## Question: “Neo-realism, as articulated by Moore, offers

“Neo-realism, as articulated by Moore, offers a compelling framework for understanding international relations. However, its emphasis on systemic constraints risks neglecting agency and domestic factors. Critically evaluate this assertion with specific reference to Chhattisgarh’s experience in navigating regional security dynamics and developmental challenges.”

• Define Neo-realism (Structural Realism) as per Moore (likely referring to John Mearsheimer or similar).
• Identify the core tenets: anarchy, self-help, survival as primary goal, states as unitary rational actors, power maximization.
• Acknowledge the strengths of Neo-realism: parsimony, predictive power in some areas (e.g., balance of power).
• Address the criticism: Neglect of agency, domestic politics, non-state actors, ideational factors.
• Apply Neo-realism to Chhattisgarh: How do systemic factors (India’s overall security environment, relations with neighboring states, internal security threats) influence Chhattisgarh?
• Critically evaluate: To what extent does Neo-realism explain Chhattisgarh’s behavior and outcomes? Where does it fall short?
• Consider developmental challenges: How do systemic security concerns impact developmental initiatives? Does Neo-realism adequately address this link?
• Use specific examples from Chhattisgarh to support your arguments (e.g., Naxal insurgency, resource allocation, security force deployments, infrastructure development).
• Offer a balanced assessment: Acknowledge the limitations of Neo-realism without completely dismissing its relevance.
• Consider alternative perspectives: Liberalism, Constructivism, dependency theory (briefly) to provide a fuller picture.

• Neo-realism (Structural Realism): Emphasizes the structure of the international system, particularly the distribution of power, as the primary determinant of state behavior.
• Anarchy: The absence of a central authority in the international system, forcing states to rely on self-help.
• Self-help: The principle that states must rely on their own resources and capabilities for their security.
• Security Dilemma: Actions taken by one state to enhance its security may be perceived as threatening by other states, leading to an arms race or conflict.
• Balance of Power: States tend to balance against rising powers to maintain stability in the system.
• Agency: The ability of actors (states, individuals, organizations) to make independent choices and influence outcomes.
• Domestic Politics: Internal factors within a state (e.g., political institutions, interest groups, public opinion) that can influence its foreign policy.
• Developmental Challenges: Obstacles to economic and social progress, such as poverty, inequality, lack of infrastructure, and environmental degradation.
• Regional Security Dynamics: The interplay of security concerns and interactions between states and other actors within a specific geographic region.
• Naxal Insurgency: A Maoist insurgency operating in parts of India, including Chhattisgarh, posing a significant internal security threat.

Neo-realism, a prominent theory in international relations, posits that the structure of the international system, characterized by anarchy, is the primary driver of state behavior. States, driven by a survival instinct, act as rational, unitary actors seeking to maximize their power within this anarchic environment. While neo-realism provides a valuable framework for understanding certain aspects of international relations, its emphasis on systemic constraints has been criticized for neglecting the role of agency and domestic factors. This essay will critically evaluate this assertion by examining Chhattisgarh’s experience in navigating regional security dynamics and developmental challenges. Specifically, the essay will assess the extent to which neo-realist principles can explain Chhattisgarh’s policies and outcomes, while also highlighting the limitations of this perspective and considering alternative explanations.

Neo-realism offers some explanatory power regarding Chhattisgarh’s behavior. Given India’s overall security concerns, particularly regarding neighboring countries and internal security threats like Naxalism, Chhattisgarh’s resource allocation towards security forces and anti-insurgency operations can be seen as a manifestation of self-help in a perceived anarchic environment. The state’s reliance on central government assistance for security, while seemingly contradicting self-help, can be interpreted as part of India’s overall strategy to maintain internal stability and project power regionally, with Chhattisgarh acting as a frontline state. The focus on suppressing the Naxal insurgency is arguably driven by a survival instinct, as the insurgency directly threatens the state’s territorial integrity and governance capabilities. Chhattisgarh’s efforts to modernize its police force and improve intelligence gathering can be viewed as attempts to enhance its relative power within the Indian context, contributing to the overall security of the nation-state. The state aligns its policies with the broader national security objectives because of a realistic assessment of its subordinate position within the Indian Union, thereby demonstrating an understanding of the distribution of power.

However, neo-realism’s emphasis on systemic factors overlooks crucial aspects of Chhattisgarh’s reality. The state’s developmental challenges, such as poverty, inequality, and inadequate infrastructure, cannot be solely attributed to systemic constraints. Domestic factors, including governance issues, corruption, and social inequalities, play a significant role. Furthermore, the neo-realist assumption of states as unitary actors is problematic in the case of Chhattisgarh. The state government’s policies are influenced by a complex interplay of political parties, interest groups, and public opinion. For example, land acquisition policies for mining projects, often driven by economic development goals, have faced resistance from local communities and civil society organizations, demonstrating the limitations of viewing the state as a monolithic entity. The effectiveness of counter-insurgency operations is heavily influenced by local socio-economic conditions and the state government’s ability to address grievances, factors that are largely ignored by neo-realism. The influence of NGOs and international organizations, working to address human rights concerns and promote sustainable development, further complicates the picture and highlights the presence of non-state actors that are not accounted for in a purely neo-realist framework.

Consider the specific case of resource allocation. While a neo-realist lens might explain security-related expenditure as a response to the threat environment, it fails to account for the political pressures to prioritize certain sectors or the impact of corruption on resource distribution. The allocation of funds towards security often comes at the expense of social welfare programs or infrastructure development, exacerbating existing inequalities and potentially fueling further unrest. This highlights the trade-offs between security and development, a dynamic that is not adequately captured by neo-realism. Similarly, the state’s efforts to attract foreign investment, driven by economic development goals, are influenced by domestic policies, investment climate, and regulatory frameworks, factors that are not directly related to the distribution of power in the international system. Chhattisgarh’s engagement with the central government also reflects a complex bargaining process, shaped by domestic political considerations and the state’s unique vulnerabilities. The reliance on central funding and security forces underscores the limitations of the state’s autonomy and its dependence on the central government’s support.

To gain a more comprehensive understanding, alternative perspectives are needed. A liberal perspective would emphasize the role of democratic institutions, civil society, and international cooperation in promoting development and conflict resolution. Constructivism would highlight the importance of ideas, norms, and identities in shaping state behavior and international relations. For instance, the discourse surrounding indigenous rights and environmental protection has significantly influenced development policies in Chhattisgarh, shaping the debate around mining and forest conservation. Dependency theory, while potentially outdated, could offer insights into the structural inequalities that perpetuate poverty and underdevelopment in Chhattisgarh, linking the state’s challenges to broader global economic structures. These perspectives, when combined with a nuanced understanding of domestic politics and agency, provide a richer and more accurate picture of Chhattisgarh’s experience.

In conclusion, while neo-realism provides a useful starting point for understanding Chhattisgarh’s approach to security and development, particularly in explaining its resource allocation towards security and its alignment with national security objectives, its emphasis on systemic constraints and unitary state actors limits its explanatory power. The theory’s neglect of agency, domestic politics, and non-state actors leads to an incomplete understanding of the complex interplay of factors shaping Chhattisgarh’s policies and outcomes. The state’s developmental challenges, internal conflicts, and engagement with the central government are influenced by a complex interplay of domestic political dynamics, social inequalities, and ideological factors. A more nuanced understanding requires incorporating insights from alternative perspectives, such as liberalism, constructivism, and dependency theory, to provide a more comprehensive and accurate account of Chhattisgarh’s experience in navigating regional security dynamics and developmental challenges. Ultimately, a balanced approach that acknowledges both the structural constraints and the agency of actors is necessary to fully grasp the complexities of Chhattisgarh’s situation.