overlap between the divided landscapes of regionalism

and multilateralism, it underlines the possibility of clash

between regional and universal multilateral interests, thereby

challenging the notion of divisibility that is so central to

Ruggies understanding of multilateralism.

Linking History and Dialectics

As the theoretical discourse on multilateralism acquires a

reflectivist attitude, the actors and arenas of multilateralism

expand. The criticism of rationalist emphasis on perpetuality

and universality paves way for reflective thinking on transfor-

mationand regionalism. The operation of institutions and rulesare analysed in the light of underlying norms. The activ ities of

states are scrutinised in the context of civil society. The western

reflectivist theorising on multilateralism is arguably best ex-

emplified in the writings of Cox and Rosenau. Coxs (1996) his-

torical dialectic approach studies multilateralism as a historical

problem in the making of a new world order. Thus multilateralism

becomes an arena of conflict between the endeavour to buttress

the freedom of movement of powerful homogenising economic

forces, and efforts to build a new structure of regulation pro-

tecting diversity and the less powerful. Cox (1997) aims at explor-

ing the prospects for creating new multilateralism built from

the bottom up on the foundations of a broadly participative

global society.In line with Coxs idea of new multilateralism that encom-

passes a tussle between diverse social forces often transcending

the boundaries of state, Rosenau (1997) perceives the formation

of multilateralism through a historical dialectic between glo-

balising and localising forces. He argues that both sets of forces

challenge the authority of the nation state in favour of some

sort of alternative imagined community, whether sub-national,

supranational or transnational in scope. For him, the problem

of multilateralism is connected to the issue of multiple levels of

associations including ethnic, religious and familial affiliations.

Two features sum up the western reflectivist proposition

on multilateralism: (1) a historically transformable trajectory;

(2) dialectically linked social forces. Though the Indian reflectivist

thinking on multilateralism captures the transformative thrust of

diverse social forces, it has a distinctive appeal in two respects.

First, it employs not just historical but also sociological tools for

explaining the process of transformation in multilateralism.

Second, it suggests that the dialectical interaction between di-

verse social forces in the process of shaping multilateralism is

not always mutually conflictive but also mutually constitutive.

Sharing Coxs dynamic and historical vision, Ramesh Thakur

et al (2009) states that multilateralism, like any social construc-

tion, is destined to evolve as a function of changing environmental


5/9

SPECIAL ARTICLE


dynamics. The multilateral norms that underpin multilateral

institutions are products of historically specific demands and

power configurations. Since the demands and underlying power

configurations evolve and change with the passage of time,

there is little reason to believe that multilateral norms or insti-

tutions could or should remain static in form and nature

(Thakur et al 2009). Acharya (2009) endorses Kratochwils

(1993) conviction to further explain that the dynamics of multi-

lateralism is more a function of norms than institutions. Multi-

lateralism institutionalises a world order by embedding new

norms into it. However when the existing norms become dys-

functional at a particular temporaljuncture, multilateralism

redefinesor displaces them, thereby transforming the very world

order that it once helped to institutionalise. Therefore, the

changes in the institutional dimensions of multilateralism can be

grasped by comprehending the related normative shifts in time.

However, the normative shifts in multilateral practice are

not just temporally but also spatially contingent. Acharya

(2009) argues that the norms of multilateralism vary and un-

dergo adaptation in different regional contexts, somethingRuggies general definition of multilateralism does not demon-

strate. Though Ruggies definition acknowledges the normative

elements of multilateralism and Coxs account admits the

importance of regional contexts, they do not explore how the

transnational norms of multilateralism acquire regional spe-

cificity and meaning through socialisation. In his attempt to

fill the gaps in Ruggies and Coxs understanding of multilater-

alism, Acharya (2004) uses the sociological framework of

norm localisation to explain how external/foreign multilateral

norms are constructively diffused into regional/local con-

texts. He describes norm localisation as the active construc-

tion of locally applicable multilateral norms by local actors

through discourse, framing, grafting and cultural selection offoreign ideas. The norm localisation helps in achieving con-

gruence between foreign and local beliefs as well as practices,

thereby uniquely determining the diverse practices of multi-

lateralism at various regional levels.

Though Acharya espouses Coxs and Rosenaus concept of

dialectics by admitting that the central feature of norm dynamic

is the contestation between pre-existing regional and emerging

global normative orders, he delves deeper into the nature of

contestation between regional and global forces to reveal that

the regional and global normative orders are not in a thoroughly

oppositional but in a mutually constitutive relationship. He

further elaborates that the resulting behaviour of the recipient

can be understood more in terms of the former than the latter,

although it can be fully understood in terms of both. Acharyas

notion of new multilateralism involves a mix of three types of

actors: (1) counter hegemonic coalitions; (2) cosmopolitan

moral movements; (3) knowledge-based epistemic communi-

ties. Though Acharya (2009) borrows the concept of counter-

hegemonic coalitions from Cox and epistemic communities

from Adler and Haas, the manner in which he utilises these

concepts for explaining the role of leadership in new multi-

lateralism makes his contribution more than a mere application

of existing western ideas to non-western contexts. Unlike the

western practice of acknowledging the hegemonic leadership

of United States (US) in creating post-war multilateral order,

Acharya argues that the actors of new multilateralism provide

a leadership that goes beyond the structural leadership of the

global hegemon. He demonstrates that some of the most creative

contributions of new multilateralism such as the report of the

International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty

are neither American-led nor produced by a formal govern-

mental organisation. The sociological bent of Acharyas read-

ing of multilateralism opens greater space for entrepreneurial

leadership. The greater preference for regional, dynamic, and

normative aspects in the Indian theorising on multilateralism

originates from Indias experience of multilateralism.

Lessons for the West

Indias tryst with multilateralism can be traced back to the

sending of a subordinate Indian delegation (within the British

delegation) to the United Nations Conference on International

Organisation which drafted the UN charter in 1945 (Mani

2004). Since then a firm commitment to the principles andpurposes of the UN charter has remained integral to Indias ap-

proach to multilateralism (Dixit 2005). After obtaining free-

dom from colonial shackles, the practice of multilateralism

under the ambit of the UN was viewed by India as potentially

instrumental in safeguarding its hard-won sovereignty and up-

lifting its underdeveloped economy. Though Indias faith in

the UN system remained intact, it gradually realised that the

actual structuring of the UN system was predicated on the

premise of preserving the core interests of both the great

powers the US and the Soviet Union (Prakash 2005). In the

light of this renewed understanding, Indias modified ap-

proach to multilateralism found expression in the initiation of

the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM).The period of multilateral practice by India within the

parameters of the UN and NAM peculiarly informed the Indian

theorising on multilateralism. The concept of multilateralism

was mostly viewed through the institutional and regulatory

lenses. The complexity of consensus-building amongst sover-

eign states within the multilateral forums of the UN and NAM

appeared prominently in the writings of Indian theorists. How-

ever the pursuance of protective multilateralism under the

aegis of the NAM could not continue for long. Due to the collapse

of the second world and the end of bipolarity, the signifi-

cance of the third world and its NAM became questionable.

The emergence of a politically unipolar and economically

multipolar world pushed India to revise its approach to multi-

lateralism. The revised approach had to adapt itself to three

new realities. First, the UN system as a multilateral forum had

been transformed both in terms of the strength and character of

its members and the scope of its numerous specialised agencies.

Second, the UN system was not the only instrument of multi-

lateralism. The cropping up of multiple regional organisations

(the EU, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation

SAARC, Association of Southeast Asian Nations ASEAN,

Shanghai Cooperation Organisation SCO, Asia-Pacific Eco-

nomic Cooperation, G-4, G-6, G-8+5, G-20, G-77, Brazil, South


6/9

SPECIAL ARTICLE


Africa, India and China (BASIC), Brazil, Russia, India, China

and South Africa (BRICS) provided alternative venues for

operationalising multilateralism. Third, the exercise of an ex-

cessively unilateralist role by the hegemon (the US) began to

give a setback to the general spirit of multilateralism. Shridath

Ramphal (1988) wrote:

The paradox and the tragedy of recent times is that even as the needfor a multilateral approach to global problems has become more mani-

fest, support for internationalism has weakened-eroded by some of

the strongest nations. This is most true, of course, of the United States,

whose recent behaviour has served actually to weaken the structure of

multilateralism, including the UN itself.

How did Indias new multilateralism respond to these

changed realities? First, India attempted to capitalise on the

growing numerical strength of the developing countries in the

UN and related agencies with a view to forward its own na-

tional interest. The stalemate at the WTO Doha Round over the

controversial issue of agricultural market access was largely a

contribution of the concerted effort of India and Brazil led

group of developing countries (Srinivasan 2006). Second,India began to explore the alternative venues of multilateralism

offered by regional organisations either by acquiring member-

ship (SAARC, G-4, G-8+5, G-20, G-77, BASIC, BRICS) or by forg-

ing close economic and strategic links (EU,ASEAN). In doing so,

India broke out of the claustrophobic confines of south Asia

(Gupta 1997) and designed its foreign policy in accordance

with the concept of extended neighbourhood (Scott 2009). In

2007, Indias Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon stated that

as we move beyond Southern Asia to Indias extended neigh-

bourhood... from the broader perspective, we regard our secu-

rity as lying in a neighbourhood of widening concentric cir-

cles. Third, India chose to bandwagon with the US with an in-

tention of reaping the benefits of accompanying the hegemonwhile simultaneously attempting to dilute its unilateralist

character and shift it in the direction of collective hegemony

wherein India aspired to join the other major powers in

the collective exercise of hegemony. Besides the Indo-US

Nuclear Deal, India accepted with the US what is in effect

an Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement (ACSA) and a

Container Security Initiative (CSI), widely seen as Indias move

to appease the US.

C Raja Mohan (2009) opines that

Indias reluctance to join the rest of the world in the chorus against US

unilateralism is a reflection not only of diplomatic opportunism, but of

the somewhat poorly understood complexity of the Indian attitude to

both multilateralism and national sovereignty.

He explains that Indias enthusiasm for third worldism

never obscured its own ambitions to become a major power in

its own right or its unwillingness to limit its sovereignty under

the presumed advantages of multilateralism. These insights

suggest that the Indian approach to multilateralism is dubious

when diagnosed separately at the global and the regional

level. At the global level, Indias new multilateralism is reform-

ative in character. The issues ofrules, institutions and legiti-

macy appear very prominently in the reformative agenda.

However, the high degree of importance attached to rules,

institutions, and legitimacy at the global level is found missing

at the regional level. Amitav Acharya (2002) writes:

Asias somewhat distinctive multilateralism is based on organisational

minimalism, preference for consensus over majority voting, and

avoidance of legalistic approaches in favour of informal and process-

based socialisation.

At the regional level, Indias new multilateralism is assertive

in character. Manjeet Pardesi (2005) argues that a rising India

will aspire to become the regional hegemon of south Asia and

the Indian Ocean, and an extra-regional power in west Asia,

central Asia and south-east Asia.

The dubious character of the new multilateral practice re-

shaped the Indian scholarship on multilateralism. As the wave

of globalisation increasingly modified the traditional under-

standing of state sovereignty, the notion of regionalism became

crucial for grasping the dynamics of multilateralism. In their

response to greater regional sensitivity in practising multi-

lateralism, the Indian theorists identified the possibility of a

clash between global and regional multilateral forces, and

clarified the historical transformation of multilateral norms byexplaining the sociological interplay between the state and

non-state actors operating at both global and regional levels.

Against the differential practice of multilateralism at the

global and regional levels, the rise of the EU as a successful

multilateral model is increasingly being assessed by both the

strategists and scholars of India. In her inaugural speech at the

conference on India-EU Forum on Effective Multilateralism

(October 2009, http://www.indembassy.be/speeches-state-

ments/october/oct9a.html), the minister of state for external

affairs, Perneet Kaur stated:

India and the EU seek to address a number of global issues and chal-

lenges through multilateralism Effective multilateralism requires

understanding and respect for mutual concerns, needs or aspirations.

Though the practitioners in India intend to forge effective

multilateral ties with the west, the compatibility of the

respective multilateral frameworks of south Asia and Europe

is generally considered very low by the Indian scholars

(K K Bhargava et al 1994, 1998; L L Mehrotra and H S Chopra

1995; Rajendra K Jain 2002, 2007) due to three broad hurdles:

(1) The suspicious political environment because of the fragile

democratic conditions and Indias dominant position in south

Asia. (2) The conflictive relationship between India and Pakistan.

(3) The lack of complementarities amongst the economies of

south Asia and their increasing reliance on the developed

economies of the west.

Regional Multilateralism

The highly unstable political scenario with the extremely vola-

tile Afghanistan-Pakistan region has become an obstacle in

the establishment of the security community advocated by

Karl W Deutsch et al (1957), within which groups of people

enjoy institutions and practices of a kind that allows for a

reasonable expectation that change would proceed by peace-

ful rather than violent means. Writing in the context of the EU,

Jackson (1999) drew upon Keohanes bargaining away of

sovereignty thesis and argued that the membership of regional


7/9

SPECIAL ARTICLE


organisations is nothing but an exercise in voluntary loss of

sovereignty. However, in the Indian context, such a voluntary

loss of sovereignty is not readily acceptable because given the

dominant economic position of India in the south Asian region,

the probability of political loss being compensated by eco-

nomic gains remains bleak at least in the short run. Thus the

spillover effect of neo-functionalism,7 which is the basis of

the EU model, becomes inapplicable in the context ofSAARC.

Instead of spillover one can notice signs of spillback as the

strategy of leadership in south Asia has so far failed in translat-

ing the economic benefits into political gains. On the contrary,

the deep-rooted political differences have blocked the pros-

pects for economic growth.

Despite the obvious incompatibility between the multilateral

frameworks of the EU and SAARC, Indias admiration for the EU

model has compelled it to forge a robust one-to-one relation

with the EU, which in turn is likely to have a profound impact

on global governance, particularly in the post-recession world.

Against the backdrop of the recent recession, which has al-

ready posed a question mark on the unilateralist tendencies ofAmerican hegemony and boosted the confidence of the emerg-

ing developing economies, India finds itself closer to its yet to

be realised objective of exercising collective hegemony. In this

multilateral project of exercising collective hegemony India

views the EU as an influential co-player.

While India intends to forge effective multilateral ties with

the EU, the Global Europe Strategy (2006) has identified India

as a priority partner. The European commissioner for educa-

tion, training, culture and youth affairs, Jan Figel, during his

visit to India in 2008, commented: In the context of the India-

EU strategic partnership, a reinforced dialogue with an ex-

change on policy issues will be mutually beneficial (Nicholson

2009). A similar sentiment was expressed by the president ofthe European Commission, Jose Manual Barroso, who stated:

The world needs new thinking and new resolve to tackle the

many challenges it faces and I believe Europe and India have a

lot to offer each other as well as the world (ibid). In the light

of the awareness that Europe is facing some difficult challenges,

a serious thought has been devoted for improving the effec-

tiveness of its multilateral policies. The European Security

Strategy (ESS) formulated in 2003 as well as the report on the

implementation ofESS submitted in 2008 revolves around the

key concept of effective multilateralism. Though the concept of

effectiveness multilateralism has become centrally important

for the EU, it has been neither clearly defined in theoretical

terms nor appropriately understood in practical sense (Giovanni

and Caffarena 2010). The insights provided by the Indian

theory and practice of multilateralism can enrich the western

understanding in this regard. The Indian understanding of

multilateralism as a more dynamic, normative and regional

phenomena can probably help the western theorists in deve-

loping a clearer definition of effective multilateralism, thereby

allowing the Indian scholarship to make meaningful contribu-

tion in building IRtheory. The Indian theorising on multilater-

alism demonstrates the capability of Indian theorists to fashion a

post-western IRtheory. However, the potential of the Indian

post-western theorising on multilateralism can be most use-

fully tapped only if it gains serious acknowledgement from

the western academia.

Conclusions

The Indian scholarship on IR has arrived at a promising

juncture with the growing importance of multilateralism in

the asymmetrically interdependent contemporary world. Asmultilateralism acquires varied faces in diverse regional con-

texts, its appropriate theoretical comprehension and effective

practical implementation become far more challenging. The

insights provided by the recent Indian theorising on multi-

lateralism as well as the lessons derived from Indias historical

experience of multilateralism become particularly meaningful

in this context.

The greater sensitivity towards the temporal and spatial

dimensions of multilateral practice in the works of Indian

scholars, establishes multilateralism as a more regional, nor-

mative and dynamic concept. The creative employment of

sociological conceptual tools like norm localisation by the

Indian theorists aids in a better understanding of the complexinterface between the regional and global dynamics of multi-

lateralism over time. As the west increasingly realises that a

new set of widely shared rules is necessary to foster a cohesive

multilateral framework for sustaining global governance, and

as it strives to play a leading role in accomplishing this goal,

the need to grasp the attitude and preferences of rising powers

becomes critically essential. The rise of India as an emerging

power in the post-recession world grants it a significant posi-

tion in theoretically defining as well as strategical ly designing

the evolving form of multilateralism, thereby indicating the

uplifting status ofIRtheorising in India.

Notes

1 The rationalist theories focus on behaviouralregularities in specific institutions over timeand space. They assume scarcity, competitionand rationality on the part of the actors. Thereflectivist theories underline the importanceof inter-subjective meanings derived fromvalues, norms and practices that vary acrossculture. For a detailed discussion on this, seeKeohane (1988: 379-96).

2 Besides Indian scholars, many western thinkerslike Max Weber (1918), George Modelski (1964)and Boeshche (2003) too view Kautilya as thepioneer of political realism.

3 While Mattoo locates the crisis in IR theory

within the larger crises affecting Indian highereducation, Mallavarapu asserts that there existsan Indian tradition of thinking on issues oforder, justice and cosmopolitanism, even thoughit may not have been expressed in the languageof IR theory.

4 Acharya and Buzan label those intellectualworks as sub-systemic or exceptionalisttheorising that are situated within the westernsystems of thought and seek to creatively applythem in specific local contexts.

5 In an email conversation with the author.

6 There are a few exceptions in both the westernand Indian line of thinking. While the westernthinkers like Winters (1996) and Ornelas (2005)

view regionali sm as a stumbling block, theIndian scholars like Manoj Pant and Amit Sad-hukaran as well as Indian practitioners likeKamal Nath argue that regionalism is not ahurdle to multilateralism as often feared by theIndians. Besides, there are scholars who take aneutral position on the issue of regionalismversus multilateralism. For instance , Andria-mananjara (2003) and Aghion et al (2004)hold that regionalism, as reflected in the prac-tice of RTAs, support multilateralism, thoughmultilateralism could have eventuated even ifregionalism did not happen. See Manoj Pantand Amit Sadhukaran Does RegionalismHinder Multilateralism: A Case Study of India,


8/9

SPECIAL ARTICLE


2008,Discussion Paper 09-03, Centre for Inter-national Trade and Development, SIS, JNU;Kamal Nath No Contradiction between RTAsand Multilateralism, 2006, available at http://commerce.nic.in/PressRelease/pressrelease_detail.asp?id=368

7 Neofunctionalism is a theory of regional inte-gration building on the work of Ernest B. Haasand Jean Monnets approach to European inte-

gration. It aims at integrating individual sec-tors in hopes of achieving spillover effects tofurther the process of integration. Unlike pre-vious theories of integration, neofunctiona lismis non-normative and tries to describe and ex-plain the process of regional integration basedon empirical data. Neofunctionalism holds thatfunctional spillover occurs from the coopera-tion and social-integration of technocrats intoincreasingly political realms. Its strength how-ever is also its weakness. While it understandsthat regional integration is only feasible as anincremental process, its conception of integra-tion as a linear process makes the explanationof setbacks impossible.

References

Acharya, Amitav (2002): Regional Institutionsand Asian Security Order in Muthaah Alagappa(ed.),Asian Security Order,Stanford UniversityPress, pp 201-40.

(2004): How Ideas Spread: Whose NormsMatter? Norm Localisation and InstitutionalChange in Asian Regionalism, InternationalOrganisation, 58(2), pp 239-75.

(2008): Identity without Exceptionalism:Challenges for Asian Political and InternationalStudies in Navnita Chadha Behera (ed.),Inter-national Relations in South Asia: Search foran Alternative Paradigm, Sage.

(2009): Multilateralism, Sovereignty and Nor-mative Change in World Politics in RameshThakur et al (ed.), Multilateralism underChallenge?, United Nations University Press,pp 95-118.

Acharya, Amitav and Barry Buzan (2007): Why Is

There No Non-Western International RelationsTheory?, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 7(3), pp 287-312.

Agarwal, Nipun (2007): Why Multilateralism CantExist: Is The WTO Mandate Wrong?, availableat http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=957765, accessed 28 July 2010.

Aghion, P, P Antrs and E Helpman (2004): Nego-tiating Free Trade, NBER Working Paper 10721.

Andriamananjara, Soamiely (2003): On the Rela-tionship between Preferential Trading Agree-ments and the Multilateral Trading System,Pacific Economic Cooperation Council, availableat http://www.pecc.org/publications/papers/trade-papers/1_SII/6-andriamananjara.PDF

Appadorai, A (1981): Non-Alignment: Some Impor-tant Issues, International Studies, 20 (1&2),pp 3-11.

Bajpai, Kanti (2005): International Studies in India:Bringing Theory (Back) Home in Bajpai andMallavarapu (ed.), International Relations inIndia: Bringing Theory Back Home, OrientLongman, pp 17-38.

Barroso, Jose Manuel (2010): Asian Giants CanImbibe Europes Values, The Times of India,24 January, p 14, available at http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:LowLevelEntityToPrint_TOI&Type=text/html&Locale=english-skin-custom&Path=TOIBG/2010/01/24&ID=Ar01400, accessed28 July 2010.

Basrur, Rajesh M (2008): South Asias Cold War:Nuclear Weapons and Conflict in ComparativePerspect ive, Routledge.

Behera, Navnita Chadha (2007): Re-Imagining IRin India, Internat ional Relat ions of the AsiaPacific, 7(3), pp 341-68.

Bhaduri, Am it (2009): A Failed World View,EPW,pp 35-39.

Bhagwati, Jagdish (1992): Regionalism versusMultilateralism, The World Economy, 15(15),pp 535-56.

(1996): Preferential Trading Areas and Multi-

lateralism: Strategies, Friends or Foes? inJagdish Bhagwati (ed.), The Economics ofPreferent ial Trade Agreements, AEI Press.

Bhargava, K K and Husain and Ross Masood(1994): SAARC and European Union: Learningand Cooperation Opportunities, Har-AnandPublications.

(1998): EU-SAARC Comparisons and Prospectsof Cooperation, Discussion Paper C15, Centre forEuropean Integration Studies, Bonn.

Bhaskar, C Uday et al, ed. (2005): United Nations:Multilateralism and International Securit y,IDSA-Shipra.

Bidwai, Praful (2009): An India That Can Say Yes:A Climate Responsible Development Agendafor Copenhagen and Beyond, Heinrich BollStiftung, New Delhi.

Boesche, Roger (2003): KautilyasArthashastra on

War and Diplomacy in Ancient India, TheJournal of Military History, 67(1), pp 9-37.

Butalia, Urvashi and Anita Roy (2010): WomenChanging India,Zubaan.

Cox, Robert W (1996): Multilateralism and WorldOrder in Robert W Cox and Timothy Sinclair(ed.), Approaches to World Order,Cambridge,pp 494-523.

ed. (1997): The New Realism: Perspectives onMultilateralism and World Order, St MartinsPress/United Nations University Press.

Chellaney, Brahma (2010): Asian Juggernaut: TheRise o f China, India and Japan, Harper Paper-backs.

Deutsch, Karl W et al (1957): Political Economy inthe North Atlantic Area: International Organi-sation in the Light of Historica l Experience,Princeton.

Dixit, J N (2005): Indias Approach to Multilatera l-ism in C Uday Bhaskar et al (ed.), UnitedNations: Multilaterali sm and Internat ionalSecurity, IDSA-Shipra.

Giovanni, Andornino and Anna Caffarena (2010):Engineering a Global Framework for EuropesStrategic Policy-Making, a paper presented atNetwork Seminar on Europe and Global Chal-lenges,held at Torino World Affairs Institute,23-25 March.

Groom, A J R (2009): Multilateralism as a Way ofLife in Europe in Edward Newman, RameshThakur and John Tirman (ed.),Multilateralismunder Challenge? Power, International Orderand Structural Change, United Nations Univer-sity Press.

Gupta, Bhabani Sen (1997): India in the TwentyFirst Century, International Affairs, 73(2),pp 297-314.

Gupta, Sayantan (2008): Changing Faces of Inter-national Trade: Multilateralism to Regionalism,Journal of International Commercial Law andTechnology, 3(4), pp 266-85.

Harshe, Rajen (2004): Interpreting Globalisat ion:Perspectives in International Relations , RawatPublications.

Jackson, Robert (1999): Sovereignty at the Millen-nium, Wiley-Blackwell.

Jain, Rajendra Kumar (2002): India and theEuropean Union in the 21st Centur y, RadiantPublishers.

(2007): The European Union in Transition:Economy, Politics, Society, Radiant Publishers.

Karnad, Bharat (2008): Indias Nuclear Policy,ABC-CLIO.

Keohane, Robert O (1988): International Institu-tions: Two Approaches, International StudiesQuarterly, 32(4), pp 379-96.

(1990): Multilateralism: An Agenda for Re-search,International Journal, 45(4), pp 731-64.

(2000): The Contingent Legitimacy of Multi-lateralism, GARNET Working Paper, No 9.

Khilnani, Sunil (2010): The Idea of India,Penguin.Kothari, Ashish (2004): Building Bridges for Con-

servat ion: Towards Joint Management of Pro-tected Areas in India, Natraj Publishers.

Kratochwil, Friedrich (1993): Norms versus Num-bers: Multilateralism and the Rationalist andReflexivist Approaches to Institutions in JohnGerard Ruggie (ed.), op cit, pp 443-74.

Mallavarapu, Siddharth (2009): Development ofInternational Relations Theory in India:Traditions, Contemporary Perspectives andTrajectories, Internat ional Studie s, 46(1&2),pp 165-83.

Mani, V S (2004): An Indian Perspective on theEvolution of International Law in B S Chimni,Masahiro Miyoshi and Surya Subedi (ed.),Asian Yearbook of International Law, Volume 9,2000, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

Mattoo, Amitabh (2009): The State of InternationalStudies in India,International Studies,46 (1&2),pp 37-48.

Mehrotra, L L, H S Chopra and Gert W Kueck, ed.(1995): SAARC 2000 and Beyond, OmegaScientific.

Mehta, Pratap Bhanu (2009): Foreword in Muthi-ah Alagappa,Report of the Workshop on Inter-national Studies in India, Lee Kuan Yew Schoolof Public Policy.

Menon, Nivedita (2001): Gender and Politics inIndia,Oxford.

Misra, K P (1981): Toward Understanding Non-Alignment, International Studies, 20(1 &2),pp 36-37.

Mitra, Subrat (2003): The Reluctant Hegemon:Indias Self-perception and the South AsianStrategic Environment, Contemporary SouthAsia, 12(3), pp 399-418.

Modelski, George (1964): Kautilya: Foreign Policyand International System in Ancient HinduWorld, The American Political Science Review,58(3), September, pp 549-60.

Muni, S D and Anuradha Muni (1984):Regional Co-operation in South Asia, National PublishingHouse.

Nandy, Ashis (1998): The Savage Freud and OtherEssays on Possible and Retrievable Selves,Oxford University Press.

Narain, Sunita et al (2001): Making Water Every-bodys Business: Policy and Practice of WaterHarvest ing, Centre for Science and Environ-ment, New Delhi.

Nayyar, Deepak, ed. (2002): Governing Globaliza-tion, Oxford.

Nicholson, Petronella, ed. (2009): The EuropeanUnion and India: A Dynamic Strategic Partner-ship, Stroudgate.

Ornelas, E (2005): Trade Creating Free TradeAreas and the Undermining of Multilateralism,European Economic Review, Vo 49, No 7,pp 1717-35.

Pardesi, Manjeet (2005): Deducing Indias GrandStrategy of Regional Hegemony from Historicaland Conceptual Perspectives, RSIS WorkingPapers, 76, April.

Paul, T V (2009): Integrating International Rela-tions Studies in India to Global Scholarship,International Studie s, 46(1&2), pp 129-45.

Prakash, B S (2005): Strengthening and Restruc-turing Multilateral Institutions: A Perspective


9/9

SPECIAL ARTICLE


in C Uday Bhaskar et al (ed.), United Nations:Multilateralism and International Security,IDSA-Shipra.

(2010): Looking for Meaning in Multilateralism,available at http://newsrediff.com/column/2010/feb/23/looking-for-meaning-in-multilat-eralism.htm, accessed 25 June 2010.

Raja Mohan, C (2009): India and the Asian Secu-rity Order in Michael J Green and Bates Gill(ed.),Asias New Multilateralism: Cooperation,

Competition and the Search for Community, Co-lumbia University Press.

Rajagopalan, Rajesh (2005): Second Strike Argu-ments about Nuclear War in South Asia, Viking.

(2008): Fighting like a Guerrilla: The IndianArmy and Counterinsurgency,Routledge.

Ramphal, Shridath (1988): Preface to Harrod andSahrijver (ed.), UN Under Attack, Gower.

Rana, A P (1969): The Intellectual Dimensions ofIndias Nonalignment, Journal of Asian Studies,28(2), pp 299-312.

(1979): Regionalism as an Approach to Inter-national Order: A Conceptual Overview,Inter-national Studies, 18, October, pp 491-535.

(2003): The Nehruv ian Tradition in WorldAffairs: Its Evolution and Relevance to Post

Cold War International Relations in SurjitMansingh (ed.),Nehrus Foreign Policy, Mosaic,pp 40-68.

Rana, A P and K P Misra (2005): CommunicativeDiscourse and Community in InternationalRelations in India: A Critique in Bajpai andMallavarapu (ed.), Internat ional Relat ions in

India: Bring ing Theory Back Home, OrientLongman.

Rosenau, James N (1997): The Person, the House-hold, the Community and the Globe: Notes fora Theory of Multilateralism in a TurbulentWorld in Robert W Cox (ed.), op cit.

Ruggie, John Gerard (1993): Multilateralism: TheAnatomy of an Institution in John GerardRuggie (ed.), Multi lateralism Matters: TheTheory and Praxis of an Institutional Form, Co-lumbia University Press.

Samaddar, Ranabir (2002): State in the Revision

of Space and History Today in Samaddar (ed.),Space, Territory and the State: New Readingsin International Politics, Orient Longman,pp 166-84.

Sarkar, Benoy Kumar (1919): The Hindu Theoryof International Relations, The American

Political Science Review, 13(3), pp 400-14.

(1921): The Hindu Theory of the State,Political Science Quarterly, 36(1), pp 79-90.

Shiva, Vandana (2000): Stolen Harvest: TheHijacking of the Global Food Supply, ZedBooks.

Scott, David (2009): Indias Extended Neigh-bourhood Concept: Power Projection for aRising Power,India Review, 8(2), Apri l-June,pp 107-43.

Sen, Sunanda and Byasdeb Dasgupta (2009): Un-freedom and Waged Work: Labour in IndiasManufacturing Industry, Sage.

Sridharan, E, ed. (2011): International RelationsTheory and South Asia: Security, Political

Economy, Domestic Politics, Identities and Images,Vol I, Oxford University Press.

Srinivasan, G (2006): Multilateralism at Cross-roads,Business Line, 19 December.

Subrahmanyam, K (1986): India and the NuclearAge, Lancer International in association withInstitute for Defence Studies and Analyses.

Swarup, Shanti (1981): Non-Alignment Mobilisa-tion and Capability, International Studies,20(1&2).

Thakur, Ramesh, et al, ed. (2009):Multilateralismunder Challenge? Power, International Orderand Structural Change, United Nations Univer-sity Press.

Tharoor, Shashi (2003): Why America Still Needsthe United Nations?,Foreign Affairs, September/October, available at http://www.foreignaf-fairs.com/articles/59184/shashi-tharoor/why-america-still-needs-the-united-nations, accessed4 April 2010.

The Hindu (2008): Nationalism in Danger:Pannikkar, The Hindu, 1 December, availableat http://www.hindu.com/2008/12/21/stories/2008122152980400.htm, accessed 24 July 2011.

Vanaik, Achin (2007): Selling US Wars, OliverBranch Press.

Varadarajan, Siddharth (2002): Gujarat: The Makingof a Tragedy,Penguin.

Weber, Max (1918): Politics as a Vocation inH H Gerth and C Wright Mills (ed. and trans.),1958From Max Weber, OUP.

Winters, L Alan (1996): Regionalism versus Multi-lateralism, Policy Research Working Paper1687, World Bank, Washington DC.

Zadek, Simon (2007): Collaborative Governance:The New Multilateralism for the 21st Century,available at http://www.zadek.net/wp-con-tent/uploads/2010/01/Collaborative-Govern-ance-Brookings-October-2007.pdf, accessed4 April 2010.

Decentralisation and Local Governments

Edited by

T R Raghunandan

The idea of devolving power to local governments was part of the larger political debate during the Indian national

movement. With strong advocates for it, like Gandhi, it resulted in constitutional changes and policy decisions in the

decades following Independence, to make governance more accountable to and accessible for the common man.

The introduction discusses the milestones in the evolution of local governments post-Independence, while providing an

overview of the panchayat system, its evolution and its powers under the British, and the stand of various leaders of the

Indian national movement on decentralisation.

This volume discusses the constitutional amendments that gave autonomy to institutions of local governance, both rural

and urban, along with the various facets of establishing and strengthening these local self-governments.

Authors:

V M Sirsikar Nirmal Mukarji C H Hanumantha Rao B K Chandrashekar Norma Alvares Poornima Vyasulu, Vinod Vyasulu Niraja Gopal Jayal

Mani Shankar Aiyar Benjamin Powis Amitabh Behar, Yamini Aiyar Pranab Bardhan, Dilip Mookherjee Amitabh Behar Ahalya S Bhat, Suman

Kolhar, Aarathi Chellappa, H Anand Raghabendra Chattopadhyay, Esther Duflo Nirmala Buch Ramesh Ramanathan M A Oommen Indira

Rajaraman, Darshy Sinha Stphanie Tawa Lama-Rewal M Govinda Rao, U A Vasanth Rao Mary E John Pratap Ranjan Jena, Manish Gupta

Pranab Bardhan, Sandip Mitra, Dilip Mookherjee, Abhirup Sarkar M A Oommen J Devika, Binitha V Thampi

Pp xii + 432 ISBN 978-81-250-4883-1 2012 Rs 695

Orient Blackswan Pvt Ltdwww.orientblackswan.com

MumbaiChennai New Delhi KolkataBangaloreBhubaneshwar Ernakulam GuwahatiJaipur Lucknow Patna Chandigarh HyderabadContact: [email protected]

NEW

Indian Scholarship on International Relations and Multilateralism

Documents

Transcript of Indian Scholarship on International Relations and Multilateralism