Dissemination of civil society in South Asia

Author(s):  
Amit Prakash ◽  
Peter B. Andersen ◽  
Rubya Mehdi ◽  
Yasir Sharif
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Shibashis Chatterjee

This chapter is about how spatial imagination steeped in sovereign territoriality bedeviled local efforts to achieve a viable regional political community in South Asia. I invoke functional, security community, and post-colonial perspectives to interrogate regionalism in South Asia. This chapter shows that despite all South Asian states agreeing upon the virtues of regional cooperation, their underlying expectations are very different, which frustrates regional cooperation among countries. The chapter explains why spatial imagination is cardinal to this failing. It puts in bold relief how India has addressed regionalism in its immediate surroundings and achieved little in the process. The author shows that the civil society has failed to have any impact in reversing this trend. While a few states have found sub-regional cooperation more convenient, the net result has not been very exciting so far given that such sub-regional cooperation is also subject to the familiar geopolitical dynamics unleashed by territoriality. The limited record of collaboration among India, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Nepal, Bhutan, and China in some sub-regional efforts gives an excellent account of this process.


2002 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 919-947 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manu Bhagavan

In recent analyses of nationalism in colonial South Asia, Partha Chatterjee and Tanika Sarkar, among others, have argued that as a result of colonial domination in the “public sphere”—the realm of the state and civil society—Indian male nationalists deployed the “private sphere”—the realm of the home—as the discursive site of anticolonial nationalist imaginaries. The internal space of the home was “the one sphere where improvement could be made through [Indian men's] own initiative, changes could be wrought, where education would bring forth concrete, manipulable, desired results” (Sarkar 1992, 224; Chatterjee 1989) and it therefore took on “compensatory significance” in the experience of modernity in India (Chakrabarty 2000, 215–18).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document