Rajat Ganguly

Containing approximately 500 entries, this detailed Dictionary gives authoritative and up-to-date information on ethnic groups involved in conflict. Entries are provided for current ethnic hotspots, irredentist claims, secessionist movements as well as major peace accords, with clear and concise definitions given for each specific conflict.
A country profile for each of the 191 UN member states is included, detailing the current ethnic make-up, as well as the history of ethnic relations in that country, with particular emphasis on periods of hostility or violence, attempts at conflict management and signings of peace agreements. Political parties, insurgency movements, international and national organizations are listed, with contact details and internet and e-mail addresses, where available.
Current concepts, theories and policies related to ethnic conflict are also covered in detail. Among those topics listed are: autonomy, ethnic identity, genocide, internal colonialism, macedonian syndrome, secession and velvet divorce.

Key Features:
- includes both national and international disputes
- fully cross-referenced for ease of use.

The book uses empirical evidence from various case studies to examine the relationship between territorial and regional autonomy, the nation-state and ethnic conflict resolution in South and South-East Asia.

The concept of territorial or regional autonomy holds centre stage in the literature on ethnic conflict settlement because it is supposed to be able to reconcile two paradoxical objectives: the preservation of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the state, and the satisfaction of ethnic minorities’ right to national self-determination. Critics argue, however, that autonomy may not be the panacea for ethnic conflict in all cases.

The contributing authors begin with the concept of territorial or regional autonomy and subject it to a rigorous empirical analysis, which provides reliable evidence regarding the suitability of the autonomy solution to intractable ethnic conflicts. Drawing upon case studies from Kashmir, Assam, Sri Lanka, Aceh, Mindanao and Southern Thailand, this edited volume argues that autonomy arrangements may at best work to resolve only a handful of separatist ethnic conflicts in South and South-East Asia.

This book will be of much interest to students of South and South-East Asia, Asian security, ethnic conflict, peace studies and IR in general.

Contents
Introduction: Is Autonomy a Solution or an Obstacle to Resolving Ethn0-national Conflicts? Rajat Ganguly

1. Prospects for Autonomy in Jammu and Kashmir D. Suba Chandran

2. The Rise and Decline of a Separatist Insurgency: Contentious Politics in Assam, India Sanjib Baruah

3. Ethnic Peacemaking in Sri Lanka: The Politics of Autonomy Solution P. Sahadevan

4. Ending the War in Aceh: Leadership, Patronage and Autonomy in Yudhoyono's Indonesia Marcus Mietzner

5. Mindanao, Southern Philippines: The Pitfalls in Working for Peace in a Time of Political Decay Nathan Gilbert Quimpo

6. When Autonomy is not an Option? Governing Violence in Southern Thailand Chaiwat Satha-Anand

Conclusion: What Does the Empirical Evidence Tell Us about the Suitability of Territorial Autonomy in Resolving Ethno-national Conflicts in South and Southeast Asia? Rajat Ganguly

This book provides all the key concepts needed to understand conflict among ethnic groups. Including approaches from both comparative politics and international relations, this text offers a model of ethnic conflict's internationalization by showing how domestic and international actors influence a country's ethnic and sectarian divisions. Illustrating this model in five original case studies, the unique combination of theory and application in this book facilitates more critical analysis of contemporary ethnic conflicts and the world's response to them.

The first decade of the twenty-first century has demonstrated how nationalism, ethnicity, and religion remain among the most powerful political forces shaping the world. Even while democracy makes headway all over the globe-in 2005, about two-thirds of the 192 countries in the United Nations could be regarded as electoral democracies-a seemingly atavistic attachment to the nation a citizen is born in continues to profoundly shape the nature of world politics. The presence or absence of ethnic or ethnoreligious movements often determines whether a country will enjoy domestic stability or not and, more recently, whether entire regions of the world are at peace or at war. Indeed, some academics have speculated that wars between regions and even entire civilizations may occur because of cultural differences rooted in ethnicity and religion. For many people who had looked forward to an era of global peace and stability after the winding down of the cold war, it is deeply disappointing to have to live in a decade dominated by a war on terror, Islamic jihadism, increased anti-Americanism, political divisions between "new" and "old" Europe, proliferation of nuclear weapons into more and more "non-Western" countries, and simple low-intensity clashes of cultures and values in various parts of the world. The post-cold war nationalisms of peoples fanned by ethnoreligious movements have contributed much to a decade of unfulfilled hopes and expectations.

The first decade of the twenty-first century has demonstrated how nationalism, ethnicity, and religion remain among the most powerful political forces shaping the world. Even while democracy makes headway all over the globe-in 2005, about two-thirds of the 192 countries in the United Nations could be regarded as electoral democracies-a seemingly atavistic attachment to the nation a citizen is born in continues to profoundly shape the nature of world politics. The presence or absence of ethnic or ethnoreligious movements often determines whether a country will enjoy domestic stability or not and, more recently, whether entire regions of the world are at peace or at war. Indeed, some academics have speculated that wars between regions and even entire civilizations may occur because of cultural differences rooted in ethnicity and religion. For many people who had looked forward to an era of global peace and stability after the winding down of the cold war, it is deeply disappointing to have to live in a decade dominated by a war on terror, Islamic jihadism, increased anti-Americanism, political divisions between "new" and "old" Europe, proliferation of nuclear weapons into more and more "non-Western" countries, and simple low-intensity clashes of cultures and values in various parts of the world. The post-cold war nationalisms of peoples fanned by ethnoreligious movements have contributed much to a decade of unfulfilled hopes and expectations.

AT THE beginning of the new millennium, the fundamental political question is whether existing plural states would be able to with stand the dual onslaught of ethnic nationalism and global economic integration. While the challenge of global economic integration may ultimately prove fatal for the survival of plural societies in the long run, in the immediate future, the unravelling of plural states may occur as a result of the resurgence of ethno-nationalist sentiments and the outbreak of violent ethnic conflict. While all the major regions and sub-regions of the world (with minor exceptions) have experienced some form of ethnic nationalism and conflict, the situation prevailing in South Asia is particularly acute.

The purpose of this study is to systematically analyze the role played by kin states in neighboring secessionist conflicts involving their co-nationals. Ethnic kin states are typically those states which border or are close to the secessionist region and which contains co-nationals of the secessionists with whom the secessionists share and maintain strong ethnocultural and ethnoreligious bonds. Additionally, these co-nationals must be a homeland society (as opposed to a diaspora community) for the state to be classified as an ethnic kin state. The co-nationals could be either a numerical majority or a minority in the ethnic kin state. Further, they could be either a dominant or a subordinate ethnic group in the kin state. If the co-nationals are a numerical majority and control the kin state, then the secessionists may come to regard the kin state as their mother state. For instance, Russians living in Ukraine or Moldova will typically come to regard Russia as their mother state. Similarly, Serbs in Bosnia or Croatia consider Serbia to be their mother state. Ch. I. The Role of Kin States in Ethnosecessionist Conflicts: A Theoretical Framework -- Ch. II. Kashmiri Secessionism in India and the Role of Pakistan -- Ch. III. The Secession of Bangladesh and the Role of India -- Ch. IV. The Role of Afghanistan and Iran in the Baluch Attempt to Secede from Pakistan -- Ch. V. 'Pakhtunistan' and the Role of Afghanistan -- Ch. VI. The Role of India in the Tamil Secessionist Movement in Sri Lanka -- Ch. VII. Conclusion