SOUTH ASIAN STUDIES a Biannual Journal of South Asian Studies
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
ISSN 0974 – 2514 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOUTH ASIAN STUDIES A Biannual Journal of South Asian Studies Vol. 5 July – December 2012 No. 2 Editor Prof. Mohanan B Pillai SOCIETY FOR SOUTH ASIAN STUDIES UNESCO MADANJEET SINGH INSTITUTE OF SOUTH ASIA REGIONAL CO-OPERATION (UMISARC) PONDICHERRY UNIVERSITY PUDUCHERRY, INDIA GUIDELINES FOR SUBMISSION OF MANUSCRIPTS Original papers that fall within the scope of the Journal shall be submitted by e- mail. An Abstract of the article in about 150 words must accompany the papers. The length of research papers shall be between 5000 and 7000 words. However, short notes, perspectives and lengthy papers will be published if the contents could justify. 1. The paper may be composed in MS-Words format, Times New Roman font with heading in Font Size 14 and the remaining text in the font size 12 with 1.5 spacing. 2. Notes should be numbered consecutively, superscripted in Arabic Numeral in the text and attached to the end of the article. References should be cited within the text in parenthesis. e.g. (Sen 2003:150). 3. Spelling should follow the British pattern: e.g. ‘colour’, NOT ‘color’. 4. Quotations should be placed in double quotation marks. Long quotes of above 4 (four) lines should be indented in single space. 5. Use italics for title of the books, newspaper, journals and magazines in text, end notes and bibliography. 6. In the text, number below 100 should be mentioned in words (e.g. twenty eight). Use “per cent”, but in tables the symbol % should be typed. 7. Bibliography should be arranged alphabetically at the end of the text and must be complete in all respect. Examples: 1) Hoffmann, Steven (1990): India and the China Crisis, Oxford University Press, Delhi. 2) Bhalla and Hazell (2003): “Rural Employment and Poverty: Strategies to Eliminate Rural Poverty within a Generation”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.33, No.33, August 16, pp.3473-84. All articles are, as a rule, referred to experts in the subjects concerned. Those recommended by the referees alone will be published in the Journal after appropriate editing. No article shall be sent for publication in the Journal if it is currently being reviewed by any other Journal or press or if it has already been published or will be published elsewhere. E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] CONTENTS Articles Shifting Dimensions of State Sovereignty: Issues and Trends M J Vinod … 179 Human Security in India: Problems and Policy Options Suresh R … 190 Liberal Democracy and Kymlicka’s Conception of Minority Rights: Towards a Perspective of Dalit Rights P Kesava Kumar … 204 The State of Human Rights in Jammu and Kashmir, 1989-2010 Surinder Mohan … 217 Business Booms beyond Borders : A Case of India and Myanmar Ningthoujam Priyananda Singh & Bushan D Sudhakar … 235 Dumping Potential and Intensity: A Case Study of Indo-Myanmar Border Trade Mayengbam Lalit Singh … 256 Conflicts in South Asia: Dissecting Media's Role in Kashmir, Sri Lanka and Nepal Nidhi Shendurnikar Tere … 269 The Executive Voice of Asian Women: An Empirical Study on Managerial Effectiveness A Somalingam & R Shanthakumari … 294 Track Seven of Multi Track Diplomacy: Religion in SAARC Context Neelam Choudhary … 315 Water as a Pathway for Peace in South Asia Khursheed Ahmad Wani & Shyna V V … 328 Book Review New Powers: How to Become One and How to Manage Them Arundhati Sharma … 342 Articles Shifting Dimensions of State Sovereignty: Issues and Trends M J Vinod Abstract In its broadest sense the concept of sovereignty has to do with the capacity of a state to assert and successfully exert exclusive control over a territory and its population. The impact of globalisation on the sovereignty, autonomy and competence of the nation-state is significant. Globalisation is neither uniform nor homogenous, but has clearly increased the levels of the economic and social interactions. Though globalisation has had a long history, its present manifestation is different in terms of form and intensity. In terms of theoretical conceptualisation, there is need for a conceptual rethinking of the hardcore classical absolute meaning of sovereignty. This needs to be balanced up by accommodating some of the arguments of the integration and convergence theorists, who emphasise the dynamics of the contemporary interdependent globalised world. This would mean a shift away from an indivisible to a divisible notion of sovereignty. The best way to perceive sovereignty is in terms of degrees of sovereignty as globalisation has changed the context in which state functions are exercised. Sovereignty is being reconstructed and readapted, rather than being eroded. Introduction In its broadest sense the concept of sovereignty has to do with the capacity of a state to assert and successfully exert exclusive control over a territory and its population. Though the state may claim unlimited authority within a given territory, its actual exercise is limited by the ‘purposes’ of government and by the ‘actual capacity’ of the state. The debate on sovereignty and its source of legitimacy is also central to the positioning of constitutional rights. The impact of globalisation on the sovereignty, autonomy and competence of the nation-state is significant. Globalisation is neither uniform nor homogenous, but has clearly increased the levels of the economic and social interactions. Though globalisation has had a long history, its present manifestation is different in terms of form and intensity. In the words of David Held: “Contemporary globalisation represents the beginning of a new epoch in human affairs… as profound as the impact of the Industrial Revolution and the global empires of the 19th century”.1 Dr M J Vinod is a Professor in the Department of Political Science at Bangalore University, Bangalore. IJSAS 5(2) 2012, pp.179-89. ISSN 0974-2514 Copyright © by Society for South Asian Studies, Pondicherry University M J Vinod 180 In recent years the perception has been that states have experienced an erosion of sovereignty. In a globalised world what is required is a theoretically coherent concept of sovereignty. One wonders whether such a conception of sovereignty can be consistent with history and also subject to empirical analysis. Sovereign states are assumed to have a certain degree of control over both their borders and their territory. Challenges to state sovereignty have come from a variety of sources. The modern states find their traditional powers undermined. Nation-states can no longer maintain full employment, sustain economic growth and preserve reformist welfare policies. Contemporary trends suggest that the sovereign state is undergoing unprecedented stress, primarily because of globalisation and the evolving international regimes and norms, especially those to do with human rights, environment, trade and the nuclear regime. Sovereignty may not have been fully eroded, though it is being effectively challenged from a variety of fronts. States increasingly exercise sovereignty in the multilateral context. At no time have states exercised unlimited control over all activities within the boundaries of a state, and all forms of exchanges across borders. David Held suggests that globalisation is a product of the expansion of the global economy, expansion of transnational linkages between economic units creating new forms of collective decision making, development of inter-governmental and quasi-supranational institutions, intensification of transnational communications, and creation of new regional and military orders.2 In this context, three major questions need to be raised and addressed: 1. In a globalised world with multiple state actors, private and/or public that influence national legislations and public policy, can we still assume that the state is sovereign? 2. What is the relationship between globalisation and state sovereignty? 3. Can globalisation and sovereignty co-exist peacefully? This paper will attempt to answer some of these questions. The Theoritical Dimensions of Sovereignty Theoretically three important dimensions of sovereignty can be highlighted; 1. Sovereignty as Legitimacy i.e., the institution of sovereignty is widely accepted among states as legitimate. States would have to internalise the rules of noninterference. Hence International Journal of South Asian Studies IJSAS July – December 2012 181 Shifting Dimensions of State Sovereignty: Issues and Trends respecting the rules of noninterference reflects a scenario of states pursuing their interests. Sovereignty is projected as a legitimated norm. 2. Sovereignty as Self-Interest i.e., respect for sovereignty may be widespread since states do not generally find violation to be in their self-interest. This broadly reflects the crux of the neoliberal, instrumentalist perception of sovereignty. The self-interest dimension of sovereignty emphasises the ‘process’ and the ‘end-results’. The argument being made here is that states have ample reasons to respect sovereignty. The reasons could be economic, political, social, military, legal and diplomatic. States cannot ignore the potential costs of violating the sovereignty of another state. 3. Sovereignty as Coercion. The international system is studied either in terms of coercion or self-interest. The coercion school stresses that the absence of a hegemon or world government means interstate relations will be distinguished by competitive struggle for security.3 Hence, the ‘capacity’ to physically defend the state is the primary virtue. The argument being made is that since ‘trust’ is scarce, coercion is the only sure means of maximising state objectives. To perceive the relationship between globalisation and sovereignty in zero-sum terms can be misleading. The dialogue is subtle and has to be interactive. For liberal interdependence theorists, sovereignty is perceived in terms of the state’s ability to control ‘actors’ and ‘activities’ within the borders of a state. For realists, the crux of sovereignty lay in the ability of the state to make ‘authoritative decisions, even that of going to war in the event of a necessity. They argue that the defining principle in the struggle of ‘all against all’ regards state sovereignty as the embodiment of all that matters in the world.