The escalating tensions between India and Pakistan have received renewed attention of late. Since their genesis in 1947, the nations of India and Pakistan have been locked in a seemingly endless spiral of hostility over the disputed territory of Kashmir. Ganguly asserts that the two nations remain mired in conflict due to inherent features of their nationalist agendas. Indian nationalist leadership chose to hold on to this Muslim-majority state to prove that minorities could thrive in a plural, secular polity. Pakistani nationalists argued with equal force that they could not part with Kashmir as part of the homeland created for the Muslims of South Asia. Ganguly authoritatively analyzes why hostility persists even after the dissipation of the pristine ideological visions of the two states and discusses their dual path to overt acquisition of nuclear weapons, as well as the current prospects for war and peace in the region.
Read for my ethnic conflict class. Has a good history and I understand his argument but feel as if it’s a very realist perspective and the author has a very narrow analysis. I don’t feel like he truly explains WHY. Anyways, not my typically genre but got her done.
Sumit Ganguly is a political scientist at IU. Much to his credentials, this book has a neutral language aimed at studying hypotheses about the causes of war in a non-European context. From the initial nationalist agendas to false optimisms and complacent behaviors, the book provides various explanations to the unending conflict over seven decades between the two neighboring countries in south Asia.
Gives a good history of the conflict--and I agree on the whole with his view of why both countries are "holding" on to Kashmir and what it means for their nationalist psyches. Is strictly realist and focuses on India/Pakistan and their respective interests with little mention of the situation within Kashmir.