RE-IMAGINING IR IN INDIA

Abstract
The abstract discusses the poor conceptualization of Indian International Relations (IR) and
attributes it to various factors, including Western IR theory's dominance over the
epistemological foundations of Indian IR, termed as "traditional IR." It highlights the
disciplinary gate-keeping practices of Western IR and the intellectual dependency of Indian
IR on Western ideas, which has led to a lack of acknowledgment of India's own history and
philosophical traditions as sources of IR theory.
The article suggests that Indian IR should move beyond the Western-centric perspective and
embrace alternative sites of knowledge construction. It advocates for the inclusion and
ownership of scholarly endeavours inspired by feminism, critical theory, development
studies, and postcolonialism, which are termed as "new IR," within the Indian IR community.
The article argues that re-imagining IR in India is not about creating a separate Indian school
of IR but redefining the discipline of IR itself. It criticizes the binary characterization of IR as
"dominant" West and "dominated" non-West and calls for the Indian IR community to work
towards fashioning a post-western IR that goes beyond Western hegemony in the field. The
goal is to challenge the existing Eurocentric narrative and create a more inclusive and diverse
approach to understanding international relations.

The State of the art

This abstract discusses the poor conceptualization of Indian International Relations (IR) and
the reasons behind it. It attributes this problem to factors such as the hegemony of Western IR
theories over the epistemological foundations of Indian IR, known as 'traditional IR.' It
highlights the intellectual dependency of Indian IR on Western perspectives and a lack of
acknowledgment of India's own history and philosophical traditions as sources of IR.
The article argues that alternative sites of knowledge construction should be created within IR
to address the issue. It explores how Indian 'ways of knowing,' such as a 'non-dualistic mode
of thinking,' could offer insights into contemporary IR problematics. It also emphasizes the
need to redefine IR itself rather than merely creating an Indian school of IR.
The abstract points out various challenges faced by Indian IR, including its disciplinary
location within Political Science and Area Studies, pedagogical concerns, the dominance of
Western theoretical frameworks, and the uncritical acceptance of Western-centric state-centric
power politics. It also discusses the lack of systematic questioning of positivist logic and the
need to engage with the politics of knowledge.
Ultimately, the abstract highlights the limitations and constraints of Indian IR and the
potential for creating a post-Western IR by challenging the existing epistemological
boundaries and assumptions. It calls for a reimagining of IR that goes beyond the traditional
Western-centric perspectives.
The passage you provided offers a critical analysis of traditional International Relations (IR)
as it pertains to India. It argues that traditional IR, which is rooted in the Eurocentric
experiences and power struggles among states, has neglected the diverse conceptualizations
of nationalism and political thought from India's traditional past. Instead, it has focused on
the Euro-American narrative of nation-states and sovereignty, leaving out alternative
understandings of nationalism and statecraft.
The passage identifies several reasons for this exclusion:
1. Theorizing in IR is seen as producing scientific knowledge, and this scientific approach has
limited the debate on alternative issues and conceptualizations.
2. The domain of IR has been bounded in a Eurocentric manner, de-legitimizing India's
traditional past as a source of knowledge creation in IR.
3. Indian IR has been tied to the Indian state, and its scholarly endeavours start from the
assumption of the state as a given.
4. Traditional IR does not engage with Indian political philosophers like Kautilya, who is
considered a forerunner of modern realist traditions.
5. The modernist vision of Indian nationalism, led by figures like Nehru, shaped India's
political character and marginalized alternative conceptualizations of nationalism.
6. Traditional IR has accepted and internalized exclusions from the western (Euro-American)
narrative without critically interrogating its own history and birth.
The passage suggests that for Indian IR to break free from the constraints of traditional
Eurocentric perspectives, it needs to step out of its existing boundaries and create alternative
sites of knowledge construction. This entails exploring and engaging with India's rich
political thought and diverse conceptualizations of nationalism, as well as critically
reassessing its relationship with the Indian state and the broader global order. By doing so,
Indian IR can develop its own non-western IR theory and offer new insights into international
politics.
2 The new IR
The passage discusses the concept of "new IR" as an analytical category that emerges from
the amalgamation of various scholarly traditions in International Relations. It highlights
several vantage points that contribute to the development of the new IR in India:
1. Postcolonial thought: Postcolonialism examines how knowledge systems have been used
as tools of power and coercion by colonial powers. In India, postcolonial IR is still not well-
established, but some exceptions exist, focusing on topics such as India's atomic bomb and
globalization.
2. Feminist perspectives: Feminists in IR challenge traditional constructs and highlight the
gendered nature of power relations within modern states and the international system. They
advocate for research as a communal exercise involving both researchers and the subjects of
research.
3. Postpositivist theorizing: Postpositivists emphasize culture and identity's importance in
understanding global processes. They recognize that different cultures have unique ways of
understanding knowledge and its role in society.
4. Indigenous and subaltern knowledge: The new IR draws critical inputs from indigenous
people, social movements, and grassroots-level players who question conventional
knowledge categories and methods. These voices challenge the idea of a single universalizing
epistemology controlled by experts from the West.
5. Critiques of modernity: Scholars like Rajni Kothari and Ashis Nandy offer critiques of
modernity, the nation-state system, and Western-centric knowledge. Their work challenges
traditional IR and encourages a broader understanding of "the international."
The passage also acknowledges the limitations of the postpositivist domain, as it may not
fully consider perspectives from the global South. Additionally, it raises concerns about the
domestication and professionalization of some new IR specializations, suggesting a need to
remain critical and avoid co-optation of alternative perspectives.

3 Re-imagining IR
The passage discusses the process of re-imagining International Relations (IR) in India and the need
to rethink the foundational knowledge of the discipline. It emphasizes the importance of creating
alternative sites of knowledge construction and redefining the disciplinary boundaries of IR.
Three generic issues are addressed in the context of re-imagining IR in India:
1. Disciplinary boundaries: The passage argues that the current disciplinary boundaries of IR in
India are too narrow and limit the possibilities of meaningful re-imagining. It suggests inviting
scholars from diverse fields, such as postcolonial and development theorists, feminists, and cultural
critics, to contribute to IR and transcend the traditional boundaries.
2. Privileging expertise vs. everyday life experiences: The passage highlights the need to balance
the emphasis on expertise and academic knowledge with an acknowledgment of everyday life
experiences. It encourages scholars to be more responsive to innovation, experimentation, and
reflexivity, rather than simply adhering to the established status quo.
3. Indigenization of academic discourses: The passage argues that re-imagining IR in India should
not involve mimicking or catching up with the West. Instead, it advocates for the indigenization of IR
by drawing from Indian history, political thought, and philosophical traditions. This process aims to
create alternative spaces for thinking and learning, without rejecting modern or Western ideas
outright.
The passage suggests two lines of inquiry for re-imagining IR in India. The first involves exploring
the role of everyday experiences in theory-building, and the second calls for a re-reading of Indian
history and analysis of political thought to draw upon Indian ideas and practices to create a post-
western IR.
The ultimate goal of re-imagining IR in India is to challenge existing assumptions, incorporate diverse
perspectives, and create non-hegemonic spaces where different traditions of IR can engage in healthy
dialogue and coexist. The passage acknowledges that this process may be challenging, but it is
necessary to redefine and enrich the discipline of IR.