Constructing national security: Culture and identity in Indian arms control and disarmament practice

Indian Foreign Policy and International Humanitarian Norms: A Role‐Theoretical Analysis

“…Some scholars point to the competition of different schools of thought (idealism, realism, liberalism, Hindu‐nationalism) among Indian foreign policy elites (Ollapally & Rajagopalan, ; Sagar, ; Wulf, ). Yet the number of explicitly constructivist studies in this particular field of enquiry is still comparatively low (among the few examples are Chacko, ; Frey, ; Latham, ; Nizamani, ). What all these studies have in common is their focus on ideational influences that originate at the domestic level: culture, identity, historical experiences, etc.…”

Issues, events and analyses in twenty years of the journal

“…101 Andrew Latham describes 'the way in which culturally conditioned ideas, images and "institutional scripts" shape India's contemporary international security policy'. 102 Hal Klepak attempted to identify Latin American security culture, which he suggested was of particular importance in understanding civil-military relations, and Gabriel Ben-Dor explained the importance of security culture in the Middle East. 103 In a conclusion to this issue, which made overt the authors' commitment to achieving 'progress' in nonproliferation, arms control and disarmament regimes, Keith Krause made four recommendations which he saw as central to making global headway: seek supportive indigenous culture expressions or experiences across cultures; multilateralize as much as possible, to mute cultural specificities; search for regional entrepreneurial leaders; and in the latter's absence, encourage normative transformation.…”

Talking to the enemy: track two diplomacy in the Middle East and South Asia

“…Because India has not had to face a regional adversary of equal military power, there has been little pressure-at least in strategic terms-for India to shift its security posture toward more cooperative positions (Latham, 1998). India is also extremely suspicious of intervention from outside powers (the U.S. intervention in the 1971 Indian-Pakistani war is a notable example) and thus highly skeptical and cautious about Western efforts to promote regional arms control in track two dialogues.…”

“…The prevailing strategic mind-set fosters zero-sum thinking and creates an aversion to CBMs, with many Indian participants believing that such initiatives are foreign imports and only benefit adversaries such as Pakistan (Latham, 1998). Indeed, there is regionwide suspicion of CBMs as a "foreign import," and some analysts argue that without less adversarial regional politics it will be difficult for CBMs and other cooperative activity to succeed (Krepon, 1996, p. 7).…”

“…Indeed, India has traditionally preferred to deal with its neighbors bilaterally (as its dominance is assured) rather than multilaterally, making Indian support for regional multilateral security cooperation difficult. Moreover, some observers of India's strategic culture suggest that India does not believe in balance of power or deterrence, favoring instead a unilateralist and maximalist military posture and global disarmament over regional arms control or nonproliferation (Latham, 1998).…”