BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 PRODID:-//jEvents 2.0 for Joomla//EN CALSCALE:GREGORIAN METHOD:PUBLISH BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:Europe/Paris BEGIN:STANDARD DTSTART:20201124T170000 RDATE:20210328T030000 TZOFFSETFROM:+0200 TZOFFSETTO:+0100 TZNAME:Europe/Paris CET END:STANDARD BEGIN:STANDARD DTSTART:20211031T020000 RDATE:20220327T030000 TZOFFSETFROM:+0200 TZOFFSETTO:+0100 TZNAME:Europe/Paris CET END:STANDARD BEGIN:STANDARD DTSTART:20221030T020000 RDATE:20230326T030000 TZOFFSETFROM:+0200 TZOFFSETTO:+0100 TZNAME:Europe/Paris CET END:STANDARD BEGIN:STANDARD DTSTART:20231029T020000 RDATE:20240331T030000 TZOFFSETFROM:+0200 TZOFFSETTO:+0100 TZNAME:Europe/Paris CET END:STANDARD BEGIN:STANDARD DTSTART:20241027T020000 RDATE:20250330T030000 TZOFFSETFROM:+0200 TZOFFSETTO:+0100 TZNAME:Europe/Paris CET END:STANDARD BEGIN:STANDARD DTSTART:20251026T020000 RDATE:20260329T030000 TZOFFSETFROM:+0200 TZOFFSETTO:+0100 TZNAME:Europe/Paris CET END:STANDARD BEGIN:STANDARD DTSTART:20261025T020000 RDATE:20270328T030000 TZOFFSETFROM:+0200 TZOFFSETTO:+0100 TZNAME:Europe/Paris CET END:STANDARD BEGIN:STANDARD DTSTART:20271031T020000 RDATE:20280326T030000 TZOFFSETFROM:+0200 TZOFFSETTO:+0100 TZNAME:Europe/Paris CET END:STANDARD BEGIN:DAYLIGHT DTSTART:20210328T030000 RDATE:20211031T020000 TZOFFSETFROM:+0100 TZOFFSETTO:+0200 TZNAME:Europe/Paris CEST END:DAYLIGHT BEGIN:DAYLIGHT DTSTART:20220327T030000 RDATE:20221030T020000 TZOFFSETFROM:+0100 TZOFFSETTO:+0200 TZNAME:Europe/Paris CEST END:DAYLIGHT BEGIN:DAYLIGHT DTSTART:20230326T030000 RDATE:20231029T020000 TZOFFSETFROM:+0100 TZOFFSETTO:+0200 TZNAME:Europe/Paris CEST END:DAYLIGHT BEGIN:DAYLIGHT DTSTART:20240331T030000 RDATE:20241027T020000 TZOFFSETFROM:+0100 TZOFFSETTO:+0200 TZNAME:Europe/Paris CEST END:DAYLIGHT BEGIN:DAYLIGHT DTSTART:20250330T030000 RDATE:20251026T020000 TZOFFSETFROM:+0100 TZOFFSETTO:+0200 TZNAME:Europe/Paris CEST END:DAYLIGHT BEGIN:DAYLIGHT DTSTART:20260329T030000 RDATE:20261025T020000 TZOFFSETFROM:+0100 TZOFFSETTO:+0200 TZNAME:Europe/Paris CEST END:DAYLIGHT BEGIN:DAYLIGHT DTSTART:20270328T030000 RDATE:20271031T020000 TZOFFSETFROM:+0100 TZOFFSETTO:+0200 TZNAME:Europe/Paris CEST END:DAYLIGHT END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VEVENT UID:91bf27bf0495b05101a4dbfd3e86068b CATEGORIES:Atelier « Asie du Sud-Himalaya – Sud-Est asiatique » CREATED:20211108T174836 SUMMARY:Global war, fragmented worlds: culture, coercion and co-option in a ‘political vaccum’ after WWII (Indo-Myanmar frontiers), Aditya Kiran Kakati (IIAS, Leiden) LOCATION:Lesc – salle 308F (3e étage) - 21\, allée de l’Université\, Nanterre\, \, 9 2000\, France DESCRIPTION:\nThe Second World War (WWII) was a globalising force which fomented new di scourses of belonging and modes of political leverage in the imagined natio nal futures of borderland minorities like the ‘hill’ tribes across Indo-Mya nmar (Burma) frontiers. Competing political loyalties were represented unde r different labels – both by state actors, former colonial officials and th e various local collaborators and competitors to negotiate political future s for ‘tribal’ groups such as the Nagas spread across India and Burma. Cult ural metaphors (like head-hunting) and competition for sovereignty often ca me together to create a peculiar premium on violence as leverage. State and nation-building occurred through selective developmentalism and bordering to accommodate or exclude minorities in new nation-states.\nSuch ambiguous policies securitized border-zones and created exclusionary spatial enclosur es where conditions for armed resistance could emerge. Both ‘coercion’ and ‘development-like’ activities resembled characteristic features of state-ma king though negotiations with borderland societies, and resistance to this has resulted in uneven relations of intimacy with the state. Ultimately, th ese reified some geographical spaces as ‘dangerous’ and ‘remote’ on the map after a global war, while over-looking the negotiated nature of the produc tion of closures at a time when new international borders emerged around In dia’s Eastern Himalayan fringe. The Naga political insurrection also indica tes modes of seeking legitimacy through mimetic competition in order to be represented and resemble, a sovereign nation-state. Rather than resistance to states, what emerges are alternate claims that sought to fill ‘non-state ’ spaces and ended up becoming subsumed within minoritisation processes.\nA rticles conseillés :\n\n - Bodhisattva Kar, “Heads in the Naga Hills,” in N ew Cultural Histories of India, ed. Partha Chatterjee and Tapati Guha-Thaku rta (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), 335–69.  \n - Tarak Barkawi, “Peoples, Homelands, and Wars? Ethnicity, the Military, and Battle among British Imperial Forces in the War against Japan,” Comparative Studi es in Society and History 46, no. 1 (January 2004): 134–63, (https://doi.o rg/10.1017/S0010417504000076)https://doi.org/10.1017/S0010417504000076.  \n - Aditya Kiran Kakati, “Guns, Gifts, and Guerrillas: Knowledge and Objects during World War II in the Indo–Myanmar (Burma) Frontier,” in Objects and Frontiers in Modern Asia: Between the Mekong and the Indus, ed. Lipokmar Dz üvichü and Manjeet Baruah (Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY: Routledge, 2019), 132–53. X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:

The Second World War (WWII) was a globali sing force which fomented new discourses of belonging and modes of politica l leverage in the imagined national futures of borderland minorities like t he ‘hill’ tribes across Indo-Myanmar (Burma) frontiers. Competing political loyalties were represented under different labels – both by state actors, former colonial officials and the various local collaborators and competito rs to negotiate political futures for ‘tribal’ groups such as the Nagas spr ead across India and Burma. Cultural metaphors (like head-hunting) and comp etition for sovereignty often came together to create a peculiar premium on violence as leverage. State and nation-building occurred through selective developmentalism and bordering to accommodate or exclude minorities in new nation-states.

Such ambiguous policies securitized border-zones and created exclusionary spatial enclosures where conditions for armed resistan ce could emerge. Both ‘coercion’ and ‘development-like’ activities resemble d characteristic features of state-making though negotiations with borderla nd societies, and resistance to this has resulted in uneven relations of in timacy with the state. Ultimately, these reified some geographical spaces a s ‘dangerous’ and ‘remote’ on the map after a global war, while over-lookin g the negotiated nature of the production of closures at a time when new in ternational borders emerged around India’s Eastern Himalayan fringe. The Na ga political insurrection also indicates modes of seeking legitimacy throug h mimetic competition in order to be represented and resemble, a sovereign nation-state. Rather than resistance to states, what emerges are alternate claims that sought to fill ‘non-state’ spaces and ended up becoming subsume d within minoritisation processes.

Articles conseillés :

DTSTAMP:20260429T091530 DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Paris:20211125T170000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Paris:20211125T190000 SEQUENCE:0 TRANSP:OPAQUE END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR