India is often seen as a post-colonial success story. It is the world’s largest democracy with a thriving civil society and a culture of pluralism and tolerance. Despite its huge size and multi-ethnic character, conflict has been rare and multiple groups coexist peacefully. The major exception to this is the religious conflict between Hindus and Muslims which has spilled over into violence numerous times in the years since independence. Recently there has been a rise in communal rioting linked to the ascendancy of Hindu right wing politics will I will address specifically in this essay.

In order to decipher whether or not the effects of war are gendered it is of foremost importance to consider what is meant by the term ‘gender’. Therefore, primarily, I will briefly define this term followed by a consideration of what one means by ‘war’. Here I discuss feminist theories regarding war with particular reference to the work of Kelly. Furthermore, I will then move on to look at the effects of war with an analysis of the effects during war, the effects during the peace-making process and, finally, the post-war impacts. Each of the aforementioned will be discussed in turn, drawing on specific examples to highlight my arguments further. Ultimately, I conclude with the argument that the effects of war are often gendered, especially when one considers war from a feminist perspective.

In his essay, “Understanding a Primitive Society” Peter Winch claims that cultures are enclosed in language games which are both mutually unintelligible and equally valid. In doing so he is trying to prevent anthropologists from concluding that a culture is ‘wrong’ about reality (i.e. their belief system and how that informs their daily life) (Winch 79). Winch sees such judgement as an open door to cultural imperialism; if a culture is wrong than it stands to be corrected by the culture which judges it as such. He has every reason for such a noble pursuit. Writing in the time of African decolonization, he had born witness to the colonialists’ domination of innumerable cultures. Justified out of a ‘need’ to civilize the inferior savages and support the superior Europeans (through slaves and natural resources) this unequal cultural relationship allowed for utter destruction on the continent.

This essay will critically analyse the notion that there is a fundamental difference between the tasks of ‘explaining’ (comprehending ‘causes’) and ‘understanding’ (comprehending ‘reasons’). First, the essay will examine the emergence of the sharp division, which has come to be accepted as existent between ‘explaining’ (which is advocated by positivists) and ‘understanding’ (which is advocated by post-positivists). Second, one important consequence of the division will be demonstrated by showing how the intellectual battles between positivists and post-positivists, as well as the occasional attempts at reconciliation between them, have been instrumental in positivism’s dominance. Finally, the work of Milja Kurki will be drawn upon to argue that the concept of causation should be broadened, thereby exposing the interrelated nature of ‘explaining’ and ‘understanding’ without reducing one to the other. This will allow for positivism’s dominance to be effectively challenged.

‘The English School’ initially consisted of an influential group of scholars from around the world who were working in prominent English universities such as Oxford and LSE. The School argues that states do not exist in an anarchic system guided merely by power-politics, but that they possess shared norms, interests, institutions and values which result in the formation of an ‘international society’.