Search

China’s economic resurgence augurs the possibility of a recalibration in the global balance of power. Many contend that this process is already underway in East Asia – specifically in relation to the South China Sea. In other parts of the world, China’s growing footprint is discernible through infrastructure projects, under Beijing’s Belt and Road initiative. Does China leverage its economic power to realise its interests by forcing smaller nations to accept conditions and agreements which are not in the latter’s interests? This paper examines whether evidence to this effect is visible through a case study of Sri Lanka. The island’s geographic location – astride the Indian Ocean Sea Lanes of Communication – continues to draw the attention of regional and extra-regional powers. Sri Lanka’s constraints in size and poor pace of economic development also grants leeway for India (the regional hegemon) and China to leverage bilateral ties in their interest. Is there evidence to suggest that China has utilised port infrastructure to realise its national interests at the expense of Sri Lanka? Or, has Sri Lanka managed to thread a fine line between the two Asian powers: the neighbouring regional hegemon – India; and the resurgent great power – China? Does the truth lie somewhere in between? This article delves into these questions by examining the approaches and stances which Sri Lanka has adopted towards both nations, particularly during President Gotabaya Rajapakse’s government, from 2019 leading up to the end of 2021. By doing so, it aims to shed light on how Sri Lanka handled bilateral ties with both Asian powers as well as the degree of Sino-Indian competition visible within the island’s port infrastructure landscape. It concludes that the decisions reached with regard to port infrastructure projects represent a mixed picture. A key finding is the ability of domestic interest groups to shape Sri Lanka’s foreign policy during this period, which has significantly dented the island’s ties with other regional allies such as Japan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since donning the mantle of authority, President Putin has taken actions which have uninhibitedly been geared at reasserting Russia's hegemony around the world. Putin's Look East policy stems from his schematic geopolitics, a plan which was formally announced in 2010. Through the prism of Putin's Look East policy, the paper contextually analyses Russia–South Asia relations, with reference to India and Pakistan. By cross-examining Russia's official foreign policy documents, the paper establishes why South Asia is paramount to Russia's economic and geostrategic reassertion. Every new policy has its challenges, and the same holds true for the Look East policy vis-à-vis South Asia. Premised on the unfolding geopolitics in the region, the paper surmises that striking a balance between New Delhi and Islamabad will be problematic for Moscow, just as it has always been for Washington. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

South Asia is becoming one of the most fiercely competitive battlegrounds between India and China. Located at the center of South Asia and with its large geographical area, population, and economic size, superior military strength compared to other countries in the region, India has always been the most influential power in the region. But in the past decade, China's intensified partnership with small countries in South Asia has threatened India's number one position in the region. It is the challenges posed by China in South Asia, inter alia, that have forced India under Prime Minister Narendra Modi to make various important foreign policy adjustments. To interpret India–China competition in South Asia in aspects of diplomacy, economy, security and defense, the paper uses international relations theories including constructivism, neo-realism (particularly offensive realism) and the balance of threat theory. Although the paper analyzes India–China competition in all three areas of diplomacy, economy and military security, the authors are of the view that, the most fundamental motivation of China and India in this competition is to achieve power and security and not economic objectives. While China's strategic calculation leans towards its ambitions to gain greater power in the geopolitical order, India's strategic calculation leans towards ensuring its security. By using qualitative methods and utilizing secondary data including books, treatises, articles and policy briefs ... , this paper analyzes the strategic calculations of India and China in South Asia. The paper argues that China's intention is to emulate and then overtake India in the very region of India's traditional influence, while India's strategy is to maintain and strengthen its number one position in the region. Though China's influence in the region seems to have overwhelmed over India, India with all its internal forces is also hindering China's penetrating steps into South Asian region. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The geopolitical environmentof South Asia has significantlychanged in last two decades. This change essentially poses various challenges and brings opportunities for Pakistan in the region. The prime focus of this paper is to give an insight into challenges faced by Pakistan in a historical narrationand to critically evaluate the implications of emerging geopolitical environment for Pakistan's foreign policy. Therefore, this study, by adopting realist perspective, develops "stress and strain" frameworkto analyses the impacts of regional geopoliticson foreign policy of Pakistan. Thishistorical analysisreveals that the interest of great powers in the region changes with passage of timeand thus changes their allianceswith regional states. This shifting of alliances modifies the way of interaction among regional states. The study concludes with suggestions that the articulation of national interest and foreign policy of Pakistanneeds to be reviewed continuouslyin order to overcome the emerging challenges and to find the best possible way of engagement at regional and international level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper critically inquires into the foreign policy of Pakistan during the period (1947-51). British divided India into two sovereign states in August, 1947. Mainly, Indian National Congress spearheaded the independence movement in the Indian subcontinent on the basis of Indian [Hindu] nationalism. The Indian Muslims contested the Congress claim of One Nation Theory. The Muslims presented their own brand of counter Muslim nationalism called the TwoNations Theory. The basic assumption of Two Nations Theory was that India politically, unlike European nation states, was a heterogeneous society. There were two major nations in the subcontinent--Hindus and Muslims. Resultantly, both Hindus and Muslims had a birthright to selfdetermination and separate states. For about fifty years, the Congress seriously contested, both theoretically as well as politically, the genuineness of the validity of Two Nations Theory. The Congress never accepted the theory. It called the Muslim demand of a separate state "a vivisection" of India and would never agree to it. Fortunately, the British did not accept the Congress argument. The Congress did her best to prevent the creation of Pakistan, however, thanks to British fairness, the Indian subcontinent was divided. Then out of utter frustration and revenge, the Congress resorted to 'Policy of Strangulation' to undo Pakistan. The researcher has come up with a non-traditional concept that Pakistan in the early phase suffered from an economic existential threat rather than military. Understandably, the foreign policymakers of Pakistan overplayed the presumed military threat to its existence. However, for the better and realist foreign policy, Pakistan survived the immediate existential economic threat in the early phase. Pakistan confronted the deadly economic context during her infant years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

International relations are determined by systemic and structural factors at the global, regional and state/domestic levels. Inter-state relations require common interests, shared goals, inter-related threat perception and eminent security challenges. Indo-Iranian relations have been on a progressive trajectory since the beginning of current century; their relations are focussed on political, economic, security and strategic spheres. As an emerging major power, India intends to enhance its influence across regions. This paper attempts to examine how Indo-Iranian relations have shaped up over the years. How convergence of interests by these two far-off neighbors have developed to join and cooperate in economic, political and social domains. For Pakistan, any development on its eastern and western borders holds important bearing on its national security; therefore, what new challenges are posed by Indo-Iranian relations in the changing regional environment of South Asia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose - Transformational and transactional leadership have become a fascinating issue for research since the work of Burns (1978) and Bass (1990). The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the usefulness of the concept of transformational leadership using examples of political leadership from South Asia. It is argued that the construct of transformational leadership is practically non-existent. And, if the concept of transformational leadership exists, it cannot be specifically applied to the leaders who gain popularity and achieve their goals. It is also argued that positive and negative connotation with transformational and transactional leadership, respectively, is false. The popular leadership may be good for "one-point agenda," but not necessarily transform the system. Design/methodology/approach - Qualitative methods, historical analysis, and discourse analysis have been employed to understand the leaders' actions and behaviors. Findings - The discussion around the empirical examples show that the popular-successful leadership does not necessarily a transformational leadership even though the leadership achieves the goals. Originality/value - The popular or so-called transformational leadership may be good to achieve one-point agenda, but it may not bring the required change and fruitful results to all stakeholders if it is not backed by a transactional strategy. Future research may turn the attention in three directions: whether or not the achieved goals were transformational or transactional; evaluation of leaders' behavior from the perspective of consequential leadership; and the role of transactional leaders in the growth and strengthening of micro and macro organizations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Visas are an important means for countries to regulate the potential access of non-nationals to their territory. Past datasets and quantitative research on visas have focused on visa waivers, ignoring the fact that visas, where demanded, can vary greatly by cost. This paper presents a novel dataset based on a manual collection of visa costs for travel between a global set of country pairs in seven different categories (tourist, work, student, family reunification, business, transit, and other). Our analyses reveal a strong global visa cost divide that exposes the injustice in the right to travel for people located in different areas of the world. Whereas Europeans usually hardly have to work at all for travel permits, visa costs often amount to several weeks of mean income in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. The result is a fundamentally paradoxical situation: The richer a country, the less its citizens pay for visas to go abroad (both in absolute terms and relative to their income). Poisson pseudo-maximum likelihood regression analyses reveal that a variety of factors influence the costs of visas between countries: reciprocal treatment, processing costs, historical-cultural ties, geographic proximity and regional, religious, economic, and political discrimination. This confirms the important role of visa costs as a tool for states to control population movements and simultaneously position themselves in international relations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]