Numerous suggestions and proposals have been made on how to manage the borders inSouth Asia. This article analyses these proposals, including soft and open borders, fencing and making borders irrelevant. With the concept of borders undergoing a tremendous change in the last two decades, the article first looks at how the concept of security has evolved and the role that borders play in the new strategic calculus. The article then adopts a historical perspective on the geopolitical and strategic ground realities relating to borders in South Asia. How did borders evolve in South Asia, what kind of movements have been taking place ever since, and how have these two factors shaped the security concerns of respective governments relating to borders? Finally, the article studies the applicability of various proposals and assesses the best border policy options available to states in South Asia, given the ground realities.IS THERE A need for us to re-vision the borders in South Asia? Would open borders be a better idea? Would that improve relations between the countries in South Asia? Is South Asia ready for a borderless region? Or would fencing make good neighbours?Before answering these questions, it is imperative to look into some of the major problems and issues facing South Asia. The region has been facing tremendous pressure and serious threats owing to political and military instability both from inside and from its neighbouring regions. The following factors in particular have had a negative impact on the stability of the region: emergence of armed non-state actors with independent objectives and the subsequent violence; growth of religious radicalism and the political and popular patronage it receives; proliferation and easy availability of narcotics and small arms; illegal movement of goods and people; and cross-border terrorism with an element of support from other countries. All these pose serious challenges to both state and regional security.

Drawing on the instructor and student experiences of a service-based learning course with Indigenous peoples, this paper considers how studios develop the skills and competencies outlined by accrediting bodies. Yet, this approach to teaching and learning can also unsettle students’ sense of professional competence and faith in the usefulness of conventional planning methods. In this case, unsettlement was a valuable and productive outcome that supported the development of a more critically reflective approach to working with Indigenous peoples and a newfound appreciation of the need to engage in disquieting conversations about the colonial underpinnings of the planning profession.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract