Although the Indian International Relations (IR) community has been actively engaged in self-reflection, this has not translated into greater contribution at the international level. Part of the answer lies in the way IR in India has grown—institutionally, pedagogically, academically and as a research activity. The article seeks to assess the strengths and weaknesses of IR teaching and research in India on the basis of three parameters, that is, the papers taught in the M.A. programmes, the themes of research at the doctoral level and publications by IR scholars in select journals. On the basis of the weaknesses identified, the article offers some recommendations, which the IR community in India can adopt.
Acharya, Amitav and Barry Buzan. 2007. ‘Why is There no Non-Western International Relations Theory: An Introduction’, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 287–312.
2.
Acharya, Amitav and Barry Buzan, eds. 2009. Non-Western International Relations Theory. Perspectives from Asia. New York: Routledge.
3.
Appadorai, A.1987. ‘International and Area Studies in India’, International Studies, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 133–43.
4.
Bajpai, Kanti. 2004. ‘International Studies in India: Bringing Theory (Back) Home’, in Kanti Bajpai and Siddharth Mallavarapu, eds, International Relations in India: Bringing Theory Back Home, pp. 17–38. New Delhi: Orient Longman.
5.
Bajpai, Kanti and Siddharth Mallavarapu, eds. 2005. International Relations in India: Bringing Theory Back Home. New Delhi: Orient Longman.
6.
Behera, Navnita Chadha. 2007. ‘Re-imagining IR in India’, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 341–68.
7.
Behera, Navnita Chadha. ed. 2008. International Relations in South Asia. Search for An Alternative Paradigm. New Delhi: SAGE.
8.
Buzan, Barry and Richard Little. 2001. ‘Why International Relations has Failed as an Intellectual Project and What to Do About it’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 19–39.
9.
Chatterjee, Partha. 2002. ‘Institutional Context of Social Science Research in South Asia’, Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 37, no. 35, pp. 3604–12.
10.
Chong, Alan and Natasha Hamilton-Hart. 2009. ‘Teaching International Relations in Southeast Asia: Historical Memory, Academic Context, and Politics—an Introduction’, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1–18.
11.
Ciprut, Jose V.2000. The Art of the Feud: Reconceptualizing International Relations. Westport: Praeger.
12.
Giri, Ananta Kumar. 2003. ‘Social Science Research. Call of Home and the World’, Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 38, no. 34, pp. 3605–08.
13.
Holsti, Kalevi. 1998. ‘Scholarship in an Era of Anxiety: The Study of International Politics During the Cold War’, Review of International Studies, vol. 2, no. 5. pp. 17–46.
14.
Jadavpur University. 2004. ‘School of International Relations and Strategic Studies’, www.jadavpur.edu/academics/School_International_Relations.htm. Accessed on 15 January 2009.
15.
Kornprobst, Markus. 2009. ‘International Relations as Rhetorical Discipline: Toward (Re-) Newing Horizons’, International Studies Review, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 87–108.
16.
Neufeld, Mark. 1993. ‘Reflexivity and International Relations Theory’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 53–76.
17.
Rajan, M.S.2005. ‘Golden Jubilee of the School of International Studies: An Assessment’, International Studies, vol. 42, nos. 3&4, pp. 195–204.
18.
Rana, A.P. and K.P. Misra. 2005. ‘Communicative Discourse and Community in International Relations Studies in India: A Critique’, in Kanti Bajpai and Siddharth Mallavarapu, eds, International Relations in India: Bringing Theory Back Home, pp. 71–122. New Delhi: Orient Longman.
19.
Sridharan, E., ed. 2007. The India-Pakistan Nuclear Relationship. Theories of Deterrence and International Relations. New Delhi: Routledge.
20.
Strange, Susan. 1995. ‘1995 Presidential Address—ISA as a Microcosm’, International Studies Quarterly, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 289–95.
21.
Tharoor, Shashi. 2003. Nehru. The Invention of India. New Delhi: Penguin.
22.
Tickner, Arlene. 2003. ‘Seeing IR Differently: Notes from the Third World’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 295–324.
23.
Tickner, Arlene and Ole Wæver, eds. 2009. International Relations Scholarship Around the World. New York: Routledge.
24.
University Grants Commission. 2006–07. ‘Financial Support’, www.ugc.ac.in/financialsupport/guideline_33.html. Accessed on 15 January 2009.
25.
Wæver, Ole. 1998. ‘The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations’, International Organization, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 687–727.
26.
Weber, Martin. 2005. ‘The Critical Social Theory of the Frankfurt School and the “Social Turn” in IR’, Review of International Studies, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 195–209.
