Explore the vast range of titles available.

Saadat Hasan Manto (1912-1955) was an established Urdu short story writer and a rising screenwriter in Bombay at the time of India's partition in 1947, and he is perhaps best known for the short stories he wrote following his migration to Lahore in newly formed Pakistan. Today Manto is an acknowledged master of twentieth-century Urdu literature, and his fiction serves as a lens through which the tragedy of partition is brought sharply into focus. InThe Pity of Partition, Manto's life and work serve as a prism to capture the human dimension of sectarian conflict in the final decades and immediate aftermath of the British raj. Ayesha Jalal draws on Manto's stories, sketches, and essays, as well as a trove of his private letters, to present an intimate history of partition and its devastating toll. Probing the creative tension between literature and history, she charts a new way of reconnecting the histories of individuals, families, and communities in the throes of cataclysmic change. Jalal brings to life the people, locales, and events that inspired Manto's fiction, which is characterized by an eye for detail, a measure of wit and irreverence, and elements of suspense and surprise. In turn, she mines these writings for fresh insights into everyday cosmopolitanism in Bombay and Lahore, the experience and causes of partition, the postcolonial transition, and the advent of the Cold War in South Asia. The first in-depth look in English at this influential literary figure,The Pity of Partitiondemonstrates the revelatory power of art in times of great historical rupture.

'Beautiful. Chak masterfully interrogates the flashpoints that make the Kashmir crisis one of the most politically sensitive issues in modern world history' Khaled A. Beydoun, Law Professor and author of American Islamophobia The territory of Jammu and Kashmir is one of the most politically contested and heavily militarized spaces on the planet. It has long been presented as an 'internal dispute', mainly by India, in attempts to sustain power through settler colonialism. In this context, Kashmiri voices are rarely heard. In Nuclear Flashpoint, Farhan Chak reveals how the history, culture, and the will of the people of Kashmir has been deliberately obscured to suit ideological agendas. He explores six unique time frames in Kashmiri historyfrom ancient Kashmir, through the British Raj, to the present day. Asking 'who is a Kashmiri?', Chak shines a light on the long cycle of revolt that continues in resistance movements today, and asks us to reconsider Kashmir's ongoing quest for independence.

Describes how a cycle of rioting and violence leading up to the partition of India and birth of Pakistan resulted in brutal and widespread ethnic cleansing on both sides of the border, creating a divide between India and Pakistan that persists decades later.

This article examines Zionist/Israeli comparisons and connections to India and Pakistan between 1945 and 1955. While Zionists found striking similarities between the unfolding realities in Palestine/Israel and South Asia, the exact nature of the comparison was quite equivocal. On the diplomatic axis, Israelis sought to establish full diplomatic relations with India by underscoring the similarity of their two nations. Here, comparisons were a way of positioning Israel as an analogue of India. On the technocratic axis, Israelis looked to Pakistan as a model for constructing legal institutions to expropriate Palestinian property. The appeal of Pakistan as a model was due to a perceived glaring difference: Pakistan was a Muslim state, Israel the Jewish State. Meanwhile, as Zionists/Israelis looked to India and Pakistan, Indians returned the gaze. Indian technocrats found the methods Israel used to resettle Jewish refugees and immigrants worthy of emulation. When they came to Israel to study these resettlement efforts, they were-unknowingly-often looking at projects that had been built upon former Palestinian land which the Israeli government had seized using the transplanted Pakistani law-the very same laws that had dispossessed India's new citizens, whom the technocrats were seeking to resettle. This article ultimately uncovers a broader post-imperial technocratic sphere in which nascent states continued to transplant legal institutions developed in other parts of the former colonial world to construct their own.

The India-Pakistan rivalry remains one of the most enduring and unresolved conflicts of our times. It began with the birth of the two states in 1947, and it has continued ever since, with the periodic resumption of wars and crises. The conflict has affected every dimension of interstate and societal relations between the two countries and, despite occasional peace initiatives, shows no signs of abating. This volume, first published in 2005, brings together leading experts in international relations theory and comparative politics to explain the persistence of this rivalry. Together they examine a range of topics including regional power distribution, great power politics, territorial divisions, the nuclear weapons factor, and incompatible national identities. Based on their analyses, they offer possible conditions under which the rivalry could be terminated. The book will be of interest to scholars of politics and international relations, as well as those concerned about stability and peace in South Asia.

Rivalry between nations has a long and sometimes bloody history. Not all political opposition culminates in war-the rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union is one example-but in most cases competition between nations and peoples for resources and strategic advantage does lead to violence: nearly 80 percent of the wars fought since 1816 were sparked by contention between rival nations. Long-term discord is a global concern, since competing states may drag allies into their conflict or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction.How Rivalries Endis a study of how such rivalries take root and flourish and particularly how some dissipate over time without recourse to war. Political scientists Karen Rasler, William R. Thompson, and Sumit Ganguly examine ten political hot spots, stretching from Egypt and Israel to the two Koreas, where crises and military confrontations have occurred over the last seven decades. Through exacting analysis of thirty-two attempts to deescalate strategic rivalries, they reveal a pattern in successful conflict resolutions: shocks that overcome foreign policy inertia; changes in perceptions of the adversary's competitiveness or threat; positive responses to conciliatory signals; and continuing effort to avoid conflict after hostilities cease.How Rivalries Endsignificantly contributes to our understanding why protracted conflicts sometimes deescalate and even terminate without resort to war.

When the Allied powers met in San Francisco in April 1945 to secure a stable peace after the second catastrophic world war in three decades, the cornerstone of the new United Nations Organization they built was a new system of collective security. The five victorious great powers, the UN Charter's drafters agreed, would act in concert to preserve international peace and security, with the hope that aggressor states would nevermore be left unchecked and allowed to launch aggressive wars of conquest that could lead to global conflagration. Why, then, did the system fail to function as intended? One oft-cited explanation is that the United Nations did not evolve to become a true collective security organization, but remained grounded in the doctrine of collective self-defense by states that would voluntarily police the new international order themselves. In that sense, the explanation is banal; of course, the UN institutional structures that actually materialized fell short of a full collective security arrangement, one with both a central monopoly on the use of military force and enforcement mechanisms behind its prohibition of unlawful acts of aggression by states. This shortcoming was due in part-but not in full-to a lack of consensus among the members of the Security Council, the body of state representatives entrusted with the maintenance of international peace and security by the Charter. For one thing, the United Nations was never entrusted with its own military forces in accordance with the \"special agreements\" foreseen in Article 43 of the Charter. And as the two superpowers entrenched themselves in the geopolitical rivalry of the Cold War, they seemed increasingly unlikely to reach agreement on common terms for turning over national military contingents to UN command. Needless to say, an even greater Cold War challenge was to forge unanimous agreement on when and where the Security Council should authorize the use of military forces (regardless of whether they assumed an ad hoc or permanent form) to restore international peace and security. The effects of the strategic competition between the United States and the Soviet Union thus manifest themselves in the politics of the Security Council, proving to be a basic impediment to the effective implementation of UN collective security action. But it did not constitute the only one. A handful of early postwar crises that seemed to lend themselves perfectly to resolution by the UN collective security provisions reveal that the decision of the Security Council to intervene could not have always hinged on geopolitical deadlock in the Council. As the cases of Indonesian independence, the first Arab-Israeli war, and the Indo-Pakistani dispute over the territory of Jammu and Kashmir make clear, UN peace operations went through a formative period immediately after the Charter's adoption during which Chapter VII enforcement actions failed to function as they should have done-even though mutual Cold War antagonisms had not yet firmly manifested themselves in the form of perpetual, reciprocal threats of either U.S. or Soviet vetoes in the Security Council.