This article examines the theoretical salience of territoriality, particularly in South Asia, by comparing the histories of the region's three most contentious boundaries—Durand, McMahon and Radcliffe lines. It argues that four distinct avenues are central to theoretical considerations on territoriality in South Asia: the role of liberalism in colonial construction of state; international and domestic dimensions of geopolitics; disruptions in demographic and cultural contiguities produced by the boundaries; and the nature of sovereignty resulting from the experience of colonialism. Traditional lenses for studying boundaries and territoriality offer limited analytical purchase. The article posits that critical geopolitics and history-intensive approaches allow a better grasp of material and discursive dimensions of territoriality. Such an eclectic consideration is especially suitable for studying territoriality in South Asia given the region's cross-border complexities, both real and symbolic.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Agnew, John . 1998. Geopolitics: Revisioning World Politics. London: Routledge
2.
Agnew, John . 2005. ‘ Sovereignty Regimes: Territoriality and State Authority in Contemporary World Politics ’,Annals of the Association of American Geographers, vol. 95, no. 2, pp. 437–61
3.
Agnew, John . 2007. ‘ Know–Where: Geographies of Knowledge of World Politics ’,International Political Sociology, vol. 1, pp. 138–48
4.
Akbar, M.J.2002. The Shade of Swords: Jihad and the Conflict between Islam and Christianity. New Delhi: Lotus–Roli
5.
Albert, Mathias . 2001. ‘Territoriality and Modernization’, http://www.uni-bielefeld.de/soz/iw/pdf/albert_3.pdf.Accessed on 7 August 2007.
6.
Anderson, Benedict . 1991. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London/New York: Verso
7.
Anderson, James and Liam O'Dowd . 1999. ‘ Borders, Border Regions and Territoriality: Contradictory Meanings, Changing Significance ’,Regional Studies, vol. 33, no. 7, pp. 593–604
8.
Barrow, Ian . 2003. Making History, Drawing Territory. New Delhi: Oxford University Press
9.
Bartelson, Jens . 1995. A Genealogy of Sovereignty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
10.
Baud, Michiel and Willem van Schendel . 1997. ‘ Toward a Comparative History of Borderlands ’,Journal of World History, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 211–42
11.
Bilgrami, Asghar H.1972. Afghanistan and British India, 1793–1907. New Delhi: Sterling Publishers
12.
Burch, Kurt . 2000. ‘ Changing the Rules: Reconceiving Change in the Westphalian System ’,International Studies Review, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 181–210
13.
Caporaso, James A. . 2000. ‘ Changes in the Westphalian Order: Territory, Public Authority, and Sovereignty ’, International Studies Review, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 1–28
14.
Chatterji, Joya . 1999. ‘ The Fashioning of a Frontier: The Radcliffe aLine nd Bengal's Border Landscape, 1947–52 ’, Modern Asian Studies, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 185–242
15.
Chaturvedi, Sanjay . 2002. ‘Can There be an Asian Geopolitics?’in Ranabir Samaddar , ed., Space, Territory and the State: New Readings in International Politics, pp. 1–26. Hyderabad: Orient Longman
16.
Chaturvedi, Sanjay . 2005a. ‘Indian Geopolitics: “Nation State” and the Colonial Legacy’, in Kanti Bajpai and Siddharth Mallavarapu , eds, International Relations in India, pp. 238–83. New Delhi: Orient Longman
17.
Chaturvedi, Sanjay . 2005b. ‘The Excess of Geopolitics’in Stefano Bianchini et al., eds, Partition: Reshaping States and Mind, pp. 125–60. New York: Frank Cass
18.
Cohn, Bernard S.2003. An Anthropologist among the Historians and Other Essays. New Delhi: Oxford University Press
19.
De, Barun . 1997. ‘Moving Beyond Boundaries: Contradictions between people and territory’, in Tapan K. Bose and Rita Manchanda , eds, States, Citizens and Outsiders: The Uprooted People of South Asia, pp. 14–39. Kathmandu: SAFHR
20.
de Mesquita , Bruce Bueno . 2000. ‘ Popes, Kings, and Endogenous Institutions: The Concordat of Worms and the Origins of Sovereignty ’,International Studies Review, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 93–118
21.
Dupree, Louis . 1973. Afghanistan. Princeton: Princeton University Press
22.
Edney, Matthew H.1999. Mapping an Empire. New Delhi: Oxford University Press
23.
Embree, Ainslie T.1989. Imagining India: Essays on Indian History. Delhi: Oxford University Press
24.
Ewans, Martin . 2001. Afghanistan: A New History. Surrey: Curzon Press
25.
Fischer, Eric . 1949. ‘ On Boundaries ’,World Politics, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 196–222
26.
Forsberg, Tuomas . 1996. ‘ Beyond Sovereignty, Within Territoriality: Mapping the Space of Late-Modern (Geo) Politics ’,Cooperation and Conflict, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 355–86
27.
Forsberg, Tuomas . 2003. ‘ The Ground Without Foundation? Territory as a Social Construct ’,Geopolitics, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 7–24
28.
Fraser-Tytler , William Kerr . 1962. Afghanistan: A study of political developments in Central Asia and Southern Asia. London: Oxford University Press .
29.
Gilmartin, David . 1998. ‘ Partition, Pakistan, and South Asian History: In Search of a Narrative ’,The Journal of Asian Studies, vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 1068–95
30.
Gilmartin, David . 2003. ‘Democracy, Nationalism and the Public: A Speculation on Colonial Muslim Politics’, in James D. Le Sueur , ed., The Decolonization Reader, pp. 191–203. London: Routledge
31.
Goswami, Manu . 2004. Producing India: From Colonial Economy to National Space. Delhi: Permanent Black
32.
Gupta, Karunakar . 1974. The Hidden History of the Sino-Indian Frontier. Calcutta: Minerva Associates
33.
Hinsely, F.H.1986. Sovereignty, 2nd Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
34.
Hoffmann, Steven A.1990. India and the China Crisis. Delhi: Oxford University Press
35.
Inayatullah, Naeem and David L. Blaney . 2004. International Relations and the Problem of Difference. New York: Routledge
36.
Jones, Stephen B.1959. ‘ Boundary Concepts in the Setting of Place and Time ’,Annals of the Association of American Geographers, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 241–55
37.
Kahler, Miles . 2006. ‘Territoriality and conflict in an era of globalization’in Miles Kahler and Barbara S. Walter , eds, Territoriality and Conflict in an era of Globalization, pp. 1–10. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38.
Khan, Azmat Hayat . 2005. The Durand Line: Its Geo-Strategic Implications. Islamabad: University of Peshawar
39.
Knight David B.1982. ‘ Identity and Territory: Geographical Perspectives on Nationalism and Regionalism ’,Annals of the Association of American Geographers, vol. 72, no. 4, pp. 514–31
40.
Krasner, Stephen D.1995–96. ‘ Compromising Westphalia ’,International Security, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 115–51
41.
Krasner, Stephen D.1999. Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton: Princeton University Press
42.
Kratochwill, Friedrich . 1986. ‘ Of Systems, Boundaries, and Territoriality: An Inquiry into the Formation of the State System ’,World Politics, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 27–52
43.
Kristof, Ladis K.D.1959. ‘ The Nature of Frontiers and Boundaries ’,Annals of the Association of American Geographers, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 269–82
44.
Lamb, Alastair . 1966. The McMahon Line: Hardinge, McMahon and the Simla Conference, vol. II. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul
45.
Lamb, Alastair . 1968. Asian Frontiers: Studies in a Continuing Problem. London: Pall Mall Press
46.
Maier, Charles S.2000. ‘ Consigning the Twentieth Century to History: Alternative Narratives for the Modern Era ’,The American Historical Review, vol. 105, no. 3, pp. 807–31
47.
Maxwell, Nevill . 1971. India's China War. Bombay: Jaico
48.
Mehra, Parshotam . 1974. The McMahon Line and After. Delhi: Macmillan
49.
Mehta, Uday Singh . 1999.Liberalism and Empire: A Study in 19th Century British Liberal Thought. Chicago: Chicago University Press
50.
Migdal, Joel S.2004. ‘Mental Maps and Virtual Checkpoints’, in Joel S. Migdal , ed., Boundaries and Belongings: States and Societies in the Struggle to Shape Identities and Local Practice, pp. 3–23. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
51.
Misdaq, Nabi . 2006. Afghanistan: Political Frailty and External Interference. Oxford: Routledge
52.
Moore, R.J. (1983), ‘ Jinnah and the Pakistan Demand ’,Modern Asian Studies, vol. 17, no.4, pp. 529–61
53.
Osiander, Andreas . 2001. ‘ Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Westphalian myth ’,International Organization, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 251–87
54.
Ó Tuathail, Gearóid . 1996. Critical Geopolitics: The Politics of Writing Global Space. London: Routledge
55.
Pandey, Gyanendra . 1999. ‘ Can a Muslim Be an Indian? ’,Comparative Studies in Society and History, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 608–29
56.
Passi, Ansi . 1999. ‘ Boundaries as Social Practice and Discourse: the Finnish–Russian Border ’,Regional Studies, vol. 33, no. 7, pp. 657–67
57.
Philpott, Daniel . 2001. Revolutions in Sovereignty: How Ideas Shaped Modern International Relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press
58.
Robb, Peter . 2007. Empire, Identity, and India: Liberalism, Modernity, and the Nation. New Delhi: Oxford University Press
59.
Roberts, Jeffrey J.2003. The Origins of Conflict in Afghanistan. Connecticut: Praeger
60.
Ruggie, John Gerard . 1993. ‘ Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing Modernity in International Relations ’,International Organization, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 139–74
61.
Sack, Robert David . 1986. Human Territoriality: Its Theory and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
62.
Singh, Amar Kaur Jasbir . 1988. Himalayan Triangle. London: The British Library
63.
Spruyt, Hendrik . 2000. ‘ The End of Empire and the Extension of the Westphalian System: The Normative Basis of the Modern State Order ’,International Studies Review, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 65–92
64.
Spruyt, Hendrik . 2005. Ending Empire: Contested Sovereignty and Territorial Partition. Ithaca: Cornell University Press
65.
Strang, David . 1992. ‘ The Inner Incompatibility of Empire and Nation: Popular Sovereignty and Decolonization ’,Sociological Perspectives, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 367–84
66.
Sykes, Sykes Percy . 1981. A History of Afghanistan, Vol. II. New Delhi: Oriental Books
67.
Tan, Tai Yong and Gyanesh Kudaisya . 2000. The Aftermath of Partition in South Asia. London: Routledge
68.
Teschke, Benno . 1998. ‘ Geopolitical Relations in the European Middle Ages: History and Theory ’, International Organization, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 325–58
69.
van Schendel, Willem . 2005. The Bengal Borderland: Beyond State and Nation in South Asia. London: Anthem Press
70.
Walker, R.B.J and Saul H. Mendlovitz , eds., 1990. Contending Sovereignties: Redefining Political Community. Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers
71.
Woodman, Dorothy . 1969. Himalayan Frontiers. London: The Cresset Press
