is Professor in the Politics and International Relations of South Asia, Oxford University,Oxford, UK. E-mail: email@example.com. He would like to thank the twoanonymous reviewers whose comments have enriched the final version of the article.
Obstacles to Good Work in Indian International Relations
This article suggests that, from 1947 to the late 1980s, Indian International Relations (IIR)led the developing world and certainly Asian IR. Since then, China, Korea and Japan seem tohave taken the lead. The article defines the nature of ‘good work’ as ‘good published work’and argues that there are five key obstacles to better published work in IIR: the neglect of theory; the failure to define a series of animating puzzles, problematiques and problem-solvingagendas; the lack of methodological training; the quality of teaching; and the mismanagement of professional life. Three reasons are advanced for the origins and persistence of these ob-stacles: post-colonial parochialism; the influence of the formative moment of the field in India;and the relationship of Political Science/IR to the Indian state. The article concludes that theremedies are primarily in the hands of Indian scholars and not with the government.
Indian IR, theory, methodology, puzzles, problematiques, teaching, post-colonialism
In the late 1980s, India could boast of the strongest International Relations (IR)scholarship in Asia if not the developing world in terms of the number of teachingand research programmes, the enrollment of students, the breadth of the curriculumand most importantly, the nature of journal and book publishing.
While the stand-ard of Indian IR (IIR) was questionable even then,
both quality and quantitywere impressive relative to the output of other developing countries. Today, thatis no longer the case. Why?
INTERNATIONAL STUDIES 46, 1&2 (2009): 109–28
Los Angeles/London/New Delhi/Singapore/Washington DCDOI: 10.1177/002088171004600208
I assert this as the common sense of the field based on conversations with fellow IR scholarsfrom India and Asia over the years.
See Rana (1988a), which reviews the field until 1970. Other reflections on the field include:Appadorai (1987); Bajpai (2005a and 2005b); Behera (2007 and 2008); CDC (1991); Mallavarapu(2005a and 2005b); Misra and Beal (1980); Rajan (1978, 1994, 1997); Rana (1988b and 1988c) andRana and Misra (2005).
at Dehli University Library System on August 7, 2012isq.sagepub.comDownloaded from