This article provides a critical analysis of approaches of international relations (IR) in India in general and studies of post-Soviet countries in particular. It is argued here that methodologically the Indian IR has been dominated by the discourse analysis. The critical questions of everyday forms of social life and its impact upon transformation of state and institutions are at the margins of the disciplinary analysis. This phenomenon can be related to an absence of the ‘ethnographic turn’ in the Indian IR scholarship. Even Soviet/Russian studies, despite history of very strong India–Soviet/Russia bilateral relations, are quite narrow in their scope and lack field-based ethnographic studies. This article further argues that promoting usage of ethnographic method can be a useful methodological addition in making IR study and research in India more broad, critical, relevant and grounded.
BadanP. (2001). Dynamics of political development in Central Asia. New Delhi: Lancers’ Books
2.
BourdieuP. (1970). Outline of theory and practice. New York, NY: Harward University Press.
3.
BremanJ. (2004). The making and unmaking of an industiral working class: Sliding down the labour hierarchy in Ahmedabad, India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
4.
ChenoyA. M. (1992). The soviet collapse: Systemic change and systematic collapse. Seminar, 392.
ChenoyA. M. (2007). The making of New Russia. New Delhi: Har Anand Publishers.
7.
ChenoyA.PatnaikA. (Eds). (2008). Commonwealth of Independent State: Energy, Security and Development. New Delhi: Knowledge World International.
8.
DasP. D. (2017). Culture and identity: The challenges of reintegerating crimea. In MohantyA.PatnaikA. (Eds), Eurasian states: Socio-economic and political processes (pp. 303–312). New Delhi: KW Publishers Pvt Ltd.
9.
DeshpandeS. (2017). Social issues in Russia after 1991. In MohantyA.PatnaikA. (Eds), Eurasian states: Socio-economic and political processes (pp. 96–108). New Delhi: KW Publishers Pvt Ltd.
10.
EnloeC. (1990). Bananas, beaches and bases: Making feminist sense of international politics. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.
11.
EnloeC. (2004). The curious feminist: Searching for women in a new age of empire. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.
12.
GeertzC. (1973). Thik description: Towards an interpretive theory of culture. New York, NY: Basic Books.
13.
GidadhubliR. G. (2017). India–Russia economic ties: The need for intensive engagement. In MohantyA.PatnaikA. (Eds), Eurasian states: Socio-economic and political processes (pp. 371–380). New Delhi: KW Publishers Pvt Ltd.
14.
GuhaR. (2000). A subaltern studies reader (1986–1995): Society, government and urban growth. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
15.
GuptaA.FergusonJ. (Eds). (1997). Discipline and practice: ‘The field’ as site, method, and location in anthropology. In Anthropological locations: Boundaries and grounds of a field science (pp. 1–46). California: University of California Press.
16.
JhaS. K.SarkarB. (2002). Amidst turbulence and hope: Transition in Russia and Eastern Europe. New Delhi: Lancer Books.
17.
JoshiN. (2015). Enhancing India-Central Asia Engagement: Prospects and Issues. Delhi: Vij Books.
18.
KaushikD. (1985). India and Central Asia in Modern Times: A study of historical cultural contacts from the early twentieth century. New Delhi: Satvahan Publishers.
19.
KaushikD. (2007). Russia’s eurasian dilemma. In PatnaikA.et al. (Eds). Russian Civilization, pp. 147–170. New Delhi: FK Publications.
20.
KumarS. (2011). Comparatice Politics and crisis of governance: The russian conundrum. New Delhi: Vij Books.
21.
KumarV. (2017). Immigeration, economy and national identity: A case study of postsoviet Russia. In MohantyA.PatnaikA. (Eds), Eurasian states: Socio-economic and political processes (pp. 267–278). New Delhi: KW Publishers Pvt Ltd.
MackayJ.LevinJ. (2015). Hanging out in International Politics: Two kinds of explanatory Political Ethnography for IR. International Studies Review, 17, 163–188.
24.
MahapatraN. (2006). Political culture and democratic development in central Asia. Kolkata: Bookwell Publications.
25.
MallavarapuS. (2009). Development of international relations theory in India: Traditions, contemporary perspectives and trajectories. International Studies, 46(1–2), 165–183.
26.
MohantyA.PatnaikA. ( Eds). (2017). Eurasian states: Socio, Economic and Political Processes. New Delhi: KW Publishers Pvt Ltd.
27.
NeumannI. B. (1996). Russia and the idea of Europe: A study in identity and international relations. New York: Routledge.
28.
NeumannI. B. (2002). Returning practice to the linguistic turn: The case of diplomacy. Millennium Journal of International Studies, 31(3), 627–651.
29.
PandeyS. (2007). Revisiting the Russian identity debate. In PatnaikA.et al. (Eds), Russian civilization (pp. 248–260). New Delhi: FK Publications.
30.
PatnaikA. (1989). Women labour forces in soviet Central Asia. New Delhi: New Literature.
31.
PouliotV. (2007). Subjectivism: Towards a constructivist methodology. International Studies Quarterly, 51(2), 359–384.
32.
RajamohanC. (2006). Crossing the rubicon. New Delhi: Viking Publishing.
33.
Reus-SmitC.SnidalD. (Eds). (2010). Between utopia and reality: The practical discourses of international relations. In Oxford handbook of international relations (pp. 1–20). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
34.
SchatzE. (Ed.). (2009). Conclusion: What kind of ethnography does political science need? In Political ethnography: What immersion contributes to the study of power (p. 307). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
35.
ScottJ. C. (1977). The moral economy of the peasant: Rebellion and subsistance in Southeast Asia. New York, NY: Yale University Press.
36.
TaylorB. D. (2011). State building in Putin’s Russia: Policing and coercion after communism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37.
VrastiW. (2008). The strange case of ethnography and international relations. Millenium: Journal of International Studies, 37(2), 279–301.
