Saturday, 31 March 2012
Peace Pipeline
During years of speculation on when the Peace Pipeline—which traverses Pakistan to India—would finally become operational, it was New Delhi that ultimately refused cooperation, leaving Iran and Pakistan with their bilateral talks as the only option to advance the project.
Dar Altaf(Pol. Scholar and Educator) -(School of Education Pondicherry University-2011-12): Revival of political theory.
Dar Altaf(Pol. Scholar and Educator) -(School of Education Pondicherry University-2011-12): Revival of political theory.: In 1950’s and 1960’s it was being that political theory is in a state of decline. The reason for this was the influence of historical app...
Revival of political theory.
In 1950’s and 1960’s it was being that political theory is in a state of decline. The reason for this was the influence of historical approach, logical positivism, Marxism, hyper- factualism, growth of constitutional law, empirical political Sociology, on the minds of political thinkers. But Berlin says that political theory is neither dead nor in the state of decline. He challenges that there can never be any one kind of society and if even such a society exist the society’s goals would always carry different and incomplete meanings to different persons in different situations and he says that there can not be an age without political Philosophy.
Berlin said, “As long as rational curiosity existed political Theory would not die nor disappear from this earth”. Sabine also says that, “If political theory is systematic, disciplined investigation of political problems, then it is difficult to say that political theory was dead in 1950’s and 1960’s”. Political theory in the traditional sense was alive in the works of Arendt, Oakeshott, Leo strauss, Rawls, Nozick, Herbert Marcuse, Eric Vogelin etc.
Arendt rejected the idea of hidden and anonymous forces in history. Like other leading figures in the revival of political theory she also pointed to the essential incompatibility between ideology and political theory. She was aware of the loss of human experience in the modern world and desired a need to recover a sense of dignity and responsible freedom in human action, seeing it as a basis for the revival of political theory.
Oakeshott also stressed that philosophy served truth which was not determined by its historical setting. He wrote a book named “Introduction to leviathan” in 1946, a book of over 100 pages which is a pure philosophical work. He wrote another book “On rationalism” in 1962
John Rawls an American philosopher wrote two books “justice as fairness” in 1957 and “A theory of justice” in 1971, which are the important works on the revival of political theory
Henna Arendt also has written a book” On human conditions” in 1958 which is an important book of 20th century. This book stands more important than theory of justice by John Rawls.
In 1954, Karl Popper wrote a book “Open society and its enemies”. The book is based on two volumes, first on Plato and 2nd on Hegel. In this book he characterizes democracy as welfare society, enlightened society and made other modifications in it but he did not accept it as it was. He was critic of communism and called them enemies of open society.
Berlin has also written two books first “Two concepts of liberty” in 1958 and second “Does political theory still exist” in 1962. These are important philosophical works. He wrote another book “Concepts and categories” in 1978. He accepted that that it was the absence of commanding work and critical dimension that lead to the declaration that pol. Theory was dead or dying.
Wolins masterpiece, “politics and vision: continuity and innovation in western political thought” in 1960 not only defends classical tradition from the attack of behaviouralism but also explains the beauty and usefulness in the tradition of political theory from Plato to contemporary times.
Nozic’s work “Anarchy, state and utopia” written in 1974 has rejuvenated political theory. This rejuvenation has been a return to the true tradition of the classics in which normative analysis uses empirical findings.
Since 1970’s similar approaches are being made by theorists in analysis and democracy. Since then political theory including critical political theory has been alive and has been using scientific politics to achieve progress. Thus political theory has not been killed by empirical analysis but has helped to progress better.
India-Pakistan Peace Process: Twists and Turns
India and Pakistan have come a long way, witnessing several highs and lows in bilateral relations. Claims by both successor nations to the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir have resulted in a half- century of bitter relations that has included four wars: in 1947- 48, 1965, 1971 and 1999. The euphoria that followed the Feb. Lahore declarations by India and Pakistan abruptly dissipated when nearly 1500 Pakistan- backed Muslim Militants crossed the LOC and infiltrated six miles into the India-held Kargil region of North Kashmir. And it gave emergence to the Kargil war between India and Pakistan. It was the fourth large scale conflict between the two countries. Pakistan crossed the LOC and occupied the heights above Kargil with the objective to interdict the Kargil-Ladakh highway and isolate Indian forces in Leh, the support base for Indian troops in Siachen, and thereby facilitate their later eviction. To emphasize that the LOC was essentially a temporary border and to elicit a violent Indian reaction, which would alarm the international community and feed into its fears that the Kashmir conflict could escalate out of control and reach a nuclear flash point? From India’s perspective, Pakistan failed to secure these objectives except for managing to internationalize the Kashmir dispute-but in a way that lost its international support. The international community condemned Pakistan’s evident violation of the LOC, an action that could have sparked an even greater conflict. The United States called its actions unprovoked and unjustified, as did the G-8 countries, which viewed “any military action to change the status (of the LOC) as irresponsible. Ultimately with the intervention of U.S President Bill Clinton Pakistan withdraw its forces from kargil region.
Events in Pakistan have come full circle with the Musharraf’s return to power in Oct.1999, as the final arbiter of countries destiny. The removal of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif by General Parvaiz Musharraf, has flung Pakistan’s nascent democracy into turmoil and uncertainty. He appointed himself as the chief executive and suspended the constitution and National Assembly and declared a state of emergency in Pakistan. He accused Sharif’s Government of systematically destroying state institutions and deriving the economy towards collapse. Musharraf has pushed through numerous legislative initiatives, relying on constitutional manipulation and electoral rigging to retain power. These initiatives, under the pretext of transitioning to democracy, were intended to render the Prime Minister powerless and reduce parliament to a bureaucratic rubber stamp. Musharraf’s roadmap to democracy was in reality a blueprint for more military rule. After, the Kargil war the relationship between India and Pakistan worsened considerably, particularly because Musharraf had been the prime architect of the Kargil operation. And he is also called Mr. Kargil in India. Musharraf’s anti India policies were high jacking of Indian plane, declaring Kashmir as a core issue and supporting cross border terrorism. He used America’s aid in anti-India activities in Kashmir and other parts of India. He demonstrates the mindset of an assertive, theologically committed military figure having long-standing links with several Islamic fundamentalist groups.
The Vajpayee-Musharraf summit at Agra held on the 15th and 16th July was anticipated with high hopes and expectations. But it barely managed to ensure the continuity of the dialogue that had reopened after a gap of more than two and a half years. Since the October 1999 Military Coup of General Musharraf, India had continued to refuse the offer by Musharraf to have bilateral discussions( at any level, at any time and any place).Why then a sudden change of policy resulting in an invitation on 24 May 2001 to Parvaiz Musharraf to come to India for a Summit. It was L. K. Advani and other senior cabinet colleagues who advised Vajpayee to do something bold and dramatic in bilateral framework so that India and Pakistan could break out of the logjam since the Kargil war in 1999.The other reasons for this invitation were inherent in political developments in J&K. Vajpayee’s invitation of May 24th was accepted by Musharraf on May 27th. Dates for the summit were tentatively scheduled for mid- July, the summit ultimately took place between the 14th and 16th of July. Although widely anticipated as a possible breakthrough in India- Pakistan relations, the July Summit failed to produce a joint communiqué, reportedly as a result of pressure by hardliners on both sides. Major stumbling blocks were India’s refusal to acknowledge the “centrality of Kashmir” to future talks and Pakistan’s objection to references to “cross-border terrorism”. In short, the way the Agra Summit ended saddened many. But rather than mourning reality, let us learn to accept it. The fact is that traditional adversaries cannot become friends overnight. First, they have to stop behaving enemies. That can only happen when the killing of each other’s troops will be stopped and fomenting troubles for each lessened. They should start acting trustworthily.
As the two south Asian nuclear rivals, India and Pakistan, step into an ‘era of peace’ things have started to change. They sent a clear message to the world that they have serious intentions to resolve their conflicts. They realized the risks of derailing the peace process through the politics of confrontation and understand the benefits if they move in the direction of peace-building. In the sixty years of their existence as independent states, India and Pakistan took 50 years-half a century-to develop a process in 1997. In May 1997, in Male, capital of the Maldives, on the sideline of SAARC summit, Indian Prime minister Inder Kumar Gujral and his Pakistani counterpart Nawaz Sharif mooted the idea of a structured dialogue or the Comprehensive Dialogue Process (CDP). Both the leaders agreed to start a dialogue on eight baskets of issues. What exactly is a peace process? A peace process is a mechanism or a set of negotiations where the parties involved attempt to avoid war or a war like-situation and wish to settle conflicts peacefully by using techniques such as diplomacy, tradeoffs and mediation. Peace is considered as an end in itself and such techniques are used to achieve that end. The peace process between India and Pakistan was affected by the acts of terrorism indirectly supported by Pakistan like kargil war, parliament attacks, Mumbai train blasts and the inefficient policies of Parvaiz Musharraf. There are some entrenched factors that have historically impacted on the India-Pakistan ‘peace process’ and limited the ability of both nations to conclude significant and meaningful agreements that would improve and further their relationship. There are (at least) three entrenched factors: first, the need for strong, popular, conciliatory and decisive leadership concurrently in both nations to make appropriate agreements on divisive issues; second, the need for strong public support in both nations to push for such agreements and then to enable any agreements made to be implemented, particularly in relation to the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir; and, third, the need to overcome the so-called ‘trust deficit’ that exists between both nations and many of their people. These factors are related. None has yet been overcome to allow the India-Pakistan ‘peace process’ to progress beyond what currently appears to an ongoing, slow and steady pace of consultations. This situation appears unlikely to change in the short term.
The end result of the Kargil experience is that Indian public opinion is clear that Pakistan will continue its hostile activities against India and that India had to remain permanently alert. I view more Kargil wars might crop up if India remains adamant on Kashmir issue and failed to resolve it in a just and fair manner. Prime Minister of Pakistan rightly said on 12th July 1999 in Pakistan National Assembly: “Though the volcanic eruption in Kargil has been brought under control, if India doesn’t discuss Kashmir in meaningful manner, other volcanoes will erupt”. It is the admitted fact that regional stability and progress depends upon India-Pakistan peace. Leaders of the two countries embrace much wider, larger, and longer strategic perspectives without sticking only to Kashmir as a national policy. When we view the Kashmir issue and the bilateral relationship from such an angle, the eagerness of leaders of the two countries to take initiative to tackle the issue during the past five years would be understandable to a certain degree. Moreover, the leaders have their own compulsion to cope with the Kashmir issue without giving any impression of selling out of national interests, and at the same time to draw concession from the other side. The study gives the view that 'the lack of progress on the issue of Kashmir and terrorism has emerged as the main challenge to the current peace process between India and Pakistan. The divergence of perception regarding desired outcome of the peace process in these two areas has not only slowed down the peace process but may also deadlock the dialogue process. A peace process could become meaningful only when an inclusive political dialogue involving even the militants would take place. In the last sixty two years the people of the Kashmir have been ignored in the dialogue on Kashmir. Even, they were not party to the Tashkent Declaration or the Simla Accord. The inclusion of the Kashmiris in the peace process is also very important for any solution of the conf1ict.
Research Proposal Format
1) Title of the Proposed Research Study for Ph. D:
Give proposed research title
2) Introduction for the Proposed Study:
Give a broad description of the topic. Explain important concepts in the study.
3) Review of Literature:
Describe briefly at least ten reviews of related researches done in your topic during the last 10-15 years.
4) Statement of the Problem: State the rationale for carrying out the study. In other words, describe the gaps in information and work regarding the problem and state the justification for conducting the study.
5) Objectives: Delineate a few objectives of study (You may have two types of objectives if you desire):
(i) General Objectives
(ii) Specific Objectives
General objective is a broad area of study. General objective can be broken into three to four specific objectives based on various aspects of the study.
6) Hypothesis: Candidates need not propose Hypothesis if not relevant to his/her field of study (area/ discipline).
7) Methodology: The methodology should have the following components:
(i) Type of study
(ii) Area of study
(iii) Universe and Sample
(iv) Data Collection & proposed tools (specify details)
(v) Data Analysis & Techniques to be applied (Specify details)
8) Pilot Study: Explain proposed Pilot Study to be undertaken for testing tools, techniques etc.
9) Limitations of the Study: Mention the limitation that you will face in carrying out research.
10) Significance of the Study: Explain the importance of research study you have proposed and its significance in the context of the area/ field of research proposal.
11) Bibliography
Selected list of references should be mentioned.
India-Pakistan Peace Process: Problems and Prospects
The emergence of India & Pakistan with sovereign status 57 years back opened a Pandora’s Box of issues rooted in colonial legacy as well as historical acrimony. The region is often referred to as a high risk conflict zoon owing to history of tense relations, border clashes, and limited or large scale wars between these two neighbors. As the two south Asian nuclear rivals, India and Pakistan, step into an ‘era of peace’ things have started to change. They sent a clear message to the world that they have serious intentions to resolve their conflicts. They realized the risks of derailing the peace process through the politics of confrontation and understand the benefits if they move in the direction of peace-building. In the sixty years of their existence as independent states, India and Pakistan took 50 years-half a century-to develop a process in 1997. In May 1997, in Male, capital of the Maldives, on the sideline of SAARC summit, Indian Prime minister Inder Kumar Gujral and his Pakistani counterpart Nawaz Sharif mooted the idea of a structured dialogue or the CDP (Comprehensive Dialogue Process). Both the leaders agreed to start a dialogue on eight baskets of issues. The eight baskets were J and K, Siachen, Wullar barrage/Tulbul navigation project, Sirceek, Terrorism and Drug Trafficking, Economic and commercial co-operation, Peace and Security and Promotion of friendly exchanges in various fields. What exactly is a peace process? A peace process is a mechanism or a set of negotiations where the parties involved attempt to avoid war or a war like- situation and wish to settle conflicts peacefully by using techniques such as diplomacy, tradeoffs and mediation. Peace is considered as an end in itself and such techniques are used to achieve that end. A peace process cannot be launched, unless some basic requirements are met. Although, these requirements might differ from case to case yet they can be used without major modifications. The peace process between India and Pakistan was affected by the acts of terrorism indirectly supported by Pakistan like kargil war, parliament attacks, Mumbai train blasts and the inefficient policies of Pervaiz Musharraf. On 26 November, 2008, the biggest blow to the peace process between India and Pakistan came in the shape of a series of terror attacks in Mumbai that targeted two luxury hotels and other landmarks across the city and led to the deaths of 172 people while Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi was on a visit to India to discuss important issues related to the ongoing dialogue process including Kashmir, the Chenab River water dispute and trade ties.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)