| 000 | 01432nam a22001577a 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 999 |
_c519135 _d519135 |
||
| 008 | 220202b ||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d | ||
| 100 |
_aLiebig, Michael _932030 |
||
| 245 | _aInterrogating ‘hyphenated cultures’ India’s strategic culture and its intelligence culture | ||
| 260 | _aJournal of Defense Studies | ||
| 300 | _a15(3), Jul-Sep, 2021: p.9-40 | ||
| 520 | _aIn the late 1950s, the concept of 'political culture' was first developed. Towards the end of the Cold War, scholars in International Relations (IR) theory and security studies developed the concept of 'strategic culture'. Over a period, state bureaucracies were thematised by scholars of comparative politics leading to the concept of 'bureaucratic culture'. Lastly, in the second decade of the twenty-first century, a comparative turn in intelligence studies began to emerge with the concept of (national) 'intelligence culture'. Some of these concepts have not yet been in much use, nor have they been thoroughly theorised—some even less so empirically operationalised. This paper discusses the 'hyphenated' inter-relationship of these cultures and even explores the historical origins of India's intelligence culture, particularly in Kautilya's Arthashastra. – Reproduced | ||
| 650 |
_aStrategic culture, Intelligence culture, India’s strategic culture _929460 |
||
| 773 | _aJournal of Defense Studies | ||
| 906 | _aCULTURE | ||
| 942 | _cAR | ||