Territorial modernity signifies the transformation of the space of fluidity into territories or geometric grids of permanence. Border in International Relations with its constructed disciplinary gaze performs the role of a spatial unit and a decidable between a set of mutually reinforcing dualisms. In mainstream IR theory encrusted within the Western hegemonic discourse, transformations that exemplify the process of territorialization supplements the grammar of territorial epistemology. However, the ontology of the modern bounded ‘political’ marginalizes and makes invisible alternative mode of being. In post-colonial practices of South Asia, the dispositif of territorial modernity as a universal discourse and the ‘international’ is suggestive of resistance and contestations articulated via certain categories of bodies. This is prominent at the periphery of the post-colonial nation-states, as the actions of certain recalcitrant bodies often problematize the reified international. By taking the case study of the chars or river islands that often shift their location along India–Bangladesh riverine border, the paper also seeks to understand the political in these zones of indistinction and its (dis) association with the normative space that territoriality enacted in the first place.
AgambenG. (1998). Homo Sacer: Sovereign power and bare life. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
2.
AgnewJ. (1995). Mastering spaces: Hegemony, territoriality and international political economy. London: Routledge.
3.
AlbertM.JacobsonD.LapidY. (Eds). (2001). Identities, borders, orders: Rethinking international relations theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
4.
AndersonP. (1974). Lineages of the absolutist state. London: New Left Books.
5.
BalibarÉ. (2002). Politics and the other scene. London: Verso.
6.
BaudM.Van SchendelW. (1997). Toward a comparative history of borderland. Journal of World History, 9(2), 211–242.
7.
BestS.KellenerD. (2003). Postmodernism. In SolomonRobert C.ShermanDavid (Eds), The Blackwell Guide to Continental Philosophy (p. 289).USA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
8.
BlaneyD. L.InayatullahN. (2000). The Westphalian Deferral. International Studies Review, 2(2), 29–64.
9.
ButlerJ. (2004). Precarious lives: The powers and mourning and violence. London: Verso.
10.
CampbellD. (1992). Writing security: United States foreign policy and politics of identity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
ChakrabortyG. (2009). Assam’s hinterland: Society and economy in the char areas. New Delhi: Akansha.
13.
ChakrabortyG. (2012). Roots and Ramifications of Colonial ‘Construct’: The Wastelands in Assam. Occasional Paper 39. Kolkata: IDSK.
14.
ConnollyW.E. (1991). Identity/Difference: Democratic negotiations of political paradox. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
15.
ConnollyW.E. (1995). The ethos of pluralisation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
16.
DasS. K. (2002). In Search of a Community: The Immigrant Muslims of Contemporary Assam. In JoshuaC. Thomas (Ed.) Dimensions of Displaced People in North-East India.New Delhi: Regency Publishers.
17.
de CerteauM. (1984). The practices of everyday life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
18.
DechaT. (2006). Taking Flight in Condemned Grounds: Forcibly Displaced Karens and the Thai-Burmese In-Between Spaces”, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 31(4), 405–429.
19.
Der DerianJ.ShapiroM. (Eds). (1989). International/Intertextual relations: Postmodern readings of world politics. New York: Lexington.
20.
DuttaN. (2012). Questions of identity in Assam: Location, migration, hybridity. New Delhi: Sage.
21.
EldenS. (2004). Between Marx and Heidegger: Politics, Philosophy and Lefebvre’s The Production of Space. Antipode: A Radical Journal of Geography, 36(1), 86–105.
22.
FoucaultM. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Pantheon Books.
FoucaultM. (2000). Space, knowledge, Power. In FaubionJ. (Ed.) The Essential works of Foucault1954-1984 (p. 361). New York: New Press.
25.
HarveyD. (1990). The condition of postmodernity: An enquiry into the origin of cultural change. Oxford: Blackwell.
26.
HazarikaS. (2000). Rites of passage: Border crossings, imagined homelands, India’s east and Bangladesh. New Delhi: Penguin.
27.
HeideggerM. (1977). The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays. Harper & Row: New York.
28.
HouseJ. (1980). The frontier zone: A conceptual problem for policy makers. International Political Science Review, 1(4), 456–477.
29.
HoutumH.V. (2005). The geo-politics of borders and boundaries. Geopolitics, 10(4), 672–679.
30.
KopperÁ. (2012). The imaginary of border: From colouring book to Cézanne’s paintings. International Political Sociology, 6, 277–293.
31.
KrasnerS.D. (1999). Sovereignty: Organized hypocrisy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
32.
KrishnaS. (1994). Cartographic anxiety: Mapping of the body politic in India. Alternatives: Local, Global, Political, 19(4), 507–521.
33.
LefebvreH. (1991). The production of space. Oxford: Blackwell.
34.
MoisioS.PassiA. (2013). Beyond state-centricity: Geopolitics of changing state spaces. Geopolitics, 18(2), 255–266.
35.
MasseyD. (1993). Politics and space/time. In KeithM.PileS. (Eds), Place and politics of identity (pp.139–159). London: Routledge.
36.
NandyA. (2007). The romance of the state: And the fate of dissent in tropics. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
37.
PassiA. (2007). Boundaries as Social Processes: Territoriality in the World of Flows. Geopolitics, 3(1), 69–88.
38.
Press Information Bureau, Government of India (PIB). (2011). Fencing along India–Bangladesh border. IJ/PT/India–Bangladesh Border (Release ID: 77968). Retrieved from http://www.pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=77968
39.
RajaramP.K.GrundyC. (2007). Introduction. In RajaramP.K.GrundyC. (Eds), Borderscapes: Hidden geography and politics at territory’s edge (pp. ix–xl; 283–308).Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
40.
RajaramP.K.SogukN. (2006). Introduction: Geography and reconceptualization of politics. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 31(4), 367–376.
41.
RancièreJ. (1998). Disagreement: Politics and philosophy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
42.
RuggieJ.G. (1993). Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing Modernity in International Relations. International Organisation, 47(1), 139–174.
43.
ScottJ. C. (2009). The Art of not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia. New Haven: Yale University Press.
44.
ShahN. (2012). The territorial trap of the territorial trap: The global transformation and the problem of the state’s two territories. International Political Sociology, 6, 57–76.
45.
SogukN. (2007). Border’s Capture: Insurrectional Politics, Border -Crossing Humans, and the New Political. In RajaramPrem K.GrundyCarl (Eds) Borderscapes: Hidden Geography and Politics at Territory’s Edge (pp. 287–294). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
46.
SojaE.W. (1996). Thirdspace: Journey’s to Los Angeles and other real and imagined places. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
47.
WalkerR.B.J.KrishnaS. (2002). Partition: On the discriminations of modernity. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 27(2), 143–146.
48.
WilsonT.M.DonnanH. (1998). Border identities: Nation and state at international frontiers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
