Search results

Social movements demand rights to remedy wrongs and injustices. But why do organisations like the World Bank and IMF, the G7 states and the World Economics Forum want to promote rights? Mapping the rights discourse and the transformations in transnational finance capitalism since the world wars, the interrogating the connections between the two, Radha D'Souza examines contemporary rights in theory and practice. Looking at the struggles of people worldwide and their aspirations for emancipation and freedom, the book examines what is entailed in reducing rights to 'human' rights. It also explores why the argument 'our understandings of rights are better than theirs' is popular within social movements and in critical scholarship--back cover

The Ghadar movement is framed by scholars variously as socialist or proto-communist, anarchist, secular or religious nationalist. These theoretical frames developed in the European historical contexts to oppose liberalism and modernism. Framing historical experiences of colonialism and resistance to it by using theories developed in radically different conditions of European capitalism and Enlightenment, disrupts history-writing and the historical consciousness of people in the Third World. This paper examines the historical consciousness that guided Ghadar resistance to colonial rule. How are we to understand the distinction between system and 'lifeworld' that Jurgen Habermas makes in a context where the 'system' is capitalist /imperialist/ modernist and the 'lifeworld' is South Asian/ Indian Enlightenment/ colonial? What was the 'lifeworld' of the Ghadar leaders that informed their understanding of nationalism and state, secularism and religion, liberation and justice? Theories contribute to creating historical consciousness and identity by showing us a view of the world that we can identify with, by providing a sense of continuity with the past. Disruption of South Asia's historical consciousness has had profound consequences for the people of the subcontinent. This paper locates the Ghadar movement in the structural transformations of South Asia after the end of the First War of Independence in 1857 known as the Great Ghadar. The paper takes common theoretical lenses used to analyse the Ghadar movement in academic scholarship: secular and ethno-religious nationalism, anarchism and socialism as its point of departure to sketch the theoretical and philosophical routes through which Ghadar leaders arrived at comparable values and political positions. It shows how they could be secular, religious, anarchist and socialist simultaneously. The Ghadar movement is important because it is the last major resistance movement that saw South Asia through South Asian lenses and attempted to address problems of colonialism and national independence in ways that was consistent with Indian historical consciousness and cultural and intellectual traditions.

The Ghadar movement is framed by scholars variously as socialist or proto-communist, anarchist, secular or religious nationalist. These theoretical frames developed in the European historical contexts to oppose liberalism and modernism. Framing historical experiences of colonialism and resistance to it by using theories developed in radically different conditions of European capitalism and Enlightenment, disrupts history-writing and the historical consciousness of people in the Third World. This paper examines the historical consciousness that guided Ghadar resistance to colonial rule. How are we to understand the distinction between system and 'lifeworld' that Jurgen Habermas makes in a context where the 'system' is capitalist /imperialist/ modernist and the 'lifeworld' is South Asian/ Indian Enlightenment/ colonial? What was the 'lifeworld' of the Ghadar leaders that informed their understanding of nationalism and state, secularism and religion, liberation and justice? Theories contribute to creating historical consciousness and identity by showing us a view of the world that we can identify with, by providing a sense of continuity with the past. Disruption of South Asia's historical consciousness has had profound consequences for the people of the subcontinent. This paper locates the Ghadar movement in the structural transformations of South Asia after the end of the First War of Independence in 1857 known as the Great Ghadar. The paper takes common theoretical lenses used to analyse the Ghadar movement in academic scholarship: secular and ethno-religious nationalism, anarchism and socialism as its point of departure to sketch the theoretical and philosophical routes through which Ghadar leaders arrived at comparable values and political positions. It shows how they could be secular, religious, anarchist and socialist simultaneously. The Ghadar movement is important because it is the last major resistance movement that saw South Asia through South Asian lenses and attempted to address problems of colonialism and national independence in ways that was consistent with Indian historical consciousness and cultural and intellectual traditions.

Contemporary world order rests on a fault-line. On the one hand it is an interstate system founded on the legal equality of all states. On the other hand it establishes institutions that privilege a small number of states in economy and politics. This article examines the fault-line, which has widened in recent times and threatens to destabilise the order established after the end of World War II. The 'world' in World wars is because of the global scope of the inter-European wars. The world wars were fought over colonies, in colonial territories, with the manpower and material resources of the colonies. Yet dominant narratives about the world wars speak about the wars as a European war between European nations and write-out colonial questions, colonial contributions and more importantly for this article the colonial impulses in the writing of contemporary international law and establishment of international organisations. This paper examines the human, monetary and material contributions of India in World War II. Britain was the preeminent Empire during the world wars and India the 'jewel in the British Crown'. India was crucial to British conduct of the world wars. At the same time racism and repression during the interwar period fuelled powerful anti-colonial movements in India. Those struggles ended the British Empire. The irony of racism against millions of people who fought and died for Britain presents many perplexing questions about the legacies of World War II for racism and international law. This article examines the responses of different European powers to the independence movements in India during the world wars and argues that the responses of different Empires of the time to the anti-colonial struggles holds the cues to understanding the widening fault-line in the international order today.